Colonial Past to Present Challenges: The Importance of Workplace Safety for Women

The protection of women in the workplace is not merely a legal obligation but also a moral and ethical imperative. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013 (POSH Act) represents a significant step toward creating a safe working environment for women. This Act highlights the right to a secure workplace, free from harassment, where women can perform their duties without fear. However, despite the POSH Act’s existence, incidents of sexual harassment continue to surface, raising concerns about the effectiveness of corporate responses. This blog explores whether corporate India has adequately protected women in the workplace, examining the POSH Act’s implementation. It considers insights from colonial history, institutional inefficiencies, political motivations, global influences, and persistent social challenges such as gender discrimination.

Colonial Influence on Current Legal Frameworks

The legal systems of many former colonies, including India, still bear the marks of colonial legacies. During colonial rule, laws were created more to maintain control than to uphold individual rights, particularly for women. This approach influences present-day frameworks, as the colonial administration in India historically neglected women’s rights and failed to address gender-based violence effectively. Post-independence, patriarchal biases persisted, creating a structural weakness in the ability of laws to protect women. Although the POSH Act 2013, marked a positive change, these lingering biases affect the act’s implementation and enforcement. A comprehensive approach would require not only legal protections but also societal shifts toward true gender equality and respect for women’s rights.

Crisis-Driven Reforms and Reactive Measures

Significant reforms, especially those addressing social issues, often emerge as a reaction to crises. For instance, India’s 1991 LPG (Liberalisation, Privatisation, and Globalisation) reforms were driven by an economic crisis. Similarly, laws addressing sexual harassment often arise from social uprisings. The landmark judgment in Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan, which led to the creation of the Vishaka Guidelines, was a result of a tragic assault that highlighted the need for protections against workplace harassment. Later, these guidelines led to the formulation of the POSH Act, 2013. On a global scale, movements like #MeToo spotlighted the widespread nature of sexual harassment, pushing corporations and governments to adopt or strengthen anti-harassment policies. However, these crisis-driven reforms highlight a reactive approach, where laws are implemented only after significant harm has occurred. Without proactive measures and effective implementation, these reforms may only provide partial protection, addressing symptoms rather than root causes.

Political Motivations Behind Legal Reforms

Many reforms, including those aimed at preventing harassment, are shaped by political motivations. Governments may introduce reforms to appease specific constituencies, gain support, or respond to public outrage following high-profile cases. The Nirbhaya case, for instance, led to significant legal reforms to enhance women’s safety, which were introduced amidst public protests and media coverage. However, while such laws address immediate concerns, they may not address underlying societal attitudes or have the necessary resources for effective enforcement. Laws that are politically motivated may lack sustainability and fail to create long-lasting change if they are rushed into action without adequate frameworks and institutional support.

Influence of International Standards on Local Contexts

In many instances, developed nations set examples that influence the legal frameworks in countries in the Global South. The #MeToo movement and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) have spurred stronger anti-harassment measures globally. However, while aligning with international standards, implementing these frameworks directly without contextual adaptation can introduce challenges. Compliance with international standards may overshadow the need for culturally specific solutions that consider local societal norms. This “one-size-fits-all” approach may neglect the deeply ingrained social and cultural factors that contribute to workplace harassment, reducing the effectiveness of such policies.

Challenges in Addressing Intersectional Discrimination

Corporations often struggle to protect women from harassment due to intersecting societal discriminations based on caste, religion, and gender. In India, these layers of discrimination create additional barriers for marginalised women, amplifying the challenges they face. Gender discrimination, embedded in societal norms and practices, strongly influences how harassment complaints are perceived, particularly in the context of the POSH Act 2013.

Corporate India’s Response to Workplace Protection

Analyses, such as the FICCI-EY survey, reveal that only 65% of companies have a formal anti-harassment policy. Recent NCRB and MoS&PI data further highlight ongoing challenges. Despite the POSH Act’s robust framework, corporate India’s response has been inadequate, hampered by colonial legacies, reactive laws, political motivations, and challenges in adopting international frameworks in a local context. Corporate culture also plays a significant role; organisations often prioritise their reputation over justice for individuals, potentially leading to incomplete investigations or inadequate support for victims. This focus on protecting the company image perpetuates a culture of silence, deterring victims from speaking up and seeking justice.

Gaps in Institutional Mechanisms

The POSH Act mandates the establishment of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) within organisations to address grievances. However, many companies fail to comply, and even those that do may lack resources, training, and enforcement mechanisms, reducing the ICC’s effectiveness. Additionally, organisations often do not have gender-sensitive policies or fail to create an inclusive environment that encourages reporting. Marginalised women face unique challenges in accessing justice. This gap in grievance redressal limits the POSH Act’s effectiveness and highlights the need for continuous support, sensitisation, and compliance measures.

Conclusion

An analysis of statistics, such as the FICCI-EY survey showing only 65% compliance with formal anti-harassment policies, alongside data from NCRB and MoS&PI, underscores the gaps in corporate India’s approach to safeguarding women. Influences from colonial-era legal systems, reactive and politically motivated laws, and challenges in adapting international frameworks all contribute to these inadequacies. While the POSH Act provides a robust legal framework, it often falls short in terms of practical implementation. Corporate entities sometimes prioritise reputation over justice, and without a focus on both legal and cultural change, these challenges persist.

Way Forward

To create a truly safe workplace, a balanced, enforceable, and sustainable approach is essential, integrating compliance, cultural change, and ethical business practices. Future efforts must focus on strengthening existing mechanisms (such as mandatory BRSR Exhibit 2) and implementing a combination of soft and hard measures to shift corporate attitudes and foster safe workplaces. Corporates can begin by making policies transparent, investing in training and awareness programmes, and offering meaningful support to women who experience harassment. Creating safe and inclusive workplaces requires the collective efforts of corporates, governments, NGOs, and society. Beyond policy reforms, there must be a shift in corporate culture and societal attitudes. Through a concerted and holistic approach, workplaces can become spaces that respect and protect women’s rights, fostering an environment where everyone feels safe and valued.

DISCLAIMER : The views expressed in this blog/article are author’s personal.