Is It Genuine Commitment or Just Marketing?
Thai companies frequently talk about "respecting diversity," but concrete actions supporting LGBTQ+ employees are much harder to find.
Thailand is often considered one of the most LGBTQ+-welcoming countries in Asia. However, fresh findings from Mahidol University’s College of Management, led by Associate Professor Nattavud Pimpa, indicate that social tolerance doesn’t always translate into corporate HR practices. By reviewing the official filings of ten leading publicly-listed Thai firms, Dr. Pimpa discovered a consistent trend: polished pledges to diversity, yet a noticeable shortage of structures to convert those pledges into real workplace support. We sat down with him to discuss rainbow washing, corporate human rights obligations, and the next steps for Thai businesses.
Interviewer: Your study presents a fascinating scenario—companies fly the rainbow flag, but the infrastructure behind it is often lacking. Is that an accurate assessment?
Dr. Pimpa: Yes. I analyzed the ONE Reports of ten significant Thai listed corporations spanning banking, energy, telecoms, retail, agriculture, construction, and other fields. The majority feature well-crafted statements about valuing diversity. Yet, when you dig deeper to see if there is an actual policy, a monitoring system, a mechanism for accountability, or a designated person in charge of execution, the evidence becomes far scarcer.
The problem isn’t whether firms say the correct things—many do. The real question is whether those promises have been embedded into the organization.
Interviewer: You employed the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework. How did these companies measure up?
Dr. Pimpa: Their strongest performance was in the “Protect” area, especially regarding basic non-discrimination pledges. Six out of the ten firms performed quite well there. However, under “Respect,” which involves human rights due diligence and recognizing potential adverse effects, only three companies explicitly identified LGBTQ+ individuals as a potentially at-risk group.
“Remedy” was also lacking. Three businesses had relevant complaint channels, but none showed LGBTQ+-specific sensitivity through specialized training, oversight, or complaint tracking.
So I wouldn’t say companies are entirely failing. Instead, they are quite strong at making broad promises but much weaker at turning those into operational reality.
Interviewer: Were there any standout positive examples?
Dr. Pimpa: Definitely. One company genuinely impressed me because it turned inclusion into concrete employee perks. These included six days of marriage leave, a wedding allowance, bereavement leave, and financial aid after a partner’s death, with these benefits clearly extended to same-sex couples who could prove a committed relationship.
That is a world apart from merely declaring, “We value diversity.” Employees can actually utilize those benefits. This company has also been acknowledged by UNDP Thailand as one of the nation’s “Champions of Equality.” It proves that meaningful inclusion is possible within the Thai context.
Interviewer: You talk about “rainbow washing.” What does that look like in practice?
Dr. Pimpa: Rainbow washing happens when a business becomes very visible in backing LGBTQ+ communities during Pride Month—maybe by changing its logo, sponsoring Pride events, or using rainbow imagery—but does little to alter its internal operations for the rest of the year.
Pride then turns into a marketing campaign rather than a lasting organizational dedication. Employees can spot that disconnect. Studies suggest that when staff view corporate LGBTQ+ support as symbolic instead of real, it can lead to cynicism and lower engagement.
So rainbow washing isn’t just an ethical issue. It can also become a management and reputation problem.
Interviewer: What concrete steps should companies take?
Dr. Pimpa: I suggest five action areas. First, carry out SOGIESC-sensitive human rights due diligence. Businesses need to pinpoint actual risk points—for example, restrooms, dress codes, employee documentation, and systems that affect transgender and gender-diverse staff.
Second, deliberately cultivate an inclusive culture through training, employee resource groups, and mentoring. Third, perform structured human rights impact assessments instead of relying on broad statements.
Fourth, strengthen prevention by assigning diversity responsibilities, creating explicit anti-bullying procedures, and conducting workplace climate surveys. Finally, companies should consider their wider public role—supporting anti-discrimination initiatives, scholarships, or partnerships with civil society.
Inclusion needs to shift from words to systems.
Interviewer: Thailand legalized same-sex marriage in 2025. Doesn’t that solve a lot of these issues?
Dr. Pimpa: Marriage equality is a truly historic milestone, but national legal change doesn’t automatically overhaul company policies or HR systems.
Thailand also has the Gender Equality Act and Labour Protection Act, but putting them into practice and enforcing them remain major hurdles. Similarly, Thailand’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights addresses diversity and fairness, but LGBTQ+-specific safeguards could be more detailed.
So Thailand presents an interesting paradox: socially and legally, it can seem very progressive, while workplace practices remain inconsistent across different organizations and sectors.
If a company claims to do human rights due diligence, then LGBTQ+ rights should simply be a normal part of that process.
Interviewer: How does this research connect with teaching at CMMU?
Dr. Pimpa: This is especially meaningful to me. At CMMU, gender diversity and human rights shouldn’t be handled as just an occasional guest lecture or an isolated ethics topic. They can be woven into governance, sustainability, HR, and leadership education. Students need both the moral reasoning and the practical skills. It isn’t enough for future managers to know the language of inclusion. They must understand how to write an inclusive policy, design a SOGIESC-sensitive grievance mechanism, track implementation, and justify the investment to senior leadership.
Interviewer: Last question—if a Thai HR director is reading this interview right now feeling a bit challenged, what’s their homework assignment?
Dr. Pimpa: (laughs) Fair enough—Here’s the homework: go pull your own company’s Report tonight. Search it for the words "LGBTQ" or "sexual orientation." If you find one sentence inside a paragraph about "diversity," ask yourself honestly—is there a real person, a real budget, a real system behind that sentence, or is it just decoration? If the honest answer is decoration—that’s not
His full paper can be accessed at: https://www.hos.pub/articles/hsustain5010007
Chantrapa Kuhaprema
CMMU
email us here
LGBTQ+ in Thai Workplaces
