Workplace harassment can be one of the most damaging situations, both for the individuals concerned and company reputation.
While not a direct part of ESG frameworks, it certainly cuts across several social factors and is central to many companies’ pledges to offer a safe working environment.
New legal changes, that came into effect last autumn, are beginning to change workplace behaviour and create new considerations for how sexual harassment risks are spotted, and dealt with.
The Government is also aiming to up the ante later this year with the passing of the Employment Rights Bill, which will give new starters full legal protections from day one rather than after two years, and extend the scope of employer responsibilities to tackling third-party harassment.
The legislation is not without its critics though, even if shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith’s PR stunt misfired this week after his first chainsaw failed to chew through a paper copy of the draft bill.
According to a major article in the i newspaper this week, the laws — which place a burden of responsibility on employers to prevent sexual harassment from occuring — are causing ripples in offices where policies needed changing as a result, and the burden of stopping sexual harassment has been placed on the employer.
Defined as “unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature”, the rules cover what most people would have historically considered — and what the law determined was — inappropriate, but also set out clearer and broader definitions. For example; asking questions about someone's sex life or telling sexually offensive jokes. Touching someone against their will, such as by hugging them, can also now be classified as harassment.
And, as this BBC piece points out, what constitutes the workplace extends beyond the office, to the Christmas party, the off-site meeting or even a drink after work at the pub.
Just as the change casts a new spotlight on sexual behaviour at work, and creates new considerations for reputation risk management; legal cases finding their way into the courtroom have created more questions around other forms of potential harassment.
This week, an employment tribunal ruled that younger workers who are boisterous in the office about their social habits, are not harassing older colleagues by doing so.
The complainant had brought the case after witnessing colleagues’ noise and “extreme time wasting”, and the case even brought the word “chatty” into the fray.
Broader forms of harassment to one side though, the reality is that the increased focus on workplace sexual harassment is precipitating more and more stories about how prevalent it is, and the personal impact on those who have suffered from it.
A recent study by the Unite union found 25% of females from a large sample size had been sexually assaulted while at work. More than half reported being subjected to harassing behaviour that is now covered by the legal changes introduced.
Meanwhile, shares in the office group Great Portland Estates also fell this week as a result of a whistleblowing investigation into culture, after a former employee complained. There is no suggestion that any harassment was of a sexual nature, and the company has attempted to get ahead of any issues by introducing the whistleblower policy. It demonstrates the potential impact, even if the complaint is found to be groundless after investigation, and despite the firm having taken a proactive approach.
The forthcoming new employment rights bill would also block companies from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to prevent victims of workplace harassment or discrimination from speaking out. It would effectively make gagging order agreements, drawn up by employers when employees leave, worthless. This will give rise to another new reputation consideration.
All in all, a series of sensitive new measures that communications teams will need to be fully across.
