# EUR-Lex - 52013SC0171 - EN

*|*

# 52013SC0171

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on Progress on equality between women and men in 2012 Accompanying the document 2012 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights /* SWD/2013/0171 final */**

			*

			*

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Report on Progress on equality between
women and men in 2012

Accompanying the document

2012 Report on the Application of
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.     Introduction. 4

2.     Equal
economic independence during the crisis. 6

2.1.       A levelling-down of the gender gap in employment. 6

2.2.       Starting fragile: young men and young women’s economic
independence at stake  9

2.3.       Reconciling work and family life — a snapshot of the
attainment of the Barcelona targets  10

3.     Equal
pay for equal work and work of equal value. 14

3.1.       Gender gaps in education and research: the root of
segregation and pay inequalities  14

3.1.1.    Gender imbalances
in education. 14

3.1.2.    Gender equality in research. 15

3.2.       Closing the Gender Pay Gap. 16

3.3.       Women’s earnings are playing a more critical role in
household income. 18

3.4.       Gender gaps in pensions. 19

3.5.       Women still face a higher risk of poverty and exclusion. 20

3.6.       Migrants and minorities: fragility and empowerment. 22

4.     Equality
in decision-making.. 24

4.1.       Promoting gender balance on boards of companies listed on
stock exchanges  24

4.2.       Gender balance in political decision-making: still a
challenge for many Member States  26

4.2.1.    Elected representatives:
gender imbalance in many parliaments. 26

4.2.2.    Gender imbalance in most EU
national governments. 27

4.2.3.    Women and men in
decision-making positions on the environment 28

5.     Dignity,
integrity and ending gender-based violence: a growing attention to a persisting
issue  29

5.1.       Reinforcing the rights of victims of crime. 29

5.2.       A strong stance against female genital mutilation (FGM) 29

5.3.       Towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings. 30

5.4.       Violence against women as a key priority of the Cypriot
presidency. 30

6.     Gender
equality in external actions. 32

7.     Horizontal
issues. 34

7.1.       Mainstreaming gender equality. 34

7.2.       Investing in gender equality. 35

8.     Summary of main findings. 36

Statistical annex. 37

1.           Introduction

Equality between men and women is a fundamental right and a common
principle of the European Union. It is also a key element of sustainable, smart
and inclusive economic growth. Greater gender equality has accounted for a
significant share of the employment and economic growth in the past 50 years
and its potential impact is not yet fully exploited. New research shows that
levelling gender gaps upwards could enhance potential economic growth: the
projected gain from full convergence in participation rates by 2020 is an
increase of 12.4 % in GDP per capita by 2030[1]: this would represent an
important contribution to the EU economic recovery and an important asset for
the EU in a time of downturn.

Gender gaps decreased in several domains in the last five years. A
closer insight shows that this decrease is not the consequence of an
improvement of the situation of women but to a faster deterioration of the
situation of men as compared to women, in particular in the first period of the
crisis. Therefore, the EU has experienced a levelling down of gender gaps in
employment, unemployment, wages and poverty in recent years. Significant challenges
also remain in fields such as violence against women, reconciling work and
family life and gender balance in decision-making.

This report assesses the situation of women and men and the
changes over time, focusing on 2012 but also taking a long-term perspective
and putting the current challenges in the context of the evolution of the last
decade. It takes stock of major policy developments during the last year.
2012 was indeed rich in new initiatives on gender
equality, at both European and national level. The report illustrates some of
the many ways in which the European Union and its Member States have promoted
gender equality.

This report is structured
around the five priority areas defined in the Commission communication Strategy
for equality between women and men 2010-2015[2], namely:

(1) 
equal economic independence for women and men,

(2) 
equal pay for work of equal value,

(3) 
equality in decision making,

(4) 
dignity, integrity and ending of gender violence,

(5) 
promoting gender equality beyond the EU,

A comprehensive mid-term review of the Strategy
for equality between women and men will be presented by the Commission in
2013.

While covering all five priorities of the Strategy, the report focuses
on specific aspects that gained importance in 2012 and on new
initiatives that should be highlighted:

· 
The availability, quality and affordability of
childcare facilities remain a key driver to enhance women’s employment and contribution
to economic growth. The extent to which the so-called Barcelona[3] targets in this field, adopted
ten years ago, have been achieved, is scrutinised in a separate part of the
report.

· 
Whereas women constitute an increasing part of
the workforce, they are not yet represented at the highest decision-making
levels. The Commission proposal for gender balance on boards of publicly listed
companies therefore constitutes a key milestone for gender equality.[4]

· 
Gender-based violence remains a serious and
unacceptable violation of human rights. Important steps have been taken at European
level to combat it.

The report also presents an insight of current
economic issues with a focus on the specific challenges faced by young women
and young men. On a longer-term perspective, new findings
on the contribution of gender equality to growth are also presented.

2.           Equal
economic independence during the crisis

Having a job is a necessary — but not
always sufficient — condition for economic independence and decent living for
working-age men and women. In 2012, the scarcity of jobs has affected the lives
of many men and women — though in different ways (section 2.1) — and has
particularly affected the youth labour market (section 2.2). More structural
factors, such as the unavailability of childcare facilities (section 2.3), partly
explain the remaining gender gap in employment, and require to be addressed under
the Europe 2020 Strategy.

2.1.        A levelling-down of the gender gap in employment

Before the crisis, women were slowly
catching up with men on the labour markets of all European countries: their
employment rate increased from 55 % in 1997 to 62.8 % in 2007, gaining
6.9 percentage points while the male employment rate increased from 75.3% to
77.9%, gaining 2.6 percentage points in the same period. The crisis has halted
these positive trends. However, male employment dropped earlier and faster
(as shown in Figure 1): the male employment rate went down to 74.6 % in 2012,
its lowest level since 1997, while female employment decreased only slightly at
62.4 %. The fall in female employment was smaller at the beginning of the
crisis, as women were underrepresented in sectors such as manufacturing,
construction and finance, which were hit the most. However the on-going process
of fiscal consolidation is increasingly involving staffing
freezes or personnel cuts in the public sector which is female dominated. This diminishes the prospects of a swift recovery for female
employment in several countries[5].

Looking at changes in unemployment since
the beginning of the crisis, the female unemployment rate was much higher than
the male unemployment rate in the first quarter of 2008 and increased as the
recession worsened, but not as much as male unemployment. As a consequence,
both rates have converged (see Figure 2). In the fourth quarter of 2012, the male
and female unemployment rates reached new highs of 10.6 % and 10.8 %,
respectively, corresponding to almost 26 million Europeans in unemployment.

Despite the continuous increase in
unemployment, inactivity and discouragement (characterised by abandonment of job
search and the labour market) keep falling, in particular among women. Many
more women than men were inactive in 2012 (30.5 % compared to 17 %),
but the gender gap was lower than five years before (13.5 pp compared to 15.7
pp in 2007). Women are no longer the ‘buffer’ of the labour market, called
in when demand is high, but sent back home when demand contracts[6].

Figure 1: Employment rate of men and
women (20-64 years old), EU-27, 1997-2012(%)

Source:
Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS)

Figure 2: Unemployment rate of men and
women (15-74 years old) seasonally adjusted, EU-27, from the beginning of the
crisis in 2008 to 2012 (%)

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

As an alternative to lay-offs, part-time
work has risen during the crisis, in particular among men: 8.4 % of employed
men were part-timers in 2012 (compared to 7 % in 2007). However, part-time
working remains a much more common feature of female employment (32.1 % in
2012 and 30.8 % in 2007). Involuntary part-time work has also risen among both
men and women: involuntary part-time employment represents 39% of total part-time
male employment in 2012 (against 30% in 2007) and 24% of total part-time female
employment in 2012 (against 20% in 2007).

The situation of men and women varies from
one Member State to another (see Figure 3). The
female employment rate is lower than 60 % in Malta, Greece, Italy,
Hungary, Spain, Romania, Poland, Slovakia and Ireland, while is above 70 %
in Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Sweden. Some Member States
with the highest female employment rates also display a high share of part-time
employment among women (the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the United
Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg).

The differences in terms of number of hours
worked can be summarised in one telling figure: if employment is measured in
full-time equivalents, only 53.5 % of the female workforce is employed in
the EU as compared to 62.4% in terms of employment rate's usual measure.

Improving female labour market
participation is needed to ensure a sustained and inclusive growth. Recent
evidence from the OECD[7] shows that on average, the projected gain from full convergence
in participation rates is an increase of 12.4 % in GDP per capita by 2030
in EU-21[8]. The projected gains are substantially
higher in those Member States where the gender gap in labour force
participation is currently high. The same OECD report also demonstrates that
while childcare facilities remain the key driver of female employment, a
comprehensive policy-mix is also required to enable women and men to balance
work with their family and private life and to address the difficulties
encountered at different stages of life. The following sections present policies
that have been implemented and their contribution to the enhancement of labour
market participation of women, starting with youth policies.

Figure 3: Employment rate and part-time
employment rate of men and women in 2012

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

2.2.        Starting fragile: young men and young women’s economic
independence at stake

The current crisis has particularly hit young people, who are facing
unemployment and discouragement. As a consequence, in 2011, the rate of people not
in employment, education or training (NEET) reached 17.5 %
among young women (15-29 years old) and 13.4 % among young men in the EU-27.
The NEET rate among young women is higher than 20 % in 8 Member States
(see Figure 4). Young women are more likely than young men to be not in
employment, education or training, mainly because they are more likely to be
out of the labour force (or inactive).

Among the NEET group, 42.4 % of young men are involved in
active labour market measures, while only 32.6 % of young women are. The
share of young men is especially higher in training (59.5 % of young beneficiaries)
and start-up incentives (62.9 %). Furthermore, women are underrepresented
in apprenticeship schemes to facilitate school-to-work transition. All in all
they seem to benefit less from public support in many Member States (training
programmes, apprenticeships, etc.)[9].

Figure 4: NEET rate by type and by
gender for youth aged 15-29, 2011 (%)

*Luxembourg:
data not available for males

**Malta: Total
NEET rate

Source: ENEGE's
calculation, based on yearly microdata ELFS, average 2009/2010

Young men more frequently experience a successful
transition path (i.e. ending with a permanent contract). In contrast, young
women are more likely to be part-time and temporary workers[10] and to start in the doubly
fragile position of a temporary, part-time job.

Based on this evidence, the Youth Employment Package adopted
in December 2012 by the European Commission[11]
recognised the need for more gender-sensitive youth policies and proposed a
Council Recommendation for a ‘Youth Guarantee’[12],
paying attention to the gender and diversity of the young people targeted.

2.3.        Reconciling work and family life — a snapshot of the
attainment of the Barcelona targets

The ability of Member States to
significantly increase sustainable employment rates and decrease gender gaps depends,
among other things, on the ability of women and men to reconcile their
professional and private lives. The availability of childcare services is
crucial in this regard. Recognising this crucial role, the European Council in
Barcelona set what is known as the ‘Barcelona target’: ‘(...) Member States
should strive (...) to provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90 % of
children between 3 years old and the mandatory school age and at least 33 %
of children under 3 years of age;’[13].

Although some progress has been made since
2002, and despite the commitment of Member States in two successive European
pacts for equality between women and men[14],
the provision of childcare facilities in the EU was still short of these targets
in 2010[15].

While 10 EU Member States have reached
the Barcelona targets for the first age group in 2011, the majority of Member
States have yet to make any substantial effort to meet the targets (see Figure
5). This is particularly the case in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia,
whose coverage rate is less than 5 %.

The use of formal childcare increases with
the age of children. In the category of children aged from 3 to mandatory
school age[16],
9 Member States reached the target of 90 % coverage in 2011. More
worrying, the coverage rate has significantly decreased between 2010 and 2011
in several countries. It is also important to note that for some countries,
even if the targets are met, the use of formal childcare is mainly part-time so
does not cover a full week of work. The Netherlands, Ireland and the United
Kingdom are examples where part-time childcare places may be for less than 20
hours.

Figure 5:
Percentage of children cared for under formal arrangements by weekly time spent
in care, 2011

Children up to three years of age || Children from three years of age to mandatory school age

||

Sources: Eurostat, EU-SILC,  2010.

Note: A number of data points are computed based on
small samples and are not considered statistically reliable. These include for
first age category: AT, BG, CY CZ, EL, HR, LT, MT, PL, RO, SK.

Breakdowns by
weekly time spent in care are laid down on a indicative basis.

Formal childcare services can only help parents
enter and stay in employment if they are affordable. However, the price of these services is considered an obstacle
for 53 % of mothers who do not work or work part-time on account of
childcare[17].
This is particularly the case in Ireland, the Netherlands, Romania and the UK
where the price is an obstacle for more than 70 % of mothers who do not
work or work part-time on account of childcare. The net costs of childcare services
may in fact represent more than 41 % of net income in a household where
both parents work[18]
in the UK and Ireland[19].

In addition, the quality of services
remains uneven and difficult to measure[20].
Some indicators of the structural quality[21]
of formal childcare services show a strong variation from one country to
another. Regarding the competences of child carers, research and international
policy documents recommend that early-childhood education and care
professionals should be trained at bachelor level (ISCED 5) with at least 60 %
of the workforce trained at this level. However, formal competence requirements
vary widely from one country to another. In addition, in most EU countries
competence requirements for auxiliaries or assistants, who provide up to 40-50 %
of the workforce, are often overlooked. Assistants are likely to have little or
no initial training and limited access to vocational training, while the ‘educators’
(who are already highly qualified in many cases) are able to benefit from such
opportunities. Moreover working conditions in the area of childcare remain
precarious in most countries.

The above comparative evidence, together
with more country-specific analysis as part of the ‘European Semester’ round of
economic coordination, provides the basis for country-specific
recommendations addressed to nine Member States (Austria, the Czech
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and the United
Kingdom) on female employment and on childcare availability/quality and/or
full-day school places. Seven of these countries had already received a
recommendation in 2011, while Malta and Slovakia received a recommendation for
the first time in 2012.

The Commission will continue to support the
development of affordable, accessible and quality childcare services throughout
the European Semester, in line with the Annual Growth Survey 2013[22].

The sole development of childcare facilities
is not enough to enable women and men to exercise their choice in how to
balance work with their family and private life and does not account for the
difficulties encountered at different stages of life. A
reconciliation policy mix comprising flexible work arrangements,
a system of family leave, including strong incentives for fathers to
take on more family responsibility and the provision of affordable and quality
care (for preschool children but also for pre-teen children in school and
outside school hours and for other dependants) should be promoted.

Directive 2010/18/EU on Parental
Leave had to be transposed in the Member States by 8 March 2012. It gives
each working parent the right to at least four months leave after the birth or
adoption of a child (previously up to three months). At least one of the four
months cannot be transferred to the other parent – meaning it will be lost if
not taken – offering incentives to fathers to take the leave.

The research on ‘The role of men’[23] shows men's
increasing desire to contribute to family life and, actually, a growing
participation in caring for own children in some countries. While some positive
trends are documented, the persisting
inequality in the take-up of unpaid care activities between women and men restricts
the ability of women to engage fully in paid employment[24].

The new Directive on
Parental Leave also provides for better protection against discrimination and a
smoother return to work. Member States could request an additional year to
comply with the Directive. 6 Member States have requested an extension and have
until 8 March 2013 to transpose the requirement of this Directive into their
national law. After this extended transposition deadline has expired the
Commission will start a comprehensive monitoring exercise on whether the
implementing measures are in conformity with the Directive.

In 2012, discussions in
the Council on the Commission proposal for a revised maternity leave
Directive which the Commission proposed in 2008 continued. The proposal is
aiming to amend the current provisions of Directive 92/85/EEC on maternity
protection. The most important elements of the Commission proposal are to
increase maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks, to allow women to choose more
freely if they want to take maternity leave already before the birth (thus no
obligatory periods before birth), an obligatory leave of six weeks after birth,
to improve protection against dismissal and to allow the women to ask for
changes in their working conditions. Negotiations remain very difficult given
the diametrically opposed positions of Council and the European Parliament but
the Commission has tried and will continue to try to help broker a compromise
that represents tangible progress for pregnant workers.

3.           Equal
pay for equal work and work of equal value

The root causes of the gender pay gap are
well-known: in addition to direct discrimination, women face sector and
occupation segregation, undervaluation of their work, and unequal sharing of
caring responsibilities. These gender inequalities on the labour market mirror
gender segregation and differences in the education and training system (3.1),
but recent trends in education and equal pay policy have probably helped reduce
the gender pay gap (3.2). However the gender employment and pay gaps still have
major consequences for earnings and women’s contribution to household income (3.3),
pensions (3.4) and poverty (3.5). Special attention is paid to vulnerable
groups: migrant and minorities (3.6).

3.1.        Gender gaps in education and research: the root of
segregation and pay inequalities

3.1.1.     Gender imbalances in education

During the last decade, educational
attainment has increased for both men and women in the EU (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Early
leavers from education and training (18-24 years old) and higher education attainment
(30-34 years old) by sex, 2012

Source: Eurostat, LFS

By 2012, the
proportion of early school-leavers had decreased among both boys and girls to 14.5 %
and 11 %, respectively. At the same time, the share of young people
with higher education massively increased, with the increase among women almost
twice as high as that of men. In 2012, 31.6 % of all men and 40 %
of all women (EU-27) between 30 and 34 years of age had attained tertiary
education. Nowadays women constitute 60 % of new graduates.

However, girls
are less likely to choose scientific or technological fields of study. Figures
are telling in this regard. Three quarters of the students in engineering,
manufacturing and construction-related studies were male. Male graduates also
outnumber female graduates in science, mathematics and computing. In contrast,
female graduates largely outnumber male graduates in fields such as social
sciences, business, law, welfare and health.

Already at the
age of 16, girls outperform boys in reading — the difference is equivalent to
one year of schooling — but lag behind in mathematics, albeit to a lesser
extent than boys in reading[25].

Policies, in particular education and
training policies, can try to tackle gender inequalities at an early stage
and so ensure that all boys and girls can realise their potential and choose
the field they are good at, without being limited by prejudice. Many countries
have tried to remove gender bias in curricula and decided to share their
experience in a seminar that took place in October 2012[26].

The Danish 2012 National gender
equality plan explicitly addresses gender segregation in education and
training. There is also a specific focus on ‘failing
boys’: in January 2012, the Minister for Gender Equality launched a fund
(twenty million Danish kroner in total) to support projects and research on
breaking down gender-segregated educational choices and enhancing knowledge on
how to recruit and maintain boys within the educational system.

In Spain, the Ministry of Education
has taken action to fight gender stereotypes in education and in future
employment and career-specific programmes and measures to promote coeducation
by: i) fostering the design and implementation of non-sexist orientation
programmes through different awareness-raising campaigns at school; ii) re-formulating
teaching materials to ensure that they meet equality and non-discriminatory
criteria; iii) implementing coeducation at schools and training teachers in
coeducation, gender violence prevention and gender equality; iv) ensuring
gender mainstreaming in sports activities at schools; v) improving school
services in order to accommodate student diversity (ethnic and gender) and ensure equality.

3.1.2.     Gender equality in research

Despite noticeable progress, gender
inequalities in science and in research still persist. According to the last
edition of She Figures, women’s academic career remains markedly
characterised by strong vertical segregation: in 2010, the proportion of
female students and graduates exceeded that of male students, but the
proportion of female PhD students dropped back to 49% and that of PhD degree
holders to 46%. Furthermore, the percentage of
female researchers in Europe stands at 33% while women represent only 20% of
the highest grade in academic staff. Gender balance in decision-making bodies and
processes is thus far from being achieved. On average in the EU-27 there is
only about one woman for every two men in scientific and management boards, and
the proportion of women heads of universities or assimilated institutions is
even lower, standing at 11%[27].
In addition, research programmes often fail to take
adequately into account the gender dimension

Against this backdrop the
Communication on the European Research Area adopted by the European Commission
in 2012 includes gender equality and gender
mainstreaming in research institutions, as one of its
five priorities. The aim is (i) to remove legal and
other barriers to the recruitment, retention and career progression of female
researchers while fully complying with EU law on gender equality; (ii) to
address gender imbalances in decision making processes and (iii) to strengthen
the gender dimension in research programmes. In addition, the European
Commission launched a communication campaign to get more girls interested in
science and encourage more women to choose research as a career[28].

3.2.        Closing the Gender Pay Gap

The unadjusted gender pay gap (GPG)[29] stood at 16.2 % in 2011 in
the EU as a whole. It is higher than 20% in Estonia, Czech Republic, Austria,
Germany and Greece (see Figure 7).

Figure 7:
The gender pay gap in 2008 and in 2011

Source:
Eurostat, Structure of Earnings Survey, 2010 data for Ireland

However the GPG has narrowed since 2008 from
17.3 % (1.1 percentage points in three years) in the EU as a whole. The
decline is also documented in 17 out of 25 Member States for which data are
available (see annex). The reasons for this recent slight decline in the GPG
are still debated and four hypotheses have been suggested so far:

(a) 
The share of higher educated workers has
increased among the female workforce more than among the male workforce. These
trends in education might start to decrease the gender pay gap[30].

(b) 
The change in the sectoral composition of the
workforce during the crisis could have reduced the GPG. Indeed, the
manufacturing sector, traditionally characterised by a high GPG, lost ground at
the beginning of the crisis.

(c) 
A larger cut in additional components of men’s
pay packets (premiums for overtime) has contributed to reducing gender
inequalities[31].

(d) 
Equal pay policies at national and European
level have contributed to the decline. Cooperation with
social partners and increasing awareness in companies of equal pay policies as
a part of gender-aware human resources policies are another possible reason for
the decrease of the GPG.

As information on pay equality is key to
address the GPG, the European Commission held the second European Equal Pay
Day on 2 March 2012. The European Commission will continue to raise
awareness of the unequal pay conditions women face in the EU by marking the
European Equal Pay Day and enhancing partnerships with Member States.

Companies and employers are key players in tackling
the GPG. To support equal pay initiatives at the workplace, the Commission started
the ‘Equality Pays Off’[32]
project in 2012. The purpose of the project is to support companies in
their efforts to tackle the GPG by providing training for companies and by
organising exchanges of good practices between companies on actions to
foster gender equality.

The European Parliament resolution of 24
May 2012 on application of the principle of equal pay for male and female
workers for equal work or work of equal value[33]
presents some action proposals addressed to the Commission, Member States, social
partners and other stakeholders, including companies. Some of these requests
are to review current legislation (Directive 2006/54, the recast directive) in
relation to the gender pay gap issue and to continue with awareness-raising
campaigns, including providing adequate information on the burden of proof. The
resolution also encourages the social partners and Member States to undertake
job evaluation schemes free from gender bias, to implement job classification
systems, and to foster the concept of work based on equal pay.

On 8 March 2012, the Belgian parliament
adopted a law to reduce the gender pay gap. Under this law, differences
in pay and labour costs between men and women should figure in companies’
annual audits (‘bilan social’) and therefore will be publicly available.
Moreover, the new law stipulates that firms with over 50 workers will be
obliged to produce an action plan when the analysis shows that women earn less
than men. Finally, if discrimination is suspected, women can turn to their firm’s
mediator, who will determine whether there is indeed a pay differential and, if
so, will try to find a compromise with the employer. Besides legislative
action, policies have been developed to tackle the key question of pay
differentials: several training programmes, an implementation guide and
check-list of gender neutrality to be used by private and public employers.
Through inter-industry agreements, the social partners are encouraged to adopt a
gender-neutral approach to job classification.

Equal Pay Day was celebrated on 19 April 2012 by some public
activities in Estonia. In July 2012 the Government approved the action
plan to reduce the gender pay gap. It includes five main types of actions: (1)
improving the implementation of the existing Gender Equality Act (e.g.
improving the collection of statistics, awareness raising, supporting the work
of the Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner etc.); (2) improving the
scope for reconciling family, work and private life (e.g. working with employers);
(3) gender mainstreaming, especially in the field of education; (4) reducing
gender segregation; and (5) analysing organisational practices and pay systems
in the public sector, improving the situation where necessary.

Despite some progress the GPG is still very
high in some countries and it has increased in countries where it was
relatively lower (Portugal, Bulgaria, and Ireland, for example). Fiscal
consolidation, including wage freezes or wage cuts in
the public sector, with a majority of female employees, might deepen the GPG in
the future and reverse the current trends[34].

3.3.        Women’s earnings are playing a more critical role in
household income

Gender pay gaps are even wider in terms of annual
earnings, because women receive lower hourly wages than men and also work fewer
hours per year. Yet the household relies more and more on women’s earnings,
which should no longer be seen as auxiliary income. Women are
increasingly the bread-winners in the household, not least because they live
alone (18 % of households) or live with children but no partner (4 %
of households) (see Figure 8). The proportion of female-breadwinner couples
also increased significantly in 2008 and 2009.Moreover, dual-earner couples represent
two thirds of all working-age couples with at least one member working according
to data made available in 2012 (see Figure 9).

In many countries, however, women still
constitute the second earner in the couple and the taxation system does not
give sufficient incentives for them to work. In 2012, a country-specific
recommendation on fiscal incentives for second earners was addressed to two
countries, and the 2013 Annual Growth Survey[35] recalled the
importance of removing fiscal disincentives for second earners.

Figure 8: Type of household in the EU-27

Source:
Eurostat, LFS. If more than two adults live in the households (for example if a
grandparent live in the household), the household is included in the category
"2+adults".

Figure 9:
Couples by partner’s earning role in 2009

Source: EU-SILC, 2010, ENEGE calculation

3.4.        Gender gaps in pensions

Gender inequality in old age has more to do
with differences in labour market histories than with pension systems. Due to
the higher prevalence of part-time working and career interruption among women,
the gender earnings gaps are wide over careers. As most pension systems base
their pension calculations on career earnings, the gaps can be very high.

However, the design of a pension system
matters because it can reproduce, exacerbate or mitigate gender disparities in
employment. It matters for example whether there is a minimum pension or an
adequate survivor pension for those with incomplete careers who have not earned
full pension entitlements, mostly women. Some mechanisms help to compensate
women in retirement for their career interruptions to care for children.
However, they cannot fully bridge the gap caused by career breaks.

Gender pension gaps are considerably wider
than pay gaps. The average pension gap is 39 %, more than twice as
large as the gender pay gap of 16 %[36].
Moreover, the analysis shows that in most Member States, a sizable gap
cannot be easily explained by differences in the observable characteristics of
women and men (education age, length of working career, marriage status and weight
of pension income from third pillar). This highlights that better understanding
the causes of the gap remains an important policy challenge. The report also
finds that in some Member States, more than a third of women have no pension.
In others, the number of women with no pension is closer to one in ten.

Women’s
statutory pension ages are still below men’s in several Member States, although most have planned or
already adopted legislation to gradually bring them into line with men’s
pension ages. In 2012, a country-specific recommendation to harmonise
pensionable ages and rights was addressed to three Member States[37].

Furthermore, policies need to support the
extension of working life. The employment rate of women aged 55 to 64 was
40.2 % in 2011 compared to 55.2 % for men. This shows the magnitude
of the challenge to extend working lives. There are gender-specific obstacles to, but also
opportunities for, extending working lives.

The White Paper on adequate, safe and
sustainable pensions adopted by the Commission on 16 February 2012[38] puts forward a range of
initiatives, including encouraging Member States to promote longer working
lives and closing the pensions gap between men and women. The Commission will also step up its support for policy coordination and joint work on enabling and
encouraging older workers, women in particular, to stay longer on the labour
market.

3.5.        Women still face a higher risk of poverty and exclusion

In almost all countries, women face a higher
risk of poverty and social exclusion, as measured by the indicators agreed
within Europe 2020[39]:
55.7 million (23 %) of men experienced poverty and exclusion whereas 63.8 million
(25.2 %) of women were in this situation in the European Union in 2011.

A considerable increase in the risk of
poverty is visible in the last two years for which data are available (2010 and
2011). Recent years are also characterised by a slight decrease in the gender
gap to 2.2 pp in 2011, from 3 pp in 2007. The reason for this narrowing of the
gap may be that the crisis has had a different impact on men and women, as
described at the beginning of the report.

Figure
10: The risk of poverty and social exclusion, EU-27, 2005-2011 (%)

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC

Note: The ‘people at risk of poverty or
social exclusion’ rate is the headline indicator for the EU2020 Strategy
poverty target. It reflects the share of the population which is either at risk
of poverty or severely materially deprived or lives in a household with very
low work intensity.

The Annual Growth Survey 2013[40] underlines that single-parent
households (mainly women) represent a group particularly affected by poverty. The
risk of poverty is also significantly higher among elderly women over 75 (20.1 %
as against 16.9 % of the total population). Inactive and unemployed women
and men of working age also face a high risk of poverty. This risk also affects
self-employed and family workers (see Figure 11).

Figure 11:
Poverty among different groups, EU-27, (%)

Source:
Eurostat, EU SILC (EU 27 estimates for 2011). Note: The reference period for income and activity
status for IE and UK  differs from that for the other countries (where it
refers to the previous year).

Note: The at-risk-of-poverty
rate reflects the percentage of people with an equivalised disposable income
below the ‘at-risk-of-poverty threshold’. The at-risk-of poverty threshold is
set for each country at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable
income.

- No gender
breakdown available.

To improve the situation
of women who are self-employed workers or the spouses of the self-employed
workers, Member States had to transpose Directive 2010/41/EU on the equal
treatment of men and women who are engaged in or contribute to an activity in a
self-employed capacity by August 5, 2012. The Directive prohibits
discrimination on grounds of sex in this area and aims to ensure that the
spouses of self-employed workers have access to social security schemes. It
also introduces maternity benefits enabling interruptions of the activities of
women who are self-employed workers or the spouses of self-employed workers of
at least 14 weeks.

Member States could
request an additional year to comply with specific provisions of the Directive.
5 Member States have requested an extension for transposition. The Commission
is checking compliance with the obligation to communicate the national
transposition measures completely or (for the Member States that have requested
an extension) partially. A comprehensive monitoring of the correctness of
transposition in all Member States will be carried out after the expiration of
the extended transposition deadlines.

3.6.        Migrants and minorities: fragility and empowerment

At EU level the risk of poverty or social
exclusion is much higher among female and male migrants from a non-EU country (respectively
36 % and 34 %). Non-EU-born female migrants are also less likely to
be employed. If employed, they are very likely to be
over-qualified for the work they do.

Table 1: Employment, over-qualification
and poverty among migrants and total population, EU-27 (%) in 2010

|| || Total population || Foreign-born || Of which

|| || EU born || Non-EU born

Employment rate  (20-64 years old) || Men || 75 || 73 || 77 || 71

Women || 62 || 56 || 62 || 53

Overqualification rate || Men || 21 || 30 || 23 || 34

Women || 22 || 36 || 31 || 39

At risk of poverty and social exclusion (18 years old or over) || Men || 22 || 28 || 18 || 34

Women || 24 || 31 || 23 || 36

Source:
Eurostat, EU-SILC and LFS, 2010

Note: The
overqualification rate is defined as the proportion of the population with a
high educational level (i.e. having completed tertiary education, ISCED 5 or
6), and having low- or medium-skilled jobs (ISCO occupation levels 4 to 9)
among employed persons having attained a high educational level.

Data are scarce about minorities in Europe,
and therefore about gender differences among minorities, including among the
Roma, who constitute the largest minority in Europe. However the gender
dimension of the problems faced by Roma communities is increasingly recognised.

In its assessment of national Roma
Integration Strategies presented in 2012, the Commission noted that several
strategies ‘devote specific attention to the situation of Roma women, even
though additional efforts are needed to enable them to exercise their rights’[41] Roma women often face multiple
forms of discrimination including within their own communities. Poverty,
lack of education, early marriage, domestic violence and exploitation typify their
poor status in our societies. Many of them become victims of human trafficking,
sexual abuse and enforced prostitution. Therefore, it is important to take
appropriate preventive measures, including awareness-raising campaigns,
where relevant in cooperation with NGOs, to provide Roma women victims with specific
assistance and facilitate their access to victim protection services. Roma
women deserve to be respected, but their empowerment is also crucial for improving
the difficult situations of whole families. As primary caregivers, they have a
direct impact on the lives of their children (e.g. the role of Roma mothers in
promoting the education of children as well as raising awareness of family
health).

4.           Equality
in decision-making

Comparable European data have been available
on gender balance in economic decision-making (4.1) and in political
decision-making (4.2) since 2003, showing slow progress until recently[42]. For the first time this year,
additional data are available on gender balance in the environment and energy
at the highest decision-making level.

4.1.        Promoting gender balance on boards of companies listed
on stock exchanges

As a matter of basic equality, women and
men should have the same opportunities to reach leadership positions. This
principle is set out in the European Commission Strategy for Equality between
Women and Men (2010-2015)[43].
In addition, there is a well-established economic and business case for gender
balance in business leadership[44].
Nevertheless, data collected by the European Commission in October 2012 (Figure
12) show that the average share of women on the top-level boards of the
largest publicly listed companies around the EU stands at just 15.8 %[45]. Women are also barely visible
among the top business leaders of these companies — 97% company presidents
(board) are men.

Figure 12 — Gender balance on company
boards, October 2012

Source: European Commission, Database on
Women and Men in Decision-Making[46]

Compared to previous years, though, the
percentage is higher and is improving at a faster rate: a rise of 4 percentage
points was recorded from October 2010 (11.8 %), see Figure 13.

This improvement can be linked to an
intensive public debate initiated by the Commission and supported by the
European Parliament, and to concrete initiatives in a number of Member States. At
present, eleven Member States have adopted some form of legislative or
administrative regulation to improve gender balance in private and/or
state-owned companies (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece,
Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain).

Figure 13
— Percentage point change in the share of women on boards, Oct 2010 — Oct 2012

Source: European Commission, Database on
Women and Men in Decision-Making

It is clear that the rate of
improvement in individual Member States has been uneven and self-regulatory
initiatives have not made enough progress. Therefore, after a public
consultation and following the request of the European Parliament, the
Commission took a pro-active approach to accelerate progress towards gender
balance on the boards of listed companies.

The proposal for a Directive on
improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed
on stock exchanges and related measures[47] sets a minimum target of 40 % of the
under-represented sex among non-executive directors on boards of large listed
companies, to be achieved by 2020 (2018 for listed companies that are public
undertakings). It obliges companies with a lower percentage (40 %) to make
appointments to those positions on the basis of a comparative analysis of the
qualifications of each candidate, by applying pre-established, clear, neutrally
formulated and unambiguous criteria, in order to meet the 40 % target.
Member States have to implement effective and dissuasive sanctions. With regard
to executive directors, listed companies are required to set their own
commitments, to be met within the same timeframe as the target for
non-executive directors.

The reasons for the
under-representation of women in senior positions are multiple and call for a
comprehensive approach to tackle the problem. They stem, among other things,
from traditional gender roles and stereotypes, the lack of support for women
and men to balance care responsibilities with work and the lack of transparency
in recruitment and promotion practices. Therefore, the Commission proposes to
complement the proposed legislation with policy measures to fight the roots
of gender imbalance. It will work in partnership with governments and
relevant stakeholders[48].

4.2.        Gender balance in political decision-making: still a
challenge for many Member States

4.2.1.     Elected representatives: gender imbalance in many parliaments

Gender-balanced
representation in political governance is a cornerstone of an accountable
democracy and a key condition for gender equality in society at large. Despite
the fact that elected representatives should reflect the composition of the
population they represent, progress towards this aim has been slow (Figure 14).
In 2012, three out of four members of the single/lower houses of national
parliaments across the EU were men.

In the last quarter of
2012, only national parliaments in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Belgium had a balanced
representation with at least 40 % of each gender. The Netherlands,
Slovenia, Spain and Germany are the only other countries where the proportion
of women members has surpassed the critical mass of 30 %.

At EU level there has been
little progress over the past decade, with the share of women rising just 4
percentage points from 22 % in 2003 to 26 % in 2012. However, significant
progress has been made in some countries, notably Slovenia, followed by
France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Four of the six countries
demonstrating progress have a mandatory electoral quota system: Slovenia,
France, Spain and Portugal.

In Ireland the situation may change,
since an important piece of legislation was introduced in 2012: political
parties that do not include at least 30 % of women on their lists for the
next parliamentary election will lose half of their state funding for the
entire duration of the legislature. The level will be raised to 40 % in
2019.

Figure 14
— Percentage of women in national parliaments (single/lower houses) in 2003 and
2012

Source:
European Commission, Database on Women and Men in Decision-Making

Note: 2003 data
for CZ, PL, MT, and LT refer to 2004 (data not collected in 2003).

Experience at regional and
local level is considered an important stepping stone to political
participation at national level. At EU level, women account for 32 % of
both regional and local assemblies[49] compared to 26 % in national
parliaments.

The level of female
representation in regional assemblies is above 40 % in four Member States
(France, Spain, Finland and Sweden) and over 30 % in six more (the UK,
Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Belgium). However, levels of 15 %
or less persist in Hungary, Italy, and Romania. In many countries, the levels
of female representation in local or regional assemblies are quite close to
that in the national parliament.

At local level, balanced
representation (at least 40 % of each gender) is found only in Sweden but
women account for at least 30 % of local council members in the UK,
Finland, Latvia, France, Spain, Denmark, and Belgium.

Action to improve female representation at
local level has been taken in Italy: in November 2012, a law was passed
requiring municipal and provincial councils to have lists with no more than two
thirds of one gender, and a double preference system (which allows for the
possibility of expressing a preference for a male and a female candidate) is to
be introduced. The impact of the law has yet to be tested in future elections.

4.2.2.     Gender imbalance in most EU national governments[50]

Across the EU, the gender
balance among appointed members of national governments (73 % men, 27 %
women) improved by just 3 percentage points between 2003 and 2012, though the
situation varies between Member States (Figure 15). Five EU countries had
governments with at least 40 % of each gender in the fourth quarter of
2012: France, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Governments in the Netherlands,
Belgium and Germany are not far behind with 38 % women.

Figure 15
— Percentage of women in national governments (senior ministers) in 2003 and
2012

Source:
European Commission, Database on Women and Men in Decision-Making

Note: 2003 data
for CZ, PL, MT, and LT refer to 2004 (data not collected in 2003).

4.2.3.     Women and men in decision-making positions on the
environment

In the context of the regular monitoring process of the UN Beijing
Platform for Action[51], and under the initiative of the Danish
Presidency of the Council (first half of 2012), the Employment, Social Policy,
Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) adopted conclusions[52]
highlighting the gender perspective in dealing with environmental challenges.
The document stresses the urgent need to improve gender equality in decision-making
bodies in the transport and energy sectors, in scientific and technological
occupations and in relevant high-level scientific bodies.

In the EU, the share of female senior
and junior ministers with environmental portfolios decreases when transport and
energy are taken into account: 29.5 % of ministers in charge of the environment
were women in 2012 but this share drops to 19.6 % when transport and
energy responsibilities are included. Mirroring the situation at ministerial
level, women are more present at the top of the administrative hierarchy in
ministries in charge of the environment and climate change than in transport
and energy policy.

5.           Dignity,
integrity and ending gender-based violence: a growing attention to a persisting
issue

In 2012, all EU institutions again committed
to a strong policy response to combat all forms of violence against women and
gender-based violence. All key EU players shared a common approach, recognising
violence against women as a violation of human rights and an obstacle
to gender equality. They contributed to major policy developments in the
reinforcement of victims' right (5.1) and of a comprehensive set of policies
and tools (including support to victims', reporting, data collection) under the
Cypriot presidency (5.4) with a focus on female genital mutilation (5.2) and
the human trafficking (5.3).

5.1.        Reinforcing the rights of victims of crime

The Directive on minimum standards for
victims of crime was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in
2012[53].
It includes the right to respect and recognition, the right to provide and
receive information and the right to protection. It also aims to ensure that
the needs of victims are individually assessed and that the most vulnerable,
including victims of all forms of gender-based violence, receive treatment
appropriate to their requirements. This Directive must be implemented at
national level by 16 November 2015 at the latest.

The proposal for a Regulation on mutual
recognition of protection measures in civil matters is still under negotiation
between the Council and the European Parliament. It aims to complement the
European Protection Order (which applies in criminal matters) adopted in
December 2011. These two instruments will ensure that protection measures
issued in one Member State can be recognised in another, following a speedy and
efficient procedure, to avoid victims losing their protection if they move or
travel.

At UN level, the General Assembly adopted a
resolution at the end of 2012 on ‘Intensification of efforts to eliminate all
forms of violence against women’[54].

On 8 March the President of Romania
promulgated the changes made to law 217/2003 on preventing and combating
domestic violence. The law now allows the victims of domestic violence to ask
the courts for a restraining order (or protection) against the aggressor. The
list of acts of domestic violence now includes stinging, biting and pulling the
victim’s hair. It includes not only physical acts but also acts of verbal,
psychological, sexual, social and spiritual violence, the authorities now being
forced to respond urgently to cases of domestic violence. The victim has the
right to a private life, dignity and respect of personality, social protection,
reintegration, free social assistance and medical assistance.

5.2.        A strong stance against female genital mutilation (FGM)

On 13 June 2012, the European Commission
and the European External Action Service (EEAS) made a joint declaration on
FGM confirming their commitment before the European Parliament. The day
after, an almost unanimous European Parliament adopted a resolution on ending
female genital mutilation[55],
urging the Commission to make it a priority to end violence against women and
girls and the Member States to take firm action to combat this illegal
practice.

At UN level, the General Assembly adopted
in November 2012 a much anticipated resolution aimed at ‘Intensifying global
efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilations’[56].

A bill outlawing female genital mutilation has
been passed in Ireland. As well as prohibiting the practice, the law
includes the principle of extra-territoriality, which makes it possible to
prosecute the practice also when it is committed abroad.

5.3.        Towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings

According to
preliminary data collected by Eurostat, women and girls accounted for 79 % of the total victims of
trafficking in human beings and are used for sexual exploitation. On 19 June
2012, the European Commission adopted the ‘EU Strategy towards the
Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings (2012-2016)’[57] focusing on
concrete actions to support and complement the implementation of the EU
legislation on trafficking in human beings adopted in 2011, namely Directive
2011/36/EU (deadline for transposition 6 April 2013).

5.4.        Violence against women as a key priority of the Cypriot
presidency

The outcomes of the European Police College
(CEPOL) Presidency Conference on ‘Overcoming Attrition in Domestic Violence through
Policing’ fed into a European Union handbook of good police practices in
overcoming attrition in domestic violence. The handbook calls on Member States
to aim to encourage ‘victims and witnesses to report (...) crimes to the
authorities and to contribute to their effective investigation and prosecution’.

An EU gender equality conference on
violence against women held in Cyprus in November 2012 reviewed progress at EU
level and good practice in Member States. The European Institute for Gender Equality
(EIGE)’s “Review of the Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in
the EU Member States: Violence against Women, Victim Support” was commissioned
by the Cyprus presidency; it is the first report to deliver a full set of
comparable and reliable data on support services for women victims of violence
in the 27 EU Member States and Croatia. The findings indicate that specialised
services are insufficient and unequally distributed in and among the Member
States. According to the report, only 12 out of the 27 EU Member States legally
foresee state funding of specialised services for women victims of violence. Women
shelters and helplines, possibly the most common support for victims of
domestic violence, are not in place and available everywhere.

On the basis of these findings the EPSCO
Council adopted conclusions on Combating Violence Against Women and the
Provision of Support Services for Victims of Domestic Violence on 6
December 2012. These conclusions reaffirm that neither custom, tradition,
culture, privacy, religion nor so-called honour can be invoked to justify
violence against women, which is a violation of human rights and the most
brutal manifestation of gender inequality. They stress that it is important to
improve the protection of victims of violence, by providing adequate and
sustainable support services and by implementing the newly adopted Directive
2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection
of victims of crime as well as the European protection order in civil matters.
They call for improving the registration and handling of complaints as well as
the collection and dissemination of data by Member States in this
under-reported field. They insist on the importance of collecting comparable EU
data to enhance knowledge of the extent of the phenomenon and to build further
appropriate and informed policies. As violence against women covers so many
forms of abuse, the Council conclusions encourage further research on other
forms of violence. They also call on Member States to sign and ratify the
Council of Europe Convention on violence against women adopted in May 2011[58].

All these initiatives were valuable
contributions to a strong EU position at the 57th session of the UN Commission
on the Status of Women that took place in March 2013 on the issue of violence
against women. In addition, the European Commission has supported several
focused activities on this topic in 2013, such as the launch of a campaign on
violence against women on 6 March, and a public consultation on FGM.

6.           Gender
equality in external actions

The 56th
session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) took place in
February 2012. The CSW is the UN’s principal global
policy-making body on gender equality and advancement of women. The priority theme in 2012 was
the empowerment of rural women and their role in poverty and hunger
eradication, sustainable development and current challenges. The session was characterised by difficult discussions and did
not reach agreement on the main output, the CSW agreed conclusions.

In April
2012, the EU and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the
Empowerment of Women (UN Women) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The
MoU forms the basis of a partnership aimed at making progress towards achieving
the key international commitments in the area of gender equality and women’s
empowerment. The partnership also aims to contribute to the transformation
towards a world where societies are free of gender-based discrimination, where
women and men have equal opportunities, where the comprehensive economic and
social development of women and girls is ensured, where gender equality and
women’s empowerment are achieved, and where women’s rights are upheld in all
efforts to further development, human rights, peace and security.

In May 2012,
the European Commission adopted its European Neighbourhood Policy package[59].
The package takes stock of policy achievements with both eastern and southern
partner countries. Its Strategy Paper highlights that
building sustainable democracy also means ensuring gender equality and
increasing the participation of women in political and economic life. In some
countries, legislative provisions enacted with the aim of ensuring a more
balanced composition of parliaments have encountered resistance in practice and
therefore have not had the desired effect. The Strategy Paper also underlines
that women have been key players in the Arab Spring, and that they
should not lose out in the subsequent transformations. The EU will continue to
step up its efforts to support women’s rights across the region, ensure that
gender equality is mainstreamed into all relevant cooperation activities and
promote effective action against trafficking across the neighbourhood.

Human rights have proven to be the silver thread that
runs through everything that EU does in the external relations. In June 2012,
the European Union has adopted its new Strategic Framework and Action Plan
on Human rights and democracy[60].
This is the first time that the EU has had a unified Strategic Framework for
this vital policy area that also provided an agreed basis for a truly
collective effort, involving EU Member States as well as the EU Institutions.
The Action Plan covers priority areas, all designed to improve the effectiveness
and consistency of EU policy as a whole and it also anchors a commitment to
genuine partnership with civil society. Following the
adoption of the Human Rights package the first-ever thematic EU Special
Representative on Human Rights was appointed. The EUSR works on exploring ways
to better engage and develop synergies with as many relevant players as
possible as well as with civil society organisations, and contributes to the
better coherence, effectiveness and visibility of EU policies and actions for
the protection and promotion of all human rights

In September 2012 in the margins of the UN General
Assembly the Equal Futures Partnership was launched. The EU is founding
member and committed concrete initiatives for women's political participation
and economic empowerment.

The European
Commission adopted its annual Enlargement Package in October 2012[61].
The Strategy Paper highlights, as a key challenge facing most enlargement
countries, the need to strengthen the handling by law
enforcement bodies of issues such as gender-based violence. The
country-specific progress reports contain an assessment of progress in terms of
alignment with the legal acquis in the field of gender equality and its
implementation. They cover in particular issues related to female labour market
participation, gender balance in economic and political decision-making,
gender-based violence, and administrative capacity. Accession negotiations with
Iceland on social policy and employment, including gender equality, were opened
in June 2012.

In November 2012 human rights and gender issues were
integrated in the agenda and the Joint Conclusions of the EU – UN Steering
Committee on Crisis Management (for the first time since 2009).

EU
development policy continued to work for progress in gender equality and
empowerment of women. The EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in
Development 2010-2015 contains commitments for the Commission, the European
External Action Service and the Member States to support developing countries’
efforts to improve the situation of women with regard to equal rights and
empowerment. In November 2012, the second report on the implementation of the
EU Plan of Action was published[62]. It concludes that further progress has
been made but that some challenges remain.

7.           Horizontal
issues

7.1.        Mainstreaming gender equality

Gender mainstreaming is
the integration of the gender perspective within every stage of the policy
process — design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation — with a view to
promoting equality between women and men. The Commission organised three calls
for proposals[63] on improving gender mainstreaming in
national policies and programmes between 2007 and 2010. The last gender
mainstreaming projects implemented by Member States[64]
under the PROGRESS programme have just been closed. It is now time to take
stock of the progress made in implementing and practicing gender mainstreaming

In total, 31 initiatives
have been supported with the aim of:

(1) 
raising awareness of the importance of gender
mainstreaming in national policies as an effective contributor to equality
between women and men and to better governance;

(2) 
improving knowledge of the key concepts and
issues of gender mainstreaming and ensuring a better understanding of gender
mainstreaming in policies and programmes;

(3) 
developing the necessary methods and tools,
including dissemination to the main stakeholders, thus ensuring a more
long-term effect.

The vast majority of projects have addressed
government officials while some training has targeted parliamentarians,
parliamentary staff, officials at regional level and stakeholders. Some projects focused on supporting,
strengthening and equipping a network of officials for the implementation of
gender mainstreaming (for instance the establishment of ad hoc horizontal units
on gender mainstreaming in 15 line ministries in Bulgaria, or the creation of a
specialised ‘pool of contacts’ on gender budgeting at departmental level in
Estonia).

A large amount of material
has been produced (gender impact assessment guides, gender budgeting guides,
check lists, training modules, databases, e-learning tools), which may be
transferable in some cases and contribute to enrichment of the knowledge and
methods for gender mainstreaming at European level.

For example, Denmark has developed a
website[65] presenting both gender mainstreaming tools
and concrete examples showing how public services have taken the gender
dimension into account. One of the lessons learned is that, in addition to
being available, tools need to be visible, functional and attractive in order
to ensure their implementation. A clear message on the benefits of gender
mainstreaming should also be conveyed to civil servants.

Spain has also developed tools for helping public policy
planners to mainstream gender in the design, implementation and monitoring of
employment and economic reactivation measures, such as a guide to measuring the
impact of employment and economic recovery policies on women, a report with recommendations
for strengthening gender mainstreaming in active employment and economic
recovery policies and measures, and a virtual tool to simulate gender impacts[66].

7.2.        Investing in gender equality

On the basis of a proposal of the European Commission on
the Multiannual Financial Framework, the European Parliament and the Council
discussed in 2012 the future funding programmes covering the period 2014-2020.
Gender equality will be explicitly included in the Rights, Citizenships and Equality
Programme.

Moreover, integrating a gender perspective in the
preparations for the cohesion policy period 2014-2020 is important in order
to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy in a way that supports
development towards a more gender-equal society. Following the European
Commission’s adoption of a legislative package for future cohesion policy in
October 2011, the draft regulations were discussed by the Council and the
European Parliament in 2012. The proposals, scheduled to enter into force in
2014, are designed to ensure that EU investment is targeted at Europe’s
long-term goals for growth and jobs and priorities identified under the Europe
2020 strategy. The proposals also envisage the conclusion of Partnership
Contracts between the Commission and the Member States in 2013. Preparatory
work for these Partnership Contracts was carried out in 2012 both within the
European Commission and at national and regional level. Gender equality
considerations should play an important role in the Partnership Contracts, both
in terms of specific actions enhancing gender equality and in terms of
effective and correctly implemented gender mainstreaming. In 2012, the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and
Men adopted an opinion on how cohesion policy can be
used effectively to achieve the EU’s commitments on gender equality over the
2014-2020 period[67].

8.           Summary of main findings

The economic challenges of recent years reveal the current role of
women in the economy and their determination to play an increasing role on the
labour market. Women are a growing share of the EU workforce. They are also
increasingly the breadwinners for their families. New research confirms the
economic gain of an equal participation in the labour market for the society as
a whole: gender equality can significantly increase the growth potential of
the EU economy.

Focused policies can close gender gaps
and thereby promote growth and inclusion. A concrete example is the European
Commission's proposal on gender balance in boards of publicly listed companies.
Intense public debate and regulatory measures have contributed to improving gender
balance in decision-making and the 2012 figures on women on boards represents the
highest year-on-year change yet recorded.

The policies that can enhance women's labour market participation and
contribute to reach the target of 75% of employment are also well-known: increasing
childcare facilities, removing fiscal disincentives for second earners and
making work pay for women and men. These policies have been highlighted throughout
the second ‘European Semester’ and reflected in the 2012 and 2013 Annual Growth
Survey. It is essential that Member States continue to work to ensure that both
women and men can fully participate in the labour market and reconcile work and
family life.

While this report shows that progress has
been made in some areas, significant challenges remain in most fields. To meet
the targets of the Strategy on equality between women and men, further
efforts will have to be made taking action in the five priority areas.

Statistical
annex

Employment

Employment rate of population aged 20-64
(as %) – men and women – in 2012

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Employment rate of population aged 20-64
(as %) – men and women – in 2007 and in 2012

|| Women || Men || Gender Gap

|| 2007 || 2012 || 2007 || 2012 || 2007 || 2012

EU27 || 62.1 || 62.4 || 77.8 || 74.6 || 15.7 || 12.2

BE || 60.3 || 61.7 || 75.0 || 72.7 || 14.7 || 11.0

BG || 63.5 || 60.2 || 73.4 || 65.8 || 9.9 || 5.6

CZ || 62.4 || 62.5 || 81.5 || 80.2 || 19.1 || 17.7

DK || 74.7 || 72.2 || 83.2 || 78.6 || 8.5 || 6.4

DE || 66.7 || 71.5 || 79.1 || 81.8 || 12.4 || 10.3

EE || 72.5 || 69.3 || 81.4 || 75.2 || 8.9 || 5.9

IE || 64.4 || 59.4 || 83.0 || 68.1 || 18.6 || 8.7

EL || 51.6 || 45.2 || 80.4 || 65.3 || 28.8 || 20.1

ES || 58.0 || 54.0 || 80.7 || 64.5 || 22.7 || 10.5

FR || 64.8 || 65.0 || 75.0 || 73.8 || 10.2 || 8.8

IT || 49.9 || 50.5 || 75.8 || 71.6 || 25.9 || 21.1

CY || 67.7 || 64.8 || 86.4 || 76.1 || 18.7 || 11.3

LV || 70.7 || 66.4 || 80.1 || 70.2 || 9.4 || 3.8

LT || 69.5 || 67.9 || 76.5 || 69.4 || 7.0 || 1.5

LU || 61.0 || 64.1 || 78.3 || 78.5 || 17.3 || 14.4

HU || 55.5 || 56.4 || 70.2 || 68.1 || 14.7 || 11.7

MT || 37.4 || 46.8 || 78.7 || 79.0 || 41.3 || 32.2

NL || 70.7 || 71.9 || 84.8 || 82.5 || 14.1 || 10.6

AT || 67.2 || 70.3 || 81.6 || 80.9 || 14.4 || 10.6

PL || 55.5 || 57.5 || 70.2 || 72.0 || 14.7 || 14.5

PT || 66.3 || 63.1 || 79.1 || 69.9 || 12.8 || 6.8

RO || 57.9 || 56.3 || 71.0 || 71.4 || 13.1 || 15.1

SI || 67.1 || 64.6 || 77.5 || 71.8 || 10.4 || 7.2

SK || 58.7 || 57.3 || 76.0 || 72.8 || 17.3 || 15.5

FI || 72.5 || 72.5 || 77.2 || 75.5 || 4.7 || 3.0

SE || 77.1 || 76.8 || 83.1 || 81.9 || 6.0 || 5.1

UK || 68.4 || 68.4 || 82.2 || 80.0 || 13.8 || 11.6

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Employment rate of population aged 55-64
(as %) – men and women – in 2007 and in 2012

|| Women || Men || Gender Gap

|| 2007 || 2012 || 2007 || 2012 || 2007 || 2012

EU27 || 35.9 || 41.9 || 53.9 || 56.4 || 18 || 14.5

BE || 26 || 33.1 || 42.9 || 46 || 16.9 || 12.9

BG || 34.5 || 41.3 || 51.8 || 50.8 || 17.3 || 9.5

CZ || 33.5 || 39 || 59.6 || 60.3 || 26.1 || 21.3

DK || 52.9 || 55.8 || 64.9 || 65.9 || 12 || 10.1

DE || 43.4 || 54.8 || 59.4 || 68.5 || 16 || 13.7

EE || 60.5 || 61.2 || 59.4 || 59.8 || -1.1 || -1.4

IE || 39.6 || 42.7 || 67.8 || 55.8 || 28.2 || 13.1

EL || 26.9 || 26 || 59.1 || 47.6 || 32.2 || 21.6

ES || 30 || 36 || 60 || 52.4 || 30 || 16.4

FR || 36 || 41.7 || 40.5 || 47.4 || 4.5 || 5.7

IT || 23 || 30.9 || 45.1 || 50.4 || 22.1 || 19.5

CY || 40.3 || 38.2 || 72.5 || 63.5 || 32.2 || 25.3

LV || 52.4 || 52.5 || 64.6 || 53.1 || 12.2 || 0.6

LT || 47.9 || 48.3 || 60.8 || 56.2 || 12.9 || 7.9

LU || 28.6 || 34.3 || 35.6 || 47.4 || 7 || 13.1

HU || 26.2 || 32.2 || 41.7 || 42.6 || 15.5 || 10.4

MT || 11.6 || 15.8 || 45.9 || 51.7 || 34.3 || 35.9

NL || 40.1 || 49.1 || 61.5 || 68.1 || 21.4 || 19

AT || 28 || 34.1 || 49.8 || 52.5 || 21.8 || 18.4

PL || 19.4 || 29.2 || 41.4 || 49.3 || 22 || 20.1

PT || 44 || 42 || 58.6 || 51.5 || 14.6 || 9.5

RO || 33.6 || 32.9 || 50.3 || 51.2 || 16.7 || 18.3

SI || 22.2 || 25 || 45.3 || 40.7 || 23.1 || 15.7

SK || 21.2 || 33.6 || 52.5 || 53.6 || 31.3 || 20

FI || 55 || 59.7 || 55.1 || 56.6 || 0.1 || -3.1

SE || 67 || 69.6 || 72.9 || 76.3 || 5.9 || 6.7

UK || 48.9 || 51 || 66.3 || 65.4 || 17.4 || 14.4

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Part-time employment as percentage of the
total employment, by sex, from 15 to 64 years

|| Women || Men

|| 2002 || 2007 || 2012 || 2002 || 2007 || 2012

EU27 || 33.1 || 30.8 || 32.1 || 6.0 || 7.0 || 8.4

BE || 37.7 || 40.5 || 43.5 || 5.6 || 7.1 || 9.0

BG || 3.5 || 1.9 || 2.5 || 2.1 || 1.1 || 2.0

CZ || 7.7 || 7.9 || 8.6 || 1.6 || 1.7 || 2.2

DK || 31.1 || 35.1 || 35.8 || 10.1 || 12.4 || 14.8

DE || 39.2 || 45.6 || 45.0 || 5.2 || 8.5 || 9.1

EE || 8.4 || 10.6 || 13.2 || 3.7 || 3.8 || 5.1

IE || 30.4 || 31.6 || 34.9 || 6.0 || 6.4 || 13.3

EL || 7.8 || 9.9 || 11.8 || 2.1 || 2.5 || 4.7

ES || 17.0 || 22.7 || 24.4 || 2.6 || 3.9 || 6.5

FR || 29.6 || 30.4 || 30.0 || 4.9 || 5.5 || 6.4

IT || 16.7 || 26.8 || 31.0 || 3.5 || 4.6 || 6.7

CY || 10.8 || 10.4 || 13.1 || 2.7 || 3.0 || 6.4

LV || 10.5 || 6.9 || 11.1 || 6.7 || 4.4 || 6.7

LT || 10.7 || 9.7 || 10.6 || 8.4 || 6.5 || 6.9

LU || 26.4 || 37.1 || 36.1 || 1.7 || 2.6 || 4.7

HU || 4.9 || 5.5 || 9.3 || 2.1 || 2.5 || 4.3

MT || 18.8 || 24.6 || 26.0 || 3.7 || 4.0 || 5.7

NL || 72.7 || 74.8 || 76.9 || 20.6 || 22.5 || 24.9

AT || 35.7 || 40.7 || 44.4 || 4.6 || 6.2 || 7.8

PL || 12.2 || 11.7 || 10.6 || 7.3 || 5.8 || 4.5

PT || 13.5 || 13.6 || 14.1 || 4.2 || 4.7 || 8.2

RO || 10.7 || 8.9 || 9.7 || 8.9 || 8.3 || 8.6

SI || 7.6 || 10.0 || 12.2 || 4.3 || 6.5 || 6.3

SK || 2.7 || 4.3 || 5.5 || 1.1 || 1.0 || 2.8

FI || 16.9 || 18.8 || 19.4 || 7.5 || 8.3 || 9.1

SE || 32.3 || 39.5 || 38.6 || 9.7 || 10.5 || 12.5

UK || 43.3 || 41.4 || 42.3 || 8.4 || 9.4 || 11.5

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Female
employment rate and female employment rate in full-time equivalent (FTE) (20-64
years old) in 2012

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Employment impact of parenthood: difference
in percentage points between employment rates - age group 20-49 - with the
presence of a child aged 0-6 and without the presence of any children in 2007
and in 2012

|| Women || Men

|| 2007 || 2012 || 2007 || 2012

EU27 || -13.6 || -9.7 || 9.7 || 11.4

BE || -2.8 || -0.3 || 10.1 || 12.3

BG || -19.4 || -16.0 || 5.0 || 9.0

CZ || -43.1 || -35.7 || 9.2 || 9.6

DK || -0.6 || -2.0 || 7.0 || 10.7

DE || -24.4 || -18.2 || 7.7 || 8.0

EE || -25.7 || -24.4 || 11.6 || 14.4

IE || -17.2 || -10.8 || 6.9 || 10.3

EL || -6.9 || -1.0 || 14.9 || 17.1

ES || -8.0 || -1.5 || 10.1 || 14.2

FR || -10.6 || -6.3 || 10.2 || 11.8

IT || -5.8 || -2.0 || 14.1 || 15.7

CY || -3.2 || -3.7 || 9.9 || 13.0

LV || -17.3 || -9.6 || 9.9 || 12.6

LT || -7.0 || -0.7 || 10.8 || 15.4

LU || -3.5 || -0.8 || 12.8 || 12.3

HU || -35.1 || -32.6 || 9.0 || 9.8

MT || -13.9 || -6.3 || 5.8 || 11.3

NL || -8.1 || -2.5 || 5.7 || 10.0

AT || -17.1 || -9.8 || 5.0 || 6.4

PL || -10.1 || -9.8 || 14.9 || 15.2

PT || 1.2 || 3.4 || 10.4 || 13.4

RO || -2.2 || -3.1 || 10.5 || 8.2

SI || 4.9 || 1.6 || 10.5 || 15.2

SK || -33.8 || -31.8 || 8.3 || 12.2

FI || -18.4 || -17.4 || 11.0 || 11.8

SE || || 0.8 || || 13.9

UK || -21.9 || -18.3 || 4.8 || 8.2

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Barcelona targets: percentage of children
cared for under formal arrangements by age group

|| Less than 3 years || From 3 years to minimum compulsory age

|| 2007 || 2011 || 2007 || 2011

EU27 || 26.0 || 30.0 || 81.0 || 84.0

BE || 44.0 || 39.0 || 100.0 || 98.0

BG || 8.0 || 7.0 || 59.0 || 60.0

CZ || 2.0 || 5.0 || 69.0 || 74.0

DK || 70.0 || 74.0 || 97.0 || 98.0

DE || 17.0 || 24.0 || 86.0 || 90.0

EE || 15.0 || 19.0 || 86.0 || 92.0

IE || 24.0 || 21.0 || 86.0 || 82.0

EL || 10.0 || 19.0 || 65.0 || 75.0

ES || 40.0 || 39.0 || 92.0 || 86.0

FR || 27.0 || 44.0 || 93.0 || 95.0

IT || 25.0 || 26.0 || 90.0 || 95.0

CY || 18.0 || 23.0 || 80.0 || 73.0

LV || 16.0 || 15.0 || 52.0 || 73.0

LT || 20.0 || 7.0 || 59.0 || 65.0

LU || 25.0 || 44.0 || 66.0 || 73.0

HU || 8.0 || 8.0 || 80.0 || 75.0

MT || 13.0 || 11.0 || 65.0 || 73.0

NL || 43.0 || 52.0 || 91.0 || 89.0

AT || 8.0 || 14.0 || 70.0 || 85.0

PL || 2.0 || 3.0 || 31.0 || 43.0

PT || 27.0 || 35.0 || 75.0 || 81.0

RO || 6.0 || 2.0 || 57.0 || 41.0

SI || 30.0 || 37.0 || 84.0 || 92.0

SK || 2.0 || 4.0 || 75.0 || 75.0

FI || 26.0 || 26.0 || 76.0 || 77.0

SE || 47.0 || 51.0 || 91.0 || 95.0

UK || 38.0 || 35.0 || 84.0 || 93.0

Source:
Eurostat, EU-SILC

Education

Early leavers from education and training in
2012: proportion of persons aged 18 to 24 who have finished no more than a
lower secondary education and are not involved in further education
or training, as a percentage of the total population aged 18 to 24.

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Early leavers from education and training in
2002, 2007 and 2012

|| Women || Men

|| 2002 || 2007 || 2012 || 2002 || 2007 || 2012

EU27 || 14.9 || 13.0 || 11.0 || 19.1 || 17.1 || 14.5

BE || 11.0 || 10.3 || 9.5 || 17.1 || 13.9 || 14.4

BG || 19.4 || 14.7 || 13.0 || 22.0 || 15.2 || 12.1

CZ || 5.9 || 4.7 || 4.9 || 5.4 || 5.7 || 6.1

DK || 8.2 || 9.5 || 7.4 || 9.9 || 16.2 || 10.8

DE || 12.5 || 11.9 || 9.8 || 12.5 || 13.1 || 11.1

EE || 9.4 || : || 7.1 || 16.9 || 21.7 || 14.0

IE || 11.2 || 8.4 || 8.2 || 18.0 || 14.6 || 11.2

EL || 12.5 || 10.6 || 9.1 || 20.6 || 18.6 || 13.7

ES || 24.2 || 25.2 || 20.8 || 36.8 || 36.6 || 28.8

FR || 11.9 || 10.3 || 9.8 || 14.9 || 14.9 || 13.4

IT || 20.5 || 16.4 || 14.5 || 27.8 || 22.9 || 20.5

CY || 11.0 || 6.8 || 7.0 || 22.3 || 19.5 || 16.5

LV || 11.0 || 10.1 || 6.2 || 22.7 || 20.0 || 14.5

LT || 11.4 || 5.1 || 4.6 || 15.4 || 9.6 || 8.2

LU || 19.6 || 8.4 || 5.5 || 14.4 || 16.6 || 10.7

HU || 11.9 || 10.1 || 10.7 || 12.5 || 12.6 || 12.2

MT || 49.7 || 34.9 || 17.6 || 56.5 || 41.3 || 27.5

NL || 13.8 || 9.3 || 7.3 || 16.8 || 14.0 || 10.2

AT || 10.2 || 10.1 || 7.3 || 8.7 || 11.4 || 7.9

PL || 5.6 || 3.8 || 3.5 || 8.9 || 6.2 || 7.8

PT || 37.2 || 30.4 || 14.3 || 52.6 || 43.1 || 27.1

RO || 22.1 || 17.4 || 16.7 || 23.9 || 17.1 || 18.0

SI || 3.2 || 2.2 || 3.2 || 6.8 || 5.8 || 5.4

SK || 5.8 || 5.8 || 4.6 || 7.6 || 7.2 || 6.0

FI || 7.6 || 7.2 || 8.1 || 11.8 || 11.2 || 9.8

SE || 8.9 || 6.5 || 6.3 || 11.0 || 9.5 || 8.5

UK || 17.1 || 15.6 || 12.4 || 18.1 || 17.6 || 14.6

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Tertiary educational attainment by sex in 2012:
the share of the population aged 30-34 years who have successfully
completed university or university-like (tertiary-level) education with an
education level ISCED 1997 (International Standard Classification of Education)
of 5-6.

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

Tertiary educational attainment by sex
(30-34 years old) in 2002, 2007 and 2012

|| Women || Men

2002 || 2007 || 2012 || 2002 || 2007 || 2012

EU27 || 24.5 || 32.8 || 40.0 || 22.6 || 27.2 || 31.6

BE || 39.0 || 46.4 || 50.7 || 31.5 || 36.6 || 37.1

BG || 28.8 || 33.2 || 33.6 || 17.7 || 18.7 || 20.5

CZ || 11.4 || 13.7 || 29.1 || 13.7 || 13.0 || 22.4

DK || 39.4 || 41.6 || 52.6 || 28.7 || 34.8 || 33.7

DE || 21.4 || 25.7 || 32.9 || 26.8 || 27.3 || 31.0

EE || 33.6 || 42.4 || 50.4 || 22.5 || 24.1 || 28.1

IE || 33.0 || 48.8 || 57.9 || 30.9 || 37.9 || 44.0

EL || 24.8 || 27.3 || 34.2 || 21.9 || 25.0 || 27.6

ES || 35.8 || 44.6 || 45.3 || 31.0 || 34.8 || 35.0

FR || 34.0 || 45.0 || 48.6 || 29.0 || 37.7 || 38.5

IT || 14.2 || 22.3 || 26.3 || 12.0 || 15.0 || 17.2

CY || 36.1 || 48.0 || 55.5 || 35.9 || 44.4 || 43.6

LV || 22.1 || 31.5 || 48.1 || 12.4 || 19.8 || 26.0

LT || 29.6 || 45.0 || 56.4 || 17.0 || 31.0 || 40.7

LU || 21.5 || 38.1 || 48.9 || 25.6 || 32.4 || 50.4

HU || 16.1 || 23.9 || 35.5 || 12.8 || 16.4 || 24.7

MT || : || 23.7 || 24.0 || : || 19.5 || 20.7

NL || 29.3 || 37.3 || 44.8 || 27.8 || 35.5 || 39.9

AT || : || 20.5 || 26.6 || : || 21.8 || 26.0

PL || 16.7 || 31.3 || 46.5 || 12.2 || 22.7 || 31.9

PT || 16.9 || 24.7 || 30.1 || 9.1 || 15.0 || 24.3

RO || 9.0 || 14.3 || 23.2 || 9.1 || 13.6 || 20.5

SI || 29.1 || 41.1 || 49.6 || 12.9 || 21.7 || 29.5

SK || 11.2 || 16.1 || 28.2 || 9.7 || 13.4 || 19.4

FI || 49.3 || 55.4 || 55.4 || 33.4 || 39.3 || 36.7

SE || 31.2 || 47.0 || 53.7 || 25.5 || 35.2 || 42.4

UK || 30.7 || 40.1 || 50.2 || 32.4 || 36.9 || 44.0

Source:
Eurostat, LFS

The Gender Pay Gap

Gender pay gap — Difference between men’s
and women’s average gross hourly earnings as percentage of men's average gross
hourly earnings (for paid employees) from 2007 to 2011

|| 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || Difference 2011- 2008

EU27 || : || 17.3 || 16.6 || 16.1 || 16.2 || 1.1

BE || 10.1 || 10.2 || 10.1 || 10.2 || 10.2 || 0.0

BG || 12.1 || 12.3 || 13.3 || 13.0 || 13.0 || -0.7

CZ || 23.6 || 26.2 || 25.9 || 21.6 || 21.0 || 5.2

DK || 17.7 || 17.1 || 16.8 || 16.0 || 16.4 || 0.7

DE || 22.8 || 22.8 || 22.6 || 22.3 || 22.2 || 0.6

EE || 30.9 || 27.6 || 26.6 || 27.7 || 27.3 || 0.3

IE || 17.3 || 12.6 || 12.6 || 13.9 || : ||

EL || : || 22.0 || : || : || : ||

ES || 18.1 || 16.1 || 16.7 || 16.2 || 16.2 || -0.1

FR || 17.3 || 16.9 || 15.2 || 15.6 || 14.7 || 2.2

IT || 5.1 || 4.9 || 5.5 || 5.3 || 5.8 || -0.9

CY || 22.0 || 19.5 || 17.8 || 16.8 || 16.4 || 3.1

LV || 13.6 || 11.8 || 13.1 || 15.5 || 13.6 || -1.8

LT || 22.6 || 21.6 || 15.3 || 14.6 || 11.9 || 9.7

LU || 10.2 || 9.7 || 9.2 || 8.7 || 8.7 || 1.0

HU || 16.3 || 17.5 || 17.1 || 17.6 || 18.0 || -0.5

MT || 7.8 || 9.2 || 13.8 || 13.4 || 12.9 || -3.7

NL || 19.3 || 18.9 || 18.5 || 17.8 || 17.9 || 1.0

AT || 25.5 || 25.1 || 24.3 || 24.0 || 23.7 || 1.4

PL || 14.9 || 11.4 || 8.0 || 4.5 || 4.5 || 6.9

PT || 8.5 || 9.2 || 10.0 || 12.8 || 12.5 || -3.3

RO || 12.5 || 8.5 || 7.4 || 8.8 || 12.1 || -3.6

SI || 5.0 || 4.1 || -0.9 || 0.9 || 2.3 || 1.8

SK || 23.6 || 20.9 || 21.9 || 19.6 || 20.5 || 0.4

FI || 20.2 || 20.5 || 20.8 || 20.3 || 18.2 || 2.3

SE || 17.8 || 16.9 || 15.7 || 15.4 || 15.8 || 1.1

UK || 20.8 || 21.4 || 20.6 || 19.5 || 20.1 || 1.3

Source:
Eurostat, SES

Gender segregation in occupations and in
economic sectors in 2007 and in 2012

|| Gender segregation in occupations || Gender segregation in economic sectors

|| 2007 || 2012 || 2007 || 2012

EU27 || 25.1 || 24.5 || 18.2 || 18.7

AT || 26.3 || 26.9 || 18.5 || 19.1

BE || 25.2 || 26.0 || 18.1 || 19.7

BG || 29.3 || 28.6 || 20.5 || 20.9

CY || 29 || 28.7 || 20.1 || 19.4

CZ || 28.5 || 28.4 || 19.4 || 21.0

DE || 26.3 || 25.7 || 18.3 || 19.5

DK || 25.4 || 24.9 || 18.1 || 19.5

EE || 32.2 || 30.9 || 25.6 || 25.2

ES || 27.3 || 25.7 || 20.8 || 19.4

FI || 29.6 || 28.7 || 22.7 || 24.1

FR || 26.3 || 25.9 || 18 || 18.9

GR || 22.4 || 19.3 || 16 || 14.5

HU || 28.7 || 28.2 || 19.8 || 20.6

IE || 27.9 || 26.3 || 23 || 20.7

IT || 23.6 || 24.7 || 17.7 || 19.7

LT || 29.2 || 29.5 || 23.3 || 22.3

LU || 27.2 || 23.8 || 18.9 || 17.1

LV || 28.7 || 29.1 || 22.4 || 24.0

MT || 23.1 || 24.3 || 15.8 || 16.3

NL || 25.1 || 25.5 || 18.1 || 14.5

PL || 25.8 || 26.7 || 19.4 || 21.1

PT || 26.7 || 25.6 || 21.1 || 21.3

RO || 22.8 || 22.8 || 16.3 || 17.4

SE || 27 || 25.7 || 21.3 || 21.4

SI || 26.4 || 25.8 || 17.5 || 19.9

SK || 30.1 || 30.6 || 23 || 24.5

UK || 25.1 || 24.1 || 18.4 || 19.0

Source:
Eurostat, EU LFS. Gender segregation in occupations is calculated as the
average national share of employment for women and men applied to each
occupation; differences are added up to produce the total amount of gender
imbalance expressed as a proportion of total employment (ISCO classification).

Poverty

People at risk of poverty or social
exclusion by sex in 2011: Proportion of persons who are at risk of poverty or
severely materially deprived or living in households with very low work
intensity[68].
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC

People at risk of poverty or social
exclusion by sex in from 2007 to 2011

|| Women || Men

|| 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011

EU27 || 25.9 || 25.0 || 24.4 || 24.6 || 25.2 || 22.9 || 22.1 || 21.8 || 22.4 || 23.0

BE || 23.1 || 22.4 || 21.8 || 21.7 || 21.5 || 19.9 || 19.1 || 18.5 || 20.0 || 20.4

BG || 61.9 || 46.4 || 48.1 || 50.9 || 50.5 || 59.4 || 43.0 || 44.1 || 47.3 || 47.7

CZ || 17.4 || 17.2 || 15.7 || 16.0 || 16.9 || 14.2 || 13.3 || 12.3 || 12.7 || 13.7

DK || 17.7 || 17.0 || 18.2 || 19.0 || 19.5 || 15.9 || 15.7 || 17.0 || 17.7 || 18.2

DE || 22.3 || 21.6 || 21.2 || 20.9 || 21.3 || 18.8 || 18.5 || 18.8 || 18.6 || 18.5

EE || 24.2 || 24.3 || 25.5 || 22.0 || 22.9 || 19.4 || 18.9 || 21.1 || 21.5 || 23.2

IE || 24.6 || 24.7 || 26.4 || 30.5 || : || 21.6 || 22.7 || 25.0 || 29.3 || :

EL || 29.9 || 29.8 || 29.0 || 29.3 || 32.3 || 26.8 || 26.3 || 26.1 || 26.0 || 29.6

ES || 24.6 || 24.2 || 24.4 || 26.1 || 27.3 || 21.7 || 21.6 || 22.3 || 24.9 || 26.6

FR || 20.0 || 19.8 || 19.7 || 20.0 || 19.9 || 18.0 || 17.3 || 17.1 || 18.3 || 18.6

IT || 28.1 || 27.2 || 26.4 || 26.3 || 29.9 || 23.8 || 23.2 || 22.8 || 22.6 || 26.4

CY || 27.6 || 25.0 || 25.0 || 24.4 || 25.4 || 22.7 || 19.8 || 20.9 || 21.5 || 21.5

LV || 37.7 || 36.2 || 38.7 || 38.5 || 40.4 || 34.1 || 31.0 || 35.9 || 37.6 || 39.8

LT || 30.9 || 29.7 || 31.4 || 33.8 || 33.6 || 26.3 || 25.3 || 27.3 || 32.9 || 33.2

LU || 16.9 || 16.7 || 19.6 || 17.7 || 18.0 || 15.0 || 14.2 || 16.0 || 16.5 || 15.6

HU || 30.1 || 29.0 || 30.0 || 30.3 || 31.4 || 28.6 || 27.3 || 29.1 || 29.4 || 30.5

MT || 20.6 || 21.0 || 21.4 || 21.2 || 22.2 || 18.3 || 18.2 || 19.0 || 19.4 || 20.6

NL || 16.9 || 15.5 || 15.9 || 16.0 || 16.6 || 14.6 || 14.3 || 14.3 || 14.1 || 14.9

AT || 18.9 || 20.3 || 18.9 || 18.4 || 18.5 || 14.5 || 16.8 || 15.0 || 14.7 || 15.2

PL || 35.1 || 31.2 || 28.6 || 28.5 || 27.7 || 33.5 || 29.9 || 27.0 || 27.0 || 26.6

PT || 26.0 || 26.8 || 25.8 || 25.8 || 25.1 || 24.0 || 25.0 || 24.0 || 24.8 || 23.8

RO || 46.7 || 45.3 || 44.2 || 42.1 || 41.1 || 45.1 || 43.0 || 41.9 || 40.8 || 39.5

SI || 19.2 || 20.3 || 19.1 || 20.1 || 21.1 || 15.0 || 16.6 || 15.1 || 16.5 || 17.4

SK || 23.1 || 22.0 || 21.1 || 21.6 || 21.7 || 19.4 || 18.9 || 18.0 || 19.6 || 19.5

FI || 19.0 || 18.9 || 17.9 || 17.7 || 18.5 || 15.8 || 15.9 || 15.8 || 16.0 || 17.3

SE || 14.2 || 16.1 || 17.5 || 16.6 || 18.0 || 13.6 || 13.7 || 14.4 || 13.4 || 14.2

UK || 24.1 || 24.7 || 22.8 || 24.2 || 24.1 || 21.1 || 21.7 || 21.1 || 22.1 || 21.4

Source:
Eurostat, EU-SILC

Decision-making

Change in the share of women on company
boards (percentage points), 2010-2012

|| 2010 || 2012 || Percentage point change in Women Board Members 2010-2012

RO || 21.3 || 11.9 || -9.4

SK || 21.6 || 13.8 || -7.8

HU || 13.6 || 7.4 || -6.2

SE || 26.4 || 25.5 || -0.9

PL || 11.6 || 11.8 || 0.2

IE || 8.4 || 8.7 || 0.2

BG || 11.2 || 11.6 || 0.4

EE || 7.0 || 7.8 || 0.7

MT || 2.4 || 3.5 || 1.2

EL || 6.2 || 7.9 || 1.7

PT || 5.4 || 7.4 || 2.0

BE || 10.5 || 12.9 || 2.5

FI || 25.9 || 28.6 || 2.7

ES || 9.5 || 12.3 || 2.8

DK || 17.7 || 20.8 || 3.1

AT || 8.7 || 11.9 || 3.2

CY || 4.0 || 7.7 || 3.7

EU-27 || 11.8 || 15.8 || 4.0

CZ || 12.2 || 16.4 || 4.2

LV || 23.5 || 28.2 || 4.7

LT || 13.1 || 17.8 || 4.7

DE || 12.6 || 17.9 || 5.3

UK || 13.3 || 18.8 || 5.4

LU || 3.5 || 9.7 || 6.1

IT || 4.5 || 11.0 || 6.5

NL || 14.9 || 21.5 || 6.6

SI || 9.8 || 18.7 || 8.9

FR || 12.3 || 25.1 || 12.8

Source:
European Commission, Database on Women and Men in Decision-Making

Share of women in national governments
(senior ministers), 2003, 2008, 2012

|| 2003 || 2008 || 2012

FR || 21% || 34% || 49%

CY || 9% || 8% || 33%

AT || 27% || 36% || 43%

DK || 28% || 37% || 43%

PL || 6% || 25% || 20%

SK || 0% || 6% || 7%

IT || 9% || 18% || 16%

NL || 31% || 28% || 38%

BG || 19% || 26% || 24%

ES || 25% || 50% || 29%

LV || 25% || 21% || 29%

MT || 15% || 22% || 18%

FI || 44% || 60% || 47%

BE || 36% || 40% || 38%

SE || 52% || 45% || 54%

CZ || 12% || 11% || 13%

EL || 6% || 11% || 6%

PT || 17% || 12% || 17%

EE || 9% || 21% || 8%

IE || 14% || 20% || 13%

LT || 15% || 14% || 13%

RO || 21% || 0% || 19%

HU || 13% || 13% || 9%

SI || 14% || 17% || 8%

UK || 24% || 32% || 17%

DE || 46% || 38% || 38%

LU || 37% || 20% || 27%

Source:
European Commission, Database on Women and Men in Decision-Making

Percentage of women in national parliaments
(single/lower houses), in regional assemblies and at local level politics in
2012

|| National parliaments (women) || Regional assemblies (women) || Local level politics (women)

EU-27 || 26% || 32% || 32%

BE || 40% || 39% || 35%

BG || 23% || : || 25%

CZ || 22% || 19% || 26%

DK || 41% || 34% || 32%

DE || 33% || 32% || 26%

EE || 21% || : || 29%

IE || 15% || : || 17%

EL || 21% || 17% || 16%

ES || 39% || 42% || 35%

FR || 26% || 48% || 35%

IT || 21% || 13% || 25%

CY || 11% || : || 20%

LV || 23% || 23% || 36%

LT || 24% || : || 22%

LU || 23% || : || 21%

HU || 9% || 9% || 20%

MT || 9% || : || 22%

NL || 39% || 33% || 26%

AT || 28% || 33% || :

PL || 24% || 25% || 24%

PT || 29% || 25% || 28%

RO || 12% || 15% || :

SI || 38% || : || 22%

SK || 19% || 16% || :

FI || 43% || 43% || 37%

SE || 44% || 47% || 43%

UK || 22% || 31% || 30%

Source:
European Commission, Database on Women and Men in Decision-Making

Country codes

Code || Name

BE || Belgium

BG || Bulgaria

CZ || Czech Republic

DK || Denmark

DE || Germany

EE || Estonia

IE || Ireland

EL || Greece

ES || Spain

FR || France

IT || Italy

CY || Cyprus

LV || Latvia

LT || Lithuania

LU || Luxembourg

HU || Hungary

MT || Malta

NL || Netherlands

AT || Austria

PL || Poland

PT || Portugal

RO || Romania

SI || Slovenia

SK || Slovakia

FI || Finland

SE || Sweden

UK || United Kingdom

[1]               'Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now', OECD report,
December 2012

[2]               COM(2010)491

[3]               "Member States should
strive (...) to provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90 % of children
between 3 years old and the mandatory school age and at least 33 % of
children under 3 years of age "

[4]               Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive
directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures, COM(2012)
614 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0614:FIN:en:PDF.

[5]               See ‘The impact of the economic crisis on the
situation of women and men and on gender equality policies’, report of the
European Network of Experts on Gender Equality, commissioned by the European
Commission, December 2012. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/enege_crisis_report__dec_2012_final_en.pdf.

[6]               See ‘The impact of the economic crisis on the
situation of women and men and on gender equality policies’, report of the
European Network of Experts on Gender Equality, commissioned by the European
Commission, December 2012. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/enege_crisis_report__dec_2012_final_en.pdf.

[7]               ‘Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now’, OECD publication,
December 2012.

[8]               The EU-21 countries does not include Latvia,
Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta, Bulgaria and Romania.

[9]               ‘Starting fragile: gender differences in the youth
labour market’, report prepared for the European Commission by the European
Network of Experts on Gender Equality.

[10]             ‘Starting fragile: gender differences in the youth
labour market’, report prepared for the European Commission by the European
Network of Experts on Gender Equality.

[11]             Communication "Moving Youth into Employment",
COM(2012)727

[12]             Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Establishing a
Youth Guarantee, COM(2012) 729 final, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1731.

[13]             http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/71025.pdf.

[14]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:155:0010:0013:EN:PDF.

[15]             A Commission report giving a detailed analysis will be
adopted in May 2013

[16]             Mandatory school age differs from country to country:
from 4 to 7 years.

[17]             Sources LFS ad-hoc module 2010.
Twenty-three percent of women whose youngest child is under three and 18 %
of women whose youngest child is between 3 and mandatory school age work
part-time or do not work for childcare reasons.

[18]             Where the partner earns the average wage and the female
partner earns 50 % of the average wage.

[19]             OECD Doing better for families 2011.

[20]             See http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/childhood_en.htm;
Quality is also at the heart of the OECD series ‘Start Strong III’.

[21]             Often, a distinction is made between structural and
process quality. Process quality refers to the childcare environment in which
children play, learn and experience teacher-child interaction. Comparative data
are rarely available. In contrast, structural quality refers to structural
features of childcare that can be regulated by (local) government. Throughout
Europe, group sizes range on average from 10 to 14 children for 0-3 year-olds
and from 20 to 25 children for 4-6 year-olds. Child-minders usually have a
maximum of four to eight children. The staff-child ratio has been decreasing
over the past years in some countries (ES, SK, LI), while in other Member States
the opposite can be observed, e.g. in Sweden, where the average group size has
been growing over the past years, or in Poland, where the maximum group size is
not yet regulated.

[22]             Communication "Annual Growth Survey 2013",
COM(2012)750: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2013_en.pdf

[23]             Study on ‘The role of men in
gender equality’, prepared for the European Commission, edited by Elli Scambor,
Katarzyna Wojnicka, Nadja Bergmann, Consortium led by L&R Social Research,
2012.

[24]             ‘Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now’, OECD publication,
December 2012.

[25]             As shown by the OECD’s PISA survey.

[26]             http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/tools/good-practices/index_en.htm

[27]             The
European Commission publishes a new edition of the She Figures every three
years since 2003. The She Figures 2012 booklet and leaflet were uploaded on the
European Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she_figures_2012_en.pdf

[28]             http://science-girl-thing.eu/en/splash.

[29]             The unadjusted GPG represents the difference between
average gross hourly earnings of male paid employees and of female paid
employees as a percentage of average gross hourly earnings of male paid
employees.

[30]             ‘EU Employment and Social Situation. Quarterly Review.
December 2012’, with special focus on the gender pay gap.

[31]             See ‘The impact of the economic crisis on the situation
of women and men and on gender equality policies’, report of the European
Network of Experts on Gender Equality, commissioned by the European Commission,
December 2012. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/enege_crisis_report__dec_2012_final_en.pdf.
The bonuses are not included in the Eurostat definition of the Gender Pay Gap.

[32]             See also the project website:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/equality-pays-off/.

[33]             http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bTA%2bP7-TA-2012-0225 %2b0 %2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0 %2f%2fEN&language=EN.

[34]             However the current indicator
used to measure pay inequalities cannot fully reflect the trend in public
sector's wages and its potential consequence on the gender pay gap. Firstly the
data does not cover public administration (though it covers education and
health sector). Secondly, data available in 2012 cover pays in 2010 and cannot
completely grasp the effect of fiscal consolidation policies that started in
2010 in most countries.

[35]             Communication "Annual Growth Survey 2013",
COM(2012)750: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2013_en.pdf

[36]             "The Gender Gap in Pension in the EU", report
prepared for the European Commission by the European Network of Experts on
Gender Equality (ENEGE), 2013

[37]             Bulgaria, Austria and Slovenia. On 4 December 2012, the
Slovenian National Assembly passed a pension reform which will gradually lead
to the equalisation of the retirement age for women and men.

[38]             White paper "An Agenda for Adequate, Safe and
Sustainable Pensions", COM(2012)55: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1194&furtherNews=yes

[39]             The Conclusions of the June 2011 European Council set
lifting at least 20 million Europeans out of poverty or social exclusion by
2020 as a headline target for the EU. The concept of ‘poverty’ or ‘social
exclusion’ refers both to relative income poverty (i.e. a value relative to the
median population income in order to better capture poverty as a social and
historically contingent phenomenon) and to a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing other
domains of social inclusion — namely labour market attachment and access to a
number of goods or services. Thus, people are at risk of poverty or social
exclusion if they are at risk of poverty (i.e. earn an equivalent disposable
income lower than 60 % of median equivalent income), are severely
materially deprived (i.e. cannot obtain certain items in a pre-defined list),
and/or live in a household with no or very low work intensity.

[40]             Communication "Annual Growth Survey 2013",
COM(2012)750: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2013_en.pdf

[41]             National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in
the implementation of the EU Framework, COM(2012) 226.

[42]             The data on women and men in decision-making are regularly
updated the following website:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/database/index_en.htm.

[43]             COM(2010) 491 final.

[44]             ‘Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress
report’:           
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/gender-equality/opinion/files/120528/women_on_board_progress_report_en.pdf.

[45]             The data cover the largest publicly listed companies.
The ‘largest’ companies are taken to be the members (max.50) of the primary
blue-chip index, which is a stock-exchange index of the largest companies by
market capitalisation and/or market trades. Only companies which are registered
in the country concerned are counted. Board members covered: in countries with
unitary (one-tier) systems, the board of directors is counted (including
non-executive and executive members). In countries with two-tier systems, only
the supervisory board is counted.

[46]             http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/database/business-finance/quoted-companies/index_en.htm.

[47]             COM(2012) 614 final of 14.11.2012.

[48]             Communication on ‘Gender balance in business
leadership: a contribution to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’.
COM(2012) 615 final.

[49]             Data for regional assemblies are from the fourth quarter
of 2012 while data for local assemblies were collected between March and
September 2011.

[50]             Data refer to ‘senior’ ministers (members of the
government who have a seat in the cabinet / council of ministers).

[51]             http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/.

[52]             http://www.womenandtechnology.eu/digitalcity/servlet/PublishedFileServlet/       
AAABTYHK/Council_Conclusions_on_gender-equality_and_environment.pdf.

[53]             Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 October 2012 on the rights of victims of crime establishing
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and
replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.

[54]             A/RES/67/144

[55]             European Parliament Resolution of 14 June 2012 on
ending female genital mutilation (2012/2684(RSP)), adopted by 564 votes in
favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

[56]             A/C.3/67/L.21/Rev.1

[57]             COM(2012)286:
http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?id=714114c7-cd42-46cf-85eb-c09d042c7181

[58]             http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Word/210.doc.

[59]             Joint Communication, 'Delivering on a new European
Neighbourhood Policy', JOIN(2012)14 final

[60]             See
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf

[61]             Communication, "Enlargement Strategy and Main
Challenges 2012-2013", COM(2012) 600 final

[62]             2012 Report on the implementation of "EU Plan of
Action on Gender Equality and Women Empowerment in Development 2010-2015",
SWD(2012) 410 final

[63]             VP2007/010, VP2008/12 and VP2010/009.

[64]             National authorities in charge of gender equality
policy or designated equality bodies.

[65]             http://www.ligestillingsvurdering.dk/.

[66]             Both the documents and the simulation tool are
available on the programme’s website http://paralaigualdadenelempleo.mspsi.gob.es

[67]             http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/opinions_advisory_committee/opinion_on_gender_equality_in_the_cohesion_policy_2014-2020_en.pdf.

[68]             Persons are only counted once even if they are present
in several sub-indicators. At risk-of-poverty are persons with an equivalised
disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of
the national median equivalised disposable income (after social transfers).
Material deprivation covers indicators relating to economic strain and
durables. Severely materially deprived persons have living conditions severely
constrained by a lack of resources, they experience at least 4 out of 9 following
deprivations items: cannot afford i) to pay rent or utility bills, ii) keep
home adequately warm, iii) face unexpected expenses, iv) eat meat, fish or a
protein equivalent every second day, v) a week holiday away from home, vi) a
car, vii) a washing machine, viii) a colour TV, or ix) a telephone. People
living in households with very low work intensity are those aged 0-59 living in
households where the adults (aged 18-59) work less than 20% of their total work
potential during the past year.