Companies must incorporate socio emotional behavioural training and mixed-gender dynamics into employee orientation programmes

What do women want? In one word: SAFETY.

We, women, make almost every (strategic and frequent) decision around that single word. Should I study more? Which college? Is it safe? Is the commute safe? What job should I take, and where? Borker (2021) shows that safety perceptions directly restrict women’s educational choices and attainment.

Then comes employment. Safety dictates whether women join the workforce at all. Chakraborty et al. (2018) demonstrate that women are significantly less likely to work in areas with higher perceived risks of sexual harassment. Beyond salary and career progression, safety is a primary decision metric. Workplace safety is a key criterion in deciding whether to take a job. Yes, we have a law in place, but is it enough?

Using the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace, Tayal and Karthick from the Udaiti Foundation find that the number of POSH complaints filed from FY 2022-23 had risen to 29 per cent in FY 2023-24, but the rise in the number of POSH complaints awaiting resolution across the period was much higher at 67 per cent. “What is safe to wear?” is a question we face daily. If you need to run a quick errand late in the evening, is the area safe? Quick-commerce delivery platforms have been a blessing in that regard. Then come our daughters and female subordinates. The same safety calculus repeats, but now with added responsibility.

Safety issues

“Staying late at work? Take a cab if you live in the opposite direction; text me when you arrive.” “I’ll pick you up and drop you off if you’re on your way to my home.” “Who is going with you to the meeting or to the field? Take a teammate.” “Dress conservatively.” I recall conversing with my female research assistant and instructing her to carry a dupatta. When she told me, “Ma’am, I hate them,” I advised her: “Take a stole instead; wear it while you are in the field, and take it off in the car.”

My repeated instruction to all female staff remains simple: Your safety is my top priority. The rest is on me. For firms, the additional costs of ensuring women’s safety are often viewed as operational friction or “leakage,” leading some to avoid hiring women altogether. Researchers Beaman, Sharma, and Sharma at Ashoka University are currently studying why firms hesitate to invest in becoming gender-sensitive.

Meanwhile, reports indicate that a company in the South prefers not to hire men from certain regions because of concerns about how they behave around women. These exclusionary practices — whether based on gender, region, or other criteria — cost both individual firms and the national economy. These micro-level formal and informal restrictions aggregate into massive macro level losses. Women do not realise their full potential. Firms do not hire the most productive workers. The nation is at a loss.

Ostry, Espinoza, and Papageorgiou (2018) show that India would gain 35 per cent in welfare and 12 per cent in economic output simply by removing barriers to female labour force participation. As Mehrotra and Parida (2026) highlight in their book India Out of Work, achieving India’s demographic dividend depends fundamentally on securing its gender dividend. We must integrate women into the workforce and into quality jobs —beyond their substantial, uncounted unpaid labour. Institutions recognise this reality.

The World Bank (Halim, O’Sullivan, & Sahay, 2023) and the Government of India (Economic Survey 2025-26) are designing policies to address these constraints. Gender-responsive infrastructure is essential: well-lit roads, safe public transport, accessible schools and colleges, robust digital tools, care centres, and active policing and legal protections.

Missing ingredient

Indeed, Bhandari et al. (2026) found that rural road construction under the PMGSY significantly improved women’s perceived safety. But have we missed the most vital ingredient? The men. In a simultaneous equation model, you must solve for both variables. Investing in women’s socioemotional skills is crucial for facilitating labour force entry (Bhandari et al., 2018), but it is not enough on its own. It is equally critical to invest in men’s socio-emotional skills around gender diversity — starting in preschool and continuing through primary education, college, and the workplace.

We must reinforce these lessons continuously across generations before ingrained attitudes take root. Gender segregation in schools, while convenient, does not prepare young adults for the workplace, where they are expected to collaborate in mixed-gender teams. Notably, Dhar, Jain, and Jayachandran (2022) found a positive and persistent impact from school-based gender equality interventions on adolescent boys and girls in Haryana.

Formal sector firms must ask themselves: Are we actively incorporating socio emotional behavioural training and mixed-gender dynamics into employee orientation programs at all levels? This connects directly to the core question Beaman, Sharma, and Sharma are exploring. Ultimately, macro-level growth and development require micro-level actors — households, firms, and the government — to act together. Women’s safety is no longer just a social issue — it is central to India’s long-term economic growth.

The writer is a Professor and Co-Director of Gender & Macroeconomy, NCAER. Views expressed are personal