* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Private companies should take action to reduce domestic violence because of the business cost
Intimate-partner violence (IPV), which affects at least 30 percent of the world’s women, traumatizes those women and also has impacts on their families, communities and employers. IPV can result in physical injury, trauma, pain, absences from work and disruptions in productivity—both for the person attacked and for the perpetrator. Incidences of violence against women worldwide are underreported, but they are at least three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner. When calculated on a global scale, these acts of violence and their consequences cost employers billions of dollars per year.
Although researchers at the World Health Organization (WHO) and elsewhere have learned a great deal about the after-effects of IPV, economists and scholars are just beginning to define the harm such violence causes commercial enterprises and the global economy. One innovative study, Violence Against Women and Its Financial Consequences for Businesses in Peru—conducted in partnership with the University of San Martin de Porres in Lima and the German development agency GIZ under the leadership of its Regional Program Director for Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay, Christine Brendel—estimated that the financial costs of IPV for businesses and development in Peru add up to about 4 percent of the country’s GDP, or about 7 billion U.S. dollars annually. By extrapolation we begin to get an inkling of the scope of the world’s losses resulting from IPV.
Findings from the study confirmed that IPV is widely prevalent in Peru. Among employed women surveyed—more than 5,300 women, all over age 18—slightly more than 23 percent were subject to violence by an intimate partner or ex-partner an average of four times in the preceding year. Perhaps surprisingly, more men, 25 percent of working men, reported using violence against a woman partner. The research showed that 92 percent of company managers viewed IPV as harmful to business.
Investigators in the study report that financial costs to employers result from four effects of IPV on workers:
- Absenteeism
- “Presenteeism,” or “being at work but unproductive because of impaired capacity to perform necessary tasks”
- Turnover and resulting expenses
- Lost business opportunities caused by disruption at the workplace
Business and the private sector end up paying for IPV not only because it injures female employees and consumers but also because it is a drain on the attendance and productivity of employees who inflict IPV, usually men. They actually have a higher number of absences—35 days per year on average—than the women who are targets of IPV (who typically miss 34 days annually). Men who use IPV to control their partners miss work to take their partners to the doctor or hospital, to appear in court, or to be held at a police station. Those who inflict IPV also use company time and resources—email and telephone—to control their partners.
Researchers in the 2012 Peru-GIZ study provided virtually unprecedented attention to the lost productivity of those who perpetrate IPV. Even later reports that broadly address different forms of gender-based violence (of which IPV is one) call attention to the lack of data to show the economic consequences of such violence. This new focus is leading companies and economic leaders to examine a more complete picture of where IPV-related losses occur.
What can businesses do about an issue perceived to be private? Clearly productivity would increase if company policies were put in place to help reduce IPV by increasing employees’ awareness of the issue and offering help through suitable referrals. Companies would benefit by implementing policies that draw a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Just as alcoholism and illegal drug use outside work harm employee productivity, IPV holds both genders back from reaching their full economic potential.
More data is also needed to bring the economic impact of IPV to the attention of business. Studies such as Violence Against Women and Its Financial Consequences for Businesses in Peru must be undertaken in more countries. In Peru, the findings stimulated policy dialogue with government bodies and created a platform for actions that businesses can take. For instance, corporate-social responsibility staff at HAUG S.A., a company with headquarters in the port city of Callao, noticed that it was effective to teach women employees new, marketable skills, to promote entrepreneurial attitudes among them, and to educate male employees in the side effects of violence against women.
IFC, a member of the World Bank Group and the world’s largest private sector-focused development institution, formed the Better Work partnership with the International Labour Organization (ILO) in 2007. The partners work with businesses to improve employment for workers in emerging economies. The improvements include better hours, safer factories, and assistance for companies in drafting and implementing anti-sexual harassment policies. Some of the practices that are proving successful are increased security for workers, company transportation for women employees, and gender-sensitivity training for supervisors.
The ultimate answer to preventing IPV is ending women’s economic dependence on their partners—something the private sector can aid by encouraging female employment, entrepreneurship, and leadership. It’s time for all companies—since all of them suffer the costs of IPV—to raise awareness of the issue and help put an end to its exorbitant economic and human costs.
