Pride 2023: A turning point for companies

Historically, companies have had to respond to activists denouncing their inaction related to the human rights of minorities in the countries in which they operate.

This year the discussion suddenly reversed.

June is Pride Month globally, and those who oppose respect for LGBTQ+ rights have blamed companies for supporting the Pride movement.

Headlines in the U.S. media show a potentially significant backlash from some people and organisations who are now denouncing companies’ actions on human rights of LGBTQ+ people. These headlines say: “Corporations come under fire from anti-LGBTQ activists for Pride campaigns," "When corporate pride goes south," or "Target is being held hostage by an anti-LGBTQ campaign."

Corporate presence in Pride is not new – and has been particularly prevalent in the West. However, this year, it takes place in a fraught context along cultural lines, with more than 400 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures across the United States. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the national LGBTQ+ advocacy group, declared a “National state of emergency” for LGBTQ+ people in the country on last week.

In this context, companies face three fundamental questions: by having a Pride campaign, are they really standing up for human rights? What are the implications of the “backlash” against corporations’ Pride campaigns? Are we entering a phase where companies need to look beyond the language of Corporate Social Responsibility and instead use rights-affirming language?

Is Pride a human rights campaign?

Until recently, many corporations focused on addressing child labour, human trafficking, and racial or gender equality and  steered clear of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), perceiving these exclusively as cultural and religious issues. If corporations took a stance on these issues internally, this stance was considered as part of their philanthropic activities.

As a consensus in the West emerged that the human rights of LGBTQ+ people were relevant to workplaces, some companies began to grapple with nuances they had not been attentive to earlier, including questions concerning gender identity and sexual orientation.

In 2017, while I worked at the United Nations Human Rights Office, I co-authored the United Nations LGBTQ+ Corporate Standards of Conduct with my colleague Charles Radcliffe and our partner, human rights expert Salil Tripathi from the Institute for Human Rights and Business. The objective was to engage a wide range of stakeholders in a process to apply the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the LGBTQ+ space to guide corporations on SOGI issues. Hundreds of companies such as  Infosys, Godrej in India, Natura, and Braskem in Brazil, or Erste Bank,  EY, Allen & Overy, L’Oréal, LVMH, and AXA in the West eventually endorsed the Standards.

While the document articulates the private sector's responsibilities towards employees and those in the broader supply chain, it also highlights opportunities for companies to act in the public sphere and champion the human rights of LGBTQ+ people.  Supporting Pride publicly is often an extension of internal Pride campaigns and efforts by companies to align their policies and practices with human rights standards.

The backlash against corporate support for Pride

I am convinced that the concerted backlash against Pride by some vocal and organised groups will not succeed. Surveys show that younger voters are increasingly unconcerned about the noise and are, in fact, supporters of LGBTQ+ rights, regardless of their orientation and identity.

The backlash is a ‘manufactured’ or ‘artificial’ crisis intended to cause outrage. But that doesn’t make it any less formidable.

Bolstered by conservative media, social media commentators have captured the attention of politicians willing to push anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Republican-led legislatures are passing restrictive laws over Pride.

Taking a public stance on human rights

Disney, Anheuser Busch, and Target are excellent case studies for corporations wishing to take a public stance on human rights issues.

The Disney case is worth examining first. It is an epic battle involving a corporation and the Florida governor, who happens to be  presidential aspirant Ron DeSantis. First, the previous CEO and an advisor decided behind closed doors not to fight Florida’s discriminatory bill on representation in school curricula only to reverse course once the law was passed when under pressure from LGBTQ+ constituents. After the company objected, the governor retaliated by removing concessions Disney had contractually received from the state.

The lesson from the Disney incident is that decision-makers should bring together relevant departments when faced with a human rights issue. Corporate Social Responsibility, Government Affairs, Legal, Communications, Human Rights, and their LGBTQ+ employee groups should be consulted in designing a course of action that at the very least respects the “do not harm” principle and, at best, advances human rights.

Companies are right in asserting their support for human rights and affirming their commitment to international standards. Companies also should be aware of local sensitivities. The challenge for companies lies in developing rights-supporting communication, in consultation with local communities that are affected by the backlash, staying firm on their commitment, and not acceding to unreasonable and rights-weakening demands from interest groups. This can be difficult when those leading the backlash are powerful, politically well-connected, or politicians themselves. Certainly, companies should not override governments, particularly those that are democratically elected, unless those governments are undermining human rights and the companies are speaking up for those whose rights are being infringed.

Anheuser Busch, the parent company of Budweiser, backtracked on a partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney because of criticism from conservative activists, which led to a backlash from LGBTQ+ groups. The lesson is that any campaign not rooted in a genuine internal commitment to human rights is at risk of failing. The Anheuser-Busch US management team is composed of 14 men and one woman, all white. Insufficient diversity in senior management or the Board raises questions about the sincerity of corporate commitment to the issue. It also suggests that the lack of representation at the executive level may impact a company's ability to run effective campaigns supporting the human rights of LGBTQ+ people.

And for Target, which introduced and then withdrew some products celebrating Pride, the lesson is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution regarding social marketing. The most progressive Pride apparel might be popular in New York but won’t be in the more conservative American heartland, and certainly not in Riyadh or Saana.

Companies must carefully design campaigns and ensure they coordinate with local civil society. It does not mean kowtowing to anti-LGBTQ+ campaigns. But it does mean working closely with local civil society groups, in particular affected groups, and designing campaigns that do not harm the interests of the affected groups.

Take notes from Nike, which has adopted a scientific approach to position the brand on social issues. The Nike controversy surrounding the Colin Kaepernick ad and product deal was scientifically crafted, and the backlash was carefully managed. Nike famously came out on top.

Being human rights neutral is not an option

Companies have been under increasing pressure from customers and activists for some time on a range of human rights concerns, from ACT UP members who campaigned on HIV-AIDS through non-violent means, such as by chaining themselves to the VIP balcony of the New York Stock Exchange, to Myanmar activists enrolling brands to align their policies and practice with human rights standards following the military coup.

For the foreseeable future, companies will continue to face similar pressure. This is particularly true in the West, where individuals have agency to promote human rights as employees, consumers, and shareholders, and not only as external political stakeholders.

The focus on the human rights of LGBTQ+ people will continue given the demographic revolution we observe in the West: 7.2% of all Americans identify as LGBTQ+, but close to 21% of Gen-Z individuals identify as such. Similar representation has been identified in 30 countries by an Ipsos survey released this month.

In addition, companies’ engagement in LGBTQ+ rights in the public sphere is particularly effective. Year after year, Edelman Survey results indicate that the private sector is perceived as more trustworthy, albeit marginally, than governments and the media, appealing to younger generations. Purpose-driven brands perform better. The private sector's voice is perceived as more neutral than governments, and businesses have unique positions to challenge harmful social norms through communication, marketing, and quiet diplomacy.

Guidance for companies

Seven years on, the UN LGBTQ+ Corporate Standards of Conduct, based on the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights, are a good guide for all companies wanting to adopt a thoughtful approach to their engagement on the human rights of LGBTQ+ people internally and externally. The unanimous endorsement by the UN Human Rights Council has made the UNGPs a legitimate and authoritative standard to discuss with states worldwide. Today they constitute the basis of many national legal frameworks.

When facing controversy, companies should remember that expressing support for Pride is not a philanthropic engagement but an essential part of a broader human rights commitment. The backtracks by some companies on their Pride campaigns show that this is the moment to end amateurism in corporate engagement in human rights.

About the author: Fabrice Houdart is a former World Bank senior country officer and United Nations human rights officer. He is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and Columbia University. He also founded and leads the Association of LGBTQ+ Corporate Directors.

Guest commentaries reflect the views of the author(s)