🔎 Market Mysteries

It’s easy to say that businesses should “stay out of politics” and focus on making money, but business decisions are complex. Companies are more than a stock price. Businesses are made up of hundreds, sometimes millions, of humans, serving the needs of millions more, operating under the constraints of our planet’s available resources. Our people and planet are under escalating stress, which forces companies into decisions that demonstrate their values.

While boycotts have rarely worked in the past, the recent impact on Bud Light is a unique example highlighting the importance of companies demonstrating clear values. Anheuser-Busch’s fickle commitment to either side of the controversy has lost Bud Light many customers it was trying to support, along with the ones it offended. The response to the controversy is often much more important than the cause of the controversy itself.

To dig deeper into the complexities of corporate support for the LGBTQ+ community, we’ve asked Goran Miletić, an experienced LGBTQ+ rights advocate, to take over our post this week. Please enjoy his perspectives below.

As Pride Month unfolds, corporate support for the LGBTQ+ community is under scrutiny. The complex landscape surrounding this topic calls for a deeper analysis of the challenges and potential repercussions when corporations dial back their support. If there is diminishing support, what impact will it make, and why are companies behaving this way?

Corporate America’s commitment to LGBTQ+ causes, messages, and products has been a subject of both praise and criticism. In the past, companies have been accused of "rainbow washing," using Pride imagery as a superficial gesture without a genuine commitment to LGBTQ+ issues. However, a shift in the landscape has taken place, with companies now facing increased pressure to take a definitive stand with conviction. Instances of right-wing backlash and subsequent controversies underscore the importance of genuine support. Let's consider a few examples that shed light on this issue.

 Target, a well-known retailer, faced controversies surrounding LGBTQ+ issues. They placed pride-related clothing and displays at the back of the store, which was seen as a retreat from visible support. Additionally, Target's decision to include a tuck-friendly swimsuit for transgender individuals in their toddler section and a yellow onesie that said "being proud" sparked customer backlash. In response to previous controversies, such as opening their bath and fitting rooms to transgender individuals, Target committed to installing single occupancy bathrooms. These instances demonstrate the challenges corporations face in navigating diverse stakeholder perspectives and balancing the interests of different groups. Furthermore, It was only recently that Disney workers staged walkouts in protest of the CEO's remarks about Florida's legislation that bars instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity for young children. This incident highlights the tension between corporate values and external political pressures.

While public displays of support during Pride Month are prevalent, the experiences of LGBTQ+ employees within corporations can shed light on the true state of inclusion. Despite the external image projected by these companies, many LGBTQ+ employees still face concerns about fair treatment and fear of being open about their identity at work. For example, Amazon, Twitter, Nike, and Wayfair eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jobs during layoffs, casting doubt on their commitment to fostering an inclusive environment. This discrepancy between outward support and internal practices highlights the importance of fostering a culture of inclusion that goes beyond superficial gestures and addresses the deeper issues faced by LGBTQ+ employees throughout the year.

Good Examples of Creating Inclusive Working Environments: 

Several companies have made strides in promoting inclusivity internally and externally. Invitae, for instance, has launched employee resource groups and community table talks to build connections and support community and allyship. General Motors has pledged financial support for organizations promoting racial justice and inclusion and established an Inclusion Advisory Board to address barriers to inclusivity. Slack's Diversity, Engagement, and Belonging program invests in an inclusive community centered on education, opportunity, and growth, with initiatives like Rising Tides, a sponsorship program for talented and diverse high performers and leaders. These companies showcase the positive impact of integrating best practices internally and demonstrating outward support.

Negative Examples of Inclusive Environments:

Unfortunately, some companies have fallen short in their commitment to inclusivity, like Amazon, Twitter, Nike, and Wayfair's decision to eliminate DEI jobs during layoffs raises doubts about their dedication to fostering diversity and equality. Additionally, despite publicly expressing support for the LGBTQ+ community, companies like Comcast/NBC Universal, AT&T, CVS, Walmart, UnitedHealth Group, Wells Fargo, Ford, Home Depot, Amazon, Walgreens, and more have donated money to anti-gay politicians, undermining their claims of support. These actions undermine the trust and credibility of these corporations and highlight the need for genuine and consistent commitment to LGBTQ+ causes.

Several underlying factors contribute to the potential decline in corporate commitment to LGBTQ+ causes. It is important to note that motivations and actions vary across companies, and not all factors apply universally. However, the following issues shed light on the situation:

Backlash and controversy: Corporations often face intense scrutiny from various stakeholders, including consumers, shareholders, and interest groups. In an increasingly polarized society, supporting LGBTQ+ causes can sometimes attract negative attention and backlash from conservative factions. Companies may fear reputational damage, customer boycotts, or potential legal challenges, leading to a cautious approach or even a retreat from public displays of support.

Conflicting stakeholders: Corporations have diverse stakeholders with varying perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues. While some customers, employees, and investors may strongly support LGBTQ+ rights, others may hold conservative or traditional values that oppose them. Unfortunately, some views are louder than others; for example, Chik-Fil-A leaders have voiced their own religious perspectives, which bled into the corporate environment and outward views, leading to anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.

Fear of alienating customer base: Companies may fear that openly supporting LGBTQ+ causes could alienate a significant portion of their customer base, especially in conservative or religiously conservative markets. This concern stems from the belief that some customers may hold negative attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals or view their rights as controversial. As a result, corporations may decide to prioritize maintaining a broad customer base over actively supporting LGBTQ+ causes.

Focus on financial priorities: Corporations are primarily profit-driven entities, and financial considerations often guide their decision-making. When facing economic challenges or market pressures, companies may prioritize allocating resources which inadvertently affects much of their DEI mechanism and policies, including LGBTQ+ initiatives. Meta, for example, made layoffs during shifts towards in-person work, which negatively affected their years of racial equity efforts.

Regulatory and Legal Landscape: The legal and regulatory environment surrounding LGBTQ+ rights varies across regions and countries. Companies operating in jurisdictions with less favorable or protective laws may face constraints or opposition, influencing their support for LGBTQ+ causes.

While internal efforts to promote workplace dignity and inclusivity are commendable, companies must also recognize the significance of outward-facing support for advancing inclusion. It is not enough to focus solely on internal practices; external visibility is key. Without a strong commitment to outward support, companies may face challenges such as a lack of visibility, decreased employee retention and engagement, difficulties in recruitment, negative consumer perception, and missed business opportunities. In today's world, where inclusivity is a priority, companies must understand that creating an inclusive work culture is not solely the responsibility of courts or legislation but rather the responsibility of the companies themselves and the individuals within them. By embracing both internal best practices and outward-facing support, companies can truly foster an inclusive environment that benefits their employees, stakeholders, and society at large.

To learn more or connect with Goran Miletić, email him at [email protected].

You’re doing great,

The Scoop Team