Epidemiological data
In the European context, data from the European Working Conditions Survey, 2021 (Eurofound, n.d.) indicated that the public administration, education, and health sectors report a higher prevalence of WPV, specifically through physical violence (7%), than any other sector, contrasting with the agriculture and industry sectors (4%). For example, a study in the UK found that across 10 different occupational sectors, public administration workers and health workers faced a higher risk of suffering WPV (with predicted probabilities of 13.8% and 11.8%, respectively), compared to the manufacturing, construction, and information, communication, finance, and insurance sectors, which had a predicted probability of approximately 4% (Gash & Blom, 2025). Similarly, outside of the European scope, in the US (U.S. Bureau Labour of Statistics, 2024), data showed that injury incidence rates caused by others are higher in healthcare and social assistance (14.2%) and educational services (8.4%), contrasting with arts, entertainment, and recreation (1.3%), and transportation and warehousing (1%), reinforcing that healthcare workers are at a greater risk of WPV worldwide. However, it is important to take into account the heterogeneity of data sources (i.e., European surveys, WHO reports, national surveillance systems), as well as diverse sampling methods and reference periods, since it limits direct comparability between each country’s reality, while still useful to have a broad view and understanding of the phenomenon globally.
WPV is estimated to range between 12.5% and 31.6% (Eurofound, 2023; Liu et al., 2019), with healthcare workers identified as one of the occupational groups at higher risk over recent decades (
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work [EU-OSHA], 2007;
European Nursing Research Foundation [ENRF], 2022). Data showed 70% of physicians and nurses reported being exposed to violence during their work (WHO, 2025). Those working directly with patients and in emergency departments (Lin et al., 2025; WHO, 2022, 2025) are more vulnerable to experiencing WPV, as are nurses and female healthcare workers, regardless of their specific roles (ENRF, 2022). Overall, 80% of healthcare staff reported having experienced some form of WPV (Rossi et al., 2023). The WHO (2022) estimated that up to 38% of health workers had been affected by physical violence at least once during their careers. Regarding non-physical violence, estimates can reach as high as 90% (O’Brien et al., 2024). Women make up a significant portion (about 75%) of the healthcare workforce (Roy, 2024), which contributes to unavoidable gender disproportions of WPV (ILO, 2019a). The proportion of women reporting acts of violence at their workplace can be as high as 45% (Ajuwa et al., 2024), with this group being particularly vulnerable to non-physical violence (Nelson et al., 2024). FRA et al. (2024) found that women reported experiencing lifetime sexual harassment at work. Likewise, the 2021 EWCS revealed that, through self-reported incidence rates of unwanted sexual attention between gender, women are 3.6 times more likely than men to suffer from unwanted sexual attention.
Patients’ and relatives’ anger remain the most common form of WPV, consistently impacting over 50% of healthcare professionals. Throughout Europe, healthcare workers are frequently exposed to WPV. According to WHO (2025), 71% of healthcare professionals have experienced patients’ and relatives’ anger, 35% have faced violent threats, 32% have encountered bullying, 15% have suffered physical violence, and 12% have reported sexual harassment. De Raeve et al. (2023) reported that 95% of nurses across Europe view violence against nurses as a serious issue, although many countries lack national data (e.g., France) or gender-specific insights (e.g., Spain). In the nine countries analysed, exposure to violence among healthcare professionals remains high (WHO, 2025), with rates around 80% in Portugal, Spain, France, Slovenia, and Italy, and somewhat lower (but still significant) in Sweden and the Netherlands (< 70%). The highest prevalence of violent threats was in Spain and Slovenia (44–50%), while the lowest was in Sweden (21%). Bullying was most common in Portugal and Italy (~40%) and least common in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany (~20%). Physical violence was most frequent in Spain and Finland (~20%) and least common in Sweden and Italy (< 10%). Patients’ and relatives’ anger continues to be the most widespread form of WPV, affecting over half of professionals.
Within country-level examinations, WPV patterns differ based on perpetrator and victim vulnerability.
Italy has the highest prevalence of patients’ and relatives’ anger and the second highest in bullying (
Table 1). It consistently exhibited high levels of WPV, with annual prevalence rates ranging from 48.6% to 65.9% (Bagnasco et al., 2024; Ielapi et al., 2021). Multicentre studies indicated that more than half of healthcare workers experienced verbal or physical aggression (La Torre et al., 2022), and national medico-legal data recorded nearly 18,000 assaults in 2024, affecting around 22,000 professionals, mainly in emergency departments and inpatient units (Bailo et al., 2025). Sexual harassment remains a significant form of WPV; among female surgeons, 59% reported harassment, although only 10% formally reported incidents (Parini et al., 2021).
Table 1. Prevalence of WPV types among healthcare professionals across European countries.
| Country | Bullying (%) | Patients’ and Relatives’ Anger (%) | Physical violence (%) | Sexual harassment (%) | Violent threats (%) |
|---|
| Italy | 40 | 82 | 9 | 12 | 30 |
| Spain | 36 | 76 | 23 | 9 | 50 |
| Portugal | 41 | 74 | 12 | 8 | 31 |
| Slovenia | 38 | 73 | 14 | 17 | 44 |
| Germany | 21 | 67 | 12 | 16 | 28 |
| France | 29 | 74 | 17 | 6 | 39 |
| The Netherlands | 20 | 55 | 15 | 13 | 31 |
| Sweden | 19 | 53 | 5 | 9 | 21 |
| Finland | 34 | 65 | 21 | 20 | 37 |
In Spain, most WPV incidents involved patients’ and relatives’ anger and violent threats (
Table 1). 84% of reported WPV incidents involved non-physical violence, mainly driven by patients’ or relatives’ frustration with care, unmet demands, long waiting times, administrative delays, and perceived problems with service or treatment (Ministerio de Sanidad, 2024).
In Portugal, most WPV episodes also included patients’ and relatives’ anger followed by bullying and violent threats (
Table 1). NOTIFICA, a system deployed to receive WPV reports, recorded 5,251 WPV notifications against healthcare workers (Direção-Geral de Saúde, 2019), increasing to 1,632 in 2022 and 1,036 in 2023 (+9% in 2024; Zangão, Serra et al., 2024). Psychological violence accounted for 65% (Serviço Nacional de Saúde, 2025). Verbal violence was the most common (85.9–94.1%; Biscaia et al., 2019), followed by physical violence (44.9%), with threats such as staring (55.5%) and shouting (45.5%; Marques & Silva, 2017).
In Slovenia, WPV prevalence was seen through higher rates in patients’ and relatives’ anger, followed by violent threats. When compared with the other countries it was the second with highest prevalence of sexual harassment (
Table 1). Nurses encountered significant exposure to verbal and physical violence, with female nurses almost twice as likely as men to be victimised (de Raeve et al., 2023). In nursing homes, 71.1% of Slovenian nurses reported experiencing verbal violence and 63.8% physical violence (Gabrovec & Eržen, 2016).
Germany exhibited high WPV exposure, particularly patients’ and relatives’ anger in the first place, with violent threats in the second. It also showed high verbal aggression (Mambrey et al., 2023). Among 1,973 healthcare and welfare employees, 56% experienced physical violence and 78% verbal aggression in the previous 12 months, with nearly half reporting monthly occurrences; inpatient geriatric care workers showed the highest prevalence of physical violence (63%; Schablon et al., 2012).
In France, most WPV incidents involved patients’ and relatives’ anger, followed by violent threats. It has the least prevalence of sexual harassment (
Table 1). Lifetime exposure to violence can reach 80% among healthcare professionals, with nurses often subjected to verbal and physical aggression (de Raeve et al., 2023).
In the Netherlands, WPV prevalence is lower than in other countries. However, most WPV episodes involve patients’ and relatives’ anger (
Table 1). Women experienced more unwanted sexual attention than men (9.7% vs. 5.1%), although in some settings men reported slightly higher rates (22.1% vs. 20.5%; Statistics Netherlands, 2024).
Sweden reported a lower overall prevalence of WPV (
Table 1), although workplace incivility and mistreatment continue. Over 30% of nurses and physicians reported incivility or mistreatment, and nearly 15% experienced more severe forms (Gynning et al., 2025). Studies confirmed frequent assaults against psychiatric staff, with rising rates and under-reporting (Lawoko et al., 2004); among local government healthcare employees, 51% experienced threats or violence in the past year (9% daily, 67% several times monthly; Holubová, 2007).
Finland has a similar prevalence of WPV as the other countries. However, this country presents the highest prevalence of sexual harassment (
Table 1). Longstanding reports highlighted a persistent upward trend since the 1990s, with healthcare services repeatedly identified as high-risk (Heiskanen, 2007). Recent data showed that 7% of registered nurses and 15% of practical nurses experienced WPV at least monthly, especially in healthcare units (Airaksinen et al., 2023).
Across Europe, sexual harassment remains less common than other forms of WPV but is clearly gendered, with up to 30% of nurses affected in some countries (e.g., Portugal; de Raeve et al., 2023).
Evidence of TFGBV against healthcare workers remains limited, but emerging data from international surveys and national case studies indicate that this is a growing phenomenon. The Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which included European respondents, reported that 3.6% of healthcare workers personally experienced online or cyber harassment, with an additional 1.2% reporting that colleagues faced similar abuse (Banga et al., 2023). These figures likely underestimate the true scale due to under-recognition and under-reporting of technology-facilitated abuse. During the COVID-19 pandemic, gendered patterns of online violence became particularly apparent. A global survey involving European data found that 67% of women physicians and scientists experienced gender-based harassment on social media, compared with only 12% of male counterparts (Women in Global Health, 2025). An Italian exploratory study examining social media content directed at healthcare providers found that 74% of posts and comments were negative, including explicit threats of physical violence, and that hostile content attracted twice the engagement of positive content (La Regina et al., 2021). The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE, 2020) characterises TFGBV as an escalating occupational risk, especially for individuals whose roles require a visible online presence (such as professionals communicating via traditional or social media). Based on EU survey data on online GBVH,
European Institute for Gender Equality (2020) reported that among women who experienced harassment, a minority identified at least one perpetrator from their work environment (~9%; FRA, 2024), but these figures are not broken down by economic sector (EIGE, 2022), making it impossible to derive prevalence estimates specific to healthcare workers. European publications on WPV targeting healthcare workers increasingly acknowledge abuse occurring via social media and other digital channels; however, they also highlight that most surveillance and reporting systems do not systematically distinguish technology-facilitated incidents or capture gender-based dimensions, thus rendering TFGBV against healthcare workers invisible in current EU-level statistics.
The limited available statistics indicate that TFGBV in work environments is increasing, with women being disproportionately impacted, as seen in other forms of violence. However, the lack of standardised TFGBV indicators across EU Member States creates a significant empirical gap that hampers country-by-country comparisons and comprehensive prevalence assessments.
International and European standards on GBVH
Within the European and international legal framework, the recognition of GBVH as both a labour and human rights issue has been increasingly strengthened through complementary instruments (
Table 2). Central to this effort is the ILO Convention No. 190 (2019a), which established the right to a world of work free from violence and harassment. The Convention requires member states to adopt an inclusive, integrated, and gender-responsive approach, integrating preventive measures into occupational safety and health frameworks. It also mandates consultation with workers and their representatives or trade unions, provision of training, accessible remedies, and enforcement through credible labour inspection mechanisms. GBVH is broadly defined to include unacceptable behaviours, whether isolated or repeated, intended to cause physical, psychological, sexual, or economic harm, with particular attention to disproportionate targeting based on sex or gender. From the European Parliament’s perspective, harassment and sexual harassment are explicitly recognised as forms of discrimination under Directive 2006/54/EC (2006), affirming their dual importance as labour and human rights concerns. This approach applies across all types of employment, including non-standard, temporary, and platform-based work, ensuring that prevention measures address emerging vulnerabilities in the labour market. Collectively, these instruments form a coherent normative continuum that recognises GBVH as both a workplace risk, a form of structural inequality, and a violation of fundamental human rights, thereby expanding the responsibilities of states and employers for preventive and mitigative actions.
Table 2. Summary of international and European legal instruments addressing GBVH and psychosocial risks at work.
| Legal instruments | Core duties | Applicability |
|---|
| Convention No. 190 (ILO,2019a) |
- Prevent violence and harassment through OSH-based actions, training, consultation, and enforcement
|
|
| Recommendation No. 206 (ILO, 2019b) |
|
|
| Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe, 2011) |
- Prevention, protection, prosecution; - Art. 40 on sexual harassment
|
|
| Directive 89/391/EEC (1989) |
|
|
| Directive 2006/54/EC (2006) |
|
|
| Directive 2000/78/EC (2000) |
|
|
| Directive 2024/1385 (2024) |
|
|
| ISO Standard No. 45003:2021 (ISO, 2021) |
|
|
| ESENER 3 (Broughton et al., 2022) |
|
|
| EU Cross-sectoral Social Partners’ Framework Agreement (2007) |
|
|
| AI Act: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (2024) |
- Regulates AI systems; - Specifies requirements for high-risk systems to prevent bias/discrimination, promoting non-discrimination and gender equality. Prohibits practices exploiting vulnerabilities (Art. 5, para. 1, subpara. a and b); - Mandates data quality to minimise discriminatory outcomes (Art. 10).
|
- General regulation of AI systems - Provisions on prohibited AI practices directly relevant to GBVH prevention - Helps to address structural gender inequalities and reduce the risk that AI systems reproduce stereotypes and normalise harassment
|
| EU DSA: Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (2022) |
|
- Applies to providers of online platforms and hosting services, requiring them to adopt measures for the prompt detection, removal, or disabling of access to illegal content, including content that constitutes GBVH
|
| EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (2016) |
|
- Protects personal data of victims. - Provides victims of GBVH with rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict, and object to the processing of their personal data
|
| Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (2024) |
- Concerns risk of discrimination due to AI; - Mandates parties to ensure AI systems respect equality, including gender equality, and the prohibition of discrimination.
|
|
| GREVIO General Recommendation No. 1 on the Digital Dimension of Violence Against Women (2021) |
- Defines the digital dimension of violence, covering technology-facilitated acts such as deepfakes, cyberstalking, and non-consensual image sharing, emphasizing the need for legal responses.
|
- Addresses the digital dimension of violence against women, providing guidance for States Parties to the Istanbul Convention on preventing, investigating, and responding to GBVH in online and digital environments
|
| UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2021) |
- Calls upon states to ensure AI systems uphold fundamental rights, safety, and integrity of women and girls throughout the AI lifecycle, promoting gender equality.
|
- Emphasis on human rights, equality, non-discrimination, and the protection of vulnerable groups in AI governance.
|
| Recommendation CM/Rec (2019) 1 of the Committee of Ministers on Preventing and Combating Sexism (2019) |
|
|
| European Commission Guidelines on Prohibited AI Act (2025) |
|
- Protection against manipulative and exploitative AI in GBVH contexts - Prevention of discriminatory and harmful AI classifications - Application to workplace and online environments
|
| Recommendation CM/Rec (2018) 2 of the Committee of Ministers on the Roles and Responsibilities of Internet Intermediaries (2018) |
|
- Guidance for roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries, including social media platforms, search engines, and hosting services. - Frameworks to prevent, detect, and mitigate online harms that disproportionately affect vulnerable groups.
|
The Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe, 2011) provides a comprehensive framework to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence. Article 40 calls for measures to address sexual harassment, supported by accessible services (e.g., crisis centres, shelters, helplines). These obligations complement workplace responsibilities where GBVH intersects with criminal conduct and victim support mechanisms. However, this framework mainly focuses on women as victims, often excluding other groups at risk. The European Parliament’s Directive 2000/78/EC (2000) further broadens the anti-discrimination framework to include several protected grounds, such as religious beliefs, disability, age, and sexual orientation. It requires member states to ensure effective, proportionate, and dissuasive remedies and sanctions (Article 17), thereby reinforcing the wider European commitment to equality and dignity in the workplace. Similarly, the OSH Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1989) obliges employers to prevent occupational risks through risk assessment, information, training, and worker participation.
More recently, Directive 2024/1385 (2024) on combating violence against women and domestic violence strengthened minimum standards on prevention, protection, and prosecution, explicitly including online offences (e.g., cyber-harassment, non-consensual image sharing). Together, these instruments conceptualise GBVH as both a form of discrimination (under equality law) and a workplace hazard (under OSH law). However, as with the Istanbul Convention, this 2024 Directive primarily defines gender-based violence as violence against women, including “all acts of gender-based violence directed against a woman or a girl because she is a woman or a girl or that affect women or girls disproportionately” (Art. 2, subpara. a). Additionally, the term victim is defined as “any person, regardless of their gender, who has suffered harm directly caused by violence against women or domestic violence, including children who have suffered harm because they have witnessed domestic violence” (Art. 2, subpara. c). At first glance, this wording suggests a more inclusive approach to victims of gender-based violence; however, the Directive’s main focus remains on violence against women and domestic violence, recognising that women and girls are disproportionately impacted. Nevertheless, other individuals may also be victims of such violence and should benefit from the same protective measures provided by this Directive. Therefore, the term ‘victim’ should be understood as encompassing all individuals, irrespective of their sex or gender. An intersectional approach is vital to fully understand and tackle GBVH, recognising how intersecting identities (e.g., race, disability, sexual orientation) can increase vulnerability and shape experiences of violence and harassment. Inclusive policies, therefore, should expand protections and support beyond gender alone to promote fair workplace safety for everyone.
The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA; 2025) identified violence, harassment, and bullying as psychosocial risks requiring structured assessment and management. Incidents of violence in the workplace reflect aspects of work design, management practices, and social context that can lead to psychological or physical harm. Workplace bullying involves repeated harmful behaviour that damages victims’ dignity and well-being, reducing productivity and increasing social and economic costs. Although protections vary across nations, most European countries hold employers responsible for prevention and intervention (
European Parliament, 2001). The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO; 2021) offers practical guidance for integrating psychological health and safety within OSH management systems (ISO Standard No. 45003:2021). This standard operationalises the preventive approach of Convention No. 190 (ILO, 2019a) by identifying psychosocial hazards (e.g., excessive workload, harassment, role ambiguity, poor work-life balance) and promoting proactive management to prevent work-related injuries and ill health before adverse outcomes occur.
A key European tool tackling harassment and violence at work is the European Autonomous Framework Agreement on Harassment and Violence at Work (EU Cross-sectoral Social Partners, 2007). This agreement defines harassment as repeated and deliberate abuse, threats, or humiliation in work-related settings, and violence as physical assault under work-related circumstances. It also condemns all forms of work-related violence and harassment; highlights employer responsibility, in consultation with workers and representatives, to develop, review, and monitor procedures and policies that prevent and address harassment and violence; mandates clear workplace statements rejecting harassment and violence, along with procedures for complaints, investigations, and victim support; acknowledges that harassment can involve colleagues, superiors, or third parties (e.g., clients, customers); applies universally across workplaces regardless of size, sector, or employment contract type; and encourages implementation through national collective agreements, sector-specific policies, and joint guidelines (EU Cross-sectoral Social Partners, 2007). This framework complements EU legislation and national laws, guiding employers, workers, and their representatives towards a coordinated, preventive, and supportive approach to tackling workplace harassment and violence across Europe. It is widely referenced and put into practice via European social dialogue and national labour policies, reinforcing duties of care and fostering safer, more respectful workplaces (Carta et al., 2016).
TFGBVH in work settings is an escalating concern across Europe, particularly as digitalisation and remote work broaden the scope of where and how violence can happen. Eurofound (2024) highlighted that technology intensifies traditional forms of gender-based harassment through mechanisms such as anonymity, constant accessibility, and the potential for viral spread, causing considerable harm to employees’ mental and physical health. The gendered nature of this violence poses unique challenges for workplace safety frameworks. Currently, legal protections and employer duties differ across European countries, resulting in an uneven landscape of worker protection. Employers are expected to incorporate prevention into risk assessments and adjust management strategies to address both physical and virtual work environments. In light of these developments, analysing the European legal and policy framework for TFGBVH in the workplace is crucial to understanding how different jurisdictions are responding to this emerging occupational hazard.
The regulatory landscape regarding TFGBV at the European level remains critically fragmented, relying primarily on interpretive extensions of existing frameworks rather than on comprehensive, purpose-built legislation (Karagianni, 2025; United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2024). While the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention (2011) has been progressively interpreted by the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO; 2021) to include digital forms of violence such as surveillance, online harassment, and image-based sexual abuse, this adaptive approach reveals significant regulatory gaps (Council of Europe, 2011). The Convention’s General Recommendation No. 1 (2021) explicitly recognises that technology-mediated violence is an extension of offline GBVH (GREVIO, 2021). However, its largely gender-neutral language and reliance on state-level interpretation weaken systematic enforcement, particularly in occupational settings where power imbalances heighten vulnerabilities (Karagianni, 2025; UNDP, 2024).
The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act (2024), heralded as a pioneering regulatory framework, reveals significant shortcomings in addressing gendered aspects of algorithmic harm (Karagianni, 2025). Although it frequently references non-discrimination, explicit mentions of gender equality are limited, with only a single reference in Article No. 95-2e (
European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2024; Karagianni, 2025). Notably, Article No. 5, which prohibits certain biometric categorisation systems in public spaces, does not explicitly recognise gender as a protected characteristic, despite recommendations from the European Data Protection Board to treat gender as a sensitive category (Karagianni, 2025). The Act’s conformity assessment procedures (Articles No. 6 and No. 43) and risk management systems (Article No. 9) do not mandate Gender Impact Assessments, thus maintaining algorithmic biases that disproportionately affect women in vulnerable employment sectors, including healthcare workers subjected to algorithmic performance monitoring (
European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2024; Karagianni, 2025).
The EU Directive 2024/1385 (2024) on tackling violence against women and domestic abuse marks a partial step forward by explicitly recognising cyber-violence, including cyberstalking, cyber-harassment, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. However, its implementation is still in its early stages, and Member States’ transposition obligations do not require sector-specific protections in workplaces. Healthcare workers, mostly women, face increased risks from workplace surveillance technologies, digital performance management systems, and online harassment from patients, yet, to our knowledge, no European instrument systematically addresses these intersecting dangers. The Digital Services Act [DSA] (2022), while imposing greater accountability on internet intermediaries, emphasises platform governance over victim-centred protections and does not establish enforceable duties of care specific to gender-based harassment in professional digital settings (
European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2022; UNDP, 2024).
This regulatory fragmentation is worsened by the lack of intersectional frameworks that consider how gender interacts with race, disability, migration status, and precarious employment, factors that increase exposure to TFGBV among healthcare workers. Feminist scholarship highlights that the EU’s harmonisation efforts risk creating homogeneity by imposing universal standards that overlook the diverse socio-economic contexts and the specific vulnerabilities of marginalised communities (Karagianni, 2025). Furthermore, the dominance of soft law instruments, including General Recommendations No. 1 on the Digital Dimension of Violence Against Women (GREVIO, 2021), Committee of Ministers guidelines (CM/Rec(2019)1 on sexism; CM/Rec(2018)2 on internet intermediaries), and non-binding standards, weakens enforcement and makes accountability difficult (Council of Europe, 2018, 2019; GREVIO, 2021; UNDP, 2024). Without mandatory, enforceable obligations supported by well-resourced oversight bodies and accessible redress mechanisms, the supposed protections remain largely symbolic, sustaining impunity for technology-enabled violence against women in both public and workplace settings (GREVIO, 2021; Karagianni, 2025).
Comparative overview of national legal and institutional frameworks on GBVH
This section offers an overview of how nine European countries incorporate international and EU directives (e.g., EU Cross-sectoral Social Partners, 2007) and ILO Convention No. 190 (ILO, 2019a) guidelines into their national laws and institutional practices to tackle workplace violence, harassment, and psychosocial risks.
These countries chosen for analysis, besides countries of the BRAVE-WOW consortium, were selected due to their higher population (i.e., France and Germany), and based on their geographical and cultural distance from the consortium countries (i.e., Netherlands, Sweden and Finland), while all having developed frameworks for equality and OSH concerning harassment and psychosocial risks. This allows for meaningful comparisons rather than just documenting legal gaps (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2025). The sample also covers different stages of adopting international and EU standards on violence and harassment at work, including early and more recent ratifiers of ILO Convention No. 190. Some countries have established advanced psychosocial regulations but have not yet fully adopted Convention No. 190, providing an opportunity to see how shared principles are adapted into diverse national systems. Finally, these countries are often used as reference cases in European comparative reports on non-discrimination and harassment law, which enhances the policy relevance and transferability of the findings for EU-level discussions (Numhauser-Henning & Laulom, 2012).
While all countries prohibit sexual and moral harassment and assign employer responsibilities for prevention, victim support, and consultation, their approaches differ in regulatory focus, enforcement mechanisms, and adaptation to emerging challenges (
European Commission, 2025). A comparative summary of these frameworks and enforcement mechanisms across countries is presented in
Table 3.
Table 3. Overview of workplace GBVH legal frameworks and enforcement.
| Country | Legal framework & key laws | GBVH provisions | Enforcement & oversight | Notable features & challenges |
|---|
| Italy |
|
- Sexual harassment as discrimination; - Mandatory risk assessment for psychosocial hazards; - special provisions for judicial protections of healthcare workers to facilitate victim support.
|
- Judicial system supports claims; - National Observatory on the Safety of Healthcare and Social Professionals (ONSEPS), with monitoring and preventative functions.
|
- Strong alignment with international standards and progressive strengthening of the legislative framework. - The gender dimension is included in the system but not formally addressed by the legislation. - Rates of violent and harassing behaviours against healthcare workers remain high
|
| Spain |
- Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015; - Law 31/1995; - Organic Acts 3/2007 and 10/1995; - Royal Decrees 901/2020, 902/2020, and 1026/2024.
|
- Dignity and gender-based harassment protected; - Equality Plans mandatory for large companies; - Digital harassment included; - Whistleblower systems.
|
|
|
| Portugal |
|
- Moral and sexual harassment prohibited; - Employer codes of conduct mandatory; - Whistleblower protections; - Psychosocial risks integrated into OSH.
|
|
- Emerging digital risk management; - Expanding psychosocial protection; - Challenges with remote work and worker participation.
|
| Slovenia |
|
- Broad anti-harassment and prevention duties; - Cover mobbing and violence; - Domestic violence protections with leave rights
|
|
|
| Germany |
|
- Sexual harassment and mobbing are prohibited; - Preventing measures mandated; - Expanding compensation scope.
|
|
|
| France |
- Labour Code; - Criminal Code; - Public Health Reform.
|
- Broad harassment prohibitions; - Criminalisation of institutional moral harassment; - Mandatory psychosocial risk assessments.
|
|
|
| The Netherlands |
|
- Employer’s duty to prevent workplace violence, bullying, harassment; - Upcoming Code of Conduct Law (2026).
|
|
|
| Sweden |
- Discrimination Act (SFS 2008:567); - Work Environment Act (SFS 1977:1160); - Criminal Code (SFS 1962:700)
|
- Prohibition of sexual harassment and other harassment; - Active employer duties; - Criminal penalties for severe acts.
|
|
|
| Finland |
- OSH Act (738/2002, Ch. 2 §8, §28); - Equality and Non-Discriminant Act (1325/2014); - Non-Discrimination Ombudsman; - Transition to Finnish Supervisory Agency (2026).
|
- Employers are obligated to prevent harassment; - Mandatory impartial investigations and corrective measures; - Explicit prohibition of gender-based and other discrimination; - Integration of psychosocial risk management.
|
- Regional State Administrative Agencies (until 2025) under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; - Finnish Supervisory Agency (from 2026); - Non-Discrimination Ombudsman and National Equality Tribunal monitor compliance and handle complaints.
|
- Strong cooperation between OSH authorities, Ombudsman, and occupational health services; - Promotes early detection and mediation of conflicts; - Comprehensive psychosocial risk prevention integrated into OSH; - Transition to a new supervisory structure in 2026 aimed at administrative efficiency.
|
Italy
Since 1996, Italy started adopting specific regulations to combat GBV, with the Law n. 66 of 1996 recognising for the first time sexual harassment as a violation of the right to free self-determination of women and not as a crime against public morality. Since then, Italy has committed to combat GBV in principle, developing a specific and very strong legislation to protect the general public, along with specific regulations to protect workers in their workplaces. To this end, Italy has promptly ratified the Istanbul Convention (Law No. 77 of 27 June 2013) on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. To further strengthen the regulation against GBVH, Italy implemented the so-called “Red Code” (Law No. 69 of 19 July 2019) to reinforce the fight against GBV by introducing more stringent measures to prevent crimes, punish the guilty and protect the victims of GBVH.
To support regulation with data and to guarantee an adequate information flow on gender violence against women to support the design of appropriate prevention and contrast policies and to ensure effective monitoring of the phenomenon, Italy introduced an “Extraordinary action plan against sexual and gender violence” (Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 7 July 2015) providing for the creation of a national database on gender-based violence which is regularly fed by the National Institutes of Statistics based on an agreement signed with the Ministry of Health in May 2023.
As regards the world of work specifically, the framework legislation on the protection of workers’ health and safety (Legislative Decree n. 81 of 2008) has a clear mandate to assess and manage all risks in workplaces, including psychosocial risks. In addition, with Law n. 4 of 15 January 2021, Italy ratified the ILO Convention n. 190 on Violence and Harassment at work, becoming the ninth country in the world and the second in Europe to translate into the national legislation the provisions set by this international instrument. The national legal framework provides for a theoretically comprehensive protection of workers from the risks of violence and harassment at work, with a full set of rules and tools for risk assessment, risk management, and the prosecution of those responsible. With the Decree Law No. 159 of 31 October 2025, urgent measures to increase the protection of workers’ health and safety against violent and harassing behaviours in the workplace have been introduced, dramatically widening the concept of prevention and protection against occupational risks in general and psychosocial risks in particular. Article 5, letter c, of the new Decree amends Article 15, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 81/2008 on general protection measures by adding a new paragraph which requires “the planning of measures to prevent violent or harassing behaviours against workers …”, placing on employers an obligation to implement not only the traditional health and safety measures, but also specific programs to combat incidents of violence and harassment and to prevent any form of discrimination and discomfort that could undermine the dignity and physical and mental health of workers. This specific reference will have a direct impact on risk assessment and management, reinforcing the general obligation set forth in Article 28 of Legislative Decree 81/2008, by extending the assessment of work-related stress risk to the analysis of its determinants, which also include violence, mobbing, harassment, and discrimination. In addition, Italy has developed specific regulations to protect the health and safety of health and care workers. With Law No. 113 of 14 August 2020 on Provisions on safety for healthcare and social healthcare professionals in the exercise of their functions, several measures have been introduced: the creation of the National Observatory on the Safety of Healthcare and Social Professionals (ONSEPS), which monitors violence against healthcare workers and promotes prevention measures. The Observatory’s 2024 report documented over 18,000 incidents nationwide (Ministry of Health, 2024); specific criminal provisions for perpetrators of violence and harassment against healthcare workers, with increased penalties for personal injury and their prosecution ex officio, thereby removing the burden from victims of filing complaints; specific punishment for damages to the healthcare facilities’ properties is provided; creation of the National Education and Prevention Day against violence against healthcare and social-health workers (March 12th), in conjunction with the European Awareness Day of Violence Against Doctors and other Healthcare Professionals.
Spain
Spanish labour law, mainly Royal Legislative Decree No. 2/2015, guarantees dignity at work and protection against sex or gender-based harassment (art. 4.2, subpara. e). The Occupational Risk Prevention Law (Law No. 31/1995) transposes EU Directive 89/391/EEC (1989), mandating employers to assess and prevent psychosocial risks. Organic Act No. 3/2007 enforces preventive and corrective measures against sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination. Companies with 50 or more employees are required to implement Equality Plans with prevention protocols and complaint-handling procedures under Royal Decrees No. 901/2020 and 902/2020. Non-compliance constitutes a serious offence under the Labour Infringements and Sanctions Act (LISOS; Royal Decree-Law No. 5/2000), carrying substantial fines and increased labour inspection oversight. New reforms, such as Law No. 15/2022, address digital harassment, including cyberbullying, and Royal Decree No. 1026/2024 expands protections for LGBTQIA+ (including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual individuals, among others) workers. Judicial rulings emphasise the proactive employer duties to prevent harassment, with criminal sanctions available under Organic Act No. 10/1995. Despite strong legal frameworks, enforcement gaps and digital management remain challenges.
Portugal
The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (1976) guarantees dignified working conditions and health protection. Dignified working conditions, as assured by the Constitution, are reinforced by Law No. 13/2023, which transposes two central European Union Directives into Portuguese law, marking a significant step toward compliance with the Decent Work Agenda. These directives are aimed at ensuring more transparent and predictable working conditions for employees and enhancing work-life balance for employees who are parents and caregivers.
According to CITE (Fidalgo, 2025; Torres et al., 2016), Portuguese law explicitly prohibits workplace harassment. The Labour Code (Law no. 7/2009, as amended) expressly forbids harassment in the workplace (Article 29) and places a legal obligation on employers to implement preventive measures. Law No. 73/2017, Art. 2, further reinforced protection by requiring companies with seven or more employees to adopt codes of good conduct and by mandating disciplinary proceedings whenever there is a suspicion of harassment. Additionally, the Portuguese Criminal Code, through Decree-Law No. 48/1995, Art. 170, criminalises specific forms of sexual harassment, such as coercion and unwanted sexual advances.
The Labour Code (Law No. 73/2017, Art. 2) explicitly prohibits harassment, classifying it as a severe offence that warrants victim compensation and disciplinary sanctions. It safeguards whistleblowers and witnesses by prohibiting retaliatory disciplinary actions for up to a year after reporting harassment, unless otherwise proven. The Criminal Code, under Decree-Law No. 48/1995, Art. 170, criminalises sexual harassment, with penalties including imprisonment or fines. Prevention of harassment at work, as stipulated in Law No. 73/2017, requires employers with seven or more employees to adopt codes of conduct and initiate disciplinary procedures upon receiving complaints of harassment. The Legal Framework for Safety and Health at Work (Law No. 102/2009) transposes Directive 89/391/EEC (1989), which requires the prevention of psychosocial risks and worker participation (Art. 15).
Oversight is provided by the Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment (CITE) and the Authority for Working Conditions (ACT), which enforce compliance and handle complaints. Also, this entity is the Portuguese National Focal Point for EU-OSHA, responsible for coordinating national initiatives and implementing EU-OSHA work programmes. The Action Plan for the Prevention of Violence in the Health Sector (PAPVSS), implemented by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 1/2022, aligns with international conventions (e.g., ILO Convention No. 190, 2019a; WHO et al., 2002) to address violence and GBVH against healthcare workers (Biscaia et al., 2022). Portugal ratified ILO Convention No. 190 (ILO, 2019a) through Presidential Decree No. 12/2024, reinforcing its commitment to eliminating violence and harassment at work. Recent laws (Law No. 35/2023 and Law No. 26/2025) strengthen mental health support, whistleblower protections, and expand employer liability for psychosocial harassment, including digital and remote work risks. Although regulations and enforcement are advancing, challenges remain in worker participation and fully integrating digital risks into OSH systems. Portugal has also run a national awareness campaign on early detection of violence risks since 2019 (De Raeve et al., 2023).
Slovenia
In Slovenia, the Employment Relationships Act (ZDR-1, 2013, Art. 7) prohibits all forms of workplace harassment and imposes employer liability for preventing, addressing, and remedying workplace abuse and mobbing (Arts. 7, 47). The Health and Safety at Work Act (ZVZD-1; 2011, Art. 24) requires employers to prevent and manage violence, mobbing, harassment, and other psychosocial risks by implementing protective measures, complaint handling, victim support, and involving workers’ representatives. The Protection Against Discrimination Act (Advocate of the Principle of Equality, 2016, Art. 2) protects all workers (including job applicants and non-standard employees) against discrimination. The Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Act (Act No. 700–01/02–70/1, 2002) establishes the legal framework for promoting gender equality in Slovenia and explicitly prohibits gender-based discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment, in employment and other areas of social life. By addressing unequal power relations and structural gender inequality, the Act complements general anti-discrimination legislation and reinforces the gender-based violence (GBV) perspective in the workplace, situating harassment and violence not merely as individual misconduct but as manifestations of broader systemic inequalities.
Under the Labour Code of 24/04/2002, Article 7(1) prohibits sexual harassment and other forms of harassment at work, in which harassment is defined as any unwanted behaviour related to any personal circumstance, with the effect or intention of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or abusive environment. Article 7(4) prohibits harassment and bullying in the workplace (defined as any repetitive or systematic action or behaviour that is reprehensible or clearly negative and insulting towards an employee in the workplace or related to work).
The Criminal Code of the Republic of Slovenia (Kazenski zakonik, 2009, Art. 197) sanctions workplace harassment and mobbing, imposing imprisonment or fines for conduct that causes humiliation or intimidation. Recent legislation (e.g., Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 2023, amendment of ZDR-1, valid from November 2023) grants domestic violence victims paid leave and reduced work hours, enhancing integrated social and workplace protections. Slovenia’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe, 2011; Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 2024) integrates workplace violence prevention into broader societal frameworks. Labour Inspectorate enforces compliance amid challenges in its coverage of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and resource limitations. Besides, recent amendments to the Employment Relationships Act (2013) strengthened the right to disconnect, obliging employers to ensure that workers can fully separate their personal and professional lives, free of work-related obligations outside working hours. This amendment fosters stress reduction and diminishes the risk of burnout. Slovenia also addresses psychosocial risks strategically through the Resolution on the National Programme of Safety and Health Work 2018–2027 (2018), which highlights the role of work organisations, leadership, and preventive measures in protecting employees’ mental health.
Germany
Under German law, workplace harassment, including sexual harassment, is considered a form of discrimination under the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, AGG, 2006, § 3 III, IV), which protects employees from sexual harassment, mobbing, and retaliation. Employers are legally required to take the necessary measures to protect employees against discrimination by other employees or third parties (AGG, 2006, § 12). This protection also includes preventive measures such as establishing clear anti-discrimination policies, providing regular staff training, and conducting immediate investigations of reported incidents. Non-compliance can result in employer liability and compensation awards (AGG, 2006, § 15). Additionally, if an employer fails to take appropriate action in the case of discrimination, the employee has the right to refuse work (AGG, 2006, § 14) and the employer is prohibited from punishing an employee for complaining about discrimination (AGG, 2006, § 16).
Furthermore, the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB, 1896, § 823) allows claims for damages related to violations of personal integrity and dignity. Unlike the AGG, which is limited to the labour context in cases of sexual harassment, the German Civil Code applies in all civil law situations, not just in the labour context. However, the evidentiary requirements under the German Civil Code are higher than those under the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG, 2006, § 22), making it easier for affected individuals to obtain legal protection under the AGG.
Moreover, the OSH Act (Arbeitsschutzgesetz, ArbSchG, 1996, § 3–5) obliges employers to protect workers from psychological distress and harassment as part of their duty of care, while Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, GG, 1949, Art. 1) anchors the inviolability of human dignity as a constitutional principle. Recent decisions by the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, Press Release No. 14/2025) have expanded compensation eligibility to include non-material and psychological damages, emphasising the evolving jurisprudence on harassment-related harm. Preventive mechanisms such as codes of conduct, harassment ombuds offices, and confidential reporting channels (e.g., AGG, 2006) are increasingly used across organisations to ensure compliance with national and European standards. In addition to civil and labour law, physical sexual harassment is also considered a criminal offence under the German Criminal Code (StGB, 1871, § 184i).
France
French labour law and recent reforms prohibit all forms of harassment under the Labour Code (1991; Arts. L1152–1 to L1155–2 and L4121–1), requiring employers to prevent harassment and protect victims. The French Criminal Code (1994; Arts. 222–33 and 222–33-2) criminalises sexual and moral harassment, providing for imprisonment and fines against perpetrators. The Public Health and Working Conditions Reform (Law No. 2021–1018, 2021) strengthened employer obligations to assess and manage psychosocial risks and improve prevention through social dialogue. In 2025, the French Supreme Court (2025) recognised institutional moral harassment as criminally punishable, holding companies and leaders liable for harmful policies, such as disruptive restructuring, excessive surveillance, lack of support, or intimidation. Current legislative proposals aim to ratify ILO Convention No. 190 (ILO, 2019a), enhance workplace protections for survivors of domestic violence at work, and expand employer responsibilities across supply chains. National continuing professional development training on violence is offered for healthcare staff to address WPV (De Raeve et al., 2023).
According to the French Labour Code (1991), workers must not be subjected to repeated acts of moral harassment that have the purpose or effect of degrading their working conditions, and that may infringe upon their right to dignity, impair their physical or mental health, or jeopardise their professional future (Article L1152–1). To this end, employers are under a legal obligation to adopt all necessary measures to prevent acts of moral harassment within the workplace (Article L1152–4).
Furthermore, employees, apprentices, and interns may not be sanctioned, dismissed, or subjected to discriminatory treatment (remuneration, training, promotion, and renewal of contracts) on the grounds that they have been subjected to, have refused to submit to, or have reported acts of moral harassment (Article L1152–2). This provision establishes a clear prohibition of reprisals. Any termination of an employment contract carried out in breach of this protection is deemed null and void (Article L1152–3). Employees who engage in acts of moral harassment may, conversely, be subject to disciplinary sanctions (Article L1152–5).
Article L1152–6 further provides for the possibility of initiating a mediation procedure, either by the victim of moral harassment or by the person accused of such conduct. The parties jointly select a mediator, whose role is to seek conciliation and to submit written proposals aimed at bringing the harassment to an end. If conciliation fails, the mediator must inform the parties of the applicable sanctions and the procedural safeguards available to the victim. Any obstruction of the mediator in the performance of their duties constitutes a criminal offence, punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine (Article L1155–1).
Sexual harassment is prohibited under Article L1153–1. The first form consists of repeated words or conduct of a sexual nature that undermines the dignity of a person by reason of their degrading or humiliating character, or that create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. The second form involves any serious pressure, even if not repeated, exerted with the real or apparent purpose of obtaining an act of a sexual nature, whether for the benefit of the perpetrator or of a third party (quid pro quo harassment).
Under France’s Law No. 2016–1691 of 9 December and the obligations incumbent upon the Comité Social et Économique (CSE), employers are required to establish robust internal governance mechanisms to prevent and address workplace violence and harassment. These obligations include the provision of accessible and secure internal complaint channels, the conduct of prompt and impartial internal investigations, and the effective protection of complainants and witnesses against retaliation. In addition, employers must be able to document the preventive measures adopted, including risk assessment, awareness-raising, and follow-up actions.
The Netherlands
Dutch legislation provides a robust framework to prevent WPV, bullying, and harassment through existing and forthcoming measures. Under the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet, Arbowet, 1998, Art. 3), employers are legally obliged to conduct risk assessments, implement preventive measures, and ensure a safe and healthy psychosocial work environment. This includes addressing work-related stress, sexual intimidation, aggression, and other psychosocial risks.
The Working Conditions Act defines work-related psychosocial pressure as encompassing sexual harassment, aggression and violence, bullying, and excessive task-related pressure leading to work-related stress (Article 1(3)). Amendments introduced in 2025 strengthened the preventive dimension of the legislation by emphasising the creation of safe working environments and mandating preventive measures against unwanted behaviour. In this context, companies employing 10 or more workers are required to adopt a written code of conduct that addresses undesirable conduct, including bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, assault, and violence. This requirement will formally enter into force in July 2026.
The revised framework further obliges employers to prevent or limit psychosocial workload, including harassment, by identifying relevant risks and adopting an action plan to mitigate them. It is also recommended that organisations appoint a confidential adviser (vertrouwenspersoon) to whom employees may report incidents in confidence.
In addition, the Equality Act prohibits discrimination and harassment on grounds such as religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or age, and protects workers who report harassment in good faith from retaliatory measures, including dismissal. Enforcement mechanisms include oversight by the Dutch Labour Authority (Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie), which may intervene in serious cases where employers fail to act, as well as the option to request a formal opinion from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights in cases involving discrimination or harassment. Similarly, as sexual harassment falls within the scope of the Equal Treatment Act, individuals claiming to be a victim of sexual harassment can submit a complaint to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights. However, it is worth noting that, despite the Government’s commitment to ratify ILO Convention 190, it is still pending and requires some amendments to legislation.
Article 646 (Dutch Civil Code, 2023, Book 7) transposes EU directives on equal treatment, providing definitions of harassment and sexual harassment as forms of explicitly prohibited discrimination, and considers these behaviours beyond mere workplace misconduct as violations of fundamental equal treatment laws. In this article, paragraph 7 defines intimidation as an inadequate conduct related to a person’s gender with the intent of violating that person’s dignity, creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It is noteworthy that, according to this paragraph and its conception of intimidation, the focus is on the conduct’s effects or consequences, meaning that even if the perpetrator lacks malicious intent, the behaviour itself is not to be excused if the environment created is objectively hostile. Sexual intimidation is defined in paragraph 8 of article 646 covering a broad spectrum, involving any form of verbal, non-verbal or physical behaviour with a sexual connotation with the same purpose already described for intimidation.
The Working Conditions Decree (1997) further specifies employer duties regarding the management of psychosocial workload and employee support structures. Complementing these occupational safety provisions, the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, 2023, Book 7, Art. 658) provides a mechanism for workplace safety, establishing an employer’s duty of care to protect employees from physical and psychological harm. Under this article, employers are obligated to organise and maintain the workplace, equipment, and tools in a preventive manner, ensuring the full safety (physical and psychological) of employees. Employers who fail to take reasonable preventive measures may be held liable for damages. Building on this framework, the Bill on the Code of Conduct for Unwanted Behaviour (2025) introduces a forthcoming legal obligation (effective July 2026) for employers with ten or more employees to adopt and enforce a code of conduct addressing bullying, harassment, discrimination, and other undesirable behaviours. Employers must also appoint confidential counsellors and ensure effective internal complaint-handling mechanisms. Enforcement of these obligations lies primarily with the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (n.d.), specifically the Netherlands Labour Authority, which monitors compliance through inspections, risk audits, and the power to impose corrective measures or administrative fines. These institutions also provide guidance and training to promote a culture of prevention and support for victims. Collectively, these instruments and enforcement mechanisms aim to foster dignity, equality, and psychological safety at work, aligning national law with evolving European and international standards for the prevention of psychological risks.
Sweden
Swedish law, under the Discrimination Act (SFS 2008:567), prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment in the workplace based on sex, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, and other attributes. Employers must take active measures to prevent discrimination, reprisals, and harassment, investigate complaints, and implement corrective actions to prevent recurrence. The Work Environment Act (Arbetsmiljölagen, SFS 1977:1160) mandates employers to provide safe and healthy work environments free from bullying, harassment, and violence. Criminal liability applies under the Criminal Code (Brottsbalken, SFS 1962:700) for sexual harassment in the workplace. The Swedish Work Environment Authority oversees enforcement based on guidance, such as Work Environment Authority’s regulations and general guidelines (Arbetsmiljöverkets föreskrifter och allmänna råd, 2023:2), which focuses on psychosocial risks. The #MeToo movement has increased awareness and reporting of sexual harassment in workplace contexts in Sweden, reflecting evolving social and legal dynamics (CMS, 2024a).
Swedish Work Environment Authority has adopted provisions on the organisational and social working environment, with general recommendations on their implementation. The regulation aims to promote a good working environment and prevent the risk of illness due to organisational and social conditions in the workplace (Article 1). Article 4 defines (among other things) bullying (such as actions directed against one or more employees in an abusive manner, which may lead to damage to their health or integrity outside the workplace) and unhealthy workload (when work demands exceed available resources). Under Article 6, employers must ensure that management and supervisors know how to prevent and avoid excessive unhealthy work demands and situations of workplace harassment. Employers must also ensure that tasks and responsibilities do not involve unhealthy workloads, and resources must be adapted accordingly (Article 9). Employers must also take measures to avoid mentally stressful tasks and work situations that cause serious health problems (Article 11).
Employers have a duty to make it clear that harassment is not tolerated and to take measures against working conditions that may cause stress (Article 13). Procedures for dealing with abusive behaviour must be established and made known to employees, indicating who is responsible for receiving complaints about incidents of harassment, how the information is handled, what the recipient of this information must do, and how victims can be helped quickly (Article 14).
The Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health has adopted specific ordinances addressing violence, threats, and victimisation in the workplace. The Ordinance on Violence and Threats of Violence at Work (AFS 1993:2) requires employers to assess the risk of violence or threats of violence and to implement appropriate preventive measures (Article 2). Employers must ensure that employees receive adequate information, training, and instructions to perform their work safely (Article 4), and, in workplaces exposed to recurring risks, provide additional support and guidance (Article 5). Incidents or threats of violence must be documented and investigated (Article 10), and victims must be offered assistance and support to prevent or mitigate physical and psychological harm (Article 11).
Victimisation at work is addressed in a separate ordinance (AFS 1993:17), which defines victimisation as recurrent or clearly negative acts directed at employees in an offensive manner, potentially resulting in their exclusion from the workplace (Article 1). Such conduct may be perpetrated by co-workers, employers, or their representatives and encompasses behaviours commonly described as bullying, mental violence, social exclusion, and harassment, including sexual harassment: obstruction or sabotage of work performance, threats, intimidation, humiliation, persistent insults, unjustified criticism, and unfounded administrative sanctions, such as arbitrary reassignment or denial of training or leave. Employers are required to plan and organise work to prevent victimisation as far as possible (Article 2).
Finland
Finnish occupational safety legislation provides a robust framework specifically addressing GBVH at work to protect employees’ psychological well-being and ensure equality. Under the OSH Act (
Työturvallisuuslaki738/2002, 2002, Ch. 2, § 8 and § 28), employers are legally obligated to prevent all forms of harassment (including repeated offensive conduct, intimidation, sexual harassment, exclusion, abuse of authority, and gender-based harassment) that endanger employee safety or health. This includes a prompt, impartial investigation of complaints, implementation of corrective measures, and follow-up to maintain a safe and respectful workplace environment. The Equality Act (1325/2014, 2014) complements this by explicitly prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on gender and other protected characteristics, offering procedural fairness and protection from retaliation, reinforced by supervisory bodies such as the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman and the National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal.
Finland has also incorporated the prevention of violence and identification/management of threatening situations into occupational safety competencies and, violence against nurses is being included in core nursing curricula, reflecting alignment between legal frameworks and educational measures to prevent GBVH (De Raeve et al., 2023).
Currently, the OSH Authority operates as a Regional State Administrative Agency under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, conducting workplace inspections and enforcing compliance with these laws transparently and consistently (Regional State Administrative Agency [Aluehallintovirasto], n.d.). This enforcement responsibility will be transferred to the Finnish Supervisory Agency as of 1 January 2026, consolidating duties for streamlined governance while maintaining service continuity (OSH Administration, 2025a). Additionally, the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman plays a crucial complementary role by monitoring equality legislation (Ombudsman for Equality, 2022a), offering guidance on workplace discrimination and harassment (Non-Discrimination Ombudsman, 2023), and referring severe cases to the National Tribunal (Ombudsman for Equality, 2022b). Cooperation between OSH authorities and the Ombudsman strengthens comprehensive enforcement against GBVH (Ombudsman for Equality, 2024).
Employers are further encouraged to actively cooperate with occupational health services to identify and mitigate psychosocial risks, including interpersonal conflicts and psychosocial stressors (OSH Administration, 2025b), which often accompany harassment and violence. Occupational health professionals support early detection and management of these risks, while mediation is recommended as an effective conflict resolution tool that promotes healthier psychosocial work environments. Together, these legal provisions, enforcement bodies, and health service collaborations constitute a comprehensive and integrated framework for preventing GBVH in Finnish workplaces. This system aligns with EU Directive 89/391/EEC (1989) and international labour standards, ensuring Finland meets its obligations to safeguard mental health and promote gender equality at work (Makarevičienė et al., 2023).
