LGBT Rights, Inc.

Last month, the United Nations hosted a panel on similar themes. Such conversations occur amid criticism of pro-LGBT governmental interventions. The New York Times suggested last month that the $41 million spent by the American government to promote gay rights globally may have spawned a backlash, catalyzing Nigeria’s draconian 2014 law against homosexuality.  

Western governments, forever vulnerable to accusations of imperialism, cannot alone push a rights agenda. Who can—and indeed, must—wage this crusade? Multinational corporations.

{mosads}Our ten-market study reveals that MNCs have both the motives and the might to secure LGBT rights worldwide. Intent on winning the war for top talent, as well as winning the loyalty of LGBT consumers and their allies, titans like American Express, BP, and IBM are flexing their market muscle to achieve greater legal protections, inclusion, and equality in jurisdictions hostile to LGBT individuals where they do business. Progress is uneven. But it is being made.

Three models describe the ways in which MNCs are protecting their employees and on some level bringing about greater equality for LGBT individuals locally. A “When in Rome” approach, for example, describes exceptions that a company creates to certain global pro-LGBT policies to conform to local laws. While not desirable, it’s sometimes unavoidable in places like Uganda or Saudi Arabia. But by being utterly transparent about these exceptions with their employees, and by allowing individuals to “opt out” of postings that may endanger them, companies like IBM signal their ongoing vigilance on behalf of their employees. 

Many global companies adopt an “Embassy” approach, enforcing pro-LGBT policies on local campuses so as to create a safe space in LGBT-unfriendly jurisdictions while helping promote greater tolerance in the local culture. American Express, for example, enforces global anti-discrimination policies everywhere it has offices, effectively raising the bar in jurisdictions like India where those protections are absent.  

Some companies take a step further, adopting an “Advocate” approach that seeks to effect change in the host nation itself. Such advocacy can take many forms, ranging from direct lobbying to support for local advocacy to symbolic action. Barclays stepped up to discuss its concerns when Ugandan legislators sought the death penalty for homosexual acts; the enacted law, while still draconian, omitted that punishment. Bloomberg, BP, EY, Google, Goldman Sachs, J.P.Morgan Chase, and Twitter have sponsored Pink Dot, a day-long gathering of thousands of LGBT individuals and allies in Singapore’s Hong Lim Park. Similarly, more than twenty-six million people globally have changed their profile pictures using Facebook’s rainbow filter to show their support for the LGBT community, generating half a billion likes and comments.

Much work remains to be done. But at least in the LGBT context, the market horse and the morals horse are running in the same direction with increasing speed. 

With both the motive and the muscle, multinational companies are seizing the reins. 

Yoshino is a professor at NYU Law. Hewlett is an economist.