II. CSOs’ Perception of Corporate Activism to Address LGBT+ Issues

Companies’ public commitment to human rights in Poland is a relatively new phenomenon, and its scale is still small. Thus, the perspective of CSOs’ representatives seems crucial to understand how business advocacy on LGBT+ issues is perceived. Several reasons dictated the choice of this target group. CSOs operating to counteract the exclusion and discrimination of LGBT+ people have been present in Poland for many years. Their activities include direct support for the community, along with advocacy and consultation activities. They are important stakeholders with whom enterprises can cooperate.

Key findings from the study, which will be described in detail in dedicated sections below, are as follows:

1. (1) Corporate activism is at risk of pinkwashing and queerwashing. Business commitment to the LGBT+ community is still perceived as inconsistent.

2. (2) There is a need to develop coherent internal and external policies for businesses to address LGBT+ issues.

3. (3) The issue of risk related to corporate activism arises. Advocacy for the LGBT+ community may cause reputational risks. It may also break the relations between customers and companies because of their engagement with the LGBT+ community.

4. (4) Corporate activism on LGBT+ issues is still immature and is not treated as a part of companies’ human rights policies.

5. (5) Collaboration between sectors is crucial to understand mutual needs and expectations, and to establish beneficial projects for further change.

III. Business Advocacy and the Risk of Pinkwashing

The respondents agreed that publicly manifested activities are needed. However, their attitudes towards the forms of such support were different. The presence of companies in the context of supporting the LGBT+ community was received rather positively. CSO representatives know that some activities result from the desire to create a good image and positive public relations (PR), which is accepted if not limited just to communication campaigns. Some representatives find them even important because they believe that contact with LGBT+ issues in the public sphere helps to change the attitudes of many people. However, this positive message also had a negative side: ‘On the one hand … business getting involved in June [the Pride Month] proves that as a community we are more visible, we have settled in social consciousness. On the other hand, business counts on rainbow consumers and capitalizes its commitment, which is cynical’. Another respondent also shared this opinion.

Displaying signs of support during Pride Month in June by changing the colours of logos or participating in parades is not enough to show their fundamental commitment to the fight for human rights. In fact, some responses reflect growing frustration because of that. The respondents emphasized that ‘business in Poland is in a process that cannot be stopped’, but ‘the challenge is the scope of what business does’. The reflection was also supported by another respondent: ‘These are only gestures and actions, not a permanent policy of companies’.

Some voices noted that actions such as just changing the colours of logos or offering products with a rainbow are often an expression of pinkwashing or queerwashing. In the respondent’s opinion, pinkwashing covers unethical activities in one area with involvement in superficial activities for LGBT+. Pinkwashing also appeared in the marketing context when companies sell goods with logos during Pride Month, but in their daily activities, they still discriminate. ‘Rainbow marketing itself is ok, but does the support translate into financial support for the community?’. Such behaviour is perceived as a promotion of the company itself and not support for the LGBT+ community. As seen from the CSO angle, for it to be effective, company support in the public sphere should be manifested constantly. It is the only way to prove that they are allies of the LGBT+ community and that their culture and processes are oriented on diversity and inclusivity at a strategic level.

IV. Coherent Framework and Internal Dimension

The focus on communication and image is still noticeable, and there is a necessity to focus on the actual needs of the LGBT+ community – supporting selected postulates, e.g., marital equality. Business is an essential participant in social relations. The respondents admitted that financial support from business is essential to allow for different initiatives to exist. With adequate resources, CSOs can influence the law and support its change.

Although the focal point of the study was the presence of business in the public sphere, some threads related to internal diversity and inclusivity policies were mentioned by respondents: ‘Such [outside] activities are important and needed. Rainbow people who work want an open environment. As the company shows that everyone is important, it is significant’. This internal dimension and how the human rights of employees are respected were equally important to the respondents. ‘I do not rate the business very well. Policies do not work. There are problems when starting work for the company. Transgender data is disclosed (right to privacy). LGBT+ people are treated worse.’ Interviewees highlighted that more activities can be conducted internally and that not all companies communicate it to the outside world. ‘Employees should be looked after first, then outside activities.’

There is a need to create a coherent framework for action favouring human rights. If, despite declarations, human rights are violated in one area or another, all undertaken activities are assessed negatively. Companies should cover both internal and external dimensions of their activities to avoid neglecting essential areas of human rights issues.

V. Challenges for Business

The respondents also referred to the challenges the business sector may face in demonstrating support for the visibility of the LGBT+ community in the public sphere. It was emphasized that for some organizations, even changing the colours of the logo may be challenging. Business still needs to be made aware of the public perception of their potential activities, when stressing support for the LGBT+ community. Such activities may be risky for some companies. They must consider the loss of customers who are not supportive of this type of involvement. Activity in this area is often the result of the efforts of a specific person (grassroots) or as part of the inclusion or corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy. Sometimes the initiation of actions may be reluctantly perceived by the employees. On the other hand, the willingness of the business to be visible and attract clients for whom human rights and equal treatment are important values, both from the LGBT+ community and from outside, is a factor that initiates change or dismantles possible resistance.

According to respondents, what is interesting is that some people with left-wing views do not want such support (‘corporations are bad’), but a large group of people feel noticed and supported thanks to these interventions. Sometimes changing the company’s profile on social media to a rainbow one can help by affecting well-being, and making people feel supported by individuals and companies, which is essential. However, actions aimed only at better visibility of the company itself should be distinguished from those followed by specific support, such as the transfer of funds, psychological help or targeted activities for people with specific needs, such as support for an intervention hostel. Corporate activism may be risky for the company, especially if there is not a strong orientation on diversity and inclusivity reflected in its strategic values. The public manifestation of support is a kind of responsibility, and risk-holders need to understand the market response to react appropriately.

VI. Immature Approach

The respondents doubt whether enterprises operating in Poland approach human rights issues maturely. It is even difficult to assess the extent to which the visibility of business activities for LGBT+ people in the public sphere supports the development of human rights and strengthens them. The interviewees stressed that business in Poland aspires to be mature. It is still at the beginning because: ‘Changes are slowly taking place … People from the community started to fight for themselves. […] There are not enough actions, and there is unethical behaviour in various areas.’ They point out that part of the challenge might be that the Poles do not perceive diversity yet as a value. In the opinion of CSO representatives, companies are only at the stage of learning about human rights – there are still many in denial that human rights violations exist.

The interviews highlighted individual companies’ differences concerning location: ‘In big cities [business is] more mature.’ ‘There is an abyss in large Polish companies without foreign capital. Polish business has much to catch up on in the LGBT+ area.’ The approach to the issue of equality is sometimes selective – attention is paid to gender issues, and LGBT+ issues are neglected. One of the respondents underlined that communication in the area of human rights was not given adequate attention, and legislation is a factor that may accelerate the process of developing more mature attitudes. There are other reasons for improving the visibility of the topic:

• • Initiatives undertaken by businesses publicly stimulate the broader discussion on equality and diversity.

• • Society and business learn from observed public involvement and are more aware of diversity and equality.

• • Projects conducted internally result in educated employees who can demonstrate better understanding and acceptance for others while performing other social roles outside the workplace. They are also members of their local communities, and through their knowledge and awareness, they teach others, influencing a change in attitudes.

• • Business participation in the public discussion on the necessity of social change and the introduction of new solutions or legal regulations in a country are significant from CSOs’ perspective.

• • Companies have a strong influence. Through advertising, products and movie productions, they can show diversity in all spheres of activity, making people aware that the LGBT+ community is part of society.

The motivation of companies to put the issue on the business agenda requires the education of the whole of society, including business representatives. There is a necessity to demonstrate the importance of diversity as a core value for society, which strong legal regulations may also support.

VII. The Necessity of Collective Actions

The respondents emphasized that non-governmental organizations have the best knowledge regarding the problems of the LGBT+ community, but also about solutions that would be useful. That is why including a social partner in internal and external business activities could add value to many business initiatives. It is an expectation that companies will ‘come out to rainbow communities with more than just advertising, for example, by showing that their companies welcome these people’. A mutual exchange of experiences would be appreciated.

Geographical differences between enterprises are also necessary to address. Activities are concentrated in large urban centres in which these active companies operate. Reaching smaller towns is crucial, especially as issues such as a lack of understanding and intolerance are more common in these areas.

Businesses usually choose large organizations as partners, or these large organizations communicate most effectively with enterprises. Smaller organizations receive a different amount of support than large ones. It is also challenging to get support and find examples of the involvement of smaller companies.

Support is also limited to certain times of the year – it most often occurs when organizing the Equality Parade, but it is missing daily (‘Business is absent where people need help’). More support is necessary to assess companies’ activities as real business commitments. The study supports intersectoral cooperation between businesses and social partners, and recommends that businesses carefully consider their criteria for choosing a partner. The expertise and knowledge of local organizations have allowed for the planning of joint activities, that meet the target group’s actual needs. Such consideration will help fill the gap between the support given to the biggest and the smallest CSOs.