Bangladesh has taken important steps on sexual harassment at work. The Labour Act addresses aspects of the issue, and Bangladesh has ratified ILO Convention No 190 (C190) on Violence and Harassment. With the Labour rules under review, the challenge is to turn legal commitments into a coherent system that workers can trust, organisations can implement and regulators can enforce.
This is first a matter of rights. No one should have to trade dignity or safety for work. C190 recognizes the right to a world of work free from violence and harassment and calls for prevention, protection, enforcement, and remedies.
It is also a productivity issue. The International Labour Organization reports that workplace sexual harassment cost the world $2.6 billion in lost productivity in 2018, alongside $0.9bn in other financial costs.
Unsafe workplaces contribute to absenteeism, turnover, and disengagement; poorly handled complaints can escalate into disputes and reputational damage. Prevention and effective response are not simply compliance costs; they are part of good governance and risk management. The business case reinforces the rights-based case; it does not replace it.
The development sector has an equal stake. Donors expect credible protection from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (PSEAH) systems: Safe reporting, competent investigations, non-retaliation, and support.
For the government, this means giving effect to Bangladesh’s international commitments. Bangladesh ratified C190 on 20 November 2025; it enters into force for Bangladesh on 20 November 2026. Its gender-responsive approach spans prevention, enforcement, remedies, investigation, training, and social dialogue. The rules reform is an opportunity to make these principles workable.
What needs to happen next?
The aim should be a coherent system, not more requirements for their own sake.
First, clarify the relationship between Sections 23, 24, 332, and 332A. Sections 23 and 24 provide the misconduct and disciplinary framework, while Sections 332 and 332A address prevention and the complaints committee.
The law should clarify how complaints and investigations connect with disciplinary proceedings: Who investigates, who decides, what safeguards apply, and how remedies follow.
Investigators should establish findings on the evidence; the appropriate authority should decide on action in accordance with law and due process. The committee need not replace disciplinary authority, but the pathway from complaint to decision and remedy must be clear. If the Act does not support it, amendment may be needed.
Second, operationalize Section 332. The rules should translate employers’ preventive duties into practical expectations on policies, risk assessment, training, reporting channels and protection from retaliation.
Third, give Section 332A clear procedures. The Act provides for a five-member complaints committee, with a majority of women, a woman chair and two members from organizations working on gender and sexual violence. The rules should clarify its mandate, independence, timelines, confidentiality, reporting lines, and safeguards against interference.
Fourth, establish an end-to-end process for receiving concerns, assessing safety, selecting an investigator, managing conflicts of interest, assessing evidence, deciding on action, informing parties, and providing remedies. It should address harassment involving supervisors, contractors, clients, and service providers.
Fifth, protect complainants, witnesses, and committee members against retaliation while balancing confidentiality with the respondent’s right to know and respond. An allegation that cannot be established is not, for that reason alone, malicious.
Finally, make the rules workable for multinationals, factories, NGOs, and small enterprises. Systems may differ in scale, but all should meet core principles: Prevention, safe reporting, fair investigation, accountability, and remedy. The Act should establish rights and duties; rules provide the machinery but cannot fill substantive gaps.
Why does this matter?
Workers should be able to speak up without risking livelihood, dignity or safety. For organizations, a fair process can address concerns before they escalate.
Trade unions gain confidence that workers can raise concerns without retaliation; employers’ organizations gain a more consistent playing field. The government can show that its commitments are more than words, while development organizations sustain donor confidence.
For businesses, the issue extends across supply chains. Buyers want evidence that worker voice, grievance mechanisms, and remedies function in practice, not simply that a policy exists.
There is also a market-access dimension. The EU is Bangladesh’s largest trading partner, and textiles are a major part of its imports from Bangladesh.
After LDC graduation, Bangladesh is due to retain Everything But Arms preferences for at least three years under the revised EU GSP framework and may seek GSP+. The framework emphasizes human rights, labour rights, and good governance.
From December 14, 2027, the EU Forced Labour Regulation will prohibit products made with forced labour from being placed on or made available in the EU market. Harassment is not itself forced labour, but violence, intimidation, and abuse of vulnerability can be relevant to wider forced-labour risks. Market access depends on price, quality, and delivery, but also on evidence that labour rights are respected.
This is not simply about compliance; it is about good governance and good business. A credible system protects rights, reduces productivity losses, supports responsible supply chains, gives effect to international commitments, and helps safeguard market access.
“Zero tolerance” should not mean zero complaints. A workplace with no complaints may be safe, or it may be one where people do not feel safe enough to speak. Zero tolerance should mean zero tolerance for harassment, retaliation, and inaction.
Bangladesh has moved towards legal reform. The next step is to make the law and rules work together. That is where the real test of reform will lie.
Jenefa Jabbar is Barrister-at-Law and Principal, JJC. This article has been developed through Bangladesh Institute of Labour Studies- BILS and GoodWeave International under the project titled “Promoting Living Wage, Labour Rights, and Human Rights Due Diligence in Bangladesh.”
