Pride Has No Borders

That was the slogan. But then something curious happened—a map emerged.

In June 2022, Amazon announced it would “Pride Out Loud” for its American customers. However, during that same month, Amazon.ae in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) concealed over 150 search terms, including “LGBTQ,” “Pride,” and “transgender flag.” Despite this, the company insisted it remained dedicated to the LGBTQ+ cause.

The usual justification tends to play out like this: differing markets, distinct audiences, separate campaigns. This is what marketing teams say when they want to claim a commitment that can’t quite make it past international borders.

Typical localization might involve tweaking a menu or changing colors in an advertisement. But here, it’s different. These companies are altering the moral standards they expect American employees, customers, and shareholders to embrace without question. In the U.S., the cause is accepted; in the Gulf region, it’s a potential risk. A cause that you can’t own in parts of the world isn’t a cause at all—it’s merely a costume.

This pattern is quite evident, and Amazon isn’t the only culprit.

In June of the same year, Google introduced an “LGBTQ+ owned” label in U.S. Search and Maps while also donating a significant sum as a platinum partner of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). At the same time, it promoted a Middle East North Africa startup initiative. Microsoft issued a global campaign titled “Pride has no borders,” but shortly after, it highlighted job opportunities and development in the UAE. Meanwhile, Apple rolled out its Pride Edition Watch bands and a “Shot on iPhone” campaign in the U.S. and U.K., but there was no mention of any Pride endeavors from their Saudi Arabia division—it was too busy focusing on Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) coverage.

Mastercard told U.S. consumers that “Your True Self Is Priceless,” but then the regional newsroom was busy discussing fintech, APIs, and the UAE payment landscape. Nike promoted a “Be True” collection and recognized various activist groups, while Converse, a Nike subsidiary, crafted shoes inspired by Pride, bisexual, pansexual, lesbian, non-binary, and transgender flags. In Dubai, Nike highlighted its 50th-anniversary celebrations, and in neighboring Saudi Arabia, it created national team kits in the country’s colors.

Coca-Cola adorned bottles with rainbows in Times Square, promoting its support for the HRC. But in Saudi Arabia, their narrative shifted to “Pride in Our Nature.” PepsiCo launched the “#DragForAllFlavors” campaign in the U.S. while in Saudi Arabia, the brand honored local pride instead.

The list goes on: Starbucks, McDonald’s, IBM, UPS, Honeywell, Boeing, Pfizer, Merck, and Estee Lauder—same company, different narratives. Which version of the brand is the authentic one?

If this were merely a case of advertising, the “different audiences” argument might hold some weight. But it’s more than just advertising. These companies embed their commitments into U.S. employment policies, supplier expectations, charitable contributions, and activist collaborations. They convey to American shareholders that their position is a value, only to operate another branch, under the same name and profit motives, that won’t acknowledge similar values where it’s politically risky.

This inconsistency creates two issues. First, it misleads the people who already own shares, work for, or shop at these companies in the U.S. A “value” that can vanish for a lucrative client was never a genuine value—it was merely a gamble that one audience would reward them while another wouldn’t even notice. Secondly, these situations signal that the campaigns are optional. Their products can be marketed globally, but the politics only follow if it’s financially advantageous. If a company has to obscure its stance to remain in a market, that stance clearly isn’t an essential part of its identity. Consequently, it begs the question of whether they should operate in those markets at all.

The situation domestically isn’t any better. These unnecessary campaigns can split American customers and employees, leading to boycotts, lawsuits, and lengthy brand rehabilitation processes. Rather than focusing on pricing, quality, and service, they squander management’s time. A company that needs a different narrative to thrive in another market is revealing that the initial narrative wasn’t central to its core identity.

Shareholders don’t invest in two entities; they buy into one company and are given two conflicting narratives. Employees hear that the corporate stance is inviolable in one location, while in another, it’s a no-go topic. Customers are promised authenticity by a brand that seems willing to leave that authenticity behind at the border. Boards that tolerate this arrangement aren’t safeguarding their reputation; instead, they are creating credibility issues.

Transparency is fundamental. That’s why 1792 Exchange is introducing translated Corporate Bias Ratings to Arabic-speaking investors, journalists, and officials, targeting over 300 Fortune 500 companies that operate in both U.S. and Arabic-speaking markets. The intention isn’t to impose a single nation’s social standards on another; it’s about eliminating the comfort of having two isolated files.

Corporate leaders shouldn’t need a translator to identify the issue. They can see U.S. campaigns alongside their global counterparts. If a company is unwilling to embrace one narrative in a foreign market, it should never have released that narrative to begin with.

This isn’t about principle. Principles endure regardless of the time zone. A stance you struggle to defend domestically, hesitant to promote abroad sounds more like a facade than a strategy. And while facades might entertain children, for a company, they merely conceal the “true self.”