I'd speculate some combination of control over employees (poor management practices, etc) and making use of owned land/offices that are difficult to sell otherwise. Not much else makes sense to me, especially for tech companies where nearly the entire job exists in virtual space of some kind - no wrenches to turn.

Edit: Someone else suggested a way to "lay off" folks by having them voluntarily leave the job to avoid the return to office. That also sounds pretty plausible to me with the extent to which companies are starting to squeeze with what feels like an incoming recession period.

When my former employer went remote for covid, Meeting culture got worse, comms became less efficient and arguably collaboration did suffer. Defect rate in code also increased amongst the junior cohort and we determined (staff survey) it was due to senior and junior developers having fewer opportunities to connect and engage with high quality pair programming and mentoring sessions.

Half the table decided this was because remote work doesn’t work. The other half speculated that it’s because we tried to recreate the “in office” experience remotely, and that doesn’t work well. Sadly the company refused to adapt, and many were laid off. There was also a sizable tax break we got by being a large office that bought people into the city and support the local economy which likely had a material influence in their decision to layoff most remote/hybrid people.

My point with the anecdote is that I truly believe it’s rooted in a failure to adapt office culture. Willfully or unable too, it’s too nuanced to assert generally, and there’s also an entire segment of the workforce where on-site is essential and I’m not qualified to comment on.

Recent analysis of data suggests that productivity suffers when employees work remotely, and the effect is more dramatic the longer people remain away. This contradicts earlier studies conducted during the pandemic.

I'm not saying I agree.. just that this is the reason.