When Inclusion Becomes Optional: A Harder Conversation for the Global Meetings Industry

Over the past few years, our industry has become increasingly confident in the language of inclusion.

We talk about belonging, diversity, equity, and welcoming the world. These words now appear routinely in strategies, bids, keynote speeches, and event themes. That progress matters — but it also raises a more difficult question:

What happens when inclusion becomes optional in practice?

The gap between intent and impact

Global meetings, by definition, ask people to cross borders — legally, culturally, and personally. For many delegates, that experience is energising. For others, it comes with careful calculation: what to say, what not to say, how visible to be, and whether parts of their identity need to be hidden to stay safe.

This reality is rarely reflected in how we celebrate global convenings.

When events are hosted in destinations where certain identities are criminalised or restricted by law, participation is no longer equal. Hospitality, programme quality, and good intentions do not remove the fact that some people are navigating legal risk, self-censorship, or fear simply to be present.

In those moments, inclusion stops being a value — and becomes a trade-off.

This is not about culture. It’s about duty of care.

Too often, concerns about LGBTQ+ safety, gender expression, or freedom of identity are framed as political, cultural, or too complex to resolve. But complexity does not absolve responsibility.

As an industry, we routinely assess risk: financial risk, operational risk, reputational risk. We plan meticulously for safety, security, insurance, and liability. Yet we are far less comfortable naming human rights risk — even when it is predictable and documented.

If we ask people to travel for work, learning, or leadership, we have a duty of care that extends beyond the venue doors.

Inclusion cannot rely on reassurance alone. It requires conditions in which people can participate without compromising their dignity or safety.

When values meet inconvenience

Most organisations genuinely believe in inclusion — until it becomes inconvenient.

When funding, strategic positioning, or competitive advantage enter the picture, values are often reframed as flexible. Decisions are justified as pragmatic. Trade-offs are made quietly. And the burden of those trade-offs is shifted onto individuals who are asked to adapt, minimise, or stay silent.

That is not neutral decision-making. It is a choice.

And over time, those choices erode trust — not only among marginalised communities, but across an industry that increasingly expects coherence between words and actions.

What more credible leadership could look like

This is not about perfection, nor about excluding entire regions of the world from global engagement. It is about maturity and honesty.

Credible leadership in this space would include:

• acknowledging that not all destinations are experienced equally

• being transparent about how human rights and safety risks are assessed

• setting clear minimum standards for participation

• and being accountable when values are weighed against other priorities

  
  

Most importantly, it would stop treating inclusion as something we say and start treating it as something we guarantee.

An invitation

I am writing because I deeply believe in the power of global meetings to connect people, share knowledge, and drive progress. But that power only holds if participation does not require some people to be braver, quieter, or smaller than others.

This is an invitation to the industry, destinations, associations, organisers, and leaders alike to have a more honest conversation about what inclusion really demands when the stakes are high.

Because the future credibility of our industry won’t be judged by the values we publish, but by the people we protect when those values are tested.