Why the government should interfere with women's workwear

Want to read in Dutch? Click here

“Many risk assessments and measures are still based on the ‘standard’ adult white man,” writes Kim Putters, chairman of the Social and Economic Council (SER), in his advisory report to State Secretary Jurgen Nobel. Putters, himself a white man, names women’s workwear as a key issue for the future.

It may sound strange. Why should an advisory body need to alert the government about workwear? This has existed for a long time, right? And yet, governments around the world are increasingly sounding the alarm when it comes to protective clothing for women.

Why the government should interfere with women's workwear — *Photo: Ascel Kadhem – Unsplash*

Putters touches a sore spot

The 108-page advisory report was launched on the SER website on May 28th. Although women’s workwear was only mentioned in a single sentence in the report, it did receive a place in the accompanying news release. And so media outlets picked up on this news. Yes, attention needed to be given to women’s workwear. The news broadcast also quickly mentioned that the Ministry of Defence is working on a flak jacket for women, to reassure viewers. Because we’re not doing that badly in the Netherlands.

This is true as well, Defence is indeed doing well with the flak jacket for women. But it is a trend I have seen more often in recent years in the news. Whenever protective women’s workwear is discussed, we rush to show which organisations are handling it well. Yes, that’s all very good, but the real problem is swept under the rug. And that is the fact that the mindset of many Dutch people in this area still lags behind. As a result, women are less safe in the workplace than their male colleagues.

Putters therefore touches a painful spot with his statement about white men. And in a world dominated precisely by these men, that is a powerful statement. But also simply a fact.

More and more governments are getting involved in women’s workwear

In the Netherlands, we are not the first where the theme of women’s workwear has ended up on the government’s agenda. In England, they made a subtle attempt fifteen years ago with the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. This package of rules and guidelines was meant to prevent all forms of discrimination, including gender discrimination. But since the document does not literally state that women have the right to women’s workwear, it was not effective enough. Research by the National Association of Women in Construction Yorkshire shows that in 2023, about 60% of employers in construction do not provide PPE or workwear designed for the female body.

After all, these were rules without legal consequences. And so, politics is now considering requiring employers in construction to offer protective equipment for women.

They had a similar experience in America, but with the female bulletproof vest. In 2012, this was introduced within the U.S. military because the male model did not fit well and therefore did not properly protect the women. But even when it was available, women still received a model made for men. The result was that in 2020, a special law was passed stating that women are entitled to a bulletproof vest made for their bodies. Defence is also required to track what injuries women suffer as a result of ill-fitting equipment.

Actions, not words

In the U.S., construction standards were updated so women are entitled to properly fitting PPE. OSHA changed rule 1926.95(c): since January 11, PPE must not only be safe for the job but also fit each employee properly. The advantage of OSHA’s rules is that companies are required to comply. When rules are not followed, fines of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars can be imposed.

In New Ontario, a province in Canada, they found all those rules for specific sectors insufficient. Since the end of 2024, a law has been introduced there requiring all companies in the province to provide workwear and PPE made for the female body.

The government plays a key role in women’s protective clothing and PPE. Studies show that proper workwear helps attract and retain women in tech and lets them work safely and comfortably. Still, many employers don’t act. And this isn’t just a problem in construction or tech. British research has shown that in only 2 of the 25 sectors do women always receive workwear made for their bodies. In the other 23 sectors, it is either unavailable or only occasionally available.

Employers and shops

It’s not always done with bad intentions, but often it’s due to the fact that the world is made for the “white, adult man,” as Putters points out. Recently I spoke on the phone with a woman from an international company. She said she had been working for years to introduce women’s workwear so that the women in the company no longer had to wear men’s models. After all, they worked with machines and suitable, protective clothing was not a luxury. But she just couldn’t convince upper management. They simply couldn’t understand why this would be necessary.

And do you remember that I wrote two articles in 2022 about women’s workwear in the four largest Dutch DIY stores? The buyer at Praxis thought women only needed a different length size but didn’t understand why a different fit was needed. At Gamma and Karwei it was dismissed as ‘not a priority,’ and Hornbach said they were open to expanding the (online) range. The only two women’s trousers they had in the range at the time are no longer available, as stated on the website.

When I spoke to a male account manager from AB Safety, he agreed more focus was needed on women’s workwear. He added that, besides comfort, it was also nice for men to see women in attractive gear.