Global Perspectives
Progress, rollback, and the growing duty of care for global employers
Global Perspectives: What Changed Since Our Last Update
Progress, rollback, and the growing duty of care for global employers
This quarter’s LGBTQ+ developments tell a complicated story: progress is still happening, but it is no longer safe for organisations to assume that rights, recognition, or safety are moving in one direction.
That is the tension leaders need to sit with.
In the same period, we have seen hate crime protections strengthened in the UK, courts across Europe affirm family and gender recognition rights, and global institutions continue to recognise LGBTQ+ people within wider human rights frameworks.
At the same time, we have seen new attempts to restrict trans lives, Pride visibility, legal gender recognition, DEI programmes, conversion practices protections, and LGBTQ+ expression in public life.
For organisations, this is not simply a matter of values statements or Pride Month messaging. It is a matter of duty of care, policy readiness, employee trust, travel risk, global mobility, leadership behaviour, and the ability to respond when the external environment changes faster than internal guidance.
Global LGBTQ+ inclusion is no longer a once-a-year conversation. It is becoming a live operating context.
This update is written for leaders, employers, employee networks, HR teams, DEI practitioners, risk teams, and anyone responsible for creating workplaces where people can belong, contribute, travel, lead, and be safe.
The quarter in one sentence
LGBTQ+ protections advanced in some jurisdictions, stalled in others, and were actively challenged elsewhere, making it increasingly important for organisations to reassess employee safety, policy alignment, global mobility, and leadership responsibility on a regular basis.
What changed in the UK
The UK picture remains complex.
There has been meaningful progress in one area. Anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime has been strengthened in law, with LGBTQ+ hate crimes elevated to aggravated offences. That matters. It sends a clearer signal that hostility towards LGBTQ+ people is not a minor issue, nor merely a matter of personal disagreement. It is a safety issue, a dignity issue, and a public confidence issue.
For employers, this has practical relevance. Workplace inclusion does not sit apart from the wider safety environment. If LGBTQ+ people are experiencing higher levels of hostility in public life, that reality does not stop at the office door. It affects confidence, disclosure, well-being, travel, commuting, customer-facing roles, and whether people believe their employer understands the world they are navigating.
At the same time, the UK Government has still not published the long-promised draft Bill to ban conversion practices. The Government continues to say it is committed to a full, trans-inclusive ban, but the missed timeline matters. Delay itself becomes a signal. It leaves survivors, LGBTQ+ communities, faith communities, service providers, safeguarding professionals, and employers without the clarity many have been waiting for.
For organisations, this is not only a legal watchpoint. It raises practical questions about pastoral care, employee assistance provision, safeguarding, internal networks, well-being support, and how to respond when employees raise concerns about coercive or harmful practices.
The EHRC also submitted an updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations following the UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act. Employer guidance is expected later, which means many organisations are currently operating in a period of uncertainty. That uncertainty should not be used as a reason for inaction. Trans employees remain protected from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. Organisations still need to manage policies, facilities, communication, and conflict with care.
There is a way forward, but many employers are getting it wrong because they are treating the issue as a debate rather than a leadership, behaviour, risk, and dignity challenge.
The UK lesson this quarter is clear: legal change, legal uncertainty, and employee safety are now moving at the same time.
What changed in the United States
In the United States, LGBTQ+ issues continue to be pulled into wider political, regulatory, and funding debates.
The proposed 2027 federal budget includes measures targeting LGBTQ-specific programming and DEI-related funding. The detail will matter, but the direction is already significant. For organisations operating in or with the United States, the concern is not simply whether one programme survives or disappears. It is the broader signal that LGBTQ+ inclusion, DEI infrastructure, and identity-specific support remain politically vulnerable.
Florida also introduced further restrictions on DEI in local government, including limits on local-government DEI offices or programmes and requirements connected to public funding. This is highly relevant for public-sector bodies, suppliers, grant recipients, universities, local-government partners, and organisations working across jurisdictions where DEI language is being restricted.
The practical challenge for employers is becoming sharper: how do you maintain lawful, effective, dignity-based inclusion when the language, funding, or structure of DEI is being politically contested?
For some organisations, the answer may be to change language. For others, it may be to move work into leadership development, risk, culture, wellbeing, compliance, or employee experience. But changing language must not become an excuse for abandoning the people the work was meant to protect.
The FCC’s reported interest in LGBTQ+ content ratings is another example of regulatory pressure moving into representation, media, education, and public culture. This may not affect every employer directly, but it matters for organisations in media, entertainment, advertising, education, brand communications, and public affairs. It also signals the wider climate in which LGBTQ+ people, particularly trans people, are being discussed.
The United States lesson this quarter is not just that DEI is under pressure. It is that organisations need to understand the difference between performative DEI language and the practical responsibilities that remain, whatever the political climate.
Global developments: progress and rollback at the same time
Across the world, the pattern is uneven.
Some developments point towards legal recognition, protection, and dignity.
In Greece, the courts upheld same-sex marriage and adoption rights, strengthening confidence in the country’s legal framework for LGBTQ+ families. For employers, this matters for spousal benefits, relocation, parental leave, adoption support, and global mobility.
In Europe, trans women were recognised in a European Parliament resolution, and the European Parliament also backed an EU-wide ban on conversion practices. These are not all the same type of legal development, and implementation still matters, but they signal institutional direction. They show that LGBTQ+ dignity, gender recognition, and protection from harmful practices remain part of the European human rights conversation.
The Court of Justice of the European Union also ruled on legal gender recognition in a way that matters for free movement and identity documents. For multinational employers, this is not abstract. Identity documents affect travel, employment records, payroll, visas, housing, family relocation, security checks, and whether an employee can move across borders without being placed in unnecessary risk or humiliation.
Botswana has removed its sodomy law from the books. Egypt has seen a court ruling in favour of access to gender-affirming care. Poland’s top court ordered same-sex marriage recognition in a relevant context. These developments are not identical, but together they remind us that progress is still happening.
At the same time, other developments point in the opposite direction.
Turkey is considering further legal restrictions on LGBTQ+ life, including proposals affecting LGBTQ+ advocacy, same-sex ceremonies, and gender transition processes. India has moved towards re-medicalising gender identification rules. Portugal is considering bills that would roll back parts of its gender identity framework. Nepal has frozen processing for legal gender recognition. Malaysia has increased pressure on gay dating apps. Ghana, Senegal, Belarus, Slovakia, Russia, and Ukraine all appear in this quarter’s watchlist for proposed, continued, or intensified restrictions on LGBTQ+ people, families, visibility, or expression.
Some of these are legal changes. Some are proposed laws. Some are enforcement patterns. Some are political signals. But from an employer perspective, they all matter because they affect the environments employees live, work, travel, and disclose within.
The global lesson this quarter is that rights are not simply advancing or retreating. They are fragmenting.
That fragmentation creates operational risk.
Trans rights remain the central pressure point
One of the clearest patterns this quarter is that trans rights continue to sit at the centre of legal, political, sporting, workplace, and institutional conflict.
This is visible in the UK through the EHRC process and employer uncertainty.
It is visible in India, where legal recognition is being pushed back towards medical gatekeeping.
It is visible in Nepal, where legal gender recognition processing has stalled.
It is visible in Portugal, where proposed bills target gender identity recognition and trans young people.
It is visible in the IOC’s adoption of gene-screening rules for the women’s Olympic category from Los Angeles 2028, affecting trans women and some athletes with differences in sex development.
Sport may look separate from the workplace, but the narratives travel. The language of fairness, safety, biology, women’s rights, privacy, and data is increasingly being used across public policy, media, schools, workplaces, and organisational decision-making.
This does not mean leaders should treat every issue as the same. They are not the same. The rules for Olympic eligibility are not the same as the rules for workplace dignity. But the public narratives influence how employees are treated, how policies are written, how conflict is managed, and whether organisations become reactive rather than principled.
A key watchpoint for leaders is narrative substitution.
“Women’s safety,” “data protection,” “shareholder value,” “parental rights,” “free speech,” and “fairness” can all be legitimate areas of concern. They can also be used as proxies for rolling back LGBTQ+ protections.
The leadership task is to tell the difference.
That requires more than legal compliance. It requires judgement, care, and the ability to hold complexity without allowing harm.
What this means for employers
For employers, the lesson from this quarter is practical.
Global inclusion cannot be managed through a Pride calendar alone.
It needs to be connected to governance, risk, mobility, HR policy, employee listening, leadership development, procurement, benefits, travel, and communications.
Here are the questions organisations should be asking now.
1. Where do we operate, send people, hire people, or hold events?
If an organisation has employees, contractors, clients, suppliers, offices, conferences, or assignments in countries where LGBTQ+ rights are changing, that creates duty-of-care questions.
This is not only about whether a country is “safe” or “unsafe.” It is about what support is in place, what guidance is current, what managers understand, what emergency processes exist, and whether employees can raise concerns without fear of being seen as difficult.
2. Do our policies still work across borders?
Family recognition, legal gender recognition, healthcare access, adoption rights, spousal benefits, parental leave, travel documentation, and emergency contact policies may all operate differently across jurisdictions.
A policy that looks inclusive in one country may fail an employee in another.
3. Are we prepared for employees to be affected by public events?
Legal and political developments do not only affect employees in the country where they happen. LGBTQ+ employees with family, heritage, travel, faith, community ties, or personal history connected to those places may be affected too.
Managers do not need to become legal experts. But they do need to understand that the external environment can create internal impact.
4. Are our employee networks supported, or merely celebrated?
Employee networks often become the first place people turn when the external climate becomes hostile. That means networks need more than visibility. They need executive sponsorship, psychological safety, resourcing, safeguarding awareness, and clarity on what they are and are not expected to carry.
A network should not be left to absorb organisational uncertainty alone.
5. Are we mistaking silence for neutrality?
Some organisations are becoming publicly quieter on inclusion while privately maintaining commitments. In some contexts, quiet support may be a deliberate risk decision. In others, silence may be experienced as withdrawal.
Leaders need to understand the difference.
The question is not always “should we make a public statement?”
Sometimes the better questions are:
What do our employees need to know?
What risks have changed?
What guidance needs updating?
Who might be carrying this quietly?
Where are we relying on outdated assumptions?
What would dignity require from us now?
What to watch next
Several items deserve continued attention.
Japan’s Supreme Court Grand Bench is expected to consider the constitutionality of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The decision could have implications for family recognition, relocation, benefits, and Japan’s position among G7 countries.
The EU’s movement towards a ban on conversion practices will need Commission and legal follow-through before it becomes an implemented framework. The direction is significant, but organisations should watch the next steps.
The UK conversion practices ban remains delayed. The Government says it remains committed to a full, trans-inclusive ban, but the absence of a draft Bill leaves uncertainty.
The EHRC’s updated Code and future employer guidance will continue to shape how organisations manage sex, gender reassignment, services, facilities, policies, and workplace conflict.
Turkey, India, Portugal, Nepal, Ghana, Senegal, Belarus, Malaysia, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine all require monitoring for legal or political developments affecting LGBTQ+ safety, recognition, advocacy, family life, or public visibility.
The United States remains a major watchpoint for DEI restrictions, LGBTQ+ funding, content regulation, and the way federal, state, and local action diverge.
Global freedom indicators also matter. Freedom House has reported continued democratic backsliding globally, with more countries declining than improving. LGBTQ+ rights rarely move in isolation from wider democratic, civic, and human rights conditions.
Notable dates for workplace planning
The next few months include several dates that may matter for internal communications, employee networks, leadership messaging, or workplace learning.
May
May 4 to 10: Trans+ History Week, honouring trans and non-binary trailblazers through history.
May 13: National Day for Staff Networks in the UK, recognising the value of employee-led inclusion networks.
May 17: International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, often known as IDAHOBIT.
May 24: Pansexual and Panromantic Visibility Day.
June
June is LGBTQ+ Pride Month in many countries.
June 28 marks the Stonewall Uprising anniversary, a moment often recognised as central to the modern Pride movement and LGBTQ+ resistance.
July
July is Disability Pride Month.
July 14 is International Non-Binary People’s Day.
August
August 9 is International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, an opportunity to honour Two-Spirit and Indigenous LGBTQ+ voices.
August 19 is World Humanitarian Day, a moment to reflect on inclusion, safety, displacement, and dignity in global humanitarian contexts.
August 26 is Women’s Equality Day, marking women’s right to vote in the United States and the continuing call for equality.
Dates are not strategy. But they can create useful moments for reflection, learning, and action when they are connected to real organisational responsibility.
What to protect
The question for leaders is not whether the world is becoming more inclusive or less inclusive.
The harder truth is that both are happening at once.
That means organisations need to move beyond simple narratives of progress.
Progress needs protecting.
Policy needs reviewing.
Employees need listening to.
Networks need supporting.
Travel and mobility need reassessing.
Leaders need to understand that dignity does not become optional when the external climate becomes more contested.
This is where Acceptance Without Understanding™ becomes more than a phrase.
We do not need every leader, colleague, customer, stakeholder, or policymaker to fully understand every identity, history, or lived experience before they behave with dignity and respect.
Understanding is welcome.
Respect is required.
And in a world where rights, recognition, and safety can change quarter by quarter, that requirement becomes part of organisational responsibility.
If anything in this update resonates with a challenge you are facing, I am happy to offer a complimentary 30-minute conversation.
You can connect with me on LinkedIn, visit CynthiaFortlage.com, or learn more about my organisational work through The FORTLAGE Collective (https://www.fortlagecollective.com).
About Cynthia Fortlage
Cynthia Fortlage is a Global LGBTQ+ Inclusion Advisor, Founder & CEO of The FORTLAGE Collective, and author and keynote speaker on Acceptance Without Understanding™. Her work helps leaders and organisations translate complexity across identity, dignity, inclusion, risk, and leadership behaviour into practical organisational action.
Source links
Further reading and source material
A short grouped list:
UK
Hate crime legislation; EHRC Code; conversion practices delay.
Europe
EU conversion practices ban; Greece marriage ruling; CJEU gender recognition ruling.
Global
Nepal legal gender recognition; IOC policy; Freedom House report.