The conduct conundrum in corporate India despite robust POSH frameworks

Recent controversies show companies struggle to embed acceptable conduct into culture

Recent controversies, such as allegations of sexual harassment at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Anand Rathi Wealth, have once again turned the spotlight on how companies define, enforce and monitor workplace behaviour.

 

While organisations emphasise their commitment to the prevention of sexual harassment (POSH) and to ensuring respectful workplaces, gaps between policy and practice appear to persist. Many firms say they are widening the lens to address everyday conduct to cover interactions, power dynamics and workplace culture, but employees point out that implementation remains uneven, particularly across teams and locations.

 

Large information technology (IT) firms, for instance, have seen a steady rise in reported cases. In its annual report, TCS reported 125 sexual harassment complaints in FY25, up from 110 the previous year. Of these, 78 were upheld and 23 were pending. At Infosys, complaints rose to 103 in FY25 from 98 in FY24.

 

During the company’s annual general meeting for FY24, Tata Sons Chairman N Chandrasekaran had said the company had zero tolerance for such incidents and encouraged employees to raise their voice if they face harassment. “...and when they raise, the number is likely to go up,” he said.

 

According to a survey conducted by Bengaluru-headquartered talent solutions firm CIEL HR Services after the recent TCS controversy, around 38 per cent of IT industry employees felt “very comfortable” raising concerns about inappropriate behaviour at the workplace. However, about 34 per cent indicated they did not feel comfortable doing so.

 

Policies versus behaviour

 

Companies insist they have robust systems in place. At Wipro, Saurabh Govil, president and chief human resources officer, said oversight is continuous. “As a compliance committee, we review our processes every quarter — execution, policies, processes. Every six months, we communicate this to the audit committee. The POSH committee and ombudsman are independent and do not report to any individual within the company,” he said.

 

Similarly, Infosys reiterated its “zero-tolerance approach” to harassment or discrimination, and pointed to independent investigations, multi-channel reporting, and a “speak-up” culture. In its statement to Business Standard, the company said it was aware of some social media posts claiming that women employees at Infosys BPM in Pune were facing harassment.

 

Tech Mahindra, responding to recent social media posts alleging religious bias at its Goregaon office in Mumbai, said its internal review found these claims to be “inaccurate and unfounded”. It emphasised its commitment “to building an inclusive, respectful workplace where every individual is treated with dignity and fairness”, and said it would continue to review its policies and processes to ensure “no coercive or inappropriate conduct is permitted or carried out”.

 

The ‘micro-rules’ of conduct  

 

Insiders argue that formal policies alone aren’t enough. A senior global capability centre (GCC) executive, who did not wish to be named, said the real challenge lies in translating policies to daily behaviour.

 

“Most firms have policies, but the gap is in translating them into specific behaviours,” the executive said. “The better GCCs define micro-rules like no public criticism in meetings, clear boundaries on late-night communication and thoughtful handling of manager-junior interactions.”

 

The executive added that the biggest mistake organisations make is in tolerating “brilliant jerks” – those who are high performers but are not the best behaved colleagues. Such people often do more harm than good, the GCC executive said.

 

Aditya Narayan Mishra, managing director and chief executive officer, CIEL HR, is of the view that “behaviour at work is ultimately shaped by culture and leadership”. Even subtle forms of coercion or exclusion can erode trust and team effectiveness over time, he said. 

Ensuring consistency across locations, especially in smaller cities, remains a weak link. This, industry insiders said, calls for adopting a dual approach: Global non-negotiables on issues like harassment and ethics, alongside local sensitivity to communication styles and hierarchies.

 

“Continuous awareness, localised sensitisation, and consistent enforcement are critical,” Mishra said, adding that leadership “must set the tone uniformly across all centres.”

 

An Ericsson India spokesperson said at their firm, workplace conduct is governed by a global ‘Code of Business Ethics’, supplemented by local compliance frameworks such as POSH. The company said it uses multiple reporting channels, including anonymous hotlines, and applies a structured process from complaint intake to closure across locations. Consequences range from coaching to termination, depending on severity, with serious violations such as harassment or fraud potentially escalated to external authorities.

 

Culture, not just compliance 

At some places, traditional compliance training is being rethought to include scenario-based learning, role plays, and manager coaching rather than relying solely on policy briefings.

 

ITC Limited said it integrates behavioural expectations from the onboarding stage, supported by leadership engagement, 360-degree feedback, and open channels for raising concerns. The company emphasised that alignment with its values is “a prerequisite for growth”.

 

Experts maintain that real change will come only when companies embed conduct into organisational culture rather than treating it as a compliance exercise.