Addressing gender-based violence in research and innovation requires understanding the wider international and European policy frameworks that shape institutional obligations and expectations.
Legal & policy framework
EU and international legal and policy framework
Where does the European Research Area stand?
ERA Policy Agenda 2025–2027
The ERA Policy Agenda 2025 – 2027 identifies ‘strengthening gender equality and inclusiveness in the ERA, notably with an intersectional approach’ as a structural policy priority. It reinforces the collective commitment to implement measures counteracting gender-based violence, including through the uptake and use of GenderSAFE outputs. Planned outcomes of the structural policy over the 2025 – 2027 period include:
- monitoring and evaluation of inclusive gender equality plans
- guidelines for intersectional approaches in R&I
- strengthened integration of the gender dimension in research content through monitoring and evaluation
- enhanced gender mainstreaming mechanisms and improved synergies with other ERA actors
- coordinated implementation of the Zero Tolerance Code of Conduct on gender-based violence
- developing principles for gender budgeting and expenditure tracking
ERA Policy Agenda 2022–2024: Action 5 and the Zero Tolerance Code of Conduct
The ERA Policy Agenda 2022–2024, ERA Action 5 ‘Promote gender equality and foster inclusiveness, taking note of the Ljubljana Declaration’ strengthened the coordinated response to gender-based violence. Work was carried out through the ERA Forum Sub-group on Inclusive Gender Equality, which – formed in 2023 – led the development of the Zero Tolerance Code of Conduct on gender-based violence in research and innovation and now advises on its implementation.
Horizon Europe and gender-based violence
Horizon Europe, the EU framework programme for research and innovation (2021–2027), establishes gender equality as a cross-cutting priority and introduces a Gender Equality Plan (GEP) as an eligibility criterion for many applicant organisations. The European Commission’s Guidance on Gender Equality Plans specifies four mandatory process-related requirements and recommends that GEPs address five thematic areas, including explicit measures against gender-based violence and sexual harassment. This anchors the prevention, reporting and redress of gender-based violence as a core element of the structural change expected from universities, research organisations and funders participating in Horizon Europe.
History
Until 2018, gender-based violence was largely absent from ERA policy discussions. This began to change with the engagement of the ERAC Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation (SWG GRI), whose evidence showed that policies addressing gender-based violence in higher education and research were fragmented, inconsistent and often insufficient across Europe, and delivered recommendations. These findings created momentum for coordinated ERA-level action and helped shape subsequent policy developments, including the 2021 Ljubljana Declaration on Gender Equality in Research and Innovation and the 2021 EU Pact for Research and Innovation, both of which emphasise safe, inclusive and equitable working environments as core elements of the ERA.
EU legal and policy framework on gender-based violence
EU employment equality law (notably Directive 2006/54/EC), the Victims’ Rights Directive and Strategy, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Articles 21 and 23) further frame gender-based violence and sexual harassment as discrimination and a violation of fundamental rights, and oblige employers and public authorities to prevent and redress such violence, including in higher education and research.
EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025
The European Commission (2020) listed ending gender-based violence as one of the key objectives of the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025. According to the European Commission (2021):
Gender-based violence is defined as violence directed against a person because of that person’s gender or violence that affects persons of a particular gender disproportionately. Violence against women is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender-based violence that result in, or are likely to result in physical harm, sexual harm, psychological harm, or economic harm or suffering to women. It can include violence against women and domestic violence against women, men or children living in the same domestic unit. Although women and girls are the main victims of gender-based violence, it also causes severe harm to families and communities.
Alongside the Gender Equality Strategy, recent EU initiatives reinforce the Union’s commitment to ending gender-based violence, including the 2025 Roadmap for Women’s Rights, which identifies freedom from gender-based violence as a core priority, and Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, which sets minimum rules on offences, victims’ rights, support services and prevention, with implications for employers, education providers and research institutions.
Council of Europe
The Council of Europe’s Gender Equality Strategy 2024–2029 maintains a strong focus on preventing and combating violence against women and girls, noting that:
Violence against women and girls remains one of the most pronounced expressions of the unequal power relations between women and men. It is a violation of the human rights of women and girls, and it is both caused by, and an effect of, gender.
One of the most prominent and recognised instruments to address violence against women is the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (commonly referred to as the Istanbul Convention). The Council of Europe relies on the Istanbul Convention for its legal and conceptual framing. Article 3 of the Convention defines violence against women as a “violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender-based violation that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological, or economic harm or suffering to women including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life”. In the same article, gender-based violence against women is defined as “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.”
In 2023, the EU acceded to the Istanbul Convention within its competences. This aligns EU action with Council of Europe standards and reinforces political commitment to preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. As of 2025, 45 countries and the European Union have signed the Istanbul Convention, and 39 countries have so far ratified it (Council of Europe).
International frameworks
The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), together with General Recommendations No. 19 and 35 on gender-based violence against women, also provides a key human-rights framework, defining GBV as a form of discrimination and specifying due diligence obligations for states and institutions.
International Labour Organisation (ILO 2019)
The International Labour Organisation (ILO 2019) has also played an important role in setting standards in relation to gender-based violence. In 2019, it adopted the Violence and Harassment Convention – known as Convention No. 190 or C190 – which recognises everyone’s right to a world of work free from violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and harassment. It notes that such violence at work represents a human rights violation or abuse, and poses a threat to access to decent work, and the labour market more generally. It calls for an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive approach in combating gender-based violence, that considers how intersecting forms of discrimination and unequal power relations contribute to the problem.
These strategies and conventions aim at a global outreach and provide a framework for policy-led change. However, national context matters, and understandings of what constitutes gender-based violence may vary significantly. Institutions must therefore align their internal policies with national law as well as evolving EU and ERA-level expectations.
The Council of Europe (2018), in its Gender Equality Strategy 2018-2023 tends to focus more narrowly on violence against women, emphasising that:
Violence against women remains one of the most pronounced expressions of the unequal power relations between women and men. It is both a violation of the human rights of women and a major obstacle to gender equality.
The Council of Europe (2018), in its Gender Equality Strategy 2018-2023 tends to focus more narrowly on violence against women, emphasising that:
Violence against women remains one of the most pronounced expressions of the unequal power relations between women and men. It is both a violation of the human rights of women and a major obstacle to gender equality.
According to the same strategy of the Council of Europe, gender-based violence and violence against women are two terms that are often used interchangeably, as most violence against women is inflicted for gender-based reasons and it affects women disproportionately. Gender-based violence is defined as:
Gender-based violence refers to any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO 2019) has also played an important role in setting standards in relation to gender-based violence. In 2019, it adopted the Violence and Harassment Convention – known as Convention No. 190 or C190 – which recognises everyone’s right to a world of work free from violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and harassment. It notes that such violence at work represents a human rights violation or abuse, and poses a threat to access to decent work, and the labour market more generally. It calls for an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive approach in combating gender-based violence, that considers how intersecting forms of discrimination and unequal power relations contribute to the problem.
These strategies and conventions aim at a global outreach, and to provide a framework for the promotion of policy-led change and effective measures – at national or organisational level – in different parts of the world. However, it is evident that the national context matters and that there may be very different understandings of what constitutes gender-based violence, including what is seen as acceptable.
GenderSAFE National Policy Monitoring
The GenderSAFE National Policy Monitoring conducted in autumn 2025 looks at how European countries are addressing gender-based violence in higher education and research. It is based on a survey of national authorities responsible for research, innovation and higher education and covers 18 countries across the EU and Associated Countries. The monitoring maps the national laws, policies and initiatives in place and shows where action is growing, where important gaps remain, and where further progress is needed.
Mapping national policy is important because national policies can be a powerful driver of change. They can prompt action by universities and research organisations, shape the institutional response, and create mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation.
In this monitoring, dedicated instruments are laws or policies that explicitly address gender-based violence in higher education and/or research. General instruments are broader equality, anti-discrimination or violence-related laws and policies that may be relevant but are not sector-specific. Because of the unique features of higher education and research (including the presence of students, relations of dependence, institutional hierarchies and power asymmetries), it is important to address gender-based violence as a distinct policy area.
Key findings
Policy attention is growing
Since 2023, several countries have introduced new measures or strengthened existing ones. In many cases, progress does not come through one single law or policy, but through a gradual development and adoption of measures over time. The report describes this as policy layering.
The overall picture is uneven
Countries differ widely in how far their national frameworks go. Some have laws or policies specifically for higher education and research, while others rely mainly on broader equality or anti-violence frameworks. A key finding is that broad national frameworks are common, but they do not automatically result in policies tailored to the specific context of universities and research organisations.
Comprehensiveness of the instruments in place
The map below shows five broad groups of countries. At the strongest end are countries with a comprehensive framework, meaning that they have a dedicated law or policy in place for higher education and/or research. Five countries fall into this group: Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal. Four countries – Austria, Czechia, Denmark and Poland – are developing, meaning they combine broader laws or policies with targeted initiatives for the sector. Lithuania, Sweden and Norway are intermediary, relying on either broader frameworks or dedicated initiatives, but not both. Croatia, Slovakia, Albania and Iceland are emerging: they have broader national policies on gender-based violence or violence against women, but without clear attention to higher education and research. Bulgaria and Finland fall into the absent category, where only general equality or violence-related laws were identified, without a specific policy focus on gender-based violence or any sector-specific measures.
Comprehensiveness of the Instruments in Place
 |
Comprehensive |  |
Developing |  |
Intermediary |  |
Emerging |  |
Absent |  |
Not included |  |
No Data |
|
Comprehensive set of instruments: these countries have a dedicated policy or law in place, or both. 5 countries: Belgium, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal |
|
Developing set of instruments: these countries have a more general policy or law in place, and also a dedicated initiative. 4 countries: Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Poland |
|
Intermediary set of instruments: these countries have a more general policy or law in place, or dedicated initiatives are in place. 3 countries: Lithuania, Sweden, Norway |
|
Emerging set of instruments: these countries have a general National Action Plan or equivalent policy addressing gender-based violence or violence against women in general, but without specific reference to higher education and/or research. 4 countries: Croatia, Slovakia, Albania, Iceland |
|
Absent set of instruments: these countries only have a general law addressing anti-discrimination, gender equality and/or violence against women. 2 countries: Bulgaria, Finland |
|
Not included in the analysis |
|
No data |
Commitment
The Commitment pillar captures whether national frameworks (i) explicitly recognise gender-based violence as systemic (including unequal power relations in R&I and higher education, existence of violence along a continuum, the need to embed efforts to counteract gender-based violence in institutional change approaches and recognition of intersectional nature of gender-based violence); (ii) articulate priority groups, and (iii) explicitly address the defined zero-tolerance principles.
The indicator synthesis identifies Commitment as the weakest pillar. Under the current operationalisation, no country reaches the “comprehensive” or “developing” categories for Commitment; eight countries are classified as “intermediary” (Austria, Czechia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Norway) and four are classified as “absent” (Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania and Poland).
This pattern suggests that, even where policy measures exist, the explicit conceptual framing promoted by the Zero-Tolerance Code of Conduct is not consistently embedded in national instruments. In practice, this means that institutions may receive expectations to act, but without a clearly articulated theoretical and conceptual framing of gender-based violence that is critical for the policy effectiveness.
|
Comprehensive | |
Developing | |
Intermediary | |
Emerging | |
Absent | |
Not included | |
No Data |
|
Comprehensive commitment approach: These countries fully recognise the systemic, intersectional and institution-wide nature of gender-based violence and embed multiple zero-tolerance principles and priority groups in their main policy.. 0 countries |
|
Developing commitment approach: these countries recognise several core elements of the systemic nature of gender-based violence and articulate a growing set of priority groups and zero-tolerance principles, though not yet comprehensively. 0 countries |
|
Intermediary commitment approach: these countries show a partial or uneven understanding of gender-based violence as a systemic issue and include only some priority groups or zero-tolerance principles in their policy framework. 8 countries: Austria, Czechia, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden; Norway |
|
Emerging commitment approach: these countries acknowledge only limited aspects of gender-based violence as a systemic issue and include minimal references to priority groups or zero-tolerance principles. 0 countries |
|
Absent commitment approach: these countries do not recognise gender-based violence as a systemic issue, do not define priority groups and do not incorporate zero-tolerance principles in their national policy. 4 countries: Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland |
|
Not included in the analysis |
| |
No data available |
Action
The Action pillar assesses whether national frameworks require and/or recommend institutional measures across the breadth of the UniSAFE 7P framework. The traffic-light synthesis indicates that Action is more developed than Commitment but still falls short of the elements recommended in the Zero Tolerance Code of Conduct. No country is classified as “comprehensive.” Five countries are classified as “developing” (Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland and Portugal), four as “intermediary” (Czechia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden), one as “emerging” (Austria), and two as “absent” (Poland and Norway).
A key pattern behind these aggregate classifications is that national instruments most often focus on prevention and protection (e.g., institutional policy requirements and protective measures), while others remain weakly specified. In particular, expectations on leadership capacity building are rare, and partnership arrangements are uneven. This reinforces the broader finding that many national frameworks increasingly encourage institutional action, but do not yet consistently require a full-spectrum, whole-system response aligned with the 7P framework.
|
Comprehensive | |
Developing | |
Intermediary | |
Emerging | |
Absent | |
Not included | |
No Data |
|
Comprehensive set of actions: These countries have national or regional frameworks that require and/or recommend a wide and robust range of institutional actions across the full 7P spectrum, with at least eight action areas mandated or encouraged. 0 countries |
|
Developing set of actions: These countries have frameworks that require and/or recommend a substantial set of institutional actions, covering at least six areas of the 7P model but not yet the full breadth expected under the Zero-tolerance Code of Conduct. 5 countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Portugal |
|
Intermediary set of actions: These countries require and/or recommend a moderate number of institutional actions, encompassing at least four areas of the 7P framework and showing partial operationalisation of the zero-tolerance approach. 4 countries: Czech Republic, Lithuania, Netherlands, Sweden |
|
Emerging set of actions: These countries mandate or recommend only a limited number of institutional actions, with at least two areas of the 7P model covered, indicating early-stage or fragmented implementation. 1 country: Austria |
|
Absent set of actions: these countries do not require or recommend any institutional actions across the 7P areas, demonstrating no operationalisation of the action elements of the Zero-tolerance Code 2 countries: Poland, Norway |
|
Not included in the analysis |
| |
No data available |
Accountability
The Accountability pillar captures whether national frameworks include enforceable oversight mechanisms such as reporting duties, monitoring and evaluation requirements (including indicators), leadership accountability, and sanctions or consequences for non-compliance. The indicator synthesis identifies Accountability as the pillar with the greatest divergence across countries. Four countries are classified as “comprehensive” (Austria, France, Ireland, and Sweden), six countries are classified as “emerging” (Czechia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Portugal), and two as “absent” (Belgium and Lithuania). Thus, in many contexts, national frameworks do not institutionalise the system-level accountability architecture needed to ensure consistent implementation over time.
|
Comprehensive | |
Developing | |
Intermediary | |
Emerging | |
Absent | |
Not included | |
No Data |
|
Comprehensive accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least five accountability elements in place, demonstrating strong monitoring, reporting, evaluation, leadership responsibility, and enforcement measures at national or regional level. 4 countries: Austria, France, Ireland, Sweden |
|
Developing accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least four accountability elements in place, showing substantial but not yet full alignment with the expected monitoring, reporting, and enforcement requirements. 0 countries |
|
Intermediary accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least three accountability elements in place, reflecting a moderate level of oversight and institutional responsibility within the national or regional framework. 0 countries |
|
Emerging accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least one accountability element in place, indicating early-stage, limited, or partial structures for monitoring, reporting, or enforcing compliance. 6 countries: Czechia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Norway |
|
Absent accountability mechanisms: These countries have none of the defined accountability elements in place, indicating no national or regional provisions for oversight, reporting, evaluation, or enforcement. 2 countries: Belgium, Lithuania |
|
Not included in the analysis |
| |
No data available |
Policy Outlook
The policy outlook is characterised by selective strengthening through revisions, governance reinforcement, initiatives, and implementation supports in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Albania, alongside eight countries reporting no current strengthening plans or weakening of existing national policy mix: Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden Iceland, and Norway. Lithuania stated that it does not have the relevant information available and is therefore unable to provide a definitive response.
|
Strengthened policy | |
Unchanged policy | |
Weakened policy | |
No data |
|
Comprehensive accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least five accountability elements in place, demonstrating strong monitoring, reporting, evaluation, leadership responsibility, and enforcement measures at national or regional level. 4 countries: Austria, France, Ireland, Sweden |
|
Developing accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least four accountability elements in place, showing substantial but not yet full alignment with the expected monitoring, reporting, and enforcement requirements. 0 countries |
|
Intermediary accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least three accountability elements in place, reflecting a moderate level of oversight and institutional responsibility within the national or regional framework. 0 countries |
|
Emerging accountability mechanisms: These countries have at least one accountability element in place, indicating early-stage, limited, or partial structures for monitoring, reporting, or enforcing compliance. 6 countries: Czechia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Norway |
|
Absent accountability mechanisms: These countries have none of the defined accountability elements in place, indicating no national or regional provisions for oversight, reporting, evaluation, or enforcement. 2 countries: Belgium, Lithuania |
|
Not included in the analysis |
| |
No data available |
The planned policy advances include:
- Advance provisions in an existing general policy (Croatia, Czechia, Ireland, Albania)
- Advance provisions in an existing dedicated policy (France, Portugal)
- Introduce a new initiative (Austria, Belgium)
- Renew an existing initiative (Belgium)
- Adopt a new dedicated policy (Austria)
- Amend a general law (the Netherlands)
The Netherlands is developing an amendment to the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act introducing a duty of care for safety, including obligations such as monitoring perceived safety, recording incidents, and reporting serious incidents to the inspectorate.
Different policy pathways are emerging
Countries are moving forward in different ways and at different speeds. Ireland and France, which were early adopters of frameworks dedicated to higher education, are now reviewing, renewing and strengthening. Czechia, Denmark and Poland follow a different trajectory, with sector-specific standards, guidance and initiatives becoming more visible only recently, with a fuller dedicated framework is still developing. The findings also point to more rapid policy build-up since 2023 in Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal, where new measures have been added to existing frameworks. By contrast, in Sweden and Iceland, longer-standing gender mainstreaming frameworks are in place, but these have not recently been matched by new sector-specific measures addressing gender-based violence in higher education and research.
What the Zero-Tolerance Code of Conduct adds
The report looks at how national frameworks align with the 2024 Zero-Tolerance Code of Conduct. It does this through its three pillars:
- Commitment: how clearly policies recognise gender-based violence as a systemic problem linked to unequal power relations, and whether they define core zero-tolerance principles.
- Action: what institutions are expected or encouraged to do in practice, such as prevention, training, reporting channels, support services and procedures.
- Accountability: whether there are mechanisms to monitor implementation, require reporting, assign leadership responsibility and respond to non-compliance.
Commitment is the weakest area
No country reaches the highest two levels in the Commitment area. This does not mean countries are not taking the issue seriously. Rather, it means that national instruments do not yet consistently spell out key concepts such as the systemic nature of gender-based violence, unequal power relations and intersectionality. They also often do not define priority groups or explicitly articulate the core elements of a zero-tolerance approach for higher education and research. Namely, a victim-/survivor-centred approach, a trauma-informed approach, a whole-institution approach, a commitment to taking all forms of gender-based violence seriously, and a commitment to investigate all reports.
Action is stronger than commitment or accountability
Across the countries that have dedicated policies in place, Action is the most developed area. Many national frameworks include expectations around prevention, awareness raising, training, reporting and support. However, no country covers the full range of Action measures outlined in the EU Zero-Tolerance Code of Conduct, based on the UniSAFE 7P approach.
Accountability remains a major gap
Accountability also needs further development. In many cases, policies encourage or require institutions to act, but do not clearly say how implementation will be monitored, who is responsible, what must be reported, or what happens if institutions do not comply. This means that expectations may exist on paper without strong mechanisms to sustain them over time.
Outlook: more strengthening than weakening
The outlook is cautiously positive. Nine countries reported plans to strengthen their frameworks, eight reported no major change, and none reported weakening. At the same time, progress can remain fragile where policies are not backed by stable funding, implementation support and long-term institutional commitment.
Read the report on Zenodo for the full methodology, country findings and recommendations.
Interactive map – UniSAFE mapping, May 2021
The interactive map below presents the results of the UniSAFE mapping of legal and policy frameworks addressing gender-based violence in research organisations and higher education institutions in EU Member States, conducted in May 2021. Since then, the situation may have evolved in some countries. The map should therefore be read as an informative snapshot from that period, alongside the more recent GenderSAFE national policy mapping presented above.
The contents of this website were developed by Yellow Window and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EC. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 101006261