Prevention and Remedial Strategies to Tackle Violence and Harassment at Work: An Intersectional Perspective

1.     Introduction

Management of gender mainstreaming has become increasingly important for the fulfilment of the employer’s Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) obligations, as well as a cornerstone within the broader framework of anti-discrimination legislation1.

This dual integration is reflected in the development of legislation regarding violence and harassment in the workplace. However, traditional anti-discrimination legislation does not inherently support the adoption of an intersectional approach necessary for identifying and combating these phenomena. On the contrary, the ILO Convention No. 190 promotes a paradigm shift toward a cross-sectoral and multi-factor methodology.

In the Italian context, several risk assessment tools are driving companies toward this intersectional approach by emphasising the procedural management of multifactorial risks. The aim of this analysis is to elucidate how these tools can assist in steering corporate risk management toward the multidisciplinary and intersectional standards.

This post offers a select engagement of more extensive research that was presented at the XIII International Conference in Commemoration of Professor Marco Biagi held in Modena, at Marco Biagi Foundation, from 18^th to 19^th March 2026, and will be forthcoming in M. Giovannone, F. Lamberti, Prevention and Remedial Strategies to Tackle Violence and Harassment at Work: An Intersectional Perspective, in Vujadinović, D., Kristoffersson, E., Evola, M. (eds.), Law and Gender from an Intersectionality and Diversity Perspective, Gender Perspectives in Law, vol 8., Springer, Cham, 2026, 257 ff.

2.     The Regulatory Framework in Italy

In Italy, the regulatory framework shows strong links between OSH and gender equality, particularly concerning workplace violence and harassment. This matter was originally introduced via the 2003 anti-discrimination regulations and the Equal Opportunities Code (EOC), later refined by the European Framework Agreement of 2007. Another pillar of this integration is the employer’s obligation to protect the worker’s “moral personality” in relation to OSH (Article 2087 CC), encompassing the preservation of personal dignity against vexatious conduct.

Harassment is classified as a psycho-social risk tied to working conditions, organisational design, and discriminatory phenomena. The ratification of ILO Convention No. 190 by Law No. 4 of 2021, along with its inclusion in the 2025 State-Regions Agreement regulating OSH training, implies that these international standards are becoming mandates for employers and managers.

Importantly, the OSH framework (Legislative Decree No. 81/2008) reinforces the employer’s obligation to assess and manage risks of harassment and violence that manifest themselves in correlation with work and by virtue of a necessary criterion of reasonableness. Modern OSH risk assessment should adopt an intersectional perspective by accounting for subjective vulnerabilities alongside gender, incorporating these factors into the Risk Assessment Document. In fact, harassment is a social phenomenon that must be addressed not only as a gender issue but as a result of various intersecting factors - such as ethnicity, and disability - that alter power relations and lead to abuse.

3.     The Conceptual Evolution of Harassment at Work

Article 26 of the EOC defines harassment as unwanted conduct, carried out for reasons related to sex, with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a female or male worker and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive climate.

This definition encompasses unintentional conduct with discriminatory effects, intercepting even apparently neutral behaviours within an organisation. Furthermore, the legislation introduces the concept of “environmental harassment”, which addresses the psychological and physical risks generated by a degrading work climate.

However, the focus remains on gender discrimination, failing to support an intersectional approach. Moreover, the reliance on the “undesirable” nature of conduct is problematic, as individual perception is not always easily weighed by objective evaluative parameters.

ILO Convention provides a “trans-typical” definition2. It refers to a range of unacceptable behaviours, practices, or threats - whether single or repeated - that result in physical, psychological, sexual, or economic harm. This notion expands the objective and subjective scope of protection, covering conduct occurring on the occasion of work. Crucially, this concept refers to all forms of violence and harassment arising from multiple discrimination factors.

Nevertheless, the shift from “undesirable” to “unacceptable” conduct does not resolve the challenges of assessing subjective dislike, as it relies on a social appreciation that may lack objectivity. Therefore, it could be suggested that identifying unacceptable conduct in advance - through collective agreements and codes of conduct - is necessary to prevent and prosecute such behaviour.

4.     The Organisational Solution and Remedial Tools

The Convention focuses on the employer’s obligation to adopt an integrated primary prevention strategy, also into OSH management system. Directive (EU) 2024/1385 additionally imposes an obligation on an employer to inform supervisory staff in recognising, preventing and addressing sexual harassment at work. Moreover, art. 26, par. 3b, of the EOC recalls the employer’s duty to protect the H&S of workers from the phenomena of (sexual) harassment at work. Therefore, from a gender perspective, OSH discipline is increasingly serving as an instrument for anti-discrimination law.

Looking at remedial perspectives, the Convention does not alter the competition between the respective instruments of protection. It admits an attenuation of the ordinary evidentiary regime, where the plaintiff provides factual elements founding a presumption of harassment without needing to establish the subjective element of the harasser’s intent.

In cases of discriminatory harassment, victims may seek compensation also for non-pecuniary and biological damages, benefiting from a partial reversal of the burden of proof. In the OSH field, there is a broadening of the items of damage that can be compensated. The employer is held liable for failing to take all measures that are reasonably possible to prevent harassment3. Judicial practice shows that the OSH prevention instrument often prevails over the anti-discrimination one because of its extensive capacity to satisfy the injured party.

5.     The Proceduralisation of Measures

The Convention requires the focus to be shifted from compensation to prevention through a catalogue of implementable measures. This approach has led to the development of typified tools - such as risk assessment, health surveillance, Organisation and Management Models (MOG), and Safety at Work Management Systems (SGSL) - as well as self-regulation tools like codes of conduct and ethical codes.

Voluntary codes of conduct are significant when they include provisions for vulnerable groups and establish workplace dispute resolution mechanisms. Also, these codes are most effective when they identify intersecting discrimination factors and provide support measures for victims, alongside prompt sanctioning for established violations.

Therefore, while risk assessment must account for vulnerability factors that impact health, codes of conduct should define and sanction the discrimination factors that underlie prohibited behaviour. Furthermore, tools like the MOG and SGSL are essential for improving the management of OSH risks and can serve as evidence of the employer’s fulfilment of OSH obligations.

Finally, the establishment of internal informal advice channels and formal whistleblowing protocols provides a valuable structure for addressing organisational and relational abuse. These integrated protocols not only support internal compliance but also lay the groundwork for more advanced governance tools, such as gender equality certification.

6.     From Proceduralisation to Standardisation

The shift from proceduralisation to standardisation reveals the role of governance tools that integrate OSH with gender equality, since harassment and discrimination also concern managerial choices and internal power relations.

Accordingly, the Italian framework is complemented by voluntary technical standards. Relevant instruments include UNI ISO 45003:2021 on psychosocial risks and well-being at work, UNI ISO 30415:2022 on diversity and inclusion, and UNI ISO 53800:2024 on gender equality. ISO 53800 is also consistent with UNI/PdR 125:2022, which introduced the Italian Gender Equality Certification (GEC) system4.

Although formally voluntary, these standards require adhering organisations to adopt behavioural rules and procedural safeguards. Their innovative contribution lies in quantitative measurement, increasing transparency and supports the assessment of organisational decisions over time. Therefore, standardisation is becoming a significant regulatory technique for advancing gender equality.

7.     Italian “Gender Equality Certification”

Introduced in Italy by Article 4 of Law No. 162/2021 and linked to the National Strategy on Gender Equality 2021/2025, GEC has been available since 1 January 2022 on a voluntary basis to public and private organisations of any size and legal form.

The certification aims to assess and promote concrete organisational measures designed to reduce gender gaps in career progression, remuneration, work-life balance, diversity management and maternity protection. Its underlying rationale is that gender equality should be an organisational objective within corporate governance and management processes.

The operational framework was defined by the Ministerial Decree of 29 April 2022, which implemented UNI/PdR 125:2022. The model is based on a set of Key Performance Indicators that enable organisations to measure and document their progress towards gender equality through standardised and verifiable procedures. Certification bodies assess compliance with these requirements, while employers are also required to prepare periodic reports on gender equality outcomes.

8.     A Precondition for Equality Certification

An innovative aspect of UNI/PdR 125:2022 is the role assigned to the prevention of workplace harassment and violence^[5]. The standard frames it as an organisational risk requiring exhaustive assessment and mitigation through structured management processes.

Organisations are required to identify potential sources of harassment and violence, evaluate their likelihood and impact and adopt appropriate preventive measures. The assessment should consider the specific conditions affecting different groups of workers. The use of disaggregated data can support a more accurate understanding of patterns of vulnerability and organisational dynamics.

Monitoring reported incidents and analysing emerging risks become essential elements of the system. In this way, the standard promotes a continuous improvement process in which periodic review and corrective intervention contribute to maintaining an effective and up-to-date framework for the prevention of workplace harassment and violence.

9.     The Connection Between the ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy and ILO Convention No. 190/2019

A further innovative element from the interaction between ILO Convention No. 190 and UNI/PdR 125:2022 concerns the broad redefinition of the personal boundaries of protection against workplace harassment and violence.

Protection extends beyond employees in the strict sense and encompasses all individuals involved in the organisational sphere, focusing on the work environment as a whole. This includes job applicants, former workers and persons exercising managerial, supervisory or representative functions. The underlying rationale is that exposure to violence and harassment may involve actors occupying different positions within organisational structures.

Equally significant is the expansion of the notion of the workplace beyond the employer’s premises, including multiple physical and digital spaces. Work-related risks may materialise during business travel, professional events, commuting and digital communications. The relevant criterion is therefore the connection both to the physical location and the employment context as well as its effects on the dignity and well-being of the persons.

In Italy, there is currently no provision that expressly refers to employers’ social media accounts or online platforms in relation to workplace harassment. However, the existing legal framework allows, and in part requires, these “workplaces” to be encompassed within the employer’s duty of prevention and protection. The most recent interventions concerning work performed through digital platforms (such as riders and similar workers) focus primarily on safeguards relating to the legal qualification of the employment relationship, access to the platform and the fight against forms of digital gangmastering. Nonetheless, the rationale of employer liability for the working environment (in this case, the digital environment) where the employer exercises control over the platform or account, can be relied upon to argue, in an extensive manner, that offensive online comments must likewise be treated as a risk factor affecting workers’ dignity and psychological well‑being.

10.  Training and Company Contact Persons for Reporting Abuse

UNI/PdR 125:2022 requires organisations to act on two connected levels: training and reporting. The first level concerns the dissemination of a clear culture of “zero tolerance” towards violence. This culture must be translated into periodic training activities addressed to all organisational levels.

Training transforms workers from passive recipients of protection into active participants in the construction of a safe and inclusive environment. Employees contribute to identifying inappropriate conduct, challenging stereotypes and supporting respectful workplace relations. Managers must receive specific training on their responsibilities, since they are expected to recognise and manage situations that may compromise psychological safety.

The second level concerns reporting mechanisms. Organisations must provide preferably anonymous channels through which workers can report harassment or discriminatory conduct. It creates a connection with whistleblowing logic, since reporting systems must ensure confidentiality and effective follow-up.

As a result, UNI/PdR 125:2022 moves beyond a purely formal compliance model. It promotes an organisational infrastructure that makes anti-harassment policies part of everyday corporate governance.

11.   The Risk of Violence and Harassment in the Equality Certification Paradigm

However, the Italian GEC model reveals a significant limitation in its treatment of discrimination. The system is built around the traditional category of gender inequality, struggling to capture the complexity of relevant situations.

Contemporary labour markets are characterised by increasing diversity and by the coexistence of different forms of vulnerability. Gender may intersect with factors such as ethnic origin, nationality, disability, age (etc.), generating forms of disadvantage that cannot be adequately understood through a single-axis approach.

The absence of specific indicators capable of identifying these dynamics represents a weakness of the current certification framework. While the system encourages organisations to monitor gender equality outcomes, it provides limited tools for assessing how different forms of vulnerability interact within organisational settings.

This gap is particularly relevant in the context of harassment and violence. Individuals exposed to multiple vulnerabilities often face greater obstacles in accessing protection mechanisms. The previously cited fear of retaliation and asymmetries of power may be amplified when several discriminatory factors operate simultaneously.

12.  Conclusions

The evolution of workplace regulation shows a growing convergence between anti-discrimination law and OSH. Prevention of violence and harassment is conceived as an organisational responsibility requiring governance risk assessment procedures and measurable inclusion policies.

Nonetheless, contemporary workplaces reveal forms of vulnerability that cannot be fully understood through traditional binary categories. Multiple factors may interact and generate complex patterns of disadvantage that remain insufficiently captured by existing regulatory and certification frameworks.

Developments should therefore strengthen the capacity of organisations to identify and address these dynamics through more comprehensive indicators and monitoring systems. Integrating an intersectional perspective into workplace governance would enhance the effectiveness of prevention strategies and contribute to the creation of genuinely inclusive working environments, free from violence and discrimination.

• 1About the ILO Convention n. 190/2019 and the integration between anti-discrimination and OHS law, see M. Giovannone, Violenza e molestie sul lavoro nella regolazione multilivello: tra disciplina antidiscriminatoria e tutela prevenzionistica, in S. Ciucciovino, M. Giovannone (eds.), Dimensioni e questioni della diseguaglianza di genere. Studi multidisciplinari, Roma Tre Press, 2025, 309-332; E. Ales, Violence and Harassment Convention (No. 190), in E. Ales et al. (eds.), International and European Labour Law. A Commentary, Beck – Mart – NOMOS publishing, forthcoming, 2026.
• 2On liability issues relating to OSH, M. Giovannone, Responsabilità datoriale e prospettive regolative della sicurezza sul lavoro. Una proposta di ricomposizione, Giappichelli, 2024.
• 3F. Lamberti, IKey Performance Indicators della certificazione della parità di genere. Una lettura critica., Federalismi.it, 2023, 9, 212 ff.
• 4F. Lamberti, Il paradigma della trasparenza retributiva come antidoto al gender pay gap, Federalismi.it, 2023, 1, 248 ff.