OP-ED Dr. Ashrafee Hossain
This article was originally published in .
Global acceptance of homosexuality has risen over the past two decades to . Despite this, a report from last year found that the .
This echoes , that found many Canadians were uncomfortable disclosing their sexual orientation at work. Just last month, The Canadian Press published an article that found have faced discrimination in the past five years.
There is a clear disconnect between the increased tolerance toward LGBTQ+ people in broader society compared to the experience of LGBTQ+ people in the workplace.
As major stakeholders , corporations have the responsibility to bridge this equality gap and be leaders in making the workplace inclusive and welcoming for their LGBTQ+ employees.
The LGBT purge
One of the longest, most devastating examples of workplace discrimination in Canada is known as the . Between the 1950s and mid-1990s, the Canadian government embarked on a purge of LGBTQ+ workers from federal public service and the Canadian Armed Forces.
An estimated 9,000 LGBTQ+ Canadians experienced abuse and violence at the whims of the government that investigated, interrogated and traumatized them.
The LGBT Purge was driven by anti-communist sentiment during the Cold War. Socially stigmatized people, like members of the LGBTQ+ community, were seen as .
of any Canadian government employees or members of the Armed Forces turning over evidence to the Soviet Union out of fear their sexual orientation would be exposed.
In 2017, for the 鈥渟tate-sponsored, systematic oppression and rejection鈥 of the LGBT Purge. A that included up to $110 million in compensation for survivors of the purge.
The Purge resulted in psychological trauma, material hardship, financial ruin, self-harm and suicide among survivors. The legacy of the Purge, still felt to this day, reminds us that there is still much to be done in the fight for equality.
CEO power and workplace equality
My colleagues and I investigating if and how chief executive officer鈥檚 (CEO) power affects corporate LGBTQ+ equality. To measure corporate LGBTQ+ equality, we used the provided by the Human Rights Campaign.
We decided to study CEO power because CEOs play a key role in investing in corporate LGBTQ+ equality initiatives. They normally set the strategic directions and initiate major decisions in their companies and can influence what initiatives receive funding.
Studies have shown that because they have higher job security and can focus on long-term initiatives, such as sustainability. A similar argument could be made for LGBTQ+ employee equal rights initiatives. CEOs, who are in the most secure position in their companies, have the ability and flexibility to invest in corporate LGBTQ+ equality.
How power comes into play
Our research found that powerful CEOs discouraged corporate LGBTQ+ equality initiatives. This could be for a number of reasons, including CEOs catering to shareholders who don鈥檛 think corporate LGBTQ+ equality initiatives should be invested in, either because it clashes with their beliefs, or they don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a worthy investment.
Additionally, we found that powerful CEOs were more likely to discourage corporate LGBTQ+ equality initiatives when corporations lacked external monitoring (lower level of institutional ownership), information transparency (higher tendency to manipulate their earnings) or were headquartered in a state that had a majority religious population.
It鈥檚 time for change
Our findings that we have for LGBTQ+ people, .
It is clear that corporations will not alter their course unless they are forced to or their bottom line is at stake. It is time for regulators and policymakers to enact affirmative action regulations to encourage corporations to create equitable and fair workplace environments for their LGBTQ+ employees.
There are a variety of ways this could be accomplished. Activist-investors could motivate their corporations to invest in corporate LGBTQ+ equality initiatives, .
The , an umbrella organization of Canada鈥檚 provincial and territorial securities regulators, could propose regulations that would require boards of directors to have LGBTQ+ representation, which in turn may influence more LGBTQ+ friendly policies and initiatives by corporations more broadly.