National Policy Monitoring

The Commitment pillar captures whether national frameworks (i) explicitly recognise gender-based violence as systemic (including unequal power relations in R&I and higher education, existence of violence along a continuum, the need to embed efforts to counteract gender-based violence in institutional change approaches and recognition of intersectional nature of gender-based violence); (ii) articulate priority groups, and (iii) explicitly address the defined zero-tolerance principles.

The indicator synthesis identifies Commitment as the weakest pillar. Under the current operationalisation, no country reaches the “comprehensive” or “developing” categories for Commitment; eight countries are classified as “intermediary” (Austria, Czechia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Norway) and four are classified as “absent” (Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania and Poland).

This pattern suggests that, even where policy measures exist, the explicit conceptual framing promoted by the Zero-Tolerance Code of Conduct is not consistently embedded in national instruments. In practice, this means that institutions may receive expectations to act, but without a clearly articulated theoretical and conceptual framing of gender-based violence that is critical for the policy effectiveness.

	Comprehensive commitment approach: These countries fully recognise the systemic, intersectional and institution-wide nature of gender-based violence and embed multiple zero-tolerance principles and priority groups in their main policy..  0 countries
	Developing commitment approach: these countries recognise several core elements of the systemic nature of gender-based violence and articulate a growing set of priority groups and zero-tolerance principles, though not yet comprehensively. 0 countries
	Intermediary commitment approach: these countries show a partial or uneven understanding of gender-based violence as a systemic issue and include only some priority groups or zero-tolerance principles in their policy framework. 8 countries: Austria, Czechia, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden; Norway
	Emerging commitment approach: these countries acknowledge only limited aspects of gender-based violence as a systemic issue and include minimal references to priority groups or zero-tolerance principles. 0 countries
	Absent commitment approach: these countries do not recognise gender-based violence as a systemic issue, do not define priority groups and do not incorporate zero-tolerance principles in their national policy. 4 countries: Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland
	Not included in the analysis
	No data available

 

The Action pillar assesses whether national frameworks require and/or recommend institutional measures across the breadth of the UniSAFE 7P framework. The traffic-light synthesis indicates that Action is more developed than Commitment but still falls short of the elements recommended in the Zero Tolerance Code of Conduct. No country is classified as “comprehensive.” Five countries are classified as “developing” (Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland and Portugal), four as “intermediary” (Czechia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden), one as “emerging” (Austria), and two as “absent” (Poland and Norway).

A key pattern behind these aggregate classifications is that national instruments most often focus on prevention and protection (e.g., institutional policy requirements and protective measures), while others remain weakly specified. In particular, expectations on leadership capacity building are rare, and partnership arrangements are uneven. This reinforces the broader finding that many national frameworks increasingly encourage institutional action, but do not yet consistently require a full-spectrum, whole-system response aligned with the 7P framework.

The Accountability pillar captures whether national frameworks include enforceable oversight mechanisms such as reporting duties, monitoring and evaluation requirements (including indicators), leadership accountability, and sanctions or consequences for non-compliance. The indicator synthesis identifies Accountability as the pillar with the greatest divergence across countries. Four countries are classified as “comprehensive” (Austria, France, Ireland, and Sweden), six countries are classified as “emerging” (Czechia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Portugal), and two as “absent” (Belgium and Lithuania). Thus, in many contexts, national frameworks do not institutionalise the system-level accountability architecture needed to ensure consistent implementation over time.

The policy outlook is characterised by selective strengthening through revisions, governance reinforcement, initiatives, and implementation supports in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Albania, alongside eight countries reporting no current strengthening plans or weakening of existing national policy mix: Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden Iceland, and Norway. Lithuania stated that it does not have the relevant information available and is therefore unable to provide a definitive response.

 

 

The planned policy advances include:

• Advance provisions in an existing general policy (Croatia, Czechia, Ireland, Albania)
• Advance provisions in an existing dedicated policy (France, Portugal)
• Introduce a new initiative (Austria, Belgium)
• Renew an existing initiative (Belgium)
• Adopt a new dedicated policy (Austria)
• Amend a general law (the Netherlands)

 

The Netherlands is developing an amendment to the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act introducing a duty of care for safety, including obligations such as monitoring perceived safety, recording incidents, and reporting serious incidents to the inspectorate.

 

Framework revision: Ireland and France

• France plans to continue its national policy on Ending Sexual Violence and Harassment beyond the 2021–2025 framework. An Expert Group was convened, consultations were conducted with stakeholders, and implementation of a revised framework is planned for 2026.
• Ireland is reviewing and renewing the 2019 national framework through an expert group process and broad consultation, with a revised framework planned for implementation in 2026.

New initiatives or working groups: Austria and Belgium

• Austria plans to establish a stakeholder working group to implement the findings and recommendations from the European Research Area National Action Plan (ERA-NAP) status quo survey.
• Belgium mentions regional action plans, though details are limited. These represent softer governance instruments, based on coordination rather than legal change.

Gender Equality Plan requirement as a driver: Croatia, Slovakia

• Croatia highlights mandatory Gender Equality Plans for higher education and research institutions and links gender integration to project eligibility in research funding since 2022. This mechanism embeds gender-based violence prevention within research governance and funding conditionality.
• Slovakia mentions the continuation of Gender Equality Plans, specialised training, internal zero-tolerance policies, and preparation of a draft national strategy for gender equality in research and innovation.

Strategic alignment without specified instruments

• Albania frames strengthening within its National Strategy for Gender Equality 2021–2030 and emphasises alignment with EU-level expectations.