The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) was enacted to protect women from sexual harassment at work and ensure a safe work environment. Despite the Act and the #MeToo movement, sexual harassment cases at work have persisted, with over 400 cases reported annually from 2018 to 2022, with cases peaking at 485 in 2020.
The PoSH Act mandates employer-led sensitisation programs to educate employees on sexual harassment, prevention, and legal consequences. Yet, workplace sexual harassment cases are not decreasing. This raises questions about the effectiveness of these programs and whether they are conducted properly by qualified individuals or institutions.
Are companies fulfilling their obligations, or are these programs merely a marketing tool?
To investigate, we analysed the legal framework and market practices. We contacted companies providing sensitisation programs to understand their offerings and effectiveness. Our findings suggest that these sexual harassment training sessions are inadequate, & what more, an instrument that lets companies appear benevolent whenever they want to.
The following are the reasons why we believe so.
The one providing the training sessions:
Under section 19 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, an employer is required to organisze workshops and awareness programmes (at regular intervals). These workshops and awareness programs are conducted either by the institutions permitted by the Government of India or by the Human Resource (HR) managers in a company (because there is no compulsion to get the workshops & awareness programs only from institutions permitted by the Government of India).
Regardless of who provides the training, be it the institutions permitted by the Government of India or HR officials in the company, there are major problems in both the scenarios.
Problems when Instituions give the training:
The Government of India has identified around 200 Universities & organisations/external agencies, permitting them to provide training sessions & workshops to the employees. As great a measure as this is, their permissions were only until 2019. After 2019, there hasn’t been any update to the list of authorised trainers.
This creates two significant problems: Firstly, because there is no continuous monitoring and accreditation of training agencies, it paves a path for external agencies, organisations and institutions to self-proclaim themselves as the qualified people to provide the training sessions and the workshops. Secondly, it creates questions about the quality of the training provided and the qualificaitons of the trainers that are providing the training.
Both of these problem ultimately nullify the spirit of the act and its provisions i.e. making people aware about sexual harrassment & appropriate behaviour in workplace.
It would be folly to think that these problems are rectified by hiring the HR officials to undertake the training and workshop sessions.
Problems when HR officals give the training:
Prominent companies such as Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, Wipro, Accenture, HDFC Bank, and ICICI Bank employ specialised POSH compliance experts within their HR departments to oversee policy enforcement, address grievances, and enhance employee awareness. These organisations often combine internal HR-driven initiatives with training led by external experts to ensure comprehensive coverage of legal matters and real-world situations.
The keyword to observe: Training led by External Experts.
In the first instance, sexual harassment training is provided to the HRs, who then provide the training to the rest of the workforce. Even if such training is provided by external experts belonging to institutions that were once recognised by the Government, one can’t deny that HR training the workforce raises concerns regarding conflicts of interest, bias, and trustworthiness.
And even if one were to say that there is no issue of bias when HR team provides the training, it is important to note the fact that HRs, when they were studying for their post-graduate qualifications in Human Resource Management, never studied a course that deals exclusively with Gender sensitisation or Sexual Harrassment at workplace.
Nearly all institutions offering Human Resource Management degrees fail to include gender sensitisation at workplace as part of their curriculum.
Which essentially means HRs, who never professionally learned Gender Sensitisation & Sexual Harrassment at workplace, who recieve training from Insitutions that may / may not be be qualified to give the training as per the Government, are in-charge of training entire workforce on inappropriate behaviour & sexual harrassment.
The great purpose of the Act is boiled down to a simplistic presentation provided to employees by people who were not taught about it nor had the proper training.
Also read: “This Driver Respects Women” Sticker – 3 Situations that make it a disgusting marketing ploy
Vagueness of the term – Regular Intervals:
Neither the Act nor the rules specify the exact timeline for organising the sexual harassment workshops or awareness programs for the employees. In the absence of clear criteria, organisations are bound to interpret “regular intervals” in varied ways, leading to differences in the frequency of these sessions for employees across organisations
An organisation with 500-700 employees might conduct a session every quarter, and another with the same number of employees might conduct a session annually. This contrasts with another organisation with 30 employees that provides quarterly training sessions. Employers aiming to meet the basic requirements might infrequently deliver these sessions, asserting that any period qualifies as “regular.”
This method leads to employees being unaware & ignorant of the rights,responsibilities & consequences under the Act. It also allows for employers to conduct the session as & when they deem it necessary / when they want to portray themselves as benevolent.
As of today, there is no settled case law / interpretation that explicitly addresses the uncertainty regarding the frequency of the awareness programs. Organizations could face substantial consequences if awareness sessions are not held consistently.
A notable consequence is that there could be a rise in sexual harassment cases due to employees’ insufficient comprehension—furthermore, failure to conduct regular sessions results in decreased employee trust.
Analyzing the effectiveness of the training sessions:
A research study we conducted, involving direct inquiries with various external agencies offering employee orientation and training programs, revealed that these sessions typically last no longer than 2 to 3 days. Every day includes just 2 to 3 sessions.
These sessions are very clearly programs that serve as more of a brief introduction rather than a comprehensive educational course. Well-known programs feature the National Institute of Skills Training (NIST) POSH Certification Course, a 3-day event with four sessions daily, priced at INR 2,500/- for each participant.
Questions asked were as follows:
- How do you measure the effectiveness of the sexual harrassment awareness programs? Do you happen to conduct any post-session evaluations?
- What is the frequency with which your mentors suggest the trainers conduct awareness sessions in the company?
- What topics are typically covered during these sessions? How are these sessions structured? Are the sessions led by internal facilitators or external experts?
- Can you provide examples of positive changes observed in participants’ behavior post attending these sessions
- What are the biggest challenges you face in conducting these sessions or training programs?
The Organizations we contacted (those that have responded back) and the feedback we recieved:
| Organization | Evaluation Methods | Topics Covered | Facilitators | Observed Changes | Challenges Faced |
| NIST POSH | Post-session feedback, surveys | Workplace harassment, DEI, legal compliance | External experts & internal trainers | Increased awareness, policy adherence | Low participation, logistical issues |
| Training House | Surveys, case studies | Ethics, POSH laws, | Mostly internal facilitators | Better complaint reporting, cultural shift | Engagement issues, management buy-in |
| Training House | User ratings and followups. | Workplace ethics, legal framework | Online modules | Improved decision-making | Lack of live interaction |
| UDEMY | Surveys, employee feedback | Anti-harassment policies, compliance | Online modules | More confidence in reporting misconduct | Budget constraints |
| POSH CHECK | Pre- and post-assessment | Gender sensitization, legal implication | External experts | Better grievance redressal | Resistance from employee |
| SKILL DECK | Pre- and post-assessment | Gender sensitization, legal implication | Internal & external trainers | N.A. | Resistance from employee |
Interesting to note here: Organisations, when asked how to measure the effectiveness, seemed lost while providing the answer.
Most of the organizations provided similar responses, emphasizing challenges like employee engagement, budget constraints, and lack of senior management support. Overall, the responses provide significant concerns about the effectiveness in equipping the employees with the necessary legal, procedural, and psychological skills to handle challenging scenarios effectively.
One major challenge that stands out and is relevant for the purposes, is assessing if genuine sensitisation takes place within the organisation and the effectiveness of these initiatives. There are no definitive standards to evaluate their impact, rendering it difficult to determine if employees are genuinely embracing the concepts of gender sensitivity and workplace safety. The sole reliable source of assessment is the input gathered from participants following each session. Nonetheless, this feedback is subjective and might not sufficiently reflect the lasting behavioural changes needed to create a genuinely harassment-free work environment.
All in all, these short training sessions are quite basic, occasionally offering only a summary of the legislative framework and the procedures for handling complaints under the POSH Act, without yielding anything substantial.
Conclusion:
This is the situation:
Firstly, the Government of India does not recognise institutions qualified to provide the training & allows any one to provide such a training. Secondly, there is no requirement for HRs, who are often in-charge of training in organisations, to learn courses / gain qualification in this matter. Thirdly, there is no requirement for companies to provide the training sessions on a continuous basis. Fourthly, there is no way for companies or anyone who were hired to provide the training session to conclusively measure the effectives. Fifthly, these programs are extremely short and almost cover just the basics of the Act & its spirit.
Are companies making a genuine effort to foster a safe and respectful workplace? Or are they just using sensitisation as a marketing tool?
If so, is it not all just a sham?
Perhaps solace needs to be taken in the fact that the POSH Act at-least made sure this kind of sensitisation happens, even if it is once in a while by a seemingly qualified person.
