Gender equality and psychosocial risks at work

Introduction

Gender equality is a fundamental principle of European labour and social policy; however, persistent disparities remain in working conditions and patterns of exposure to psychosocial risks. These disparities are deeply embedded in structural gender inequalities rather than being the result of individual choice regarding where and how people work. Horizontal (clustering women and men in different sectors) and vertical (concentration of men in higher-level positions) occupational segregation patterns often constrain workers’ paths, channelling women and men into distinct sectors and roles that carry specific, gendered Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) challenges.

The European Union has increasingly targeted these structural risks through key legislation and policy frameworks. Directive 2006/54/EC[1] on equal opportunities and equal treatment of women and men in employment and occupation provides a foundational framework against direct and indirect sex discrimination in access to employment, vocational training, promotion and working conditions, including harassment and sexual harassment as forms of discrimination. Directive 2010/41/EU[2] on equal treatment between men and women engaged in a self-employed activity extends the prohibition of discrimination to self-employed workers and assisting spouses or life partners. Directive (EU) 2019/1158[3] on work-life balance for parents and carers addresses the unequal care burden that drives female psychosocial stress, while recent Directive (EU) 2024/1385[4] on combating violence against women and domestic violence recognises the workplace as a critical arena for combating gender-based violence and sexual harassment. The Gender Equality Strategy 2026–2030[5] confirmed the EU’s continued commitment to address sexual harassment and violence as structural drivers of differentiated exposure to psychosocial risks. Furthermore, also directives that are not directly linked to the topic, like Directive 2003/88/EC[6] on the organisation of working time carry gender-specific OSH implications, as seen in the documented links between prolonged night work and increased breast cancer risks in women. Ultimately, these regulatory frameworks highlight that psychosocial risks at work are inherently gender-biased, leading to severe consequences that span both psychological well-being and physical health.

This article examines gender differences regarding psychosocial risk exposure at work as well as the consequences of these disparities. The main differential job characteristics and related psychosocial health issues will be presented, framed by key theoretical gender and occupational health psychology models. Finally, practical initiatives and tools to overcome these inequalities are presented.

Gender inequality in OSH: Concepts and mechanisms

Gender equality refers to ‘equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities of women and men and girls and boys’[7] which implies that it is not only a women’s issue but should concern and fully engage everyone. Concretely, gender equality means that all human beings are free to develop their personal abilities and make choices (including those related to the work sphere) without limitations related to their gender and possible associated roles. Despite growing awareness on the topic, gender inequality regarding risk exposure in the workplace is still a reality[8]. These structural inequalities are also based on women and men having easier access to tasks and occupations with distinct characteristics (gender-related differential job exposure). Even when they perform objectively similar work under comparable working conditions, they may be affected differently (reflecting sex-related differences in job vulnerability)[9]. Together, these disparities can lead to different psychosocial health outcomes at work for women and men. Furthermore, these disparities in psychosocial risk exposure may be framed within the broader context of gender equality in employment. While legal scholars often distinguish between general equality principles and specific anti-discrimination frameworks, these observed inequalities often reflect what may be characterised as indirect discrimination, where seemingly neutral organisational practices or job structures result in disproportionately adverse outcomes for one gender (for instance, a "neutral" requirement for overtime or rigid schedules may disproportionately affect women due to the "double burden" of domestic work).

Several theoretical perspectives from health, gender studies, and occupational health psychology help explain why these workplace inequalities lead to different psychosocial outcomes for women and men. The biopsychosocial model facilitates a distinction between biological spheres (sex) and social or mental spheres (gender)[10]. According to Velasco (2009), health determinants arise from the continuous interplay between the sexed body (bio), gendered socialisation (roles, stereotypes) (socio) and its mental internalisation (psycho). Under this framework, gender shapes work experiences, exposure and vulnerability to occupational risks and health outcomes through the relations between these three domains[11].

These individual and social dynamics do not operate in a vacuum; they interact with the specific characteristics of the workplace, which can be categorised using theoretical frameworks of occupational psychosocial health like the vitamin model.  According to this model, the work environment provides 12 “vitamins” that can enhance or undermine workers’ psychosocial well-being. Just as vitamins affect physical health, workers' psychosocial well-being fluctuates based on their access to key job features (job autonomy, opportunity for skill use and acquisition, externally generated goals or job demands, level of social/interpersonal contact, variety of work, environmental clarity/task feedback, financial compensation/salary, physical job security/safety, valued social position/task significance, supportive supervision, career outlook, equity/organisational fairness)[12][13]. Due to horizontal and vertical segregation, men and women often have unequal access to these "environmental vitamins," including fair remuneration and financial resources.

Building on these forms of segregation, social role theory posits that gender stereotypes and typical gendered behaviours emerge from the sexual division of labour. Women work in the private sphere (carrying out domestic roles that lead them to be perceived as caring and selfless), while men are concentrated in the public sphere (which leads them to be viewed as assertive and independent in their breadwinner role). These expectations are internalised and drive horizontal segregation, influencing career choices and clustering men and women into different occupations[14]. Vertical segregation (the "glass ceiling" that prevents women from reaching leadership positions) is explained by the role congruity theory, which identifies that leadership is often associated with traits considered ‘masculine’ and a mismatch between feminine stereotypes and leadership requirements. This incongruity results in barriers (such as anticipated backlash) that contribute significantly to the psychosocial strain experienced by women in leadership positions in the workplace[15].

Beyond structural barriers or inequalities, such as gender inequalities embedded in social structures and sustained by institutionalised conceptions of gender differences[16], subjective barriers also operate in both (horizontal and vertical) segregation processes. Subjective barriers are self-regulatory processes through which women and men adjust their own behaviour in response to gender roles, traits, and stereotypes internalised as part of their subjectivity and shaped by social mandates[17]. For example, the glass ceiling, operates as a subjective barrier when women inhibit their own leadership aspirations to avoid the social penalties associated with adopting "masculine" traits or violating feminine norms (as explained by the role congruity theory)[18].

For a more detailed overview of horizontal and vertical forms of segregation, see OSHwiki articles “Women at work: An introduction” and “Employment trends and their impact on women’s OSH”.

Gender-specific psychosocial risk factors at work

Women’s and men’s exposure to psychosocial hazards at work mainly relate to work features which, when experienced as insufficient or excessive, can negatively affect physical and mental health in many ways[19][20]. Men and women occupy different positions within labour markets and organisational hierarchies (horizontal and vertical segregation), resulting in unequal exposure to psychosocial hazards and differential vulnerability to their health-related outcomes[21].

Gender-specific psychosocial risk factors for women

Many of these risks have already been addressed in existing OSHwiki articles that focus on occupational health and safety more broadly, such as those mentioned above and “Psychosocial risks and vulnerable groups”. These overviews are further supported in the mentioned article by recent European evidence and monitoring sources, such as Eurofound’s European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) 2024 materials and the EWCS 2024 “first findings” (2025)[22], EU-OSHA’s OSH Pulse 2025[23], and Eurostat’s Statistics Explained article on self-reported work-related health problems and risk factors[24] and a 2026 systematic review synthetising evidence from occupational health psychology, gender studies and organisational research[25]. Building on this foundation, the present article places a stronger emphasis on psychosocial health, synthesising evidence specifically on psychosocial risk factors and their different implications for female workers.

Women’s (and men’s) psychosocial risks are shaped by the nature of tasks, the way work is designed and managed within organisations, and the tensions arising at the interface of paid work and private life. Additionally, broader gendered conditions operating beyond the immediate workplace influence where women work and how their labour is valued. Accordingly, women’s psychosocial risks may be categorised into two groups. The first category relates to differential exposure to specific job features (aligning with the vitamin model) and includes the following risks:

• Women are exposed to higher work intensity. They score higher than men in the “Work intensity index” developed by Eurofound as part of the EWCS. Work intensity is measured by high exposure to quantitative and emotional demands, as well as multiple pace determinants. Women are more likely than men to face high-speed work for three quarters of the time or more (36% of women vs 33% of men), frequent interruptions (22% of women vs 16% of men), and higher emotional demands (29% of women hide emotions most or all of the time vs 22% of men; 18% of women handle angry clients three quarters of the time or more vs 12% of men; 13% of women face emotionally disturbing situations three quarters of the time or more vs 8% of men), largely because they are overrepresented in professions that require extensive public interaction, like healthcare and education[26].
• Many female-dominated occupations (such as cleaning) are characterised by monotonous or repetitive work, often coupled with low autonomy and control[27].
• Women are often employed in low-skilled or low-complexity jobs[28], which may reduce opportunities for progression and lead to lower prospects for career advancement. Between 2010 and 2024, there was a 15-percentage point increase in workers agreeing that their job offers good prospects for career advancement for both men (49 %) and women (43 %). However, a gender gap of 6 percentage points persisted, and even widened (10 percentage points) for management positions[29].
• Female workers are more likely to experience lack of autonomy, or lack of influence over the work-pace or work processes (19% vs 16% of male workers)[30].
• Female workers are more likely to be exposed to poor communication or cooperation within the organisation (31% vs 27% of male workers)[31].
• Many female-dominated occupations are characterised by unclear or conflicting work demands (linked to role ambiguity and role conflict)[32].
• Earnings and reward inequities negatively affect women, including the gender pay gap (which stood at an average of 11.1% in the EU in 2024, with significant variations between Member States[33]) and higher perceived effort–reward imbalance among women (30% of women vs 24% of men)[34].
• Women are more likely to experience discrimination (direct or indirect) affecting recruitment, task assignment, performance evaluation and promotion. More women (8%) report being discriminated against than men (4%)[35].

The second category relates to broader gender-based expectations and structural inequalities (as explained by the social role theory) and includes the following risks:

• Women, whose employment tends to be more concentrated in client-facing sectors than men, are more likely than men to report exposure to most adverse social behaviours, including sexual harassment, cyberbullying, unwanted sexual attention, humiliating behaviours, and verbal abuse[36]. Women (who are more likely to work in the service sector, such as nursing or teaching), are more exposed to violence or verbal abusefrom customers, patients, pupils, etc. (19% vs 14% of male workers[37]), which increases emotional load and the likelihood of conflictual interactions[38]. 
• In particular, sexual harassment is more commonly reported by women. Women are 3.6 times more likely to experience unwanted sexual attention than men[39]. Across sectors, women are more likely to be sexually harassed when they work in male-dominated jobs (such as police officers or bus or taxi drivers), as well as within traditional 'female' jobs (such as waitresses, nurses, and salespersons). Workers in precarious employment are also twice as likely as those in more fixed employment to experience sexual harassment[40]. This may be another factor to add to the explanations why women are more likely to be sexually harassed, as there is a higher proportion of women than men working in precarious work. Sexual harassment is also commonly reported by women working in top management (25%), or in professional groups (29%)[41].
• Female workers are exposed to greater household and unpaid work burdens. Women typically spend more time in domestic work and family care activities, with great differences across European Member States, with Italy (2h and 47 mins more for women than for men) and Greece (2h and 21 mins)[42] reaching highest differences. Many more women than men adapt their working life in relation to their private responsibilities, working part-time for instance[43]. Specifically, 29% of female workers work part-time vs 10% of male workers[44]. This can limit training access, progression and long-term economic security[45]. It also exposes women to work–family conflict, intensified when combined with high work intensity, low autonomy and rigid schedules. This also increases the negative physical and mental outcomes in women, especially when combined with other work risk factors such as long working hours and shift work[46].

Whether women and men react differently to the same job characteristics and working conditions because of biological differences (known as 'vulnerability') is still unclear. More research is needed to understand what drives these gender differences in psychosocial health.

So far, the evidence leans more clearly toward differential exposure than vulnerability. In a multi-country study, Cifre et al. (2013) found no gender differences in ideal job features or overall job well-being, but men reported more favourable actual job features and better job–person fit, and those features predicted well-being in both women and men[47]. de Breij et al. (2022) explicitly tested vulnerability vs exposure and found no support for differential vulnerability; instead, lower autonomy and task variation partly explained higher depressive symptoms in women (supporting exposure)[48]. Theorell et al. (2015), in a systematic review of prospective studies, also reported no differential gender effect of adverse work conditions on depressive symptoms, despite strong evidence that factors like low decision latitude, job strain and bullying predict increased symptoms over time[49].

However, other studies suggest that men and women might react differently to the same working conditions. In this sense, Padkapayeva et al (2018) found that women with higher supervision support perceived lower work stress than men in similar situations, whereas men with higher job insecurity perceived higher life stress than women in similar situations[50]. Viertiö et al (2021) identified distinct gendered risk factors: for women, psychological distress (i.e., non-specific symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression) was significantly associated with work-family interference (specifically, ignoring family due to being absorbed in one’s work), whereas for men, distress was more closely linked to high mental strain arising from the job itself.[51]. García-Rodríguez et al. (2026) also found that both work-family conflict (i.e., work interfering with family life) and family-work conflict (i.e., family life interfering with work) affect both genders but that the impact is more detrimental for women. Task overload among women results in a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion than in men[52]. These results indicate that the same working conditions may have different effects in men and women.

Although the topic seems to have gained more visibility in both research and practice in recent years, there is still no solid evidence supporting the vulnerability hypothesis; therefore, closing the gender gap in psychosocial risks should focus primarily on reducing differential exposure and strengthening women’s psychosocial health at work by taking appropriate preventative measures.

Gender-specific psychosocial risk factors for men

Many of the occupational risk factors to which men are exposed are closely tied to gendered expectations, particularly those associated with the breadwinner role and norms of hegemonic masculinity (e.g., self-reliance, toughness, emotional restraint), which can shape where men work and how they perceive demands, seek support, and cope with distress.

Traditional masculine norms (often described as 'hegemonic masculinity'), influence both the types of jobs men take and the working conditions they accept, increasing their exposure to certain occupational risks. Hegemonic masculinity traits are often associated with male-dominated sectors where large shares of workers report that work affects their health negatively, such as transport (with 32 % of workers reporting negative effects on their health), agriculture (30 %), construction (29 %) and industry (28 %). These sectors involve high physical hazards, and large shares of workers report that work affects their health negatively[53]. Jobs in these fields are also characterised by a high risk of accidents, uncertainty, limited control and financial anxieties, which, among other factors, lead to a high prevalence of burnout, anxiety, depression and suicide in these sectors[54][55]. Studies also show that men experience performance-driven strain linked to workload, competition, and reward insecurity more often than women[56]. However, results are contradictory regarding the exposure to physical violence at work: whereas research studies generally indicate that men are traditionally more exposed to physical violence at work[57][58], European survey data show no differences between men and women[59].

The breadwinner role combined with traits of traditional masculinity such as self-sufficiency is associated with some psychosocial risks, such as workaholism, presenteeism and longer working hours, facing crises without mobilising adequate resources, and adopting more competitive or conflictual styles, creating overload, impairing psychological detachment and work–life balance[60][61]. This breadwinner role may lead to lower male participation in unpaid household work, with particularly low participation rates reported in Italy (70%), Greece (72%) and Spain (77%)[62].

Evidence also suggests that the breadwinner role is tightly linked to male identity: when men cannot fulfil it (e.g., after job loss), emotional distress can be severe and extend to the whole family[63]. In that sense, not being able to predict earnings is not only more prevalent in male workers (17% of men vs 13% of women[64]) but it might also affect men’s mental health more than it affects women’s. At the same time, experiencing more difficulties in help-seeking, especially for mental health concerns, may prolong exposure and worsen symptoms, hindering timely intervention and recovery[65]. These risks are highly relevant for OSH, as they are associated with severe outcomes[66][67]. For instance, Eurostat data show that men were 3.6 times as likely as women to die from intentional self-harm in the EU in 2025[68]. While self-harm is a complex phenomenon, workplace stressors and traditional masculine coping mechanisms are recognised as significant contributing factors to these broader mental health disparities[69][70].

Gendered differences on work-related health outcomes associated with psychosocial risk exposure

Across European monitoring sources, women report more work-related mental health problems than men. Women are more likely to report stress, depression or anxiety caused or made worse by work (31% of female workers reported having experienced work-related stress, depression or anxiety in the past 12 months in 2025, compared to 27% of male workers[71]). Anxiety alone is also reported more often by women than men (26% vs 16% in 2025[72]).

Scientific studies also corroborate and extend these findings:

• Workplace-related stress: Findings are mixed. Some evidence shows higher stress in women[73], whereas other studies report higher stress in men[74].
• Women show stronger post-traumatic stress reactions following workplace violence[75].
• Workplace-related burnout / Emotional exhaustion: Results are more consistent in pointing to a disadvantage for women. Women report higher burnout and emotional exhaustion both in the general working population[76] and in specific groups such as in the healthcare sector[77][78][79] or in university professors[80]. Specifically, women who expect or believe a “traditional” role for women in the family is best, are significantly more likely than men to report job burnout[81]. Age patterns also appear gendered: burnout tends to decrease with age in men, but not as clearly in women[82]. A Canadian study found that burnout in women follows a non-linear pattern, peaking in two age groups: those aged 20–35 (likely due to childcare and work–family conflict) and those aged 55 and over (linked to menopause, eldercare responsibilities, and fewer improvements in working conditions later in life)[83].

Women in masculinised sectors, such as construction[84] and agriculture[85], often experience higher stress levels than their male counterparts. This can be driven by gender-specific stressors, including aspects such as personal protective equipment designed to male standards, limited access to adequate hygiene facilities, and exposure to discrimination or harassment in the construction sector. Ultimately, the pressure of adapting to a male-dominated culture increases the risk for these women to experience marginalisation, exclusion, and psychological distress^[86]. In the agricultural sector, these pressures are compounded by role conflict arising from the domestic burden and social expectations within farming families. Furthermore, women in remote rural areas face heightened vulnerability to domestic violence and significant structural barriers, such as limited professional recognition, restricted land rights, and unequal access to the finance, technology, and education necessary for succession planning[87]. 

While the primary focus of this article is on the gendered experiences of women and men, it is essential to acknowledge that non-binary and transgender individuals face unique and additional psychosocial burdens. These are often rooted in stigma, discrimination, and minority stress which significantly impact their well-being at work[88]. For a more detailed exploration of these dynamics, please see Occupational safety and health of LGBTI workers.

It is also important to note that incorporating an intersectional perspective would significantly enrich the analysis presented in this article, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of occupational health inequalities. Evidence suggests that gendered psychosocial risks do not operate in isolation; rather, they intersect with ethnicity, socioeconomic class, migration status, disability and occupational hierarchy among others. For instance, for women who belong to groups that are treated or perceived differently in society because of their race, ethnicity, or related characteristics (e.g. skin colour, origin, religion), structural barriers (such as the gender-ethnic wage gap, intensified occupational segregation, and limited access to leadership) create a cumulative disadvantage that a binary 'gender gap' analysis often fails to capture[89][90]. Consequently, integrating intersectionality into psychosocial risk understanding shifts the analytical focus from individual traits toward the overlapping systems of power and stratification that shape worker health and safety.

Evidence on negative psychosocial outcomes is far more common than evidence on positive work-related outcomes (i.e., psychological well-being, engagement, …), both in official statistics and in academic research. The available indicators suggest that gender differences in positive outcomes are often small: for instance, the EWCS reports only a slightly higher subjective well-being score for men than for women (70.6 vs 68.0), with overall levels remaining quite similar[91]. In line with this, research on positive functioning shows that a satisfying combination of work and family life is associated with better psychological well-being for both women and men[92], while other studies report no gender differences in work engagement[93][94].

Gender-sensitive measures for the prevention of psychosocial risks at work[95]

To integrate a gender perspective into OSH assessment, prevention and health promotion, several international, European and national bodies have developed practical guidance to adopt a gender sensitive approach that can be also adapted to psychosocial risk prevention. EU-OSHA (2003b) stressed that gender should be mainstreamed and integrated across all prevention phases of risk management: hazard identification, risk assessment, implementation of solutions and monitoring. A gender-sensitive evaluation (or gender-responsive psychosocial risk assessment) is a key element. 

The previous EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 set out the key gender equality policy objectives and measures for the EU to advance towards a gender-equal society. It reinvigorated the EU’s commitment to the dual approach to gender equality that combines targeted measures to achieve gender equality with strengthened gender mainstreaming. Gender-responsive evaluations promote social change by using the learning produced during the evaluation process to promote gender equality in a sustainable way. 

Following this, specific targeted measures addressed to different actors are recommended.

Some of the recommendations[96][97] to policy makers include:

• Examining how gender roles influence OSH risks and outcomes.
• Analysing risks in both female-dominated and male-dominated occupations.
• Developing gender sensitive OSH indicators based on sex-disaggregated data to detect gender-specific risks.
• Promoting gender-sensitive workplace accommodations, such as flexible working arrangements and support for menstrual/menopause health, as part of a broader gender-responsive occupational health and well-being policies.
• Developing gender-sensitive OSH information, education and training.

Employers and management[98] [99] can better protect their workers by taking up the following practical suggestions: 

• Link equality plans with safety checks: Connect the employer’s equality strategies directly to health and safety checks, looking closely at who does what job to spot if women and men face different risks or unfair task distribution.
• Update risk assessments: Looking beyond physical hazards, change assessment forms to include psychosocial risks and to cover aspects like emotional demands, dealing with difficult clients, exposure to subtle discrimination, etc.
• Take action against harassment: Moving past simple “awareness raising”, ensure a respectful work-environment and equal treatment for everyone, give workers active tools, like bystander training so they know how to step in when they witness any kind of harassment or discrimination, and set up safe, confidential ways to report daily microaggressions. Make sure to have clear procedures on how to follow up on reports of incidents. 
• Fix poorly designed jobs: Redesign daily tasks to improve working conditions that often disproportionately affect women. This means, for instance, giving workers more job control, reducing repetitive tasks, and managing exposure to emotional demands. 
• Share flexibility equally: Offer flexible hours and work-life balance programmes to everyone and actively encourage men to use them. This stops childcare or family care from being seen as just a “woman issue” and supports men in taking up the carer role. 
• Look at overlapping barriers: Remembering that workers face different challenges, make sure support and leadership opportunities reach everyone, especially women who might face extra barriers due to their race, background, or disability.  
• Treat gender-based violence as a safety priority: Make it clear that sexual harassment is a serious health and safety issue, not just a HR box-ticking exercise. Consider providing support to women workers experiencing domestic abuse, including adapting working conditions where necessary.
• Involve everyone in decisions: Ensure both women and men are actively sitting at the table when safety rules are being made and risks are being analysed.
• Reward sustainability, not burnout: Stop praising workers just for “enduring stress” or working excessive hours, and build fair reward systems that value steady, healthy work and transparency. 
• Value people skills as real skills: Formally recognise that skills often performed by women such as emotional intelligence, empathy, and managing difficult customer interactions are essential professional skills and deserve credit.
• Protect non-linear careers: Do not penalise workers who take time off for care or health reasons and keep promotion tracks fair and bias-free to ensure long-term financial security. 

OSH professionals should:

• Apply gender-sensitive risk assessments, considering specific vulnerabilities in different work environments (e.g., women in male-dominated sectors);  
• Strengthen training on gender dynamics, providing gender equality training for OSH professionals and workers to increase sensitivity to microaggressions and discrimination and to recognise how socially imposed gender roles influence risk exposure.
• Integrate a resilience-informed approach into psychosocial risk management. This means treating resilience not as an individual attribute but as something organisations can build through supportive work environments, effective prevention, and the reduction of gendered exposure to psychosocial risks.
• Adopt a biopsychosocial approach, integrating biological, psychological, and social factors into health surveillance to better understand how gender norms impact individual responses to workplace stressors.

Finally, beyond organisation-level measures, primary-prevention actions targeting wider society should be developed to challenge gender stereotypes. Reducing the internalisation of stereotypes may support more autonomous life and career choices and support well-being at work. Examples include psychological empowerment programmes addressed to (potentially) women leaders to increase their identification with the leadership role (beyond the “think manager-think male” paradigm[100]) as well as programmes addressed to men to increase “equal masculinities”[101] to avoid the risks associated with hegemonic masculinity and the breadwinner role.

Conclusion

In conclusion, depending on gender, workers might be exposed to different or more prominent psychosocial risks, and they might also be affected differently when being exposed to the same risks. Evidence shows that women face specific risks mainly due to gendered job characteristics and working conditions, while men’s risks are more closely associated with gender norms related to the breadwinner role and hegemonic masculinity. European initiatives highlight the importance of gender-sensitive prevention and intervention actions. Continued efforts are needed to implement these actions into policies, organisational practices and general society to promote more equal and inclusive workplaces and improve psychosocial well-being for all.