How gender equality is positioned within companies matters as much as whether it is addressed at all. While companies are increasingly strengthening their commitments to foster gender equality, the issue remains rarely incorporated into how corporate risks are identified, prioritised and governed.

Too often, gender equality is treated as a standalone “add-on” initiative, rather than as a priority that cuts across all functions of the business. This is neither new nor unexplored. Data from the World Benchmarking Alliance has consistently shown that relatively few companies meaningfully engage their stakeholders on gender-related impacts. Recent research from UN Women has further demonstrated companies are yet to undertake meaningful gender engagement on supply chains.

Insights from the UN Global Compact’s Target Gender Equality programme further reveal the ad hoc and siloed nature of gender equality in practice: in many companies, even those where responsibilities are formally assigned, a disproportionate share of effort and resources is spent on securing management buy-in and negotiating legitimacy. This is a paradox as few social issues are as consistently supported by the business case as gender equality. Yet corporate progress continues to rely on persuasion rather than being embedded in governance and systems.

As long as gender equality remains outside core risk identification, prioritisation and governance processes, accountability will remain weak and critical blind spots may persist.

Gender equality is a human right in its own. Discrimination on the basis of gender constitutes a direct harm. At the same time, gender considerations influence who is exposed to harm, how severe that harm is, and how likely it is to occur. Women are often concentrated in lower paid and informal roles, where labour protection is the weakest. As a result, risks such as wage theft, unsafe working conditions and retaliation are the likeliest to go undetected. Gender dynamics cut across and amplify other human rights risks, that are further compounded by other intersecting factors, including race, ethnicity, migration status, disability, age, and sexual orientation. when gender equality is not explicitly and visibly recognised as a core, cross-cutting human rights risk within governance processes, companies risk overlooking both direct violations and broader patterns of harm, resulting in incomplete and inaccurate risk assessments.

While it can be argued that these risks are already scrutinised through compliance, the shortcomings of this approach are largely documented. Gendered risks such as harassment, retaliation or unequal access to remedy are frequently missed when assessments rely on policies, audits or reported cases alone.

In the absence of a risk-based cross cutting approach to gender equality, corporate efforts remain fragmented and incoherent. Companies waste already limited resources on visible initiatives that are poorly connected to actual risks, diluting impact and even increasing their exposure to reputational harm and backlash. Without coherence, even the most well-intentioned initiative can do harm and undermine corporate credibility.

This lack of integration further renders progress vulnerable to volatility. Political pressure, leadership changes, or major corporate events such as mergers and acquisitions often bring rapid reprioritisation. When gender equality is not embedded in core risk and governance systems, it is among the first areas to be deprioritised, precisely because it is considered discretionary rather than essential.

​​These are the very gaps that a risk based approach can fill. Human rights due diligence has never been about perfection, but about making informed choices, learning from gaps, and being transparent about progress. The process is designed to help companies identify and prioritise risks to people based on severity and likelihood, informed by engagement with those affected and supported by tracking whether actions are effective. But when gender equality is treated as a parallel issue and due diligence is gender blind, it fails to capture who is most affected and how severe impacts really are.

Fortunately, moving from opportunism to accountability does not require new frameworks, but institutionalisation. Companies can equip those responsible for gender equality with adequate resources, and a mandate that extends beyond standalone initiatives into core decision-making.

For both small and large companies, applying a gender lens across due diligence is an opportunity to refocus limited resources to the areas of highest risk instead of scattering efforts in low impact initiatives.

Crucially, engagement with women – including workers, supply chain actors and affected communities – must go beyond consultation. It requires acting on their insights and integrating them into decision-making. Without this, “listening” risks becoming a box-ticking exercise rather than a driver of change.

Investors, in turn, can reinforce this shift by expecting companies to govern gender equality as a core risk issue and ensuring it informs risk assessment, resource allocation and accountability mechanisms.

The opinions expressed on this blog are personal and do not reflect the views, strategies, or positions of any organisation the author of this blog is affiliated with.