Most organisations have anti-harassment policies. Most will have delivered training. Some will have even carried out risk assessments.
But, when issues or complaints arise, we see the same challenges – delayed responses, inconsistent decisions, and employees who don’t feel confident enough to speak up in the first place.
That gap between what’s written down in a policy and what actually happens in practice is where employers are exposed to the real risks. This is because the legal direction of travel is clear. Employers are no longer being judged solely on how they respond to harassment, but on what they did to prevent it, and whether their culture supports people to raise concerns safely. It’s not just legal, it’s cultural.
Legal direction – prevention, protection, transparency
Over the past 18 months, we’ve seen a marked shift in how sexual harassment is treated under employment law and what’s expected of employers.
Since October 2024, employers have been under a proactive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. Failure to do so means that employment tribunals can increase compensation by up to 25% in successful sexual harassment claims.
This duty is set to go even further under the Employment Rights Act. From October 2026, employers will need to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment, including harassment by third parties such as customers, clients, or contractors. We’re still waiting for detailed guidance on what constitutes “all reasonable steps”. But the shift is clear – the bar of preventative expectation is rising.
On top of this, from 06 April 2026, sexual harassment complaints can now qualify as protected disclosures. That means whistleblowing protections apply so that those raising concerns are protected from detrimental treatment or dismissal as a result, as well as greater scrutiny of how employers handle those concerns.
Then there are proposed reforms on the horizon to restrict the use of NDAs in harassment and discrimination cases, which signals even more legal intel to increase transparency, scrutiny, and stop issues being brushed under the carpet.
Taken together, these changes do more than increase employment law risk. The shine the spotlight on the importance of organisational culture. If employees don’t trust internal processes or that robust action will be taken to prevent and deal with these issues, they now have stronger protections and safer routes to escalate concerns externally.
Handling concerns in the real world
Your policies don’t create your culture, your decisions do. Nowhere is that more apparent than in how organisations handle concerns and complaints in practice. Let’s imagine a few scenarios.
Scenario #1 – early action to build trust
An employee raises concerns about inappropriate comments from a colleague. Their manager takes it seriously. They listen, they maintain confidentiality, they escalate appropriately, they investigate fairly and thoroughly, everything is well-documented, and the issue is reviewed promptly. The process is clear, communication is consistent, and the outcome is proportionate. They key is that the inappropriate behaviour is dealt with early. It’s not left to fester.
The impact for employees? They feel heard, they have trust in your processes, and they avoid the emotional challenges of a protracted, drawn-out process. This is what effective prevention looks like in practice, not just stopping incidents before they happen, but creating an environment where everyone knows that issues will be dealt with properly.
Scenario #2 – delays and defensiveness
A similar concern is raised. But this time, the issue is dismissed initially as “banter”, something we see frequently. There’s hesitation about whether it really warrants formal action. The investigation is slow, communication is limited, and the employee raising concerns is left uncertain about what’s happening.
The impact? Increased stress and anxiety for those involved, loss of trust in management decision-making, and an increased likelihood of a formal grievance or external escalation.
When issues reach this stage, the risk isn’t just legal. It’s financial, it’s reputational, and it’s cultural, and it directly affects employee wellbeing.
Scenario #3 – testing zero-tolerance
An allegation is raised involving a senior, high-performing individual.
The organisation has included a clear “zero tolerance” approach in their sexual harassment policy. But now, the situation is more complex. There are commercial considerations. There’s hesitation about the potential consequences. This is where culture is really tested.
Most organisations say they take a zero-tolerance approach to harassment; the reality we see is that zero tolerance is only straightforward when it’s easy. It becomes a lot more challenging when an individual is senior or commercially valuable. This is where inconsistency and indecision creeps in, and this is where legal, reputational and cultural risk collide.
Employees will notice. They draw their own conclusions about what behaviours are really tolerated, whether it’s safe to speak up, and whether the ‘zero tolerance’ approach is worth the paper it’s written on. When a policy is applied selectively it’s not zero tolerance, it’s selective tolerance. If you’re going to say zero tolerance, you need to be prepared to back it up.
Why this matters for employee wellbeing
If employees don’t feel confident that their concerns will be taken seriously, handled fairly, and addressed consistently, they’re far less likely to speak up. This silence creates consequences – issues aren’t picked up, they escalate, or are repeated with impunity, employee stress and anxiety increases, engagement drops and retention rates drop.
With whistleblowing protections now in play, employees who don’t trust internal processes have stronger protections if they choose to escalate concerns externally. Ensuring your culture provides employees with the psychological safety to speak isn’t a nice-to-have, it’s part of actively managing your risk exposure.
Proactive steps
With the shift towards “all reasonable steps” on the horizon, the focus moves from having policies in place to being able to evidence prevention in practice. Ensuring your steps are visible will help build employee trust and confidence that you take your obligations seriously. What might this look like in practice?
Be clear and consistent – if you say zero tolerance, you need to back it up. Expectations around acceptable behaviour must be clear, your response to complaints must be consistent, and managers need to feel empowered to act.
Make policies visible and usable – policies shouldn’t sit untouched on a shared drive. They need to clearly explain how to raise concerns, what will happen next, and be regularly communicated and reinforced. Tribunals are increasingly critical of “paper commitments” that aren’t followed through in practice.
Focus on training that changes behaviour – tick-box training won’t cut it. Training needs to reflect real-world scenarios, equip managers to respond confidently, and be refreshed regularly. The first response to a concern is often the most important – it’s easier to get it right first time than to try and fix the fallout.
Risk assessments in reality – risk doesn’t stop at the office door. It can arise at social events, in informal settings, through messaging platforms, or in interactions with third parties. Employers should be thinking broadly about where risks arise, who might be affected, and how those risks are mitigated.
Build confidence in handling complaints – having a process is one thing, applying it properly is another. The right people need to be trained, investigations need to be robust and well-documented, and outcomes need to be consistent.
Your culture is a risk, and an opportunity
We’ve seen that the legal direction is clear. Organisations that treat sexual harassment as a compliance exercise will continue to face challenges legally and culturally.
Those that focus on building a strong foundation with trust, consistency and confidence in how issues are handled will be in a far stronger position for the future. The question is no longer simply “do we have a policy?”, it’s “do our people believe it?”
You might also like:
