DiversityInc Names Top 10 Companies for LGBT Employees

Every year, DiversityInc issues its lists of “Top 10 Companies” for LGBT employees (along with those for Asian American, African American and Hispanic employees). And every year, I read the list with great interest to see who in corporate America has been deemed “the best” in terms of gay and lesbian employee issues. I think these types of listings are both helpful in advancing gay and lesbian communications issues and instructive in terms of defining the kinds of activities considered most appropriate and effective.

This year’s list includes the usual suspects: #1 IBM, #6 Kodak and #10 Ernst & Young and leaders such as #5 Toyota Motor North America and #3 Wachovia that I haven’t always assumed were so exemplary.

The DiversityInc criteria includes such factors as whether or not a company has an employee-resource group and whether or not the company actively recruits LGBT employees. The criteria also examines whether or not a company has a supplier-diversity plan aimed at LGBT employees. 

Interestingly, the list's criteria don’t appear to include any factors such as advertising, marketing or public relations aimed at the gay and lesbian community or about a company’s sponsorship and partnership efforts to be inclusive of our community. I think it’s commendable that the criteria consider whether or not a company has “content on the corporate web site that reflects the LGBT community.”  As I’ve pointed out before, leadership in gay and lesbian communications should be about more than just doing the right thing: it should also be about saying the right thing. 

I commend each of the companies on the list for the good things they do that earned them this recognition. Looking forward, my message to the companies on the list (and those who want to be on it) is this: don’t stop now. Keep going. Participate in community organizations such as Out & Equal (which #7 Deloitte and many others do). Advertise to our community (which #4 Pepsi and many others do). Provide financial support to community organizations (which Wachovia does). Talk about your activities and promote your gay and lesbian community engagement (which only a few companies do consistently). But don’t just do one of those things: do them all. The price of success is true engagement with our community within the full spectrum of communications and outreach activities. 

What do you think? Check out the list and give us your thoughts about the companies named, the criteria used or maybe even the concept of the list itself.

Comments

[Mary Earley]

I think that these lists are fantastic and have a really good amount of detail, but also feel that overall HR policies should be looked at very carefully. I once worked for a company that with great fanfare rolled out its same-sex partner benefits, while at the same time it quietly gutted its maternity leave. In this case, I strongly believe that the same-sex partner benefits were an easy way for the company to look good while cutting costs.

Cynicism is my normal state of mind, I'm afraid, because I don't believe that my former employer is the only one that has pulled this kind of stunt.

[Dana]

I think these lists are a good general guideline, but only that. There can be a big difference between corporate policy and what life is like in a specific office or department of a multinational corporation. One also needs to consider that the list should be cross-referenced with those rating companies for various races, women, working mothers, the disabled, etc., since many of us cross those categories (and, as the previous commenter noted, being good in one area doesn't require being good in another).

Also, it's important to review the requirements for each list. In 2006, the Advocate dropped Fannie Mae from its list of the Best Companies for LGBT Workers. Despite its perfect 100 score on the HRC Corporate Equality Index, Fannie Mae contributed money from its corporate foundation to anti-gay causes, including $50,000 to the Traditional Values Coalition. (Here's my post about it: http://www.mombian.com/2006/09/26/the-advocates-…with-hrc-indexthe-advocates-best-companies-list-includes-discrepancy-with-hrc-index/

[Ben Finzel]

Thanks Mary and Dana. You both make good points and I agree. These lists are a good start, but they should not be the only resource we consider in evaluating companies. As you point out, it's a more complex picture that we must consider and the rather simplistic ranking is not always the best, or most accurate, depiction of a company's true nature.