Let’s be real about LGBTQ+ workplace accountability, the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index has never been a perfect measure of LGBTQ+ inclusion. No external benchmark can fully capture manager behavior, psychological safety, career advancement, employee trust or whether LGBTQ+ employees feel safe being known at work. A score does not tell you whether someone is avoiding stretch assignments because they fear exposure. It does not tell you whether a transgender employee trusts HR. It does not tell you whether a bisexual employee feels invisible in both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ spaces.
But external accountability matters. That is why the recent shift around the Corporate Equality Index is significant. HR Brew reported that HRC’s 2026 State of the Workplace report showed a 65% decrease in Fortune 500 participation in the CEI, even as 108 Fortune 500 companies still achieved a score of 100. The report also cautioned that declining participation does not necessarily mean companies have eliminated LGBTQ+-inclusive policies; it may reflect a shift away from public transparency in the current environment.
That distinction is important. A company can stop participating in an external survey and still maintain inclusive benefits. A company can change public reporting and still support LGBTQ+ employees. A company can decide that external benchmarking creates political, legal or reputational exposure.
But the accountability question remains. If companies step away from public measurement, what replaces it?
In 2025, the HRC Foundation graded 1,449 companies, with 765 receiving a perfect score, according to AP reporting. That same reporting noted that some companies that said they would stop participating were still rated based on available information, and that McDonald’s received a 100 while Walmart and Lowe’s received 90.
That is the complexity of this moment. Some companies are changing their posture around public participation while maintaining some or many of the underlying policies. Others may be using the current environment to reduce transparency, funding, programming or leadership accountability. For employees, the difference matters, but only if the company explains it.
The Corporate Equality Index helped normalize a baseline for LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion: nondiscrimination policies, partner and spousal benefits, transgender-inclusive health coverage, gender transition guidelines, ERGs, supplier diversity and community engagement. It also gave employees, candidates, investors and advocates a public signal to evaluate. If that public signal fades, companies need a stronger internal one.
However, external benchmarking is not old-school DEI optics; it is how companies avoid losing sight of fairness, trust, transparency and outcomes. Further, that does not mean companies should stop participating in surveys, benchmarks or external measurement. It means the measurement itself has to evolve. The next generation of workplace accountability should not simply ask whether a company has programs on paper. It should ask whether those practices are producing fairness, transparency, trust and outcomes that benefit everyone.
That is where benchmarking still matters. Companies that measure only internally may miss the shift until it shows up as disengagement, stalled advancement, ERG fatigue or regrettable attrition. External surveys can help leaders see whether their practices are keeping pace with peer organizations, where their systems are producing uneven outcomes and whether their stated commitments are translating into measurable progress. Fair360’s benchmarking approach, for example, is designed to help organizations measure progress across key inclusion initiatives and compare outcomes such as voluntary turnover, promotion velocity and initiative implementation against peer-company data. Participating organizations receive private benchmarking insight into strengths, gaps and how talent systems influence workforce outcomes over time.
In this environment, the question is not whether companies should be measured. The question is whether they are using measurement to chase recognition — or to understand what is actually happening to their people.
Five Core Metrics to Replace Public Benchmarks
A mature LGBTQ+ accountability model should include more than a Pride calendar or a public score. It should examine whether LGBTQ+ employees are engaged, retained and promoted. It should look at ERG/BRG health, benefits utilization, self-ID participation, employee relations trends, manager readiness, psychological safety, internal mobility, mentorship and sponsorship access, and feedback from LGBTQ+ employees across race, gender identity, generation, geography and level.
It should also ask whether the company is hearing from the people most likely to go quiet: transgender and nonbinary employees, bisexual employees, early-career employees, employees in restrictive jurisdictions and employees whose managers are not equipped to create trust.
The CEI may remain relevant. It may also become more contested. But accountability cannot disappear with it. When companies stop being measured publicly, employees will look for other proof. Brainstorm with your broader population to gain additional insight. Here are a few questions below to consider.
Questions for discussion:
- If a company no longer participates in external LGBTQ+ benchmarks, what should replace that accountability?
- What internal data would actually show whether LGBTQ+ inclusion is working?
- Do employees trust quiet internal commitments when public transparency declines?
