At first glance, this map seems to ask a simple question:

Is workplace sexual harassment illegal?

But the real answer is considerably more complicated.

Across much of Europe, the Americas, Oceania, Africa and parts of Asia, national legislation explicitly prohibits workplace sexual harassment in language covering both women and men.

In other countries, the law explicitly protects women but not men.

Some countries do not contain a direct prohibition but provide other legal protections.

And a significant group is classified by the WORLD Policy Analysis Center as having no explicit legislative prohibition meeting its coding criteria. (UCLA World)

Those distinctions reveal something important about employment law:

Having “some protection” is not the same thing as having a comprehensive workplace sexual-harassment framework.

What the Colors on the Map Actually Mean

The WORLD Policy Analysis Center separates countries into several categories.

Green means legislation explicitly extends workplace sexual-harassment protection to both women and men, or uses gender-neutral language.

Yellow means the legislative prohibition applies specifically to women.

Orange means there is no direct explicit prohibition under WORLD’s definition, but legislation still provides at least some protection—for example, allowing an employee to terminate a contract because of harassment or requiring an employer to respond.

Red means WORLD did not identify legislation that specifically prohibits workplace sexual harassment under the criteria used for this indicator.

That last category requires the most caution.

It should not be rewritten as:

“Sexual harassment is legal.”

Those two statements are not equivalent. (UCLA World)

Most Countries Now Have Explicit Protection

The broad global picture is encouraging.

Large portions of the map are green.

WORLD’s current country listing places countries including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia, South Korea and many others in its category where workplace sexual-harassment legislation covers both men and women. (UCLA World)

This reflects decades of legal reform.

WORLD reported in a 2023 policy brief that explicit workplace sexual-harassment protections had expanded across countries of all income levels. It also found that between 2016 and 2021, 11 countries newly adopted laws explicitly prohibiting workplace sexual harassment regardless of gender, while two countries moved from women-only protection to gender-neutral legislation. (UCLA World)

So the map is not static.

Workplace law has been changing rapidly.

Eight Countries Were Coded as Protecting Women Only

One of the most striking categories is yellow.

WORLD’s current policy page lists eight jurisdictions where the explicit legislative protection was coded as applying to women rather than both sexes:

Argentina, Bangladesh, China, Republic of the Congo, Egypt, India, Lebanon and the Marshall Islands. (UCLA World)

This reflects the history of sexual-harassment law.

Women experience workplace sexual harassment at higher rates in many settings, so early laws frequently emerged as part of women’s employment protections.

But sexual harassment can also affect men.

It can occur between people of the same sex.

And modern workplace equality frameworks increasingly use gender-neutral language.

WORLD’s research therefore treats protection covering everyone as a stronger legal framework. Its 2023 analysis specifically noted that although women face particularly high risks, workers of all genders can experience sexual harassment. (UCLA World)

Why Gender-Neutral Wording Matters

Consider two laws.

One says:

“Employers shall protect female employees from sexual harassment.”

Another says:

“No worker shall be subjected to sexual harassment.”

Both protect women.

But only the second clearly protects:

men,

women,

and potentially a much broader range of workers.

That difference explains why the infographic separates women-only laws from laws applying to both men and women.

Some Countries Have Protection Without a Direct Prohibition

The orange category may be the hardest to understand.

WORLD currently identifies Ghana, Japan and Oman in its “not prohibited, but at least some protection” category. (UCLA World)

Japan is an excellent example of why the distinction matters.

Japanese employment law requires employers to establish measures addressing workplace sexual harassment, including systems for consultation and appropriate responses. Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also states that both men and women can be perpetrators or victims and that same-sex sexual harassment can qualify. (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare)

So describing Japan simply as:

“Sexual harassment is not illegal”

would be highly misleading.

A better description is:

Japan has legally required employer protections, but WORLD’s indicator does not classify its legal structure as a direct explicit prohibition of the type measured by this map.

That is a much more precise reading.

Why Canada Is Red—and Why That Color Can Be Misunderstood

Canada may be the most surprising country on the infographic.

WORLD’s current policy page classifies Canada as:

“Sexual harassment not explicitly prohibited.” (UCLA World)

Someone familiar with Canadian employment law might immediately question that.

And for good reason.

Canada’s federal Labour Code defines workplace “harassment and violence” as conduct or comments—including those of a sexual nature—that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation, physical injury or psychological injury. Federally regulated employers must also develop prevention policies, assess risks, provide training and establish procedures for resolving incidents. (Canada)

How can both things be true?

Because the map measures a very particular legal question:

Does national legislation contain the kind of direct explicit sexual-harassment prohibition WORLD is coding?

That is not identical to asking:

Does the country have legally enforceable rules protecting workers from sexual harassment?

Canada demonstrates why readers should never interpret red as “anything goes.”

Russia Is Another Red Country

Russia also appears in WORLD’s “no explicit prohibition” category. The same category includes countries such as Iran, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan and Yemen. (UCLA World)

But again, this category only tells us something about the particular statutory prohibition being measured.

It does not establish that every sexually abusive act is lawful.

Conduct might fall under:

criminal law,

general employment rules,

anti-discrimination provisions,

civil liability,

occupational safety law,

or another legal doctrine.

This is why comparative law maps are most useful when they ask one narrowly defined question rather than attempting to summarize an entire legal system in one color.

A Good Law Needs More Than the Words “Sexual Harassment Is Prohibited”

Even green countries can differ dramatically.

Imagine two countries that both explicitly ban workplace sexual harassment.

Country A protects only ordinary employees and prohibits harassment only by supervisors.

Country B protects employees, job applicants, interns and apprentices and covers harassment by:

supervisors,

coworkers,

customers,

contractors

and third parties.

Those are not equally comprehensive systems.

WORLD therefore maintains separate indicators asking whether laws cover coworkers, customers, contractors, job seekers, interns and apprentices, retaliation, harassment outside the physical workplace and employer responsibility. (UCLA World)

This means the green color should be seen as a starting point, not a score of perfect protection.

What Counts as Sexual Harassment Also Differs

National laws do not even use identical definitions.

WORLD separately tracks whether legislation covers:

quid pro quo harassment,

unwanted sexual advances,

and conduct creating a hostile work environment.

Its database distinguishes countries with narrow definitions from those explicitly recognizing both quid pro quo and hostile-environment harassment. (UCLA World)

That difference can matter greatly in practice.

Quid pro quo harassment is the familiar situation where someone with power connects employment benefits or penalties with sexual conduct.

For example:

“Go out with me and I’ll promote you.”

But harassment can also consist of repeated sexual comments, images, jokes, touching or behavior creating an intimidating or degrading work environment even when no promotion or salary decision is involved.

A law covering only the first situation may leave major gaps.

Harassment Does Not Stop at the Office Door

Modern work creates another problem.

Where exactly is “the workplace”?

It can now include:

business trips,

conferences,

company parties,

employer-provided housing,

messages sent through workplace communication systems,

remote work,

and interactions occurring on the way to or from work.

The International Labour Organization’s Violence and Harassment Convention, known as Convention No. 190, takes a deliberately broad approach.

It applies not just inside a traditional workplace but also to work-related trips and events, work-related communications, employer-provided accommodation and commuting. (International Labour Organization)

That reflects how employment itself has changed.

A worker can be sexually harassed through a phone message at midnight without ever sharing a physical office with the perpetrator.

The ILO Established a Global Standard in 2019

In 2019, the International Labour Organization adopted Convention No. 190, the first international treaty specifically recognizing everyone’s right to a world of work free from violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and sexual harassment. (International Labour Organization)

Its definition is deliberately broad.

The convention covers workers regardless of traditional employment status and explicitly includes:

employees,

people in training,

interns,

apprentices,

former workers,

volunteers,

job seekers,

job applicants,

and people exercising employer authority.

It also applies across public and private sectors and formal and informal economies. (International Labour Organization)

That creates a much broader benchmark than simply prohibiting a manager from harassing an employee at an office desk.

And international adoption continues.

For example, Sri Lanka became the 55th ILO member state to ratify Convention No. 190 in April 2026. (International Labour Organization)

The Difference Between Law and Enforcement

There is another limitation that no map of legislation can solve.

A country may have excellent laws on paper and poor enforcement.

Workers might still face:

fear of retaliation,

weak labor inspection,

slow courts,

high legal costs,

lack of awareness,

informal employment,

or pressure not to report.

Conversely, a country whose national statute does not fit WORLD’s “explicit prohibition” definition may still provide significant remedies through other laws or lower levels of government.

This map therefore measures legal architecture, not actual workplace safety.

A green country is not necessarily harassment-free.

A red country does not necessarily have zero legal remedies.

That distinction should be included prominently in any article accompanying the map.

Prevention May Be More Important Than Punishment Alone

A modern workplace framework does more than provide a lawsuit after harassment has occurred.

It attempts to prevent the conduct.

WORLD therefore separately measures whether employers are legally required to take preventative steps. (UCLA World)

The ILO similarly emphasizes prevention, protection, enforcement, remedies, guidance and training under Convention No. 190. (International Labour Organization)

Employer prevention can include:

clear workplace policies,

worker and manager training,

confidential reporting channels,

risk assessments,

prompt investigations,

protection against retaliation,

and consequences for misconduct.

This matters because many workers will never pursue a formal legal case even when harassment occurs.

Preventing the incident in the first place is therefore a crucial part of meaningful protection.

Retaliation Is Another Major Issue

A sexual-harassment prohibition becomes much weaker if an employee can be punished simply for reporting it.

Workers may fear:

being fired,

losing hours,

being transferred,

missing promotions,

receiving poor evaluations,

or becoming socially isolated.

That is why WORLD has separate indicators measuring legal protection against retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and participating in workplace investigations. (UCLA World)

Legal protection means little if exercising the right destroys someone’s career.

Why the Map Has Changed So Much

A few decades ago, explicit workplace sexual-harassment laws were far less common.

The expansion of women’s labor-force participation, anti-discrimination law, international human-rights standards and public movements against harassment all contributed to reform.

WORLD found substantial legal progress even between 2016 and 2021, including new gender-neutral prohibitions and expanded protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (UCLA World)

The global #MeToo movement also increased public scrutiny of workplace behavior and legal gaps.

But the map shows that reform remains uneven.

Some countries have sophisticated prevention and enforcement frameworks.

Others still lack an explicit nationwide prohibition fitting WORLD’s criteria.

And a small group still word their protections specifically around women rather than workers generally.

What This Map Really Shows

The most important lesson is not that green countries are “good” and red countries are “bad.”

The map asks something much narrower:

Has national legislation explicitly prohibited workplace sexual harassment in the way WORLD defines and codes it?

That makes the map a useful comparison of legal frameworks.

But it is not a complete ranking of:

worker safety,

actual harassment prevalence,

law enforcement,

court effectiveness,

or employer behavior.

Those would require entirely different datasets.

A country can have a strong law and still have widespread harassment.

Another can have a less direct statutory structure but meaningful protections through occupational-safety, discrimination or employment law.

Understanding that difference turns a potentially misleading map into a much more useful one.

Why Explicit Laws Still Matter

Even with all those caveats, explicit legal wording has real value.

A clear prohibition tells:

workers,

employers,

courts,

labor inspectors

and the public

that sexual harassment is unacceptable workplace conduct.

It can clarify responsibilities.

It can establish remedies.

It can make reporting easier.

It can require prevention.

And gender-neutral laws make clear that protection is not restricted to one category of worker.

WORLD describes adopting a legal and policy framework that prohibits discrimination and sexual harassment as an important first step toward workplace equality. (UCLA World)

The key phrase is:

first step.

Passing a law is not the end of the problem.

It is the beginning of creating a system capable of addressing it.

Accuracy Note for the Infographic

I would keep the overall concept, but change the source line.

Instead of:

“Latest available WORLD Policy Analysis Center policy database (accessed 2026)”

I recommend:

“Source: WORLD Policy Analysis Center, Workplace Sexual Harassment Laws dataset; reference year 2023, accessed 2026.”

The World Bank’s microdata catalog identifies the WORLD Workplace Sexual Harassment Laws 2024 dataset with a 2023 reference year. (World Bank Microdata)

I would also add this small note:

“No explicit prohibition does not mean sexual harassment is necessarily lawful or unregulated. Countries may provide protections through other employment, discrimination, health-and-safety, civil or subnational laws.”

That warning is especially important because WORLD itself defines its categories narrowly, and countries such as Canada can have significant legal employer obligations while still appearing in the database’s “no explicit prohibition” category. (UCLA World)