Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Scholars in management science and operations management (MS and OM) continue to make significant contributions to the notion of “doing good with good operations.” Impressively, the MS and OM literature has developed several pro-social sub-streams, such as healthcare operations, sustainability, and nonprofit operations; however, to the best of my knowledge, there are only two studies in the top MS and OM journals that mention LGBTQ+-related terms in their abstracts, keywords, or introductions (one appeared in 1989 and the other in 2021). The LGBTQ+ community is an integral part of society, and the field has significant potential to impact the lives of its members economically and socially. MS and OM scholars could pay greater attention to research problems at the interface of operational decision-making and the LGBTQ+ community, which I term “rainbow operations.” This study advances LGBTQ+ diversity, equity, and inclusion within the MS and OM literature by invoking several existing studies and showcasing how similar state-of-the-art techniques and tools can be used to answer interesting, rich, and impactful research questions concerning rainbow operations. I present motivating examples and supporting statistics, discuss related work by MS and OM scholars, and suggest several avenues for future research around the following three themes: LGBTQ+ clients in service delivery settings, LGBTQ+ employees in contemporary workplaces, and LGBTQ+ community in global supply chains. My goal is to inspire MS and OM scholars to think more broadly about our discipline and offer valuable operations-related perspectives on research problems of relevance to the LGBTQ+ community.

Keywords

LGBTQ+diversity equity inclusion rainbow operations

1 Introduction

Management science and operations management (MS and OM) scholars have made significant strides to improve operational decision-making within and across organizations to save lives and the planet. Ample examples support the view that the principle of “doing good with good operations” is a strong driver for these scholars (see Besiou and Van Wassenhove, 2015; Sunar and Swaminathan, 2022). Sodhi and Tang (2014) and Kalkanci et al. (2019) highlight research efforts aimed at improving the lives of those living in emerging economies through enhanced operations and supply chain management. Instead of the traditional focus on only cost-efficient healthcare delivery, Bretthauer and Savin (2018) introduce several recent articles that investigate healthcare delivery by considering individual patients’ wants, needs, and preferences. Besiou et al. (2021) and Corbett et al. (2022) consider how operational decision-making can solve social problems in the short term (say, in the aftermath of disasters) and the long term (say, wealth inequity). Tang (2022) provides examples of how innovative operations (especially those enabled by technologies) can empower women and thereby reduce poverty, eliminate hunger, and increase access to clean water and sanitation, among other benefits. Thus, it is evident that MS and OM scholars have examined operational decision-making by exploring a range of distinct features of emerging economies, supply chains at the bottom of the pyramid, patient-centric healthcare, and gender-diverse units/teams.

Despite these positive advancements, doing good with good operations has a very limited to almost non-existent interface with those who are part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+) community. A search of the online catalog of articles published in the Journal of Operations Management, Management Science (OM department), Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Operations Research, and Production and Operations Management using the acronym LGBTQ+, its constituent terms and variants thereof, yields only two results that mention such terms in their abstract, keywords, or introduction¹: Kaplan (1989) uses mathematical models to examine steps needed to address the AIDS epidemic among gay men, and Mejia and Parker (2021) employ data from a ridesharing platform to show that riders signaling support for the LGBT+ community experience significantly higher cancellation rates.

Through this article, I hope to inspire MS and OM scholars to tackle research problems that are at the interface of operational decision-making and the LGBTQ+ community, which I refer to as “rainbow operations.”² Over the years, several high-impact sub-streams have emerged in the MS and OM discipline, for example, healthcare operations, sustainable operations, agricultural operations, sharing economy operations, emerging markets operations, and nonprofit operations. The time is now to support and propel the emergence of rainbow operations within the MS and OM disciplines. Scholars in other disciplines, including management, information systems, and public policy, are already working on research problems of relevance to the LGBTQ+ community and that could arguably lie within the purview of the OM discipline, for instance, on topics related to demand estimation, innovation, and online labor markets (see Coffman et al., 2017; Gao and Zhang, 2017; Acquisti and Fong, 2020; Burbano, 2021; Conti et al., 2022).

The research challenges and opportunities within rainbow operations merit the immediate attention of MS and OM scholars if we are to maintain our position as a business discipline at the cutting edge of purposeful scholarship. More importantly, rainbow operations could open avenues for integrative research; MS and OM scholars could collaborate with scholars in other disciplines and offer valuable operations-related perspectives on these complex research problems.

Further, rainbow operations represent research opportunities that are both academically challenging and interesting for MS and OM scholars and have practical relevance and application. In an article promoting environmental research within mainstream OM theory and practice, Corbett and Klassen (2006) state: “[environmental issues] are provoking a powerful paradigm shift in OM research as they force scholars…to adopt a broader, more holistic view of the operations being studied.” In an editorial urging the OM community to think more broadly about the discipline, Browning (2020) states: “We must consider operations as complex, multilayered networks of processes connected to people, tools, results, goals, and contexts.”

Consistent with these expansive perspectives and given (i) the increasingly diverse pools of employees and clients in contemporary markets and (ii) the enhanced stakeholder attention to firms’ equity-and-inclusion-related performance, there is a need to evaluate and redesign operations. This is especially the case for operations in which there is a particularly high chance of engagement (or high levels of engagement) with the LGBTQ+ community (say, in certain healthcare, higher education, hospitality, or emerging markets settings). I next provide several statistics to underscore the important space held by the LGBTQ+ community in our society and the economy.

The LGBTQ+ community represents a large portion of the current and future workforce and the client base for firms. In the US, LGBTQ+ individuals comprise nearly 8% of the total adult population and nearly 7% in several European nations, such as Germany, Spain, and the UK (McCarthy, 2016; HRC Foundation, 2021).³ These numbers climb to 20% for the Gen-Z population, who are just entering or soon going to enter the workforce (Doherty, 2022). In terms of economic value, it is reported that the LGBTQ+ community has a purchasing power of $3.8 trillion globally (Wolny, 2019). Mallory and Sears (2020) estimate that, in the five years after the US Supreme Court guaranteed all same-sex couples the right to marry, the same-sex wedding industry in California boosted the state and local economies by about $3.8 billion, generating about $244.1 million in state and local sales tax revenue. In a survey of 130,000 participants from 26 countries, Out Now (2018) finds that the LGBTQ+ travel and tourism market is worth over $211 billion annually.

Despite the above, the LGBTQ+ community remains severely marginalized and its members continue to face discrimination and stigma across the globe, as the following statistics illustrate: LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately higher levels of negative physical and mental health outcomes. For instance, the rates of attempted suicide or suicidal ideation for youth in this community are four times greater than those of heterosexual and cisgender youth (Rhoades et al., 2018). Approximately 30% of LGBTQ+ youth report experiencing homelessness or housing instability at least once in their lifetime (The Trevor Project, 2021). In addition, members of the LGBTQ+ community are about twice as likely to be unemployed and uninsured than their heterosexual counterparts (Charlton et al., 2018). Given this, many LGBTQ+ individuals have a higher likelihood of suffering from depression, anxiety, and traumatic stress, adverse behavioral outcomes that appear across all demographics, including levels of educational attainment and income (Shearer et al., 2016; Kaniuka et al., 2019). Further, Xian et al. (2017) find that LGBTQ+ individuals are particularly vulnerable to sex trafficking due to high rates of family rejection, abandonment, or emotional and physical abuse.

Moreover, recent instances of backlash against firms’ LGBTQ-themed marketing strategies—for example, threats to worker safety at Target stores due to its Pride merchandise (Lee, 2023) and calls to boycott Bud Light beer due to its partnership with a transgender influencer (Stewart, 2023)—reveal the complex relationships among a firm's overall strategy, customer mix in its target market segment, and its operational and supply chain decisions (e.g. inventory management and supplier/buyer selection). Given the potential economic and social impact on the LGBTQ+ community and firms’ decisions and practices, the research challenges and opportunities in this area merit the attention of MS and OM scholars. In what follows, I invoke several existing studies from the MS and OM literature to illustrate how similar state-of-the-art techniques and tools may be used to address research questions related to core features of the LGBTQ+ community.

2 Rainbow Operations: Research Themes

I identify three research themes that offer OM and MS scholars the opportunity to grow the rainbow operations sub-stream in a meaningful manner. The first theme focuses on LGBTQ+ clients within service delivery settings (Section 2.1), the second focuses on LGBTQ+ employees within contemporary workplaces (Section 2.2), and the third focuses on the LGBTQ+ community more broadly within global supply chains (Section 2.3). For each theme, I first present a few motivating examples and related studies to highlight the critical operational challenges and opportunities that may arise. I then emphasize how these or similar challenges and opportunities within rainbow operations relate to ongoing research in the MS and OM field. A discussion of potential directions for future research follows.

2.1 LGBTQ+ Clients Within Service Delivery Settings

Consider the complex and distinct needs of the LGBTQ+ community in a service-delivery setting. Due to societal stigma and discrimination, LGBTQ+ members in many cultures may enter a typical service system with fear, lack of trust, lack of awareness, and fear of prejudice (American Progress, 2018; Ciszek, 2020). Take the healthcare system as an example. A survey found that more than 30% of the members of the LGBTQ+ community lack trust that healthcare providers will give them the proper care without any bias (Lambda Legal, 2010). Another survey found that 21% of transgender individuals reported a healthcare provider used harsh or abusive language when treating them, and approximately 7% of LGBTQ+ community members avoided a visit to a healthcare provider's office due to fear of discrimination (American Progress, 2018). Due to these prevalent biases and (perceived) discrimination, Powell (2018) underscores the need for healthcare organizations and providers to better understand their LGBTQ+ patients.

Within MS and OM literature, scholars have analyzed how service systems should be designed by taking into account clients’ unique needs. For instance, Arora et al. (2022) show how nonprofits serving distressed individuals, who are often unable to articulate their true needs, must invest in providing guidance and advice to their incoming clients, even at the expense of the number of helpful services they offer. Zepeda and Sinha (2016) find that a community's socioeconomic status (measured by educational level attained) determines whether making behavioral healthcare delivery more affordable improves depression outcomes. Taking into account the risk preferences of patients after a mammography exam, Ayvaci et al. (2018) show the need to incorporate proper utility functions when analyzing the shared decision-making of a patient and their doctors in healthcare settings. Further, focusing on the US industry for older adult care (comprising senior centers, assisted living homes, and retirement communities, among others), Kong et al. (2021) outline several opportunities for OM scholars and practitioners to meet the distinct needs of individuals over the age of 65 years to support successful aging.

There are thus opportunities for MS and OM scholars to capture nuances in service delivery to LGBTQ+ clients. For example, it would be interesting to consider the impact of lack of trust and awareness on the design of healthcare service systems. Future research could, for example, build on existing work on the operations of diagnostic systems to understand the optimal diagnostic policies for infections disproportionately impacting the LGBTQ+ community (such as HIV and monkeypox). As another example, given the widespread adoption of telehealth, there is data available for empiricists to investigate whether and what type(s) of interventions could improve the “LGBTQ+-friendliness” of the healthcare service provider in the interest of improved health outcomes for LGBTQ+ patients.

For instance, Zocdoc (https://www.zocdoc.com/) is an online telehealth platform that offers LGBTQ+ patients a database of doctors for rating and comparison. There is also an opportunity for researchers to consider how the unique eldercare or healthcare-related needs of LGBTQ+ seniors (for instance, due to double stigmatization, greater probability of isolation, and less social support; Pereira and Banerjee, 2021) can be met through improved operations, including better infrastructure, well-designed incentive programs, and targeted training programs (GenPride, 2023). On the flip side, MS and OM scholars could investigate and provide empirical evidence on disparities, if any, in operational outcomes (such as waiting times and quality of service) for LGBTQ+ clients when compared with the majority group. In recent years, MS and OM scholars have employed empirical tools to document such differences for racial minorities within the context of healthcare scheduling (Ganju et al., 2020; Samorani et al., 2022) and in the sharing economy (Cui et al., 2020; Mejia and Parker, 2021).

Within rainbow operations, similar empirical examinations could serve as the first steps toward tools that help eliminate outcome disparities based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In this regard, Samorani et al. (2022) develop a race-aware scheduling method that eliminates racial disparity in waiting times while being cost-effective; this is an excellent example of how organizations could use MS and OM tools to achieve equity. Additionally, given the intersectionality between race, gender identity, and sexual orientation, there is a critical need for delivering behavioral healthcare to black members of the LGBTQ+ community (Follins and Lassiter, 2016). Thus, from an operations perspective, it would be valuable to assess the benefits of offering behavioral healthcare as a part of primary healthcare to various minority groups, which can, in turn, help in the design of more efficient and equitable primary and specialty care systems.

2.2 LGBTQ+ Employees Within Contemporary Workplaces

Consider the relationship between firm performance and diversity, equity, and inclusion of LGBTQ+ employees. Research has shown that business policies that support the LGBTQ+ community improve firm performance, firm innovation, and employee commitment (Li and Nagar, 2013; Hossain et al., 2020; Kyaw et al., 2021). Further, Patel and Feng (2021) find that a firm's policy on LGBTQ+ workplace equality positively influences customer satisfaction. Relatedly, Baker and Lucas (2017) find that LGBTQ+ employees experience dignity threats (such as social harm, career harm, and physical harm) in the workplace, and Gerrard et al. (2022) find that feminine-presenting gay men are more likely to be overlooked for leadership roles. Due to these opposing forces of firm performance and LGBTQ+ employee experience, it remains to be examined how firms can tap the full potential of having more LGBTQ+ employees in their contemporary or future workforce (especially given that one in five members of Gen-Z identifies as LGBTQ+).

Within MS and OM literature, scholars are beginning to explore the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion of women employees, disabled employees, and racial minorities at an operational level. For instance, Ma et al. (2021) find that women are more collaborative than men as buying and supply agents. Further, Wowak et al. (2021) find that an increase in women directors on boards speeds up product recalls and increases customer safety. Focusing on disability diversity, Narayanan and Terris (2020) find that the productivity of apparel manufacturing cells can be enhanced by increasing the diversity of workers with disabilities. Using field experiments in an online marketplace, Cui et al. (2020) demonstrate that online reputation systems (e.g. reviews received by guests from Airbnb hosts) can help reduce discrimination by hosts (who are independent agents on online marketplaces) against guests of certain races.

Given this, there is an opportunity for MS and OM scholars to develop and test theoretical foundations that may relate positive attributes of including LGBTQ+ individuals in the workplace and leadership roles with operational performance outcomes. For example, Dentzman et al. (2021) find that queer farmers are more likely to be involved in sustainable agricultural practices as compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and Oreffice and Sansone (2022) find support for LGBTQ+ community members having stronger environmental preferences than their heterosexual counterparts. Future research could explore whether a higher percentage of LGBTQ+ employees in the workforce or adding an LGBTQ+ member to the board leads to improved environmental performance, a particularly interesting metric for MS and OM scholars. As another example, viewing nonprofit fundraising through the lens of the social capital theory (Lee, 2020), it would be a fruitful direction to examine whether adding more LGBTQ+ members in the roles of fundraisers and volunteers leads to an increase in the amount of donations raised per dollar amount spent in fundraising by a nonprofit organization, which is a growing area of interest for MS and OM scholars (Aflaki and Pedraza-Martinez, 2016).

Also, in line with Gerrard et al. (2022), it would be interesting to investigate how stereotypes toward and behavioral cues of LGBTQ+ workforce members could lead to disparity in outcomes of co-production processes involving customers (say, in consulting or hospitality services) and supply chain partners (say, in contract or price negotiations). Further, MS and OM scholars, especially those with expertise in designing behavioral experiments, could conduct experiments that help document and explain how LGBTQ+ members influence operational outcomes—such as levels of creativity/innovation, job satisfaction, and employee commitment—of groups or teams.

2.3 LGBTQ+ Community Within Global Supply Chains

Consider the differences in diversity, equity, and inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community in different nations across the global supply chains. There is a vast difference in social acceptance and legal rights enjoyed by the LGBTQ+ community in different nations; see, for example, the Global Index on Legal Recognition of Homosexual Orientation, which covers 200 countries (Badgett et al., 2019). While the US and several nations in Western Europe have shown progress (albeit slow and problematic at times), many nations in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe leave much to be desired regarding workplace inclusion policies and strategies and their implementation.⁴ The United Nations has called upon multinational firms to use their global presence and economic clout to encourage greater acceptance and equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community in all parts of the world (Bross et al., 2018).

Within MS and OM literature, scholars have examined environmentally and socially responsible operations through the lens of the interconnectedness of nations through global supply chains. For example, Wilhelm and Villena (2021) find that Chinese suppliers actively engaging with relevant stakeholder networks (e.g. industry associations and non-governmental organizations) are more likely to adopt sustainable procurement practices. Focusing on apparel supply chains, Caro et al. (2021) provide evidence of unauthorized subcontracting by foreign suppliers, often leading to non-compliance in working conditions and low operational transparency. Jacobs and Singhal (2017) find that investors did not see the Rana Plaza disaster as adversely impacting the reputation of retailers sourcing from Bangladesh, concluding that market forces alone may not be sufficient to improve working conditions in developing countries. In fact, as Villena (2019) reveals, procurement managers are critical resources in enhancing environmental and safety considerations within supply networks (including tier-one and lower-tier suppliers).

Given this, there is an opportunity for MS and OM scholars to focus on how the progressive supply chain practices and policies of focal firms (in developed nations) positively impact partner firms (in developing nations), with special attention to LGBTQ+-inclusion metrics. Alternatively, research could also be conducted to study how LGBTQ+ discriminatory practices at a supplier (in developing nations) negatively impact the focal firm (in developed nations). Further, similar to the work by Villena (2019), it would be interesting to understand which or what combination of resources plays a critical role in enhancing LGBTQ+ support within supply networks. Also, since proper supplier selection is considered an important aspect of sustainable operations, future research could consider which supplier workplace policies (say, from among same-sex partner healthcare benefits, gender-reaffirming surgery expense support, and parental leave for adoption by same-sex parents) could be used as a proxy for LGBTQ+ friendliness in supplier selection. This is because, in several developing nations social stigma and a discriminatory landscape make it implausible to directly estimate or report the share of LGBTQ+ employees in the workforce or serving as board members; this is not the case for gender metrics. Finally, extending the work by Keskin et al. (2021) that uses MS and OM tools to assist law enforcement agencies in combating sex trafficking, scholars could adapt and refine these tools to help combat sex trafficking of LGBTQ+ individuals within and across nations (which would also help prevent forced labor within supply chains).

3 Conclusion

The world is currently facing significant instability and vulnerability (due to the consequences of climate change, poverty, wars, and the like), and there is growing pressure on governments and businesses to embrace the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (in terms of, for example, gender, race, and sexual orientation). In this moment, there is a call for MS and OM scholars to use their knowledge and expertise to promote prosperity, peace, equity, and belonging for all individuals and communities. I believe that rainbow operations should be an integral part of any response—it can help practitioners design new operational processes and systems that include and uplift the LGBTQ+ community and its members.

As is the case with many new and emerging research areas, the themes suggested here are likely to raise ethical concerns in terms of data collection, data management, and operational guidance, among others. For instance, given the growing prevalence of the use by firms of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI and ML), MS and OM scholars are studying not only the optimal use of these tools to increase profits but also how they can be responsibly used to reduce discrimination. Specifically, Kelley et al. (2022) investigate fintech firms and demonstrate the importance of ensuring that gender data is collected and used responsibly and how this could help reduce gender discrimination by AI and ML tools in loan accept/reject decisions.

Within rainbow operations, ethical considerations around, for example, collecting and using data on the protected attributes of individuals for the purposes of decision-making are particularly relevant and crucial given the discrimination and stigma dealt with by the LGBTQ+ community. Thus, my call to MS and OM scholars to study rainbow operations is accompanied by a reminder of the need to foster greater accountability and responsibility in business and research practices alike (e.g. using inclusive language, recognizing intersectionality, and checking conscious and unconscious biases). As a starting point for those interested in conducting research with gender and sexually-diverse individuals and communities, Henrickson et al. (2020) offer a list of ethical guidelines—the “Montréal Ethical Principles for Inclusive Research.”

In sum, rainbow operations promise to be an impactful and useful sub-stream within the MS and OM literature. The research problems it presents have the potential to save lives, improve societal outcomes, and create value for firms (e.g. access to new markets, enhanced goodwill, and greater employee engagement). Additionally, the intersectionality that is inherent to research problems within rainbow operations (say, in relation to racial or gender identity and economic hardship) enhances the impact potential of studies in this area. In conclusion, I hope this article will inspire MS and OM scholars to contribute to the literature on rainbow operations so that a keyword search of the top MS and OM journals in the future (say, a decade after the publication of this article) will yield many high-quality and high-impact articles addressing LGBTQ+ diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“It takes no compromise to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.”

—Harvey Milk

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Priyank Arora

Notes

How to cite this article

Arora P (2024) Rainbow Operations: Let's Add LGBTQ+ Colors to “Doing Good with Good Operations”. Production and Operations Management 34(4): 803–810.

References

Acquisti

Fong

(2020) An experiment in hiring discrimination via online social networks. Management Science 66(3): 1005–1024.

Aflaki

Pedraza-Martinez

(2016) Humanitarian funding in a multi-donor market with donation uncertainty. Production and Operations Management 25(7): 1274–1291.

American Progress (2018) Discrimination prevents LGBTQ people from accessing health care. Accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/discrimination-prevents-lgbtq-people-accessing-health-care/.

Arora

Rahmani

Ramachandran

(2022) Doing less to do more? Optimal service portfolio of non-profits that serve distressed individuals. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 24(2): 883–901.

Ayvaci

MUS

Alagoz

Ahsen

, et al. (2018) Preference-sensitive management of post-mammography decisions in breast cancer diagnosis. Production and Operations Management 27(12): 2313–2338.

Badgett

Waaldijk

van der Meulen Rodgers

(2019) The relationship between LGBT inclusion and economic development: Macro-level evidence. World Development 120: 1–14.

Baker

Lucas

(2017) Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 34(2): 133–148.

Besiou

Pedraza-Martinez

Van Wassenhove

(2021) Humanitarian operations and the UN sustainable development goals. Production and Operations Management 30(12): 4343–4355.

Besiou

Van Wassenhove

(2015) Addressing the challenge of modeling for decision-making in socially responsible operations. Production and Operations Management 24(9): 1390–1401.

10.

Bretthauer

Savin

(2018) Introduction to the special issue on patient-centric healthcare management in the age of analytics. Production and Operations Management 27(12): 2101–2102.

11.

Bross

Houdart

Tripathi

(2018) None of their business? How the United Nations is calling on global companies to lead the way on human rights of LGBTI people. Business and Human Rights Journal 3(2): 271–276.

12.

Browning

(2020) Operations management writ large. Journal of Operations Management 66(5): 494–500.

13.

Burbano

(2021) The demotivating effects of communicating a social-political stance: Field experimental evidence from an online labor market platform. Management Science 67(2): 1004–1025.

14.

Caro

Lane

Sáez de Tejada Cuenca

(2021) Can brands claim ignorance? Unauthorized subcontracting in apparel supply chains. Management Science 67(4): 2010–2028.

15.

Charlton

Gordon

Reisner

, et al. (2018) Sexual orientation-related disparities in employment, health insurance, healthcare access and health-related quality of life: A cohort study of US male and female adolescents and young adults. BMJ Open 8(6): e020418.

16.

Ciszek

(2020) “We are people, not transactions”: Trust as a precursor to dialogue with LGBTQ publics. Public Relations Review 46(1): 101759.

17.

Coffman

Ericson

KMM

(2017) The size of the LGBT population and the magnitude of antigay sentiment are substantially underestimated. Management Science 63(10): 3168–3186.

18.

Conti

Kacperczyk

Valentini

(2022) Institutional protection of minority employees and entrepreneurship: Evidence from the LGBT employment non-discrimination acts. Strategic Management Journal 43(4): 758–791.

19.

Corbett

Klassen

(2006) Extending the horizons: Environmental excellence as key to improving operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8(1): 5–22.

20.

Corbett

Pedraza-Martinez

Van Wassenhove

(2022) Sustainable humanitarian operations: An integrated perspective. Production and Operations Management 31(12): 4393–4406.

21.

Cui

Zhang

(2020) Reducing discrimination with reviews in the sharing economy: Evidence from field experiments on Airbnb. Management Science 66(3): 1071–1094.

22.

Dentzman

Pilgeram

Lewin

, et al. (2021) Queer farmers in the 2017 US census of agriculture. Society & Natural Resources 34(2): 227–247.

23.

Doherty

(2022) The number of LGBTQ-identifying adults is soaring. Accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup.

24.

Follins

Lassiter

(2016) Black LGBT Health in the United States: The Intersection of Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield.

25.

Ganju

Atasoy

McCullough

, et al. (2020) The role of decision support systems in attenuating racial biases in healthcare delivery. Management Science 66(11): 5171–5181.

26.

Gao

Zhang

(2017) Employment nondiscrimination acts and corporate innovation. Management Science 63(9): 2982–2999.

27.

GenPride (2023) GenPride: Your resource for LGBTQIA+ aging. Accessed February 5, 2023, https://genprideseattle.org/.

28.

Gerrard

Morandini

Dar-Nimrod

(2022) Gay and straight men prefer masculine-presenting gay men for a high-status role: Evidence from an ecologically valid experiment. Sex Roles 88(3–4): 1–11.

29.

Henrickson

Giwa

Hafford-Letchfield

, et al. (2020) Research ethics with gender and sexually diverse persons. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(18): 6615.

30.

Hossain

Atif

Ahmed

, et al. (2020) Do LGBT workplace diversity policies create value for firms? Journal of Business Ethics 167(4): 775–791.

31.

HRC Foundation (2021) We are here: Understanding the size of the LGBTQ+ community. Report by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Accessed September 20, 2022, https://hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/We-Are-Here-120821.pdf.

32.

Jacobs

Singhal

(2017) The effect of the Rana Plaza disaster on shareholder wealth of retailers: Implications for sourcing strategies and supply chain governance. Journal of Operations Management 49: 52–66.

33.

Kalkanci

Rahmani

Toktay

(2019) The role of inclusive innovation in promoting social sustainability. Production and Operations Management 28(12): 2960–2982.

34.

Kaniuka

Pugh

Jordan

, et al. (2019) Stigma and suicide risk among the LGBTQ population: Are anxiety and depression to blame and can connectedness to the LGBTQ community help? Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 23(2): 205–220.

35.

Kaplan

(1989) What are the risks of risky sex? Modeling the AIDS epidemic. Operations Research 37(2): 198–209.

36.

Kelley

Ovchinnikov

Hardoon

, et al. (2022) Antidiscrimination laws, artificial intelligence, and gender bias: A case study in nonmortgage fintech lending. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 24(6): 3039–3059.

37.

Keskin

Bott

Freeman

(2021) Cracking sex trafficking: Data analysis, pattern recognition, and path prediction. Production and Operations Management 30(4): 1110–1135.

38.

Kong

Walsman

(2021) Caring for an aging population in a post-pandemic world: Emerging trends in the US older adult care industry. Service Science 13(4): 258–274.

39.

Kyaw

Treepongkaruna

Jiraporn

(2021) Stakeholder engagement and firms’ innovation: Evidence from LGBT-supportive policies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28(4): 1285–1298.

40.

Lambda Legal (2010) When health care isn’t caring: Lambda Legal’s survey on discrimination against LGBT people and people living with HIV. Accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/whcic-report_when-health-care-isnt-caring.pdf.

41.

Lee

(2023) Target just dumped its pride merchandise—Here’s where it all may go. Accessed June 13, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/57khxpse.

42.

Lee

(2020) Facebooking alone? Millennials’ use of social network sites and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49(1): 203–217.

43.

Nagar

(2013) Diversity and performance. Management Science 59(3): 529–544.

44.

Hao

Aloysius

(2021) Women are an advantage in supply chain collaboration and efficiency. Production and Operations Management 30(5): 1427–1441.

45.

Mallory

Sears

(2020) The economic impact of marriage equality five years after Obergefell v. Hodges. Report by the UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute.

46.

McCarthy

(2016) Europe’s LGBT population mapped. Accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.statista.com/chart/6466/europes-lgbt-population-mapped/.

47.

Mejia

Parker

(2021) When transparency fails: Bias and financial incentives in ridesharing platforms. Management Science 67(1): 166–184.

48.

Narayanan

Terris

(2020) Inclusive manufacturing: The impact of disability diversity on productivity in a work integration social enterprise. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 22(6): 1112–1130.

49.

Oreffice

Sansone

(2022) Transportation to work by sexual orientation. PLOS ONE 17(2): e0263687.

50.

Out Now (2018) LGBT travel market—Annual spend now exceeds USD 218 billion. Accessed January 27, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/ymdtbjf5.

51.

Patel

Feng

(2021) LGBT workplace equality policy and customer satisfaction: The roles of marketing capability and demand instability. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 40(1): 7–26.

52.

Pereira

Banerjee

(2021) Successful aging among older LGBTQIA+ people: Future research and implications. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12: 756649.

53.

Powell

(2018) The problems with LGBTQ health care. The Harvard Gazette.

54.

Rhoades

Rusow

Bond

, et al. (2018) Homelessness, mental health and suicidality among LGBTQ youth accessing crisis services. Child Psychiatry & Human Development 49(4): 643–651.

55.

Samorani

Harris

Blount

, et al. (2022) Overbooked and overlooked: Machine learning and racial bias in medical appointment scheduling. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 24(6): 2825–2842.

56.

Shearer

Herres

Kodish

, et al. (2016) Differences in mental health symptoms across lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning youth in primary care settings. Journal of Adolescent Health 59(1): 38–43.

57.

Sodhi

Tang

(2014) Supply-chain research opportunities with the poor as suppliers or distributors in developing countries. Production and Operations Management 23(9): 1483–1494.

58.

Stewart

(2023) The Bud Light boycott, explained as much as is possible. Accessed June 13, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/4tu5zs3f.

59.

Sunar

Swaminathan

(2022) Socially relevant and inclusive operations management. Production and Operations Management 31(12): 4379–4392.

60.

Tang

(2022) Innovative technology and operations for alleviating poverty through women’s economic empowerment. Production and Operations Management 31(1): 32–45.

61.

Thaddeus

(2017) How did the rainbow flag become an LGBT symbol? Accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-rainbow-flag-become-an-lgbt-symbol.

62.

The Trevor Project (2021) Homelessness and housing instability among LGBTQ youth. Report by the Trevor Project. Accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.thetrevorproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Trevor-Project-Homelessness-Report.pdf.

63.

Villena

(2019) The missing link? The strategic role of procurement in building sustainable supply networks. Production and Operations Management 28(5): 1149–1172.

64.

Wilhelm

Villena

(2021) Cascading sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: When do Chinese suppliers adopt sustainable procurement? Production and Operations Management 30(11): 4198–4218.

65.

Wolny

(2019) The LGBTQ+ community has $3.7 trillion in purchasing power; Here’s how we want you to sell to us. Accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/the-lgbtq-community-has-37-trillion-in-purchasing-power/334983.

66.

Wowak

Ball

Post

, et al. (2021) The influence of female directors on product recall decisions. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 23(4): 895–913.

67.

Xian

Chock

Dwiggins

(2017) LGBTQ youth and vulnerability to sex trafficking. In: Human Trafficking is a Public Health Issue. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 141–152.

68.

Zepeda

Sinha

(2016) Toward an effective design of behavioral health care delivery: An empirical analysis of care for depression. Production and Operations Management 25(5): 952–967.

Rainbow Operations: Let's Add LGBTQ+ Colors to “Doing Good with Good Operations ”

Abstract

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Rainbow Operations: Research Themes

2.1 LGBTQ+ Clients Within Service Delivery Settings

2.2 LGBTQ+ Employees Within Contemporary Workplaces

2.3 LGBTQ+ Community Within Global Supply Chains

3 Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

How to cite this article

References