Workplace Bullying as a Regulatory Challenge

Workplace bullying can have a significant psychosocial impact, yet legal protections vary significantly across jurisdictions. A systematic analysis from 2021 of 97 studies, covering over 220,000 workers, found prevalence rates of workplace bullying ranging from 7–13 percent in the United States to nearly 48 percent in parts of South and West Asia. In 2019, the International Labour Organization introduced the Violence and Harassment Convention (C190), the first global agreement recognizing the right to a workplace free from violence and harassment. However, the Convention is not universally binding; countries must ratify it, and implementation depends on national laws and policies, resulting in significant variation. This article will look at two countries, Sweden and France, to exemplify different legal approaches to tackling workplace bullying.

Sweden’s Preventive Model

Sweden was among the first countries to address workplace bullying through statutory regulation, introducing provisions on victimization at work in 1993. The provisions focused on repeated negative acts and treatment that singled out individual employees. The Swedish Work Environment Authority defines victimization as abusive action directed at one or more employees that may lead to ill health or exclusion from the workplace. Within this framework, bullying is considered a more severe form of victimization rather than a separate category. Despite this early regulatory leadership, victimization and bullying remain significant issues in Sweden’s work life. Research by Michael Rosander and Stefan Blomberg shows that nearly 20 percent of employees experience negative behaviors associated with victimization, and about 7 percent are exposed to ongoing bullying. Sweden has also not ratified the ILO Convention on violence and harassment at work.

An Evolving Framework

In 2015, the Swedish Work Environment Authority adopted regulation AFS 2015:4, which came into force in March 2016. The regulation shifted the focus from the frequency of behavior to its impact, particularly whether it creates a risk of ill health or exclusion. This broadened the understanding of workplace harm to include even single incidents or behaviors affecting multiple individuals. AFS 2015:4 emphasizes prevention by requiring employers to actively manage organizational and social work conditions, such as workload, working hours, and leadership. More recently, Sweden restructured its work environment regulations, consolidating multiple provisions into a simplified system. As of January 1, 2025, these regulations were integrated into a new framework under AFS 2023:2. Victimization is now addressed as part of broader work environment management, though the content remains largely the same.

Effectiveness of the Swedish Model

Despite Sweden’s pioneering role in regulating workplace bullying, comparative analyses by the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training have found little evidence that these legal measures have substantially reduced bullying prevalence. Enforcement remains difficult, and the gap between regulatory intent and workplace reality is wide. Studies on bullying management in Sweden show that workplace bullying persists and is often underreported or inadequately addressed. Research on managing bullying in Swedish workplace settings finds that bullying is frequently overlooked due to unclear definitions and a lack of targeted prevention strategies. Psychosocial risks are not consistently prioritized, and responsibility is often placed primarily on supervisors. As a result, responses tend to focus on separating individuals rather than addressing the underlying organizational causes of bullying.

France’s Punitive Model

In 1991, France passed legislation that made employers responsible for preventing health risks to their employees. In 2002, this framework was expanded to explicitly include psychological health, recognizing mental well-being as an integral part of workplace safety. The law introduced the concept of “moral harassment” (harcèlement moral), and established it as both a civil and criminal offense. According to Article L. 1152-1 of the Labor Code, moral harassment is defined as repeated acts that lead to a deterioration of working conditions and are likely to harm the victim’s dignity, physical, or mental health, or professional future. The Labor Code provides for sanctions, including up to one year of imprisonment and a fine of €15,000. These penalties can increase to two years in prison and a €30,000 fine if the harassment results in the victim’s incapacity for work exceeding eight days.

Employer Obligations and Scope

Employers in France are legally required to take all necessary measures to prevent bullying and may be held responsible for harassment occurring within the workplace, regardless of intent. Employees are also protected from retaliation for reporting bullying. France ratified the ILO Convention on violence and harassment in the work environment in 2023. A national study of 25,769 French employees found that the prevalence of workplace bullying, defined as exposure to at least one form of bullying behavior within the workplace over 12 months, was 27.7 percent.

Effectiveness of The French Model

France has developed a strong legal framework for addressing workplace bullying. It provides clear definitions, legal remedies, and potential criminal sanctions. Still, an analysis by Peter Lang in Workplace Bullying Sans Frontières notes that bullying cases are difficult to prove and that courts apply strict thresholds when determining whether behavior constitutes harassment. An empirical study by Gaëlle Encrenaz and Loïc Lerouge found that only 27% of French appeal cases alleging workplace harassment were legally recognized, illustrating the difficulty of proving claims and the limited use of formal sanctions.

The Limits of the Law

Sweden and France illustrate two approaches to workplace bullying: Prevention through employer obligations versus punishment through criminal sanctions. Yet bullying persists at similar rates in both contexts, raising questions about the limits of legal regulation.  Legal frameworks can define misconduct, establish reporting mechanisms, and provide remedies. However, workplace bullying is often linked to organizational culture and power dynamics that extend beyond the reach of legislation. While laws may create structures for accountability, broader cultural and organizational changes are often necessary for sustained impact. The persistence of bullying in both countries suggests that legal frameworks alone -whether preventive or punitive- cannot eliminate workplace bullying without accompanying cultural and organizational change.