RESEARCH PAPER
Countering Legislative Hostility: Corporate Equality Index as a Response to Anti-LGBT State Laws in the Early Trump Era
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Econometrics, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
Submission date: 2024-04-21
Final revision date: 2024-09-02
Acceptance date: 2024-10-03
Publication date: 2025-03-31
Corresponding author
Kinga Siuta
Institute of Econometrics, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
GNPJE 2025;321(1):20-36
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the impact of state-level anti-LGBTQ+ legislation on changes in the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) among large U. S. corporations during the early years of the first Trump administration, – a period of significant political uncertainty and legislative shifts affecting LGBTQ+ rights. Employing regression analysis, this research examines how varying degrees of state-level legislative hostility influence corporate inclusivity policies, with a specific focus on the role of corporate headquarters’ location in shaping these responses. The findings reveal a nuanced relationship, where firms in states with a moderate number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills exhibit significant improve in their CEI scores, suggesting a strategic countermeasure to the negative socio-political climate. Conversely, corporations in a states with an extreme number of such bills, specifically Texas, show no changes beyond the ones observed in firms headquartered in non-hostile states, potentially reflecting entrenched socio-political stances or stakeholder preferences that aligned with conservative views. This study contributes to the discourse on the interplay between political uncertainty, legislative environments, and corporate inclusivity strategies, highlighting the importance role of contextual factors in shaping corporate decision-making making regarding on LGBTQ+ inclusivity.
REFERENCES (36)
2.
Antonini C., Olczak W., Patten D. M. [2021], Corporate climate change disclosure during the Trump administration: evidence from standalone CSR reports, Accounting Forum, 45 (2): 118–141.
3.
Aragón-Correa J. A., Sharma S. [2003], A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy, Academy of Management Review, 28 (1): 71–88.
4.
Bies R. J., Bartunek J. M., Fort T. L., Zald M. N. [2007], Corporations as social change agents: individual, interpersonal, institutional, and environmental dynamics, Academy of Management Review, 32 (3): 788–793.
5.
Campbell J. L. [2007], Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review, 32 (3): 946–967.
6.
Choi S.‑J., Shin J., Kuper P., Zhang L.‑Y. [2023], Corporate decisions on LGBT friendliness: a multi-level approach, Management Decision, 61 (4): 996–1012.
7.
Deming A. [2016], Backlash blunders: Obergefell and the efficacy of litigation to achieve social change, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 19: 271.
8.
Engau C., Hoffmann V. H. [2011], Corporate response strategies to regulatory uncertainty: evidence from uncertainty about post-Kyoto regulation, Policy Sciences, 44: 53–80.
10.
Fatmy V., Kihn J., Sihvonen J., Vähämaa S. [2022], Does lesbian and gay friendliness pay off? A new look at LGBT policies and firm performance, Accounting & Finance, 62 (1): 213–242.
12.
Gonzales G., McKay T. [2017], What an emerging Trump administration means for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health, Health Equity, 1 (1): 83–86.
13.
Hossain M., Atif M., Ahmed A., Mia L. [2020], Do LGBT workplace diversity policies create value for firms?, Journal of Business Ethics, 167: 775–791.
14.
Human Rights Campaign [2017a], Corporate Equality Index 2017: Rating American workplaces on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer equality,
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/... (accessed on 11.03.2024).
18.
Human Rights Campaign [2017e], Title IX: a letter to parents from America’s leading civil rights and LGBTQ advocacy organizations,
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/... (accessed on 11.03.2024).
19.
Human Rights Campaign [2018], Corporate Equality Index 2018: Rating American workplaces on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer equality,
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/... (accessed on 11.03.2024).
21.
Kaplan S. [2008], Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty, Organization Science, 19 (5): 729–752.
22.
Klawitter M. M., Flatt V. [1998], The effects of state and local antidiscrimination policies on earnings for gays and lesbians, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 17 (4): 658–686.
23.
Kuroki M. [2021], The rise in extreme mental distress among LGBT people during Trump’s rise and presidency, Economics & Human Biology, 43: 101034.
24.
McGuire J. B., Sundgren A., Schneeweis T. [1988], Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4): 854–872.
26.
Pichler S., Blazovich J. L., Cook K. A., Huston J. M., Strawser W. R. [2018], Do LGBT-supportive corporate policies enhance firm performance?, Human Resource Management, 57 (1): 263–278.
27.
Ragins B. R., Singh R., Cornwell J. M. [2007], Making the invisible visible: fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4): 1103.
28.
Rubin A. [2008], Political views and corporate decision making: the case of corporate social responsibility, Financial Review, 43 (3): 337–360.
29.
Shan L., Fu S., Zheng L. [2017], Corporate sexual equality and firm performance, Strategic Management Journal, 38 (9): 1812–1826.
30.
Supreme Court of the United States [2015], Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644.
31.
Sutton T., Devine R. A., Lamont B. T., Holmes Jr. R. M. [2021], Resource dependence, uncertainty, and the allocation of corporate political activity across multiple jurisdictions, Academy of Management Journal, 64 (1): 38–62.
35.
Votaw D., Sethi S. P. [1969], Do we need a new corporate response to a changing social environment?, California Management Review, 12 (1): 3–16.
36.
Zhao M. [2012], CSR-based political legitimacy strategy: managing the state by doing good in China and Russia, Journal of Business Ethics, 111: 439–460.