pride and prejudice · pride and prejudice: attitudes and opinions toward lgbt inclusion in the...

PRIDE ANDPREJUDICE

ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS TOWARD LGBT INCLUSION IN THE WORKPLACE

A report from The Economist Intelligence Unit

1© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016

Pride and Prejudice: Attitudes and opinions toward LGBT inclusion in the workplace

Contents

Executive summary 2

About the research 3

Introduction: Defining LGBT 4

A minority hidden in plain sight 5

Queer geographies 7

Achieving visibility 9

The elusive diversity dollar 11

Business, out in the world 13

Legal pink areas: Business and anti-LGBT laws 15

Conclusion: Expanding the debate 16

2 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016


Executive summary

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people work in large and small corporations, across every industry and in every country in the world. They are an indelible part of business life, and yet they face formidable obstacles to workplace acceptance and inclusion. In order to shed light on the current perceptions and treatment of LGBT people in the workplace, The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) fielded the Pride & Prejudice benchmark survey online from October to November 2015 among 1,021 opinion leaders globally. Their sentiments provide insights into the concerns that will need to be addressed in mapping progress for the LGBT community.

Those surveyed do not appear, by and large, to show a discriminatory attitude against LGBT people. Advancement based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) diversity has simply not taken root as a talking point in many contexts. LGBT’s status as the “hidden” minority is to blame. Past research shows that many LGBT people closet themselves to some

extent at work, by as much as 53% in the US1. Long-standing norms compel workers to stay hidden, forestalling discussion of the issue; this vacuum, in turn, informs norms, keeping more workers in the closet. Less overtly tolerant societies outside North America and western Europe are likely to contain a far higher proportion of closeted workers.

Yet as is true with many other venues, in the office, familiarity breeds acceptance. The presence of LGBT corporate advocates and learning that one’s colleagues, bosses and subordinates are LGBT, can brighten opinions. However, a formidable challenge lies in linking inclusion to a firm’s financial performance. Few respondents perceive this connection.

On a more positive note, the role of business in society is more clear-cut. Many respondents want to see their companies assume an outspoken posture in promoting LGBT rights, to some degree, led by their top bosses, although these attitudes vary by age and gender.

1 Fidas, Deena and Liz Cooper. The Cost of the Closet and the Rewards of Inclusion: Why the Workplace Environment for LGBT People Matters to Employers. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2014, p.2



Pride and Prejudice: Attitudes and opinions towards LGBT inclusion in the workplace is an Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report. It investigates the current perceptions and treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the workplace based on the insight of a global executive survey conducted by The EIU.

The survey explored the personal and professional opinions around LGBT inclusion among opinion leaders aged 24 to 91 across 104 nations. Regionally, the study provided coverage of North America (189 respondents), Latin America (79 respondents), Europe (375 respondents), Middle East and Africa (103 respondents), and Asia (275 respondents). Furthermore, the results were analysed based on company revenue, industry, job function of the respondent, business footprint, ownership model, seniority and connection with LGBT. Respondents were split across company size, with 535 working for companies with under US$500m in annual revenue and 439 over US$500m (some abstained from providing revenue). Among those who provided their gender, most were male (853 respondents), and the minority was female (155 respondents). Study results were statistically evaluated at 95% confidence, meaning that in 95 of 100 times a study of this nature is completed with a similar sample size and type, the results will not vary by more than a few percentage points.

In December 2015 to January 2016, The EIU also conducted interviews with experts and business leaders on the topic of LGBT inclusion in the workplace. The material from these

in-depth interviews appears throughout the report. The EIU would like to thank the following individuals (listed alphabetically) for sharing their insight:

Simon Bennett, general manager, sustainable development, Swire Pacific Offshore

Trevor Burgess, chief executive officer, C1 Bank

Dan Fitz, group general counsel and company secretary, BT Group PLC

Jumisih (no surname as per Indonesian convention), founder, Mahardica Rainbow

Ma Baoli, founder, Blue City Holdings Ltd

Marie Moynihan, chief diversity officer, Dell Inc

Jan Siegmund, chief financial officer, ADP

This report was written by Michael Gold. It was edited by Irene Mia with input from Charles Goddard. Heidi D’Agostino designed and executed the quantitative survey, leveraging The EIU Opinion Leaders panel.

Finally, The EIU would like to thank the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Out Now Consulting, Stonewall and Workplace Pride for their feedback on the report.

About the research



Assumptions naturally abound in any framework measuring minority advancement. For the purposes of this survey, The EIU used the acronym “LGBT”, a term broad enough to cover a wide range of identifiable markers. In the context of business and greater cultural attitudes attuned toward a heteronormative worldview, this acronym provides an accessible basis for understanding. It grants those unfamiliar with debates in queer theory, which deconstructs the groupings associated with the wide range of SOGI terminology, an entry point into the discussion.

It should be noted, however, that the words lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender presume four neatly divided categories of gender and sexual orientation. Reality is far messier. Neither “sex” (the biological demarcation of one’s reproductive capabilities) nor “gender” (how one defines one’s sex socio-culturally and psychologically) nor “sexual orientation” (to whom one finds oneself attracted) are binary propositions.

Rather, these identities reside along continuums allowing for variation in all metrics. Intersex individuals bear both male and female characteristics; asexual individuals do not exhibit a standard sexual orientation as it is commonly understood. The dichotomy between action and identity presents another quandary: some self-identify as heterosexual, yet readily engage in sexual relations with members of their own gender. Evidence suggests a genetic basis for sexual orientation, yet not every gay male, for example, finds himself exclusively attracted to other men.

Recent legal breakthroughs in recognition of same-sex relationships, for all their positive consequences, have reinforced the four categories outlined above. Many view marriage as the ultimate form of LGBT acceptance; yet some argue that it strengthens misogynistic and outdated institutions, and unnecessarily narrows one’s choices. These voices are often drowned in the roar of euphoria accompanying any given jurisdiction’s legalisation of same-sex unions.

Introduction Defining LGBT



A minority hidden in plain sight1Corporate cultures are defined by the flow of ideas, information, funds, people and the material assets within them. These cultures change quickly as new technology allows businesses to expand globally at a rapid pace, exposing them to different value systems and ways of thinking. This change can be disorienting, and companies that fail to adapt to these forces suffer.

Most respondents in our survey recognise this: almost nine in ten agree that having a diverse and inclusive workforce is a global business advantage. Simon Bennett, general manager of sustainable development at Swire Pacific Offshore (SPO), a shipping company headquartered in Singapore and operating around the world, says that SPO is striving to better reflect local populations in its offices and on its ships. Definitions of diversity differ, but broadly, one in two executives believes his or her company’s advances on this front are “excellent” or “very good”.

However, unlike other forms of diversity, SOGI diversity is unique. LGBT identity is largely immutable, akin to race, ethnicity, gender and some forms of disability. But principally unlike the latter categories, it is also invisible. In most situations, unless one takes the initiative to come out of the closet, people presume him or her to

be straight and to conform to the gender identity that matches his or her outward appearance. Heterosexual male or female is still the baseline against which other sexual orientations and gender identities are defined.

People often face challenges simply opening a dialogue about SOGI in the workplace, a venue which de-emphasises personal affairs. Indeed, sometimes this dialogue can have serious consequences. Jumisih, founder of Mahardica Rainbow, an Indonesian LGBT labour advocacy group, says that her members (most of whom work in textile factories) often fear that coming out to their managers will cost them their jobs. “Some of our members do not want to be associated with Mahardica Rainbow [publicly]”, she says.

On the whole, just 36% of respondents report strong progress on sexual orientation and gender identity diversity in their companies over the past five years. This compares with 46% for race and ethnicity, and 54% for gender. At the same time, four in five respondents are comfortable working in some capacity with an LGBT individual, indicating little overt aversion. Indeed, many respondents noted that in the office, merit is all that counts—matters such as sexual orientation are irrelevant.



These findings suggest that it is precisely this LGBT cloak of invisibility that hinders ostensible progress. Throughout the survey, one factor was related to both perception of LGBT progress in the workplace and desire for greater investment in LGBT diversity initiatives: awareness. This encompasses business relationships with LGBT people and the presence of LGBT advocates in the workplace who, via various avenues, raise awareness of SOGI diversity.

For example, executives who work with LGBT people are almost twice as likely as those who don’t know any LGBT people (in or out of the office) to say that their company has made strong progress in sexual orientation and gender identity diversity. Those in companies with prominent LGBT advocates are almost five times more likely than those without advocates to view the same level of progress. These executives are also 35% more likely than those in companies without advocates to want more investment into LGBT diversity initiatives.

To what extent do you believe yourcompany has made progress in sexualorientation and gender identitydiversity over the past five years? (% respondents)

Substantial

March of progress

Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit.

24%

23%14%

14% 13%

Major

Moderate

Limited13%

None

Not sure



Particularly in Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the lack of broader societal debates about LGBT (and concomitant legal protections) push people deeper into the closet. Although only 12% of North American executives have no identified LGBT connection, this figure increases almost four-fold in the Middle East and Africa—a region of cultures and legal systems still largely hostile toward the LGBT community. The proportion of executives with no identified LGBT connection in Asia, although lower, is still greater than one-third.

Unsurprisingly, visibility is most concentrated in the western nations where LGBT rights have already started to blossom. North American and European executives are, respectively, 88% and 54% more likely than their Middle Eastern and

African counterparts to have LGBT colleagues, and 59% and 30% more likely than their Asian peers. Latin American companies generally lack LGBT advocates: only one in six has them, compared with a far higher share in North America and Europe.

In the world’s most populous nation, lack of awareness surrounding LGBT people is pervasive and deep-seated, according to Ma Baoli, creator of Blued, China’s largest gay social networking app. “Executives I meet will be in disbelief that their companies have any LGBT employees”, he says. A former police officer who remained deep in the closet throughout his career in law enforcement, Mr Ma says that simply knowing gay people dispels stereotypes. “[These executives] suddenly become much friendlier.”

Queer geographies2

When it comes to LGBT awareness, the Chinese business world sits in the ultimate grey area: globalising fast and broadly secular, yet still grappling with cultural values emphasising conformity and harmony, which SOGI diversity calls into question. “Many Chinese firms came out quickly to support LGBT after the US legalised gay marriage”, says Mr Ma. Yet as

quickly as they put up their rainbow flags, they took them down again: “Chinese companies are very cautious in this regard”.

Censorship of discussion around a variety of social issues often affects the LGBT realm; translating the western formulation of diversity into a Chinese context can also be a challenge.

Case study: Queer in the red: SOGI workplace diversity in China



Fifty-eight percent of respondents in a recent survey said that they consider diversity and inclusion to be a western concept2. However, another survey shows support for workplace cultures that welcome all employees, regardless of sexual orientation3. Similar to The EIU survey, this suggests little hardened aversion toward LGBT people. Yet according to Mr Ma, the lack of institutional support for LGBT workers, particularly in local companies versus large multinationals, hampers their visibility significantly: “nobody’s telling them that it’s not a big deal to be gay, so nobody comes out”.

Different corporate environments show vastly different levels of acceptance, varying significantly between large firms in big cities, small-town government offices—still huge employers in China—and traditional institutions like the military, according to Mr Ma. “You may have young people who come out to a small

subset of their colleagues”, he says. “But in conservative places, being gay can still hamper your career prospects.”

Mr Ma believes that the main avenues to workplace acceptance lie in greater social education around SOGI issues, particularly in allowing workers to speak more to each other. “We’re trying to encourage bosses to let employees organise working groups about LGBT issues, including with their non-LGBT colleagues. This kind of communication is very helpful.”

2 Guerin, Sophie and Kate Vernon, Examining Diversity & Inclusion from an Asian Perspective. Hong Kong: Community Business, 2015, p.14

3 2nd Annual China LGBT Social Climate Survey. Shanghai: WorkForLGBT, 2015, p.3



Many LGBT employees hide in plain sight, under conditions set, often subconsciously, by their co-workers and bosses. Every company has different benchmarks for acceptance of their employees’ lifestyles, just as every LGBT worker determines his or her own threshold for coming out of the closet. Our survey captures this nuance: one in two respondents named “corporate culture/values” as the most important factor in LGBT employees’ workplace experience, ranking it above all others.

This answer may frustrate: corporate culture is a vague term, subject to as many interpretations as there are companies. Almost as consequential, however, and drawing almost as many respondents as corporate culture, are anti-discrimination policies. Encoded into company byelaws, these statements greet new employees when they begin work, confront shareholders in annual reports, inform dealings with customers and clients, and set the overall tone of workplace life.

Numerous executives interviewed for this paper affirmed the central role of such policies. When Trevor Burgess took over C1 Bank, a small lending facility in the US state of Florida, his firm’s diversity policy was “a direct photocopy out of the Civil Rights Act”—a landmark 1964 law outlawing discrimination based on race, colour, religion,

Achieving visibility3sex or national origin, but which did not include SOGI. “My first official act was to update the non-discrimination policy and bring it into this century”, says Mr Burgess, the first openly gay head of a US-listed bank.

In a similar vein, Mr Bennett of SPO says his company lacked a clear diversity policy until this year, which hampered the roll-out of visibility-boosting projects within the firm and its ability to win business. “[A diversity policy] is not just words”, he says. “If there is no formal company policy, then it may be seen as Simon, the gay manager, pushing his personal agenda around the company. That corporate support is essential.”

Ideally, that back-up extends to the very top of the ladder. Sixty-three percent of respondents cite management (C-suite and senior managers) as those who can most influence LGBT workplace advancement. As one of our survey respondents wrote, “everyone has a role to play, but senior managers set the tone”.

Examples like Tim Cook, the chief executive officer (CEO), of Apple, a US technology company, who disclosed his LGBT identity publicly in 2014, embody this influence. Almost two in three respondents agreed that expectations on LGBT diversity and inclusion in the workplace need to



be driven by the C-suite to create change. CEOs that spearhead or throw their support behind their companies’ diversity policies can strengthen them significantly. These policies can also help to mitigate the risk involved with coming out in

the workplace, which our survey respondents recognise, ranking career-advancement opportunities above all other ways that discrimination has an impact on the personal lives of LGBT people.



Rainbow of benefits

When diversity based on sexual orientation and gender identityis at its best in the workplace, which of the following businessaspects do you believe could be most positively impacted?(% respondents)


Talent management

Employee satisfaction

Collaboration in the workplace

Corporate reputation

Innovation

Productivity

Customer experiences/client service

Globalisation of business values

Financial performance

Opportunity for partnerships

Other

None of these

Don’t know

1%

5%

8%

23%

26%

33%

33%

41%

46%

55%

54%

17%

16%

Does the business world believe that there is financial value in LGBT diversity, and is it worthy investing in its promotion? Perhaps as a consequence of the substantial strides made by LGBT people in some places, executives in regions with relatively high levels of advancement show less willingness to put more money into raising the visibility of LGBT people in the workplace. In relatively tolerant North America and Europe, this equates to fewer than one in three, compared with 44% in progress-starved Middle East and Africa. Categorically across regions, executives are more wary about investment into SOGI diversity-related initiatives than similar programmes for women, disabled people, and racial and ethnic minorities.

The overall reticence toward ploughing money into LGBT diversity also dovetails with another survey finding: few executives believe that LGBT workplace inclusion can boost the bottom line. Among various potential factors—including employee satisfaction, productivity and innovation—financial performance ranks second-to-last as a collateral benefit of LGBT inclusion. As a potential revenue generator, LGBT diversity also lags behind diversity in a general sense, as one in four respondents believes that the latter can have a positive impact on financial performance, versus only one in six for LGBT diversity. A regional analysis of this finding singles out Latin American executives as particularly unconvinced by the ability of LGBT inclusion to drive profits: just 8% believe that it can, the lowest proportion among all regions.

Returning to the idea of visibility, the presence of LGBT advocates in a company doubles the

The elusive diversity dollar4



respondent’s likelihood of selecting financial performance as a main benefit of LGBT diversity—one in four executives in companies with visible advocates chose it, versus only about one in eight in firms without advocates. One in four people who believe that their companies have made substantial progress on LGBT diversity and inclusion in recent years also perceive this link, compared with only 15% among those who view limited progress. Marie Moynihan, head of diversity at Dell, a computer maker, highlights the challenge of capturing the impact of LGBT progress on the bottom line, when many LGBT employees are not out. “This is one of the big issues you’ll find globally around LGBT, the whole issue of identifying—because you have to identify to measure.”

When progress is measurable, however, does it cause companies to count the dollars behind diversity? Recent research suggests that it does: 92% of companies surveyed by Brad Sears and Christy Mallory at the University of California, Los

Angeles, cited the boost to their bottom line from overall workplace diversity in announcing their SOGI non-discrimination policies4. This implies that these businesses considered the future monetary gains from as-yet-unrealised LGBT progress in enacting the very policies meant to raise awareness, based on the pay-off that they’ve already enjoyed via other diversity campaigns.

Some of these profits may arise from inclusive firms’ heightened ability to reach a large consumer base, estimated to command trillions of dollars in spending power. Indeed, a growing number of companies market specifically toward LGBT people. One of these is a professional-services firm, ADP, which actively targets the 6% of US small businesses that it says are LGBT-owned. “Leveraging LGBT and other forms of diversity can open up new opportunities”, Jan Siegmund, ADP’s chief financial officer (CFO), wrote in an emailed interview.

The Hollywood film The Wolf of Wall Street depicts US banks of yesteryear as hotbeds of misogyny and macho, fraternity-house rituals—hardly a welcoming place for LGBT people. Whether or not this reflects reality, the banking industry seems today to present a much more inclusive face, according to our survey. For example, those who work in financial services (not to be confused with those working in finance roles across various industries) said that their companies had prominent LGBT advocates by a far higher margin than those in education, energy and manufacturing.

C1 Bank’s CEO, Trevor Burgess, credits these strides to the tight affiliation between banks and consumers. Particularly in places like the US, banks’ workplace cultures have moved in lockstep with the broader societal push for LGBT rights. “These are some of the largest consumer-facing companies in the world”, Mr Burgess says. “They’re fighting every day on main street for deposits. They need to be doing the right thing if they want to attract those dollars.”

Non-retail banks have also become wise to the monetary considerations behind inclusion, Mr Burgess says: “I think that’s because they have a lot of gay clients. If they’re going to keep those clients, they’re going to need to make it very clear where they stand on those issues.” Many western banks visibly support LGBT inclusion and regularly sponsor pride parades and other events, and famous financiers like Lloyd Blankfein, head of Goldman Sachs, support same-sex marriage publicly and steer the entire sector toward responsible practices.

There are still numerous areas for improvement. Mr Burgess for one would like to see more out LGBT top managers. “The numbers are tiny and certainly not representative of the talent in the gay and lesbian community”, he says. He has reason for hope, however: “I’m optimistic that right behind me there’s a whole generation of people who have been authentic their entire lives, who will get into the C-suite”.

Case study: Banking on inclusion

4 Sears, Brad and Christy Mallory. “How LGBT-Related Workplace Policies Can Have a Positive Impact on the Corporate Bottom Line”, in Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace: A Practical Guide, Arlington, VA: Bloomberg BNA, 2014, p.41-3



Corporations cut across society like few other institutions. Amalgams of the people and values of their time, they drive cultural change as much as they respond to it. Images of hyper-caffeinated Silicon Valley start-ups contrast with those of sclerotic old-world conglomerates and back-alley family-owned shops; all have a role to play in influencing equality and diversity.

LGBT equality is no exception: half of the executives surveyed say that business has a fundamental imperative to drive change around LGBT diversity and inclusion. This finding varies remarkably among demographic groups. Workers aged 39 or younger were significantly more likely than those aged 60 or above to approve this statement—moving up age brackets, the older the respondent, the less likely he or she was to agree with it. Women were far more likely than men to believe in this imperative; those who work with LGBT people were 65% more likely to agree than those with no identified LGBT connection.

None of these findings should surprise, but the extent to which the above groups’ views vary from the opposing ones, illustrates the avenues through which social change flows into the workplace. This could reflect the fact that young people and women are more likely to back LGBT rights in a general sense, but also

Business, out in the world5perhaps that their often relatively low standing in the corporate environment shields them from worries over the damage activism may do to a company’s reputation. Indeed, compared with lowly managers, members of the C-suite were less likely to back the fundamental imperative of the business world to drive change around LGBT progress strongly: 24% for the former group, versus 17% for the latter.

Women and youth also have high expectations of their leadership: although two in three respondents overall believe to some extent

Clamouring for change?

Share of respondents who believe thebusiness world has a fundamentalimperative to drive change around LGBTdiversity and inclusion, by age(% respondents)


<39 years

40-49 years

50-59 years

60+ years 42%

50%

59%

52%



that vocal CEOs can encourage LGBT diversity and inclusion discourse on a global scale, the proportion of under-39s who agree is higher than the corresponding share of over-60s. Women are more likely to agree strongly than men.

It remains to be seen whether these trends will hold as millennials climb the ranks and women potentially become bosses in larger numbers. Will their ideals change in the face of the myriad pressures of the C-suite? Dan Fitz, who oversees the activities of the board of directors at a British telecommunications firm, BT Group, says that the shifting make-up of the top ranks could have the opposite effect, as advocate employees become advocate directors. “It’s an opportunity to drive home your company culture”, he says.

Diversity drives

Proportion of executives who would liketheir companies to invest more in boostingprogress for:(% respondents)


Disabledpeople

Racial/ethnicminorities

Women

LGBT people 33%

48%

57%

50%



Interestingly, executives appear willing to stare down the law when it comes to LGBT rights: more than one in two claims to want to work for a company that is an advocate of LGBT rights, while two out of three agree that companies need to do more to protect LGBT employees in countries that have anti-LGBT legislation in place. However, executives living in restrictive environments gravitate toward a more cautious viewpoint. Only little more than half of Middle East and Africa-based executives agreed with the question about protection, while over seven in ten North American and European workers did.

That the challenge in normalising LGBT identities in the workplace varies drastically by region is well-known—even the most powerful multinationals struggle with it. This struggle pops up in two seemingly contradictory survey findings. By virtually equal proportions, respondents overwhelmingly agree that global companies need both to mandate compliance with their diversity and inclusion policies across the nations in which they operate, as well as consider local beliefs and cultures when

formulating workplace diversity and inclusion policies. This applies regardless of whether the respondent works at a huge multinational, a regional player or a domestic minnow. Strangely, respondents in the Middle East and Africa, where one would expect local customs to trump global rules, were the most likely of all to back strong crossborder compliance with diversity codes.

This struggle also takes place against a backdrop of rapidly changing and culturally sensitive notions of “diversity” as a whole. Diversity means something completely different to an executive sitting in Asia than it does to one in North America, for example. Highlighting the ways in which LGBT diversity differs from that of other minority groups, as well as the deep regional ruptures involved, six in ten respondents believe that LGBT inclusion requires a more significant cultural shift than any other area of diversity. This proportion increases to about two in three in Latin America and the Middle East and Africa, and to almost seven in ten in Asia. In liberal North America and Europe, however, it is just over half.

Legal pink areas: Business and anti-LGBT laws6



“Opposing discrimination isn’t simply opposing LGBT discrimination, but opposing hatred towards anyone different than yourself”, says Mr Ma, the Blued founder. Indeed, LGBT progress and inclusion cannot be addressed in a vacuum. It must enter the board room alongside discussions about women, racial and ethnic groups, disabled people, and other minorities. In much of the world, even this dialogue is at an early stage or has yet to begin.

The specific debate around SOGI requires an extra push, however, as LGBT individuals often hide their minority status in plain sight. This discussion must align with societal norms, but it can also shape them. Vocal CEOs are particularly powerful in this regard. Understanding how SOGI

Conclusion: Expanding the

debate

diversity can drive financial gain is also key to creating inclusive workplace cultures, numerous executives believe.

“Trusting, entrepreneurial, satisfied, happy, healthy, and productive are all positive and profit-yielding qualities that employers seek in their employees. For gay and transgender employees, it is easy to understand why being out on the job would increase these positive qualities”, according to the Center for American Progress5. However businesses perform in the 21st century, their LGBT employees will be instrumental to their success. They can reach their potential only in supportive, inclusive environments free of discrimination.

5 Burns, Crosby. The Costly Business of Discrimination: The Economic Costs of Discrimination and the Financial Benefits of Gay and Transgender Equality in the Workplace. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2012, p.33-34

While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this information, The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this report or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in this report.

LONDON20 Cabot SquareLondonE14 4QWUnited KingdomTel: (44.20) 7576 8000Fax: (44.20) 7576 8500E-mail: [email protected]

NEW YORK750 Third Avenue5th FloorNew York, NY 10017United StatesTel: (1.212) 554 0600Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2E-mail: [email protected]

HONG KONG1301 Cityplaza Four12 Taikoo Wan RoadTaikoo ShingHong KongTel: (852) 2585 3888Fax: (852) 2802 7638E-mail: [email protected]

GENEVARue de l’Athénée 321206 GenevaSwitzerlandTel: (41) 22 566 2470Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47E-mail: [email protected]

pride and prejudice · pride and prejudice: attitudes and opinions toward lgbt inclusion in the...

Documents