LGBTQ-Friendly Policies Bolster Corporate Innovation, New Study Shows
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 7: Participants from Delta Airlines walk in the WorldPride Parade on June 7, ... More 2025 in Washington, DC. This year marks the 50th Anniversary of Pride celebrations in Washington, DC and is host to WorldPride 2025. (Photo by)
Companies that have policies designed to ensure their workplaces are LGBTQ-friendly are more likely to be innovative that those who don't according to a new study that draws on almost a decade and a half of data.
The research, done by academics at Finland's Aalto University and the University of Vaasa, is based on data from the Corporate Equality Index—a benchmarking tool on corporate policies, practices, and benefits pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer employees—as well as figures from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other public sources.
It established that for every standard deviation increase in a company's CEI, the number of patents increased by 20 percent. The academics also found that LGBTQ-friendly firms demonstrated an almost 25 percent increase in the number of patent citations, which is broadly considered an indication of how other companies value the innovativeness of a particular patent.
Other studies in the past have determined a link between profitability and workplace diversity more generally. This, however, is the first to specifically examine sexuality and gender-inclusivity as it relates to innovation.
'Our results demonstrate that firms with progressive LGBTQ policies produce more patents, have more patent citations, and have higher innovation quality as measured by patent originality, generality, and internationality,' commented Jukka Sihvonen, from Aalto University School of Business.
'Innovation is the fuel that drives both growth and profitability. Companies need innovation,' he added. 'The magnitudes of impact linked to LGBTQ-friendliness are big — and that means that the economic significance is too.'
These latest findings are particularly timely considering the widespread rollback of corporate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in response to the Trump administration's executive orders.
In January, almost immediately after taking office, President Donald Trump issued a slew of orders targeting DEI programs both in the public and private sector. In response, many companies across the U.S. and beyond, announced that they were rolling back such initiatives or pausing programs.
References to diversity, equity and inclusion in Fortune 100 company reports have also dropped. According to an analysis by Gravity Research, they declined by 72% between 2024 and 2025.
But surveys of corporate leaders show that a sizable contingent of managers still see the value of DEI initiatives. One example: A national survey—conducted by Catalyst, a consultancy focused on creating inclusive workspaces, in conjunction with the NYU School of Law's Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging—recently found that 83% of C-suite leaders and 88% of legal leaders said that they believe maintaining or expanding DEI is essential to mitigating legal risk.
That survey also showed that 77% of the executives believe DEI initiatives are positively correlated with improved financial performance, and 81% think that a focus on DEI was likely to bolster customer loyalty.
The new research out of Finland used analytical methods to control for bias, and found that the link between inclusivity and innovation existed regardless of the political context.
'The results get marginally stronger when most conservative states are excluded, but the difference is really minor, and the findings remain largely the same when the most liberal states are left out,' explained Sami Vähämaa from the University of Vaasa, who also led the research.
And Veda Fatmy, a co-author from the University of Vaasa, noted that although the research drew on data collected between 2003 and 2017, extrapolating beyond that time frame suggests that the positive trend might actually be getting stronger over time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
27 minutes ago
- CBS News
"eBay for government" helps agencies and schools auction off property, Municibid founder says
A little slice of land in Ambridge Borough could be yours at a steep discount, and all the proceeds will benefit the local community. "We're like an eBay for government," said Greg Berry, CEO and founder of online government auction site Municibid. Berry says his company helps local governments auction off anything, from parcels of land and old desks to school buses and riding mowers. So far, about 7,000 local governments and schools use the online site to sell unneeded items to the public. The latest listing in Ambridge consists of a nearly 4,000-square-foot parcel of land along Glenwood Drive. Twenty-two bids have already been placed at just over $5,000. "A lot of times, smaller towns, and larger ones, have excess land or land that they've come into own in some form, and they don't have a need for it and they're looking to sell it," said Berry. He said maybe in this case, a neighbor wants to expand or a new park could pop up in the space. Berry says governments sell just about everything on his site. "While it's typically vehicles and heavy equipment and tools and land and things that you might expect the government to have and no longer need, it could be anything, such as sailboats and airplanes and jewelry and electric guitars," Berry said. Municibid allows consumers to sort and shop by state, borough or category. And when a winner scores a deal, here's how the costs break down. "When the auction closes and there's a winning bidder, the winning bidder pays us 9% of the winning bid amount, and then they pay 100% of the bid amount to the selling agency," Berry said. Gone are the days of going to the town hall to fill out a sealed bid. Berry told KDKA he used to work as a borough councilor and found that process far from transparent. "No one knew what the governments were selling, and if they did, the process was super inconvenient and intimidating and just wasn't very easy," said Berry. Besides the Ambridge property, KDKA found a lot of items up for grabs in the Pittsburgh area, including an ATV in Mt. Lebanon, a 2020 Ford Explorer in Castle Shannon, a Ford Crown Victoria police car in New Castle, and golf carts in Greensburg. Berry told KDKA some parents snag their teenagers' first car on the site, or business owners land some needed equipment at a fraction of the price.
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
Fast Company
36 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Nvidia stock price hits fresh record high as analyst sees ‘golden wave' of Gen AI adoption
Shares of Nvidia Corp (Nasdaq: NVDA) reached a new record high on Thursday in premarket trading. As of the time of writing, the stock had peaked at $156.99 before slightly sliding to $156.68. The uptick follows Wednesday's all-time high closing price of $154.31, which rose to $154.59 in after-hours trading. DeepSeek and tariffs worried investors earlier this year Nvidia has been a de facto representative of AI investment in the market. It reached a high of $153.13 in early January, but its shares soon tumbled alongside China's success with AI company DeepSeek and uncertainty around tariffs. DeepSeek used Nvidia chips to build its AI systems despite the United States banning their sale to China. The stock hit a low of $86.62 on April 7, just five days after President Trump's 'Liberation Day,' on which he announced a series of tariffs worldwide. But now, at nearly double that price, it has recovered its losses—and signaled a renewed investment in AI. However, it comes as the dollar hits a three-year low after reports that Trump will move up his selection of a new Federal Reserve chair, the Wall Street Journal reports. What's fueling Nvidia's recent rally? The chipmaker's current ascension was fueled in part by Loop Capital's decision yesterday to raise its price target from $175 to $250. 'Our work suggests we are entering the next 'Golden Wave' of Gen AI adoption, and NVDA is at the front-end of another material leg of stronger than anticipated demand,' Loop Capital analyst Ananda Baruah stated in a client note, according to Reuters. Helped along by Nvidia's 4% rise on Wednesday, the Nasdaq composite also neared its record high with a 0.3% increase.
