ILO Convention No. 190 on harassment in the workplace: what Swiss SMEs need to be aware of

Introduction

The ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 190 on violence and harassment in the world of work is back on the Swiss political agenda. The issue is not merely institutional. It directly affects how businesses organise prevention, handle internal disputes and document their responsibilities as employers. For an SME, a self-employed person who employs staff, or a fiduciary firm supporting clients, the question is therefore very practical: should we expect new obligations, or rather a clarification of requirements already present in Swiss law?

The discussion is sensitive because it lies at the intersection of labour law, occupational health, human resources management and corporate reputation. Harassment is not limited to a poorly managed personal conflict. It can involve repeated behaviour, inappropriate comments, pressure, humiliation, attacks on dignity or gender-related situations. In a small organisation, these situations are sometimes more difficult to deal with than elsewhere, as roles are closely intertwined, working relationships are direct, and there is not always an independent HR department.

The issue is dividing part of the political right and the business community. The Federal Council supports ratification, believing that the Swiss legal framework is already compatible with the convention. However, reservations remain regarding the practical implications for employers, particularly in terms of administrative burdens, internal procedures and competitiveness. For SMEs, the challenge is not to wait passively for the parliamentary outcome, but to understand what might be expected in terms of prevention and response. Even without any immediate change in the law, a company that lacks clear processes exposes itself to human, organisational and financial risks.

What are we talking about?

ILO Convention No. 190 is an international instrument dedicated to violence and harassment in the world of work. According to the ILO, it was adopted in June 2019 and is the first international treaty recognising everyone’s right to a world of work free from violence and harassment, including when these are based on gender. It aims to encourage States to put in place measures for prevention, protection and redress.

In practice, an ILO Convention is not an internal company regulation. It is primarily addressed to the States that ratify it. These States must then ensure that their national law and practices comply with the commitments made. The debate in Switzerland therefore centres on the following question: is the existing framework already sufficient, or will ratification lead to additional pressure to clarify employers’ obligations? According to the Federal Council, current Swiss provisions comply with the requirements of Convention No. 190. This does not mean that all companies already have effective measures in place, but that Swiss law, according to this analysis, contains the necessary foundations.

There are many stakeholders involved. The Confederation is leading the ratification process. According to the Federal Council, the cantons expressed broad support during the public consultation. Trade unions are calling for swift adoption and criticising delays, emphasising that protections are not always effective within companies. Among some employers and the political right, concerns centre more on the operational implications: new procedures, training costs, formalised reporting processes and potentially stricter controls. For an SME, the key issue is to translate this debate into simple questions: do employees know who to turn to, do managers know how to respond, and can the company demonstrate that it is taking this seriously?

What the facts show

The available evidence shows, first of all, that Convention No. 190 is part of an international process that is already well advanced. The ILO states that the Convention was adopted in June 2019. It addresses violence and harassment in the world of work and also covers gender-related situations. As of 12 June 2024, according to the ILO, 44 countries had ratified this convention, which was then described as the fastest-ratified ILO convention of the last decade.

An article in Le Temps, for its part, mentions 56 countries that have ratified Convention No. 190 and specifically cites, among those that have done so, Germany, Belgium, El Salvador, France, Nigeria and the Philippines. The same article notes that Switzerland is among the states that have not ratified it, alongside Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Luxembourg, Iceland and Israel, in particular. It also emphasises that Switzerland could soon find itself among the few Western European countries not to have ratified it.

At the Swiss level, on 5 June 2026 the Federal Council adopted a dispatch proposing the ratification of Convention No. 190. According to the Confederation’s statement, this position follows a public consultation and a legal analysis concluding that Swiss law is compatible with the Convention’s requirements. The Federal Council therefore considers that ratification would strengthen Switzerland’s commitment to combating violence and harassment at work without, in its view, requiring a overhaul of the legal framework.

The political process has not, however, been straightforward. The Swiss Trade Union Federation (USS) reports that in September 2023, the Council of States postponed ratification and requested further clarification as well as a new consultation. The USS criticises this postponement and calls for swift adoption, arguing that many companies do not yet have effective measures in place to protect against sexual harassment and violence at work.

Practical implications for an SME or a self-employed person

For a Swiss SME, the main impact goes beyond the question of whether or not a new international text comes into force. The risk already exists: a situation involving violence or harassment can disrupt a team, lead to absences, result in staff leaving, erode trust in management and expose the employer to legal challenges. Ratification would, above all, shed more light on the quality of internal measures. A company that operates solely on an informal basis, with no known rules or reporting channels, will find it harder to demonstrate that it takes the issue seriously.

In a small organisation, typical situations are often ambiguous at first. This may involve a manager adopting a humiliating tone, repeated remarks with sexual undertones, an employee being isolated by their team, aggressive behaviour towards customers, or tensions between partners that spill over onto staff. The manager may be tempted to delay action to preserve the working atmosphere or avoid a direct confrontation. However, the longer a situation persists, the more difficult it becomes to investigate and resolve. A simple procedure, known in advance, helps to react more quickly and in a less emotional manner.

For a self-employed person employing one or more people, the challenges are similar, even if internal resources are limited. It is not necessarily a question of creating a complex system. Above all, it is essential to clarify who receives complaints, how the facts are documented, how confidentiality is managed, and what interim measures can be taken to protect those involved. In a family business or a very small team, it may be useful to appoint an external contact, such as an HR consultant, a specialist agency or a lawyer, to ensure that the person concerned does not have to speak solely to the alleged perpetrator or a line manager.

Finally, the discussion on Convention No. 190 serves as a reminder that prevention is not merely a defensive measure. A clear framework reduces misunderstandings, provides guidance for managers and also protects the employer against accusations that are handled in an ad hoc manner. There is an administrative burden, but it can remain proportionate to the size of the company if the measures are simple, well-documented and regularly reinforced.

Areas of concern and uncertainties

The first uncertainty concerns the practical interpretation of the obligations. The Federal Council considers that Swiss law is already in line with Convention No. 190. This position is important, as it suggests that ratification should not automatically upend the rules applicable to employers. However, in practice, ratification may raise expectations of the authorities, the courts, the social partners and businesses. SMEs must therefore avoid two extremes: thinking that nothing will ever change, or immediately imagining an avalanche of new constraints.

The second point to watch is the political debate. According to the USS, the Council of States has postponed ratification until September 2023 in order to obtain further clarification and conduct a new consultation. This type of postponement shows that the issue remains under discussion. The reservations expressed by certain representatives of employers’ organisations and the political right relate in particular to the risk of additional obligations, costs and effects on the competitiveness of Swiss businesses. These concerns should not be dismissed, particularly for small organisations that have neither a legal department nor an HR department. Rather, they should lead to the search for proportionate solutions.

The third point concerns the gap between legal compliance and actual effectiveness. A country may have adequate rules on paper, whilst some companies still lack practical mechanisms to prevent, report and address problems. The USS emphasises this point precisely when it states that many companies do not yet have effective measures in place to protect against sexual harassment and violence at work. For an employer, the key issue is therefore operational: what happens tomorrow morning if an employee reports unacceptable behaviour?

It is also important to bear in mind that the concepts of violence and harassment can be difficult to assess. Not all workplace tension necessarily constitutes harassment. Conversely, behaviour may be problematic even if it is presented as a joke or a standard management practice. The analysis must be carried out on a case-by-case basis, with caution, thorough documentation and, where the situation is sensitive, specialist support.

What to do in practice

The first step is to carry out a simple review of the current situation. Does the company have a staff handbook, a code of conduct or internal guidelines that explicitly mention violence, harassment and sexual harassment? Do employees know who to turn to? Do managers know that they must not downplay a complaint or promise absolute confidentiality that is impossible to guarantee? This review can be carried out without waiting for the political process to conclude. It helps to identify the most obvious gaps.

The second step is to establish a reporting channel appropriate to the size of the company. In an SME, this could be an internal trusted person, a member of management not involved in the relevant line of command, or an external contact. The important thing is that the channel is credible, accessible and well-known. A useful procedure does not need to be lengthy. It must explain how to report a situation, how the facts will be investigated, who will be informed, what protective measures can be taken and how decisions will be documented.

The third step concerns training. Managers and team leaders must understand the difference between an ordinary conflict, demanding but acceptable management, and behaviour that may undermine the dignity or health of employees. Regular awareness-raising also serves as a reminder that respect in the workplace depends not only on intentions, but also on the concrete effects on individuals and the team. For small businesses, a short annual session or incorporating this into the induction of new employees can already provide a useful foundation.

Finally, it is prudent to define in advance when to consult a professional. A payroll agency, an HR specialist, a solicitor or an employment law adviser can assist when a complaint involves a manager, when the facts are disputed, when several people are involved, or when disciplinary measures are being considered. The aim is not to take every dispute to court, but to avoid procedural errors, impulsive reactions and decisions lacking sufficient evidence. As is always the case in employment law, the assessment depends on the specific circumstances.

Key takeaways

The ratification of ILO Convention No. 190 is not an abstract issue confined to parliamentary debates. It serves as a reminder to Swiss companies that the prevention of violence and harassment is part of responsible human resources management. Even though the Federal Council considers that Swiss law already complies with the Convention’s requirements, SMEs would be well advised to check that their internal practices actually enable them to prevent, receive and deal with problematic situations.

• Check whether your internal documents clearly mention violence, harassment and sexual harassment, with examples that employees can understand.

• Establish a credible reporting channel, whether internal or external, so that those affected are not obliged to approach only their immediate line managers.

• Train managers to respond appropriately: listen, document, avoid making unrealistic promises, protect those affected and seek advice if necessary.

• Ensure your approach is proportionate to the size of the business: an SME does not need a cumbersome system, but it must be able to demonstrate a serious commitment.

• Monitor political developments regarding ratification, as the debate remains open and could influence expectations of employers, even without an immediate overhaul of the law.

• Consult a specialist when the allegations are serious, disputed, repeated, or when they involve a member of management or a disciplinary measure.

In practice, the best preparation involves turning a sensitive issue into a clear process. A company that knows in advance how to act is better able to protect its staff, its management and its working environment. Measures must remain appropriate to the context, but the complete absence of a framework is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.