Our research into workplace harassment

This report provides a summary of some research we recently commissioned on harassment in the workplace. The research adopted a rapid evidence review design which brought together a range of evidence on how to identify and tackle workplace harassment. The findings are relevant to our current work and likely of interest to academics and professionals working in this area.

The research was undertaken by the Open Innovation Team, a cross-government unit that collaborates with experts to generate policy insights and support evidence-based decision making. Open Innovation presented us with an extensive report on the causes of workplace harassment and the tools that can be used to motivate compliance and foster change in organisations. Their report was informed by a review of existing research, expert interviews and conversations with EHRC colleagues.

A rapid evidence review is a method of summarising research and academic literature quickly and efficiently, often in response to an urgent need. This is different to a traditional systematic review which usually takes longer and provides a deeper analysis of available research. Rapid evidence reviews are commonly used by policy makers. The method was appropriate for this research as it allowed us to gather a range of evidence on harassment in the workplace efficiently. 

Open Innovation reviewed academic publications, non-academic publications and government reports. Evidence was collected from research databases using key search teams and assessed for relevance against pre-defined inclusion criteria. International research was also consulted to help highlight best practice and innovation.

The findings from the rapid evidence review were used in combination with 17 expert interviews. 11 interviews were conducted with academics with relevant specialisms, including some international academics. A further six interviews were conducted with industry experts from prominent organisations working on change programmes with a focus on workplace harassment. Each of these semi-structured interviews lasted approximately one hour and participants were recruited using purposive sampling.

The study answered the following research questions:

1. How can workplace harassment be identified and what are its drivers?
2. What are the most effective interventions in transforming workplace cultures associated with harassment?

This exploratory study drew on a range of evidence relevant to each research question. The findings will be used to inform future research and ideas for practice. 

Harassment prevalence

Harassment is defined as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating someone's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Harassment occurs in various forms, as outlined in the Equality Act 2010.

Workplaces are a common setting for harassment, particularly sexual harassment. Despite workplace harassment being underreported, statistics from the Fawcett Society, Office for National Statistics,  Government Equalities Office and Financial Conduct Authority suggest that there are high levels of reported workplace harassment, particularly across financial and hospitality sectors.

Legislative context

Organisations now have a greater responsibility to prevent and address workplace harassment. The Worker Protection Act, which came into force in October 2024, placed a new legal duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers. This preventative duty represents a shift from reactive to preventative responses to workplace sexual harassment.

The UK government plans to make further changes to the way that workplace harassment is dealt with following an announcement about a proposed ban on the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). NDAs are commonly used during the settlement process between employers and employees during cases of harassment in the workplace. However, the use of NDAs is divisive, with some arguing that NDAs silence victims and hide systemic issues of harassment. Several interviewees shared this view in this research.

Harassment in the workplace negatively impacts staff morale, productivity, absenteeism and turnover. We can tackle workplace harassment and discrimination through our various powers and levers, such as our enforcement powers, litigation powers and compliance work. 

Organisational risk factors

Hierarchical structures, male-dominated workforces and precarious job contracts are risk factors for harassment in workplaces, as identified by existing literature and academic and industry expert interviewees. Workers on low wages, in precarious employment and on insecure job contracts are most at risk of workplace harassment. Sexual harassment disproportionately affects women, those reporting a disability, young people and ethnic minorities.

Academic expert interviewees warned that when initial or isolated incidents of harassment are not addressed, it is more likely that larger problems will develop. For example, when perpetrators of harassment experience no consequences, harmful behaviours can become tolerated or even implicitly supported. Tolerating problematic behaviour over time also makes systemic problems of harassment more likely to become embedded and more difficult to challenge.

Several interviewees cautioned against using only the number of harassment reports to assess how common harassment is. Low harassment reporting rates may indicate a workplace in which employees feel unable to report due to fear of retaliation from coworkers, their employer or HR, rather than the absence of harassment. Relatedly, rates of reported harassment often increase initially in response to interventions to tackle harassment as cultures begin to improve.  

What good looks like

There is no single definition of an inclusive workplace. However, there is some consensus within existing research regarding the cultures, practices and leadership approaches that tend to create workplaces that are less likely to suffer from ingrained harassment. In ‘healthy’ workplaces, employees are more likely to feel psychologically safe, involved, respected, valued, able to influence decision-making and able to show their authentic selves.

In such environments, leadership actively advances diversity, for example by proactively tackling low-level discrimination. All interviewees referred to practices that can foster positive workplaces. These included:

• inclusive hiring practices
• strong support networks
• mentorship
• flexible working arrangements

While diversity and inclusion are related, a diverse workforce in and of itself does not necessarily prevent harassment. Diversity is more likely to foster inclusion and protect against harassment when it is the result of a deliberate organisational commitment to increasing representation.​

This research suggests that it is important to understand workplace harassment before choosing the most appropriate interventions. This is best achieved by combining employee culture surveys with quantitative metrics such as staff turnover, career advancement or absence rates. These are useful indicators of issues that may be entrenched in organisational culture.​

Policies

Organisations often emphasise the importance of policies to address harassment, yet research has found that policies alone are not effective at decreasing harassment. Instead, they are usually more symbolic and only effective in tackling harassment when they are implemented consistently and reviewed regularly so that employees trust them. They should be one of multiple interventions to increase awareness of harassment through training and communication.

An effective policy provides employees with a good understanding of expected behaviour and reporting procedures and timelines. It also details how perpetrators of harassment could be held accountable, including the factors that will be taken into account to determine the appropriate sanction.   

Reporting

Reporting systems should be clear, accessible and encourage victims to come forward​. This research suggests that organisations should offer multiple ways to report incidences of harassment, including anonymous reporting, reporting via an external party and digital reporting options. 

Training

Well-designed training can prevent harassment and have a positive effect on behaviour and social norms in an organisation​. There was consensus within the existing literature and interviews that general, standardised, one-off training cannot drive sustained behavioural change in organisations that are suffering from ingrained cultures of harassment.

Instead, for training to be effective it should be timely, repeated and tailored. Training should target the underlying causes of harassment, and this may vary between organisations. For example, if harassment problems persist due to a lack of knowledge, training might educate employees on laws and policies. Conversely, if problems persist due to resistance to change, training might also include interpersonal relations. Behaviour-based, interactive training that uses real scenarios and encourages face-to-face communication and debate has been found to improve engagement. Training is also more effective when leaders are supportive. Bystander training is a form of training that teaches individuals how to notice and speak up when they witness harmful behaviours such as harassment. Bystander training is regularly recognised as an effective style of anti-harassment training. 

Senior leaders

Leaders are essential to the success of change initiatives in organisations because they set the tone in terms of what is tolerated in an organisation. Industry expert interviewees argued that leaders can promote poor behaviour if middle management and new leaders copy toxic leadership behaviours. They noted that senior management can be perceived as reinforcing negative behaviour if perpetrators are promoted or otherwise rewarded. ​

The structure of a team can affect the practices they implement. Some research suggests that more women in leadership is associated with lower levels of harassment. There is also some evidence that a positive management attitude towards the balance of work and family is linked to fewer instances of harassment.  ​

Industry experts suggested that organisations could conduct a risk assessment of workplace culture and quality of leadership. One expert recommended re-onboarding leaders to reinforce good behaviour.​

Ultimately, interventions should be integrated into the management structures and governance of an organisation, for example by embedding equalities ambitions into performance management targets. This will allow a positive culture to continue even when senior leaders leave an organisation.

Middle managers

It is important to recognise that senior leaders struggle to implement changes without the cooperation of middle managers. ​

Industry expert interviewees agreed that middle managers and supervisors influence change programmes through the good behaviour they model and the negative behaviour they tolerate. Some industry experts emphasised that an employee’s relationship with their immediate supervisor can be more important than the impact of senior leadership because they are their main point of contact. ​

Academic experts noted that supervisors who are perceived by employees as inclusive have a positive impact on employee retention. There is strong evidence that poor supervisory relationships increase the likelihood of experiencing workplace harassment.

Interviewees also highlighted that middle managers and supervisors need tailored, behaviour-based training to support change initiatives.

Leaders and managers also need behaviour-based training to be role models for the organisation​.

Interviewees agreed that leaders at all levels of organisations need to respond appropriately and consistently to harassment claims. They can proactively prevent harassment by having conversations with employees who harass others to show the rest of the organisation that poor behaviour will not be tolerated.​

Both academics and industry experts emphasised that leaders require long-term, behaviour-based training to be able to model healthy behaviour and properly deal with harassment when it occurs. They also suggested mentorship, ongoing surveys and accreditation programmes as leadership interventions.​

Organisational change programmes

While organisational change programmes have been found to suffer from high failure rates, it is possible to increase compliance with change initiatives by growing motivation throughout organisations. This is best achieved when leadership develops a clear case for change which justifies the need for intervention. A detailed understanding of why change is needed, outside of external accountability structures, may increase motivation.

Secondly, employees may be more motivated to comply when the case for change is supported by organisational data. Industry expert interviewees suggested that subjective measures such as employee climate surveys and internal focus groups, combined with objective metrics such as staff turnover and progression metrics, can identify problematic structures, processes and cultures.

Organisational change programmes may also be more successful when compliance is seen as a collective responsibility. While senior leadership is central to shaping change initiatives, acceptance is needed at each level of the organisation. ​

Finally, change initiatives are also more likely to succeed with they are delivered by a credible and trusted messenger, disseminated in a prominent way, and when communications are action-orientated and specific.

When change initiatives come up against resistance, this can present an opportunity to identify the barriers to cultural change and find ways to overcome them. Resistance to change initiatives will likely be different at each level of the organisation. 

Making change meaningful

Perceptions of harassment can influence the types of responses an organisation chooses. While some organisations may approach addressing harassment as a moral imperative, others may frame it in terms of reducing reputational or financial risk.​

Reputation management may result in reactive responses that further perpetuate poor behaviour. For example, in prioritising minimising legal liability, employers may implement practices which seek to hide harassment cases, such as through the use of NDAs.​

A few industry experts noted that reputation management may also lead employers to adopt a ‘check box mentality’ to interventions. This limits the efficacy of change programmes, as the presence of interventions is prioritised over their impact.​

This study also found that, at a sector-wide level, organisational compliance with anti-harassment practices may be increased through ‘name and shame’ initiatives, where poorly-performing organisations are held publicly accountable. This was proposed by some industry experts as a potential compliance mechanism. This is because public exposure of poor practices could have a negative financial impact on businesses, reinforcing the need to take preventative action seriously.

Targeted interventions

Discussions of general cultural change within an organisation may overlook instances of localised poor behaviour, such as within specific teams. This may allow problematic behaviours to continue. ​

In large organisations, harassment often manifests differently across different teams due to unique power dynamics, team cultures or leadership styles. As a result, general training rolled out across an organisation is likely to feel impersonal or irrelevant. A more specific and staggered approach may be better.

Some academic interviewees suggested that strategic targeting of interventions can improve intervention efficacy and engagement. Industry experts also commented on the importance of considering the structure of training groups, such as grade- or site-specific training. This can encourage peer-to-peer learning and create a psychologically safe space for employees to raise concerns.​

This research has important implications for the design of policies and practices to tackle harassment in the workplace, as outlined in the following practical insights for organisations:

Insight 1

This research suggests that organisations should collect and use organisational data to:

• define the prevalence and scope of harassment
• inform tailored plans to reduce workplace harassment
• assess organisational risk factors for harassment

Data sources could include employee surveys and workforce data about staff retention, promotion and absence levels. Our guidance, Collecting and analysing equality data in the uniformed services, provides more information on the types of equality data that can be collected, analysed and used to understand and inform policies and practices to tackle harassment in the workplace. Although the guidance was produced for the uniformed services, the principles and methods described can be used by all organisations looking to collect and use good quality equality data.  

Insight 2

Organisations should ensure that reporting routes and systems such as anti-harassment policies support desired behaviours and practices. This rapid evidence review found that these policies and systems should be reviewed at the same time to ensure consistency. 

Insight 3

Data suggests that organisational leadership should:

1. provide clear definitions of harassment, zero-tolerance statements and action-orientated descriptions of reporting processes
2. have a plan for communicating updates to policies in a clear and effective way

Insight 4

Organisations should have at least two ways for employees to report harassment. This should include one internal reporting route and one external reporting route to allow employees greater flexibility and choice in how they choose to report an issue.​

Insight 5

Interviewees stressed that the role of leaders, middle management and supervisors in reducing harassment should be emphasised early. Where possible, these groups should be provided with specific, behaviour-based training, as recommended by interviewees and existing literature.

Insight 6

To increase efficacy, organisations should consider where anti-harassment interventions can be integrated into existing structures of performance management and professional development for leaders and managers.​​ As best practice, organisations could use an accreditation scheme so that leaders are required to reach anti-harassment goals in their workplace to be accredited. The research found that this is likely to increase compliance and motivation amongst these groups.​

Insight 7

Finally, this study found that training should be tailored to employees at different levels of the organisation and delivered in an interactive style to increase engagement.​

As the national equality regulator responsible for enforcing the Equality Act 2010, our duties include reducing inequality, eliminating discrimination and promoting and protecting human rights. The findings of this report are relevant to projects happening under our strategic plan 2025 to 2028, such as our programme to tackle harassment, discrimination and victimisation in the uniformed services.

The findings of this rapid evidence review are also relevant to the way we use our powers to tackle harassment in the workplace in all forms and across all sectors. ​

We would like to thank the Open Innovation team for delivering this rapid evidence review as well as each of the interviewees that took part in this study. We are delighted to be able to continue working with these experts and benefitting from their expertise in this area.

To find out more about this research or our wider work, or to request a copy of the original research report, contact us.