Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is the current head of Diversity and Inclusion at Google for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Some may recall a time when major corporations didn’t have Diversity and Inclusion offices, but the 21st century is a unique and colorful time. 
Palmer-Edgecumbe has a strong background in D&I, having been a chief executive at Ari Diversity Consulting practice, and before that having six years as Global Head of Diversity at Barclays Group. The enthusiastic Palmer-Edgecumbe writes prolifically on the subject in a D&I blog for the Online Guardian in the United Kingdom. Prior to his full time entry into the Diversity field, the Google spokesman had a solid background in economics, and was a Head of Industry Analysis.
Google has launched a Legalise Love campaign in an effort to decriminalize homosexuality and eliminate homophobia around the world. Palmer-Edgecumbe calls Google employees “Googlers” and explains that Google, “Encourages people to bring their whole selves to work. In all of Google’s 60 offices around the world, Google is committed to a work environment where Googlers can be themselves and thrive.” He indicates that Google is a leader in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender inclusion efforts, and feels that there is still a long way to go to “achieve full equality.” His goal is that Google employees should be safe and accepted wherever they are. One particular and initial thrust of the Legalize Love campaign is in response to the non-legality of gay marriage in Singapore and Poland.
Google has chosen to focus on Poland in particular owing to its largely Roman Catholic population and the Polish opposition to gay marriage. But Google makes the point that this is not an attack on the Catholic Church, rather a way to support gay marriage and Barack Obama. Google will extend the initiative to “every country where the company has an office, especially in places with cultures that are homophobic, and/or where anti-gay laws exist."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
"The once taboo is now the daily course."
A billions-dollar US company intervening in the domestic policies of foreign governments, and imposing its view upon other cultures, as an act of support for the American president would have been taboo to liberals; now I guess it's the daily course.
2 - zingzing
you guys opened this pandora's box. besides, which is worse, using your corporate "free speech" to wrestle power away from individual citizens, or using your corporate "free speech" to see that your employees are able to live life with some dignity, no matter where you send them to work?
anyway, you're really stretching on this one.
3 - John Lake
Google takes on his Papal excellency with "Legalize Love" is hardly stretching.
4 - zingzing
i was talking to baronius.
5 - John Lake
right.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius: So if Google were to express disapproval of the execution by stoning of women in Iran for adultery, is that an acceptable "intervention in the domestic policies of a foreign government"? How about the company refusing to comply with government-mandated censorship of the Internet in China?
7 - Zingzing
Wonderful, doc. But will baronius see the inanity of his position? (and yes, baronius, systematic discrimination is just as bad as stoning women and censoring the public.)
8 - Baronius
I wasn't actually taking a position on this one. I was just laughing at how the "principled" left hates corporations and imperialism, unless it's liberal corporations and liberal imperialism.
9 - Dr Dreadful
What's imperialistic about desiring that governments respect human rights?
10 - John Lake
Google is blatantly aggressive in advancing the cause of global corporate-dominated society. And incidentally, liberal corporation is oxy-moronic.
11 - Zingzing
A corporation that (at least in this instance,) respects the dignity of its employees! Oh no! Baronius, you're still stretching. You may be laughing, but there's no joke there... You just think there is, which kinda makes you the thing worth laughing at. What next, a company refuses to use sweatshop labor and that'll be imperialism? Come on, it's the 90s, man, get with the times.
12 - Doug Hunter
Nothing wrong with free speech. Probably plays well in the target 'hip' demographic where they recruit employees. Programmers tend to be either liberal or libertarian. Perhaps even a little sleight of hand to divert from their record on privacy, etc. Pretty good PR if you ask me.
13 - peter petterson
Interesting post John. So Google is a leader in promoting 'love' around the world. Will they also financially support Barack Obama's campaign because he too supports gay marriage/
14 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, I wasn't aware that the "left", unprincipled or principled, hates corporations. Given that falsity, I can only assume that imperialism was thrown in there for dramatic, if inaccurate, effect.
As I understand it, modern politics is a nuanced game with many players, so why shouldn't a company get involved with encouraging diversity and inclusion, just as companies lobby on many different areas of concern?
Is the criticism of this action not actually based upon disagreement with the theme on "religious" grounds rather than an objection to political lobbying?
15 - Cindy
The problem of the beneficent dictator. Good thing Mitt Romney doesn't own Google.
Not sure I like tons o' power in the hands of 'persons' whose main interest, by law, is self-interest or greed.
Not that I can complain about the outcome in this instance. But it's more likely that a globally dominating corporation is not going to be so humble and lovable.
I was just reading about the northern slave trade industry. (sort of something not brought into relief historically) The slave traders were known for their philanthropy.
16 - Igor
8-Baronius: a tortured combination of strawman and 'tu quoque' arguments, both invalid. Wry irony doesn't improve them.
17 - Baronius
Cindy - I was thinking of you when I read this article. The other replies on this thread seem so excited about the ends that they're willing to overlook the means, but I'm glad that someone out there is consistent in their thinking, even though I don't agree with it. The other comments sound like a member of the school safety patrol getting in the back of a stranger's van in exchange for something shiny.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, I realize it's hard to keep a comprehensive mental catalogue of every BC denizen's suite of views, but I, for one, don't recall much shrieking about "evil corporations" in the past from myself, Chris or even zing for that matter. (And my editorial position does mean that I have to pay more attention to comments than most.)
19 - Christopher Rose
Baronius' #16 is a classic example of someone desperately trying to create a diversion because they have no competent response to the comprehensive demolition of their inane argument...
20 - Baronius
Dread - That could be true. I think that the original author does some corporation-bashing, as does Zing, but I don't recall any from you. Chris only seems to comment where religion is involved.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Chris only seems to comment where religion is involved.
Internet marketing, association football and Spanish leather boots have also been known to stir him into eloquence!
22 - Christopher Rose
Wrong again, Baronius. I comment positively whenever context allows and also expose and rebut poorly constructed arguments of any kind.
Alas, there are often more of the latter than the former unless wise folk such as the formidable Doc Dreadful are involved.
For the record, I am generally pro business, although I do think its excesses need limiting, and also consider that the mindless pursuit of profits at all cost without any higher purpose is potentially damaging, which current global financial stresses are tending to confirm.
I favour small government whenever possible whilst also recognising that placing some limitations on personal and corporate actions is necessary.
I'm open to the notion that there could be a better political system than constitutional democracy but am as yet unpersuaded that there is and I don't have any problems with controlled capitalism at all.
Indeed, I believe capitalism has the potential to drive the solutions to most practical problems humanity faces, a belief supported by the incredible progress the world has seen in the last 100 years and which I expect to become more profound if we manage to avoid poisoning the planet or destroying ourselves through extreme war.
Beyond that, I'll happily chat about anything from music to sport, especially if it involves football in general or my beloved Manchester United in particular.
23 - Zingzing
Baronius, do you have nothing but warm, gooey thoughts for corporations? If so, why? And why am I not allowed to dislike certain things corporations do, and be glad about other things that they do? Is that a logical inconsistency, or is that just you making up some more baronial rules? Your initial point--that google's stance on homophobia and systematic discrimination was tantamount to imperialism--was ridiculous, as is your silly demand that we be all for or all against corporations in general. What makes you think either of those things are even close to reasonable?
24 - Dr Dreadful
Corporations deserve to be bashed when they do something wrong and praised when they do something right, just as everyone else does (after all they are, as our would-be next president is fond of reminding us, also people). However, I've yet to be convinced that they are the Ultimate Manifestations of Evil.
That said, I am glad that 95% of my working life thus far has been in the public sector. I've done some temping for private companies in the past and don't think I would enjoy working for one. Nothing tangible against them; they're just... weird.
25 - Baronius
Zing, no reason you can't think so. But to say that corporations are bad because they're corporations, but good when they're promoting a progressive agenda, does smack of contradiction. As for the charge of imperialism, I think it's what the liberal side would say if, for example, Exxon announced that it was going to oppose homosexual unions worldwide in support of President McCain.