COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on Progress on equality between women and men in 2013 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2013 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Date: 2014-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, EU statistics, application of EU law, equal pay, equal treatment, gender equality













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0142 - EN











|



52014SC0142

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on Progress on equality between women and men in 2013 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2013 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights /* SWD/2014/0142 final */









Contents
Introduction   3
1. Equal economic independence  5
1.1 Progress towards equal economic
independence  5
1.2 A comprehensive policy mix to
promote female employment  11
1.3 Supporting female entrepreneurs  18
2. Equal pay for equal work and work of
equal value  18
2.1 The gender pay gap  18
2.2 The risk of poverty or social
exclusion   21
2.3 Education achievements, key skills
and their use at work  23
2.4 Persistent gender segregation in the
labour market  26
3. Equality in decision-making   27
3.1 Gender (im)balance on boards of
large listed companies  27
3.2 Women and men in political
decision-making   30
3.3 Women’s
under-representation in senior positions in media organisations  32
3.4 Gender equality in sports
organisations  34
4. Dignity, integrity and ending gender-based
violence  34
4.1 First European Survey on Violence
Against Women: building an Evidence Base  34
4.2 Eliminating female genital
mutilation   35
4.3 Violence against women: prevention
and protection   36
5. Gender equality in external actions  37
6. Horizontal issues  40

Introduction

The European Union
(EU) has promoted equality between women and men over the past five decades,
and continued to do so in 2013. This report provides an overview of the main EU policy and legal developments on gender equality
during the last year, as well as inspirational examples of policies and
actions in Member States. It also analyses recent trends, on the basis of
scientific evidence and key indicators that shape the debate on gender
equality, and includes a statistical annex with more details on national
performances. 
The report is
structured around the six priorities of the European Commission’s Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-15[1], namely: equal economic
independence; equal pay for equal work and work of equal value; equality in
decision-making; dignity, integrity and ending gender-based violence, gender
equality in external action policy, and horizontal issues.
There has been
progress in most areas, but achieved at an uneven pace. At this rate of
change, it will take almost 30 years to reach the EU’s target
of 75% of women in employment, over 70 years to make equal pay a reality, over
20 years to achieve parity in national parliaments (at least 40% of each
gender), over 20 years to achieve gender balance on the boards of Europe’s biggest companies and almost 40 years to ensure that housework is
equally shared. In other words, if nothing changes, many of us won’t live long enough to see equality between women and men achieved.
Although there
were still gender gaps in 2013, they have significantly shrunk in recent years:
o   Women’s
employment rate stands at 63%, and that of men at 75%. During the financial and economic crisis,
women’s participation in the economy and their contribution
to family finances have increased, thereby decreasing the gender employment gap.
In the meantime, women still bear the brunt of unpaid work within the household
and family. Women spend an average of 26 hours on care and household
activities, compared with 9 hours for men. 
o   Boys are more likely to drop out of school and women outperform men in higher
education.
o   Despite their investment in education, women
are paid 16% less than men per hour of work. In addition, they are more
likely to work part-time and to interrupt their careers to care for others. As
a results, the gender gap in pensions stands at 39%. Widows and single
parents — mainly mothers — are
a particularly vulnerable group, and more than a third of single parents are
poor. 
o   Moreover, segregation is omnipresent in the
labour market: only 16% of employed people work in mixed occupations. Women are
still less likely to hold senior positions. They account for an average of
17.8% of the members of boards of directors in the largest publicly-listed
companies, 2.8% of the CEOs, 27% of senior government ministers, and 27% of
members of national parliaments.
o   Research and Innovation are no exception –
in the last decade the number of women PhD graduates increased faster than that
of men. Nevertheless, women are still greatly under-represented in particular
at the top level of academic careers;  only 20% of top level academics are
women and just one out of ten universities in the European Union has a female
Rector.[2]
o  
The results of the
first EU wide survey on violence against women, carried out by the European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights (FRA) and based on interviewees with 42,000 women show that one
in three women (33%) has experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the
age of 15. One in 20 women (5%) has been raped[3].

In light of these
figures the EU has taken significant actions in 2013 to accelerate the progress
towards genuine equality:
o   In the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy
for growth, country-specific recommendations aimed at promoting female
employment were addressed to 13 Member States. To support Member States, significant
co-funding possibilities will be offered through the 2014-20 European
Structural and Investment Funds. In the previous 2007-13 period, an
estimated EUR 3.2 billion from the Structural Funds was allocated to invest in
childcare facilities and promote women’s participation in the labour market, which
had a significant leverage effect. Since 2007, the proportion of children cared
for in formal childcare facilities significantly increased (from 26% in 2007 to
30% in 2011 for children under three years old, and from 81% to 86% for
children between three and compulsory school age[4]).
o   The European Commission increased its
efforts to make equal pay a reality, by raising awareness about the
remaining gender pay gap and monitoring the application of legislation on equal
treatment of women and men. 
o   In 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal
for a Directive with an objective of 40% for the under-represented sex among
non-executive directors by 2020 and the European Parliament supported its
objective and approach in 2013. 
o   In 2013, the EU protected women and girls
from gender-based violence through legislation, practical measures on
victims’ rights and a comprehensive policy package against female-genital
mutilation. It also co-funded 14 national governments campaigns against
gender-based violence (with EUR 3.7 million), as well as projects led by non-governmental
organisations (with EUR 11.4 million). 
o  
The EU promoted gender
equality in international fora, in its development and humanitarian plans and actions,
and in its neighbourhood and enlargement policies. 
The mid-term
review of the Strategy for Equality between Women and Men, which was published
in 2013, complements this report by providing detailed information about how each
Commission service and the European External Action Service contribute to the strategy’s implementation and to planned actions. 
The report illustrates that well-designed
policies can accelerate progress and contribute to closing gender gaps, so that
gender equality is not a distant dream anymore.  Focused actions at EU level, in the form of legislation,
recommendations, co-funding possibilities or awareness-raising activities, have
contributed to close the gaps. 

1. Equal economic independence
1.1 Progress towards equal economic
independence

In the third
quarter of 2013 in Europe as a whole, the male employment stabilised just
below 75%, while the female employment rate increased slightly for the third
year running and reached 63%. The gap between employment levels gradually
shrank as a direct consequence of the financial and economic crisis, which has
pushed back male employment to pre 2000 levels and led women to increase their
participation in the economy. However, the female employment rate progressed
much more rapidly before the crisis. From 2002 to 2008, the proportion of
employed women increased by 4.5 points in the EU-28, while the proportion of
employed men increased by 2.5 points. As a total, the employment gap
diminished by almost a third over the past 10 years.[5]
Figure 1 - EU-28 male and female employment rate (%) and gender gap in
employment rate, people aged 20-64, 2002-2013Q3
Source:
Eurostat, LFS (Labour Force Survey), 2013Q3 means data of the third quarter of
2013
The EU’s target employment rate is 75% for both women and men. The male
employment rate is already close to this target. There are two questions that
we must ask next: 

 If current
     trends continue, when will parity be achieved?
 How has the
     crisis affected achieving the target?  

A basic answer
assumes that trends are constantly linear, so we can take the annual growth in
percentage points and see how many years it will take to reach the target. In
the pre-crisis scenario, the target of 75% female employment would have been
met by 2021. However, if the current macroeconomic and social trends were to continue,
the target would be reached in 2038. (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Projections on meeting the 75% employment
target based on alternative scenarios
Note: the red line shows the projection
based on the 2002-08 average growth rate. The blue line shows the projection
based on the 2002-12 average growth rate. For 2008-12 the distance
between the red and the blue line can be interpreted as the cost of the
downturn on potential employment outcomes. It shows the distance
between actual and potential (based on the pre-crisis rate) outcomes. Source: Eurostat, LFS
The overall
picture hides the diversity of experiences EU countries have had
since 2002 (see Figures 3 and 4). Many countries with low female employment
rates compared to the EU average made significant progress, but their progress
was interrupted by the crisis. The female employment levels returned to those seen
in 2002 in the most-affected countries. However, the female employment rate in
15 countries stabilised or slightly increased between 2012 and the third
quarter of 2013. Today, nine countries have a female employment rate below 60%
(compared to 12 countries in 2002). Only one country, Sweden, has maintained a female employment rate above 75% in 2000-13.
In the third
quarter of 2013, unemployment reached historically high levels for both men
and women: Today in Europe 11.2 million women are unemployed compared to
13.3 million men. Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, Malta) is particularly affected, with 5.1 million unemployed women and 5.8 million
unemployed men. 
Figure 3 – Female and male employment rates (in %) and
the gender gap in the employment rate, people aged 20-64, 2013Q3 
Source: Eurostat, LFS
Figure 4 – Female employment rates: changes in
percentage points between 2002-08 and 2008-13
Source: Eurostat, LFS
Some people who can’t find a job may decide to stop looking and hence drop out of the
labour force — what is known as ‘the discouraged
worker effect’. Others may decide to supplement falling incomes by working
more in order to compensate — ‘the added worker effect’. In this
way, some individuals who were not on the labour market previously may start looking for a job. Figure 5 shows
that the ‘discouraged worker effect’ is overwhelmingly a male phenomenon,
while ‘added workers’ are predominantly female. In a majority of countries,
women are more likely than men to increase their offer of labour during the
crisis. 
Figure 5 - Change in men’s and women’s
participation rate: The added worker effect versus the discouraged worker
effects across Europe, 2008-12
Source: Eurostat, LFS
The
developments in part-time work
Much of the
pre-crisis increase in female employment related to part-time employment. The crisis led to an almost equal
increase in part-time employment for men and for women — of
around one percentage point in 2008-12, from a low starting point for men.  
Men still
account for less than a quarter of part-time employees. The share of men working part-time is
small (8.2%), whereas almost a third of employed women across Europe work part-time (32%). This figure is above 40% in the UK, Germany, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands (see figure 6). Consequently, if the same analysis is carried
out using full-time equivalents, the female employment rate appears more modest
(see annex).  
Figure 6 –The share of part-time employment among women
employees before and during the crisis
Source: Eurostat, LFS
Moreover, fewer women
than men transition out of part-time into full-time work. The transition rate
is particularly low for women in the Netherlands, Austria and Germany[6]. In other words, part-time
status is more likely to be irreversible for women.
Gender
imbalances in unpaid work
Women face such
difficulties in paid employment because they shoulder the brunt of essential
yet unpaid work in the context of the family (such as caring for children
or adults and housework). According to a report released in 2013[7] and based on 2010 data, women
still spend 26 hours a week in unpaid work, against nine hours for men. In 2005-10
the unpaid work gender gap among male and female workers shrank (see
Figure 7): in 2005, the average EU-28 female worker spent 20 hours more than
the average male worker on unpaid work, while in 2010 this difference fell to
17 hours. However, this reduction is mainly due to the decline in hours female
workers spend on unpaid work (children, housework, caring for adults). The time
men spend on unpaid work increased by only half an hour per week. 
In other words,
men carried out 23% of unpaid work in 2005 and 26% in 2010. At this rate of
change, it will take almost 40 years to achieve equality in unpaid work: the
contribution of men is projected to reach 50% in 2050. 
Figure 7 –
EU-28 average time spent by male
and female workers on unpaid work per week, and the gender gap
Sources: European Working Condition
Survey 2005 & 2010, Eurofound
Young people’s
difficulties in finding a job
The EU economy's recovery
potential depends largely on how it treats young people attempting to integrate
into the adult world. A young person leaving compulsory education can continue
in full time education, undertake training or find a job. Those who cannot
participate in any of these three activities, called the ‘Not in Education,
Employment or Training’ (NEET)[8],
may feel cut off from the world of production and possibly even relegated to
the margins of society. 
Over the last ten
years, the NEET rate has a familiar shape; it fell before 2008 and rose after.
However, the NEET rate is consistently higher for women. In other words,
young women find it harder than young men to enter the labour market. The
proportion of completely inactive women, i.e. those far removed from the labour
market, remains double that of men (see Figure 8). 
Figure 8 -  EU-28 NEET rate (%) by type and gender for youth aged
15-29, 2002-2012
Source:
Eurostat, LFS
In order to halt
and reverse the curve of the NEET rate, all Member States have put in place a Youth
Guarantee[9]
in 2013, ensuring that all young people under 25 get a good-quality offer
within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. This
Youth Guarantee should pay special attention to the gender and diversity of
young people.
While we can
expect women to play a more significant role in the economic recovery once this
picks up, we must be cautious for three reasons. Firstly, the increase in women’s offer of labour has not yet been translated into an increase in jobs — in many countries more women are looking for work, but are unable to
find jobs. Secondly, gender inequalities still persist, including among the
younger generation. Thirdly, in order to increase female employment a number of
supportive policies need to be put in place to enable women to achieve their
goal. It is to these public policies that we will now turn. 

1.2 A comprehensive
policy mix to promote female employment

A policy-mix
comprising affordable and quality childcare, neutral tax and benefits systems, flexible
working time arrangements and the provision of paid leave for both genders can
support men and women in reconciling work and family and effectively promote
female employment.  
Childcare
facilities: the Barcelona targets
Childcare remains
overwhelmingly a women’s responsibility. In 2010, 80% of parents who felt they
had to reduce their working time to care for children were women[10]. The access to child care
services plays a crucial role in women’s decisions to take part in paid
employment. The EU recognized this and set the ‘Barcelona targets[11]’ for
Member States in this area. In June 2013 the European Commission also released
a detailed analysis of progress towards the Barcelona targets and the European
Parliament organized a workshop on this topic in November. [12]
Across Europe, 83% of kindergarten-age children (three years old to mandatory school age) are in
formal care facilities (see Figure 9). Many countries are still far away from
the target for this group age (90%): Romania, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria and Lithuania do not even reach 70%. Nevertheless, most countries showed
considerable progress between 2005 and 2011, in some cases (Portugal) spectacularly so (see Figure 10).
Figure 9 - Percentage of children between the age
of three and mandatory school age cared for in formal structures (and by weekly
time spent in care), 2011
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC
Figure 10 - Change in childcare
provision for children between the age of three and mandatory school age (in
percentage points), 2005-2011
Source: EU-SILC
The situation is
more varied for younger children. Some countries already meet the Barcelona target
(i.e. 33% of children in formal childcare), while others have essentially not
started working towards the target yet, reaching less than 5% in 2011 (Poland, Romania,
Slovakia). Some countries have clearly embraced this as a key strategic target,
showing impressive growth between 2005 and 2011 (France, Luxembourg, Slovenia, the Netherlands, which met the target, and Greece, Austria and Germany, which did not meet the target). 
Figure 11 - Percentage of children
under three years old cared for in formal structures (and by weekly time spent
in care) in 2011
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC
Figure 12 - Change in provision of childcare for
children under three (in percentage points), 2005-11
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC
To support Member
States in developing childcare facilities and promoting female employment,
significant funding possibilities (EUR 3.2 billion from the 2007-13 Structural
Funds) were allocated. Significant steps towards increasing childcare
availability and affordability and towards diversifying the care offered have
also been taken in several Member States. Examples include:
In its 2014 budget the Maltese Government announced
the introduction of free and universal childcare, which will be available by
April 2014, and which will be set up under public-private partnerships. Both
parents must be in full- or part-time employment to benefit from the scheme.  
An exchange of good practices was organised in November 2013 in France, which has succeeded in developing a diversified childcare supply that has
expanded over the last 15 years The French childcare system offers different choices for families (e.g. type, number of
hours, location of childcare facilities, etc.). The provision and accessibility
of information for the relevant parties has improved through the development of
a dedicated website (www.mon-enfant.fr), as well as initiatives at the municipal level[13]. 
To boost
development of childcare institutions, Polish Ministry of Labour and Social
Policy has prepared amendments of Act on care for children under three
years of age. New provisions which came into force in July 2013 reduces
the commune's own contribution from 50% to 20% of the establishment and
operational costs of childcare institutions, as well as expands the list of
companies able to apply for funding from the state budget for the establishment
of care institutions, it also extents the catalogue of entities that may hire
daily carers.
Parallel to the Act, the Ministry has launched “Toddler Programme“
which goal is to encourage local self-governments to establish nurseries and
kids clubs for children under 3 years old. By the end of 2013, around 3
thousand new childcare places, nurseries and children's clubs were created.
This Programme also covers social security and health insurance
contributions for nannies.
In some other
Member States (Ireland, Spain) substantial spending cuts have affected the
availability (closing down of childcare facilities), quality (understaffing) and
affordability of childcare services.
Tax and
benefit systems: disincentives for second earners – mainly women
During the crisis,
women increase their contribution to the household income and the proportion of
“male breadwinner” household decrease. In most countries dual-earner couples with a secondary
earner female[14]
are the largest group (see
annex). Dual-earner couples with a secondary earner male are much less common.
Couples with roughly equal earnings make up around 1/5 of all couples. 
Tax and benefits
systems may create specific fiscal disincentives that trap secondary earners
into their status. Joint and progressive tax systems are more likely to create
disincentives, because any income adding up to that of the primary breadwinner
tends to be taxed at a higher tax rate. In the early 1980s, the EU took a
stance against joint taxation, which helped introduce individual taxation in
most EU Member States. Nevertheless several Member States still have joint
taxation system. In France, Luxembourg and Portugal couples are jointly
assessed for tax purposes. Ireland and Germany have joint taxation, with an
option for individual taxation; individual taxation is the default in Estonia, Spain, Poland, and Malta though a joint assessment option is available. Occasional elements
of joint taxation remain in the Belgian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italian,
Lithuanian, Latvian and the Dutch income tax codes, although the unit of
taxation is the individual. Moreover, even if the tax code is individualised,
the benefit system is often not, or at least not entirely. For example, child-related
allowances and benefits are assessed against family income in most countries.
Last but not least, several tax systems grant a ‘non working spouse allowance’
which is lost if the spouse in question takes up employment. Taking into
account both tax and benefits, a recent study[15]
shows that, in a number of countries (Belgium, Greece, France, Romania, Slovenia and Germany, Portugal and Belgium), the tax-benefit system
penalizes dual-earner couples and does not encourage secondary earners to work
more. 
Flexible
working arrangements
Flexible working arrangements
enable employees to vary their working hours and adapt them to their personal and
family needs, which makes a better work-life balance possible. According
to recent data, women reported less access to family-related work schedule
flexibility than men in most European countries. Moreover, the access to
family-related work schedule flexibility differs across social groups and
across countries. For instance the share of workers who can vary the start and/or
end times of their working day for family reasons ranges from less than 10% in
Romania to more than 80% in the Netherlands (see Figures 13 and 14).
Figure 13 – Percentage of employed people generally able
to vary start/end times for family reasons, men and women, and gender gap (in
percentage points)
Sources: EU-LFS AHM 2010 Forthcoming
Short Statistical Report No 6 from Rand Europe “Family-related working schedule
flexibility across Europe”.
Figure 14 – Percentage of employed people generally able
to take whole days off for family reasons, men and women, and gender gap (in
percentage points)
Sources: EU-LFS AHM 2010 Forthcoming
Short Statistical Report No 6 from Rand Europe “Family-related working schedule
flexibility across Europe”.
The provision
of paid leave
Overall, leave
schemes provide parents the opportunity to spend time off work around
childbirth (or later) and thereby facilitate the combination of work and care
activities. Moreover, the provision of sufficient paid leave has a positive
effect on the employment rate of prime-age women as it encourages them to
remain in the labour force after having children. For this to happen, a minimum
length should be warranted[16].
When the leave entitlement is too short, mothers may simply leave the labour
market without using the return option provided by the leave scheme, whereas
too lengthy leave durations increase the time out of the labour market and may
thereby hamper the decision to return to employment.[17]  
A balanced use of
leave entitlements by both parents after childbirth has been shown to have
positive effects in terms of distribution of household and care
responsibilities and improved female labour market outcomes[18]. Currently fathers’
take-up of parental leave[19]
remains quite low in most Member States. For instance, it is less than 5 % in
the Czech Republic, Spain, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, though more than 20%
in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden.[20]

The Directive on
parental leave[21]
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 — which
means that it will be lost if not taken — gives an incentive for fathers to
take the leave. The Directive also provides for better protection against
discrimination and a smoother return to work. Member States had to transpose it
by 8 March 2013 at the latest. The Commission is currently checking if the
national implementing measures are in conformity with the Directive.
Gender
equality in Europe 2020 Strategy for growth and employment
It is clear that
there is untapped potential in the supply of labour offered by women, which is
likely to prove critical when the economy recovers. This potential is currently
severely constrained by a low labour demand and by an inadequate policy-mix of
poor childcare facilities, low access to flexible working time arrangements and
fiscal disincentives in some countries. Unequal pensionable ages for women and
men in some Member States also contribute to older women’s lower labour-force
participation, as well as lower pension entitlements and increased risk of
poverty in old age. As a consequence, in the framework of the Europe 2020
Strategy for growth, the 2013 European Semester addressed country-specific
recommendations to thirteen Member States and asked them to promote the
participation of women in the labour market and gender equality[22]: 

 Recommendations
     on childcare availability, quality, inclusiveness and/or affordability
     (in some cases also including all-day schools or out-of-school services) were
     addressed to ten Member States: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary,
     Italy, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and Estonia (for the
     first time in 2013 for the latter country);
 Recommendations
     to improve the provision of elderly care services were addressed to
     two countries: Austria and Italy (for the first time in 2013 for the
     latter country);
 Recommendations to
     tackle financial disincentives to work were addressed to three
     Member States: Germany, the Netherlands and Italy (for the first time in
     2013 for the later country);
 Recommendation to
     address the gender pay gap and the gender pension gap was addressed to
     Austria;
 Recommendations to
     harmonise pensionable ages and rights were addressed to three
     Member States: Austria, Bulgaria and Romania. Romania received a
     recommendation in 2013 for the first time, and the recommendation to Slovenia was dropped in 2013 further to the implementation of the 2012 recommendation;
 A recommendation
     to promote flexible working arrangements was addressed to Malta for the first time in 2013.

Overall, there were
more recommendations to promote the participation of women in the labour
market, which is an acknowledgement of the problem and a clear signal that
progress has been insufficient so far. In the Annual Growth Survey 2014[23], which takes stock of the
economic and social situation in Europe and sets out the EU’s overall economic
growth priorities, the European Commission calls on Member States to develop
affordable care services and tackle the gender pay, activity and pensions gaps.


1.3 Supporting female entrepreneurs

Women constitute only a third
of the self-employed in the EU and a quarter of self-employed with paid
employees (the "employers")[24].
They face more difficulties than men, mainly in access to finance, training and
networking. In its "Entrepreneurship 2020 Action plan"[25], published in 2013, the Commission recognised
that potential women entrepreneurs should be made aware of business support
programmes and funding opportunities. It will therefore create a Europe-wide
on-line mentoring, advisory, educational and business networking platform for
women entrepreneurs that will bring the current national ambassadors and
mentors networks on-line, deepen their offer and expand their reach and support
female entrepreneurship at national and regional level by promoting the
exchange of best practices between Member States.

2. Equal pay for
equal work and work of equal value

One of the
obstacles to equality for women on the labour market is the systematically
lower pay they receive. This is attributed to direct and indirect
discrimination, fewer career advancements because of absences due to care, but
also to the concentration of women in low-paid jobs and pervasive segregation in
the labour market, as well as gender imbalances in education, and the
undervaluation and underuse of women’s skills. 

2.1 The gender pay gap

Despite consistent
efforts over decades, women are paid on average 16% less than men per hour
of work. Figure 15 shows the trend of the unadjusted gender pay gap[26] from 2006 (when
consistent comparable statistics were collected for the EU-27) to 2012, the
latest available data. The gradually falling trend to 17.2% in 2009 shows a steep
decrease to 16.2% in 2010. It therefore seems that the crisis changed the speed
of convergence. 
If current
convergence speeds continue[27],
it will take more than 70 years to close the gender pay gap (in 2087 assuming
that recent trends persist). 
Figure 15 – EU-28 gender pay gap in unadjusted form (%),2008-12
 
Source: Eurostat, Structure of Earning
Survey, data without Croatia in 2008-10
While the gender
pay gap has been shrinking in almost all EU countries, it is still more than
20% in Estonia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia and the United
Kingdom (see Figure 16). 
Tackling the
gender pay gap at EU level
Equal pay has for
a very long time been an EU commitment and priority, and efforts to tackle the
gender pay gap have intensified in 2013. 
The European Commission
monitors the correct application and enforcement of the equal pay provisions of
the Directive on equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation[28]
at national level. In 2013, it adopted a Report on the application of this
directive, with a focus on applying the provisions on equal pay in practice[29]. The
Report includes an analysis of gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
systems, a summary of equal pay case law of the Court of Justice, as well as examples
of the national case-law on equal pay. It can support national authorities and
national courts, social partners and other stakeholders in correctly enforcing
and applying the existing rules.  
In order to spread
information about the remaining gaps, the European Commission organised the
third European Equal Pay Day on 28 February 2013. At the same
time, it has upgraded its webpage[30],
press material and brochure[31]
and has been increasingly working with Member States and stakeholders to
improve synergies between the European and national equal pay days. To support
this, an exchange of good practices on national equal pay days was
organised in Estonia in June 2013. 
In 2012 and 2013
the Commission funded the Equality Pays Off[32], which supported employers
in their efforts to tackle the gender pay gap by
organising training activities for companies in 34 European countries. As part
of this project, a Business Forum[33]
was held on 21 March 2013 in Brussels. It enabled
165 representatives of companies, multiplier organisations and institutions to
exchange knowledge and strategies on how best to foster gender equality. Moreover, the Commission adopted a non-legislative
initiative in 2014 to promote and facilitate the pratical application of the
principle of equal pay[34].

All
these initiatives aim to closing the gender pay gap and helping women to reap
the benefits of their investment in education. 
In France, as a result of a 2012 decree on gender
equality in companies[35],
for the first time, four companies were condemned in 2013 for not complying with
the legislation on equal pay. 500 companies received a reminder. More than 4000
companies have notified their plan on gender equality to the Ministry of
Women’s right. On 25 April 2013, the equal pay day, the minister of women’s rights said that
the three priorities to reduce the gender pay gap are: awareness and support,
controls and sanctions, and negotiations between social partners. 
The gender gap
in pensions
The hourly pay
gap, the fewer hours worked plus more career interruptions lead to a greater
gap in earnings throughout women’s life, which leads in many cases to
inequalities in pension entitlements. As Figure 16 shows, this is not always so
— the country with the largest pay gap also has the
smallest pension gap (Estonia). The pension system may intervene to equalise
differences (e.g. through universal citizens’ pensions, or widows’ pensions). 
However the tendency towards reforms to favour closer linking of contributions
to entitlements (e.g. through multipillar schemes) is likely to magnify
pay-linked gaps over time. Indeed, pension gaps are much higher than pay gaps,
reflecting an accumulation of disadvantages throughout women’s lives. Women
receive pensions that are on average 39% lower than men’s[36] and more than a third of all older women
have no pension at all in some Member States. In response to these worrying
figures, the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men issued
an Opinion on reducing the gender gap in pensions[37], and encouraging
the EU to step up its effort, in following-up the White Paper entitled "An
Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions".[38] 
Figure 16 - The gender pay gap vis-à-vis the gender gap
in pension, across Europe
Source: Gender Pay Gap figures based on
Eurostat’s Structure of Earnings Database for 2012, except for Greece (2010). The gender gap in pension income is based on EU-SILC 2011 data, and
calculated by the European Network of Experts on Gender Equality. 

2.2 The risk of
poverty or social exclusion

In the framework
of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the EU monitors the risk of poverty or social
exclusion faced by people who either have low income relative to what is
socially acceptable in their country or lack at least three of a list of
nine important amenities[39],
or living in households
with very low work intensity. To interpret the gender differences in the
figures, we should bear in mind that it is assumed that these differences do
not exist for couples, as if all household members equally share in income and
amenities. Any differences that appear in the data mainly reflect the situation
of single-member households. 
Older women are
much more at risk of poverty or social exclusion than older men (22% versus 16.3%). Over the last 5 years,
the relative situation of older men and women improved, and the gender gap has
shrunk. The impact of the crisis at this EU-level is more visible for the group
of working age, where the rise in poverty or social exclusion appears to be
associated with a closing of the gender gap: 26.9 % of women are poor and
excluded, compared to 24.8% of men. 
Figure 17 - EU-27 (%) people at risk of poverty or social exclusion
by gender and age
Note: Eurostat, EU-SILC
Single parents — mainly mothers —
are a particularly vulnerable to poverty and exclusion, and 35.5% of them are at
risk of poverty. This rate
ranges from 26% in Slovenia to 66% in Greece (see Figure 18).
Poverty is
targeted by many social policies from various means tested benefits to explicit
social safety net guarantees. Rather worryingly, the efficacy of social policy in
reducing poverty was lower for all types of households in 2012, compared to
2005 (see Figure 18). The fall in effectiveness of social policy is
particularly high (almost 50%) for one-adult households, which include the
majority of widows as well as single mothers. The generosity of the welfare
state towards this group also varies greatly between countries. Poverty was
reduced by less than 6 pp in Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia and Italy, and by more than 25 pp in the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Cyprus (see Figure 19). 
Figure 18 – Risk of poverty and poverty reduction
after social benefits, by household type, EU27 2005 & 2012
Source:
Eurostat, EU-SILC
Figure 19
- Poverty risk and poverty
reduction after social benefits, single parent households, 2012
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC
In February 2013,
the European Commission adopted the Social Investment Package[40], which provides Member
States with social policy guidance to better address unemployment, poverty and
social exclusion. Within the package, the importance of measures to remove
barriers’ to women’s lower labour market participation is highlighted, such as
affordable quality early childhood education and care and long-term care
services for elderly dependents. It also underlines the various instruments
available at EU-level to support Member States in tackling social challenges. 

2.3 Education achievements, key
skills and their use at work

Overall, the
European 2020 Strategy’s education and training indicators show
that girls tend to do better. Women are more likely to have completed higher
education: in 2012, 39.9% of all women and 31.5% of men between the ages of
30 and 34 had attained a tertiary education level. In the same vein, girls were
less likely to drop out of school than boys in 2012 (10.9% compared 14.4%).
These figures have led to increased attention given to the so-called “boys’
crisis” in public policies and in research.[41]

Figure 20
–Proportion of early school-leavers
(in %), in 2012, men, women and the gender gap (in percentage points) 
Source: Eurostat, LFS
Figure 21 – Percentage of the population aged 30-34 who
have successfully completed university or university-like (tertiary-level)
education, in 2012, men, women, and the gender gap in percentage points
Source:
Eurostat, LFS
The OECD’s PISA
survey, the latest results of which were released in 2013, make it possible to
analyse gender differences in the mastery of key competences, namely
mathematics, science and reading among 15-years-old pupils. [42]
Gender
differences in science subjects and mathematics performance are small and keep
shrinking. The share of
low achieving students is similar among genders: 17.4% of boys and 15.7% of
girls are low achievers in sciences, 21.2% of boys and 23% of girls are low
achievers in mathematics. However, even when boys and girls have the same
performance level, girls tend to be more anxious about mathematics, and less
self-confident. The OECD concludes that improving the attitudes of boys and
girls towards mathematics should be a key concern. 
Girls
significantly outperform boys in reading in every participating country, and this gender gap
is large, equivalent to more than a year of schooling: 23.7% of boys are low
achievers in reading, compared to 12% of girls. This gap has widened in nine
EU Member States (Denmark, Belgium, Spain, France, Finland, Hungary, Sweden, Bulgaria and Greece). The new figures recall the urgency of engaging boys in schools
and motivating them to read, changing reading material and introducing engaging
male role models. 
Unlike PISA, the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), the first results of which were also
released in 2013, shows little differences between adult men and women.
On average, men have better results in numeracy and problem-solving skills.
However the gap is small and doesn’t exist for the
younger generations. Moreover, in most countries, men and women have similar
scores on the literacy scale.
The PIAAC survey
also makes it possible to analyse how skills are used in professional work. With
only a few country exceptions, the survey shows that, on average, men use
literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills at work more frequently than
women. Indeed, women are more often employed in jobs in which these skills
are not used as intensively. These gender differences in using skills
contribute to deepening the gender pay gap: countries facing the biggest gender
pay gap are also the countries with the biggest gap in using skills (Estonia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic).  It is therefore crucial to promote non-discriminatory
gender roles in education and employment, as recalled by the European
Parliament Resolution of 12 March 2013 on eliminating gender stereotypes in the
EU[43], and explained in a study
on "The role of men in gender equality" published by the European
Commission in 2013.[44]
In Latvia, the Ministry of Welfare published a proposal on reducing
gender segregation and integrating gender equality principles in education. The proposal contains
a set of recommendations for each level of education. 
In order to combat gender stereotypes in higher education in
  Poland social campaigns “Girls As Engineers!” and “Girls In
STEM!” have been carried out by Perspektywy Educational Foundation and the Conference
of Rectors of Polish Technical Universities. The main objective of these
campaigns is to introduce technical and engineering studies to female high
school students and to promote this educational path as interesting, attractive
and very beneficial in the long run. In 2013 nineteen public technical universities took
part in the campaign.
In Estonia, the Ministry of Social Affairs carried out
an awareness raising campaign to tackle gender stereotypes and their influence on work and
career choices. The main activities of the campaign were "career days" for boys and girls, a series
of video clips and several communication initiatives. In the framework of
career days boys and girls were introduced to occupations and jobs that are
traditionally more common for the other gender (e.g. boys to professions like
nurse, tailor, teacher and girls to professions like ground engineer, soldier,
and miner). The feedback from participating young people was positive and
although not many were considering afterwards choosing exactly the professions
they have been introduced to, most of them said that they see their career
choices more widely now. Video clips received a wide visibility.[45]

2.4 Persistent
gender segregation in the labour market

Gender
segregation, or the tendency for men and women to take different jobs, is
pervasive across Europe. Only 16% of all employees work in mixed occupations
(i.e. where the proportions of men and women are between 40% and 60%). Figure 22
shows the proportion of men and women within the top 20 occupations[46],
which account for 94.3% of all employment across Europe. Women tend to be
virtually shut out of certain occupations. Three occupations have a strikingly
similar female proportion of 4%: metal, machinery and related trades, extraction
and building trades and drivers and mobile plant operators. The three occupations
with the lowest proportions of men are in the life science and health associate
professionals (17%), teaching associate professionals (20%) and customer
service clerks (23%). 
Figure 22 - Proportion of women in the top 20
occupations in the EU 27, in 2010
Source: Eurostat, LFS
Segregation is not
always associated with disadvantage for women. Some male-dominated jobs are
also associated with poor working conditions and low wages. Segregation,
however, narrows employment choices for both men and women, and may limit
access to higher-level jobs. Segregation also facilitates the undervaluation of
women’s work, and of skills and competences associated with women. 
There has been
little change in segregation patterns since 2005. The share of all employees working in mixed
occupations was also remarkably consistent, increasing from 15.5% to 16.1%.
However, there is some evidence that younger women, who have been relatively
advantaged compared to men in their education, are making inroads into some of
the higher-earning professional occupations that had been even more
male-dominated in the past.
In Cyprus, the ESF-funded programme to reduce the gender pay gap is now implementing
measures that address vertical and
horizontal occupational segregation. The partnership of academics and NGOs will
provide specialised training programmes for careers advice professionals,
primary and secondary education teachers, and parents. 

3. Equality in
decision-making

Despite major
progress across the EU in recent decades, men still largely outnumber women in
senior positions, particularly at the highest levels, in business, politics and
other fields. However, improving the gender balance in senior positions in
politics and in the corporate sector more rapidly is critical to improving how
our democracies and economies function. 

3.1 Gender (im)balance on boards of large
listed companies

Large companies
across the EU continue to be disproportionately led by men, despite the strong
economic and business advantages of gender balance and the presence of
qualified and talented women. Data collected by the European Commission in
October 2013, show that women account for an average of 17.8% of top-level
board members in the largest publicly-listed companies registered in each
of the EU-28 Member States[47]
(Figure 23). Moreover, there are very few women in the most influential
positions: just 4.8% of the chairpersons of these companies and only 2.8% of
CEOs are women.
There is
considerable variation between Member States ranging from almost 30% of female
board members in Finland to just over 2% in Malta. Although no Member State has yet achieved gender balance in the boardroom there has been significant
progress over the last decade thanks to intense debate and regulatory pressure.
In October 2003, only two of the  current Member States (Romania and Slovenia) had governing boards made up of at least 20% female board members. Ten years
on, ten Member States have surpassed this level and half of these have more
than 25% female board members. However, there are still six Member States in
which men still hold more than 90% of board positions (Figure 23). 
Figure 23 – Representation of women on boards of
large publicly-listed companies in the EU, October 2013
Source: European Commission,
Database on women and men in decision-making
Most of this
improvement took place since 2010, when the European Commission first announced
that it would consider targeted initiatives to improve gender diversity in
companies, stimulating debate and action across Europe.[48] The rate of change for
the EU as a whole has quadrupled from 0.5 percentage points per year to 2.0
pp/year (Figure 24). However, even this accelerated rate of progress is not
enough to meet the target of 40% by 2020 set by the Commission in the proposed
Directive[49]
(see below).
Figure 24 – Representation of
women and men on the top-level boards of large listed companies in the EU,
October 2003 - October 2013
 Source: European Commission, Database on women and men in
decision-making
Moreover, recent
progress has not been evenly spread across the EU and most of the significant
improvements took place in countries that have taken or considered legislative
action. Eight Member States have seen the proportion of women on boards
increase to more than the EU average and have driven the overall change. Six of
these have either introduced a legislative quota or target or had a government
level debate about the possibility of doing so (Figure 25). 
Figure 25 - Change in the proportion of women on boards, by country, October
2010 - October 2013 
Source: European Commission,
Database on women and men in decision-making
France leads the way in terms of recent progress.
Since the introduction of a law in January 2011[50], under which companies
have to ensure that members of each sex occupy at least 20% of non-executive
director positions by 2014 and 40% by 2017, the proportion of women on the
boards of companies on the CAC-40 index has more than doubled from 12.3% in
October 2010 to 29.7% in October 2013. Moreover, the French government is
continuing to focus attention on the issue. In October 2013 it published the
first annual ranking of France’s 120 most actively traded companies based on a
composite measure of commitment to improving the presence of women in senior
management and throughout the organisation[51].

The
Commission’s proposal for a Directive at EU level 
Notwithstanding
efforts made by some governments and companies to improve the situation, the
rate of change in most Member States has been slow, which shows that there is
insufficient commitment and that self-regulation does not bring about
substantial and rapid change. Hence, the European Commission — with the strong support of the European Parliament
and a number of Member States — has decided to take legislative action. On
14 November 2012, it put forward a proposal for a Directive on improving the
gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock
exchanges[52].
In 2013, the Council and the Parliament were involved in negotiating the
Commission’s proposal. On 20 November 2013 the
European Parliament adopted its resolution at first reading on the proposed
Directive[53]
by a vast majority of its members, confirming a broad consensus on the
objective of increasing women’s representation on corporate boards and
largely endorsing the Commission’s approach to redressing the current
imbalance. Progress has also been made in negotiations in the Council, as outlined
in the Irish Presidency’s progress report discussed at the EPSCO
Council on 20 June 2013[54]
and the Lithuanian presidency's progress report discussed at the EPSCO Council
on 9 December 2013.[55]
The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
have also adopted opinions, on 13 February[56]
and 30 May 2013[57]
respectively, expressing clear support for the Commission proposal. The latter
body confirmed that the proposal is in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
In Denmark, an amendment to the Companies Act and the
Financial Statements Act passed at the end of 2012 requires large companies to
set targets and implement a policy for gender diversity from 1 April 2013 and
to report on those targets from 2014[58].

In Poland, on
7 March 2013, the Minister of State Treasury issued an executive ordinance
which obliges state-owned companies to "choose adequately prepared members
of supervisory boards, taking into account the balanced participation of women
and men"[59].
The Code of good practices annexed to this ordinance put in place a target of
30% by 2015 and a priority rule for equally-qualified women. No sanctions were
envisaged.
In Germany the coalition agreement between the governing
parties provides for a quota law. The responsible ministers have announced their
intention to prepare a draft law which would apply a quota of 30% to the
supervisory board of 110 large listed companies. Sanctions will apply in case
the quota is not achieved (the board seat will remain empty). There will also
be a flexiquota for other listed companies. The law is supposed to apply as of 2015.

3.2 Women and men in political
decision-making 

National
governments: women continue to be under-represented 
On average, women
still account for 27% of senior government ministers[60] across the EU. In five
Member States (Sweden, France, Finland, Denmark and Austria), governments include
at least 40% of each gender, and in four others, the percentage is close to 40%
(Bulgaria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany). However, in six EU
governments less than one in ten ministers are women (Greece, Slovakia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Estonia and Cyprus). The average percentage of female ministers
in the EU-28 countries has risen from 21% to 27% over the last decade. At this
rate of change it will take more than 20 years to achieve balanced governments
(at least 40% of each gender, Figure 26).
Figure 26 - Representation of women and men in
national governments (senior ministers) by Member State, 2013 and 2004-13 
Source:
European Commission, Database on women and men in decision-making. Note: Trend
figures show data for EU-27 from fourth quarter 2004 to 2007 and EU-28
thereafter.
Many
national parliaments fail to reflect the composition of their electorates 
Ensuring that the
composition of parliaments reflects the electorates they serve is a basic tenet
of representative democracy. However the latest figures from the fourth quarter
of 2013 show that women are outnumbered by men by an average of three to one in
national parliaments across the EU. Six Member States have reached or are
close to reaching the threshold of 40% of each gender (Sweden, Finland,
Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark), while in four others (Cyprus,
Malta, Romania and Hungary) women account for one in seven or fewer members of
parliament (Figure 27).
The average rate
of progress towards equality in parliaments is similar to that in governments,
with gender-balanced legislatures also predicted to be more than 20 years away
(Figure 27). Legislative (or voluntary) quotas have in general significantly increased
the rate of progress compared to no action.[61]
Where legislative quotas have been adopted, e.g. in Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia[62],
the average improvement in the representation of women has been almost double
the EU-28 average (i.e. +10.5 percentage points compared to +5.3 percentage
points during the last decade). 
Figure 27 -
Representation of women and men in national parliaments (single/lower house), by
Member States, 2013, and 2003*-2013
Source:
European Commission, Database on women and men in decision-making. Note : Trend
figures show data for EU-27 from fourth quarter 2004 to 2007 and EU-28
(i.e.including Croatia) thereafter. * 2003 figure is missing data for CZ, HR, LT, MT and PL.
Over
one-third of the Members of European Parliament are female
The representation
of women in the European Parliament (2010-2014 legislature) is significantly
higher than in national parliaments. In 2013, 36% of MEPs were women and 64%
were men. While the share of women varies between Member States, the majority
have over 30% women and more than a third have over 40% (Finland, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, Malta, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal and Spain). At the opposite end of the spectrum, the highest levels of
gender imbalance are found in Luxembourg and the Czech Republic, where fewer than
one in five MEPs are women.

3.3 Women’s under-representation in senior positions
in media organisations

The Council of the
European Union has been actively monitoring progress in the areas of concern
identified by the UN Beijing Platform for Action[63] since 1999. In 2013, the Irish Presidency invited the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) to carry
out research in the area of women and the media, resulting in a study of the
gender balance in decision-making positions in EU media organisations[64]. Indicators developed in
the study have subsequently been integrated into conclusions of the Council on
how to advance women in media, which call on Member States and the Commission
to take action and monitor progress[65].
Women represent
65% of graduates from degree-level media courses and 44% of media workers.
However, the EIGE study indicates that the representation of women decreases
progressively as the level of responsibility rises: amongst managers in major
media organisations, women account for 37% at the lowest level but only 21% at
the most senior operational level and 16% amongst strategic decision-makers
such as CEOs and presidents (Figure 28). Women account for around a quarter
(26%) of board members in the media companies covered by the study but
there is a notable difference between publicly-owned organisations, where women
account for 30% of board members, and private companies where the figure is
22%  (Figure 28). 
Figure 28 –
Representation of women and men in decision making positions in media
organisations in the EU-28, 2012
 
Source:
EIGE. Board member figures exclude CEOs-level 1. Data collected between July
and September 2012 cover 99 media organisations in the EU-28.for each country,
including the public-service broadcaster(s) and up to three private
organisations.
Some countries have introduced regulatory measures to promote gender
equality in the media. In Ireland, for example, the Broadcasting Act
(2009) states that for a board comprising 12 members “not less than five
members of the board of a corporation shall be men and not less than five of
them shall be women”[66].


3.4 Gender equality in sports organisations

Sports are
important in the lives of both men and women.[67]
However, the percentage of women in decision-making positions in sports
organizations is far lower than the percentage of female active members. At the
beginning of the 21st century, 38% of European sports federations
did not have a single woman on their boards, 88% had fewer than 25% and only
two had a female president. In the same vein, only three European National
Olympic Committees (NOCs) had a female president, whereas the percentage of
women on NOC Executive Committees was 14%. Today, the European Olympic
Committee has no women on its executive board.[68]
Women are also underrepresented in coaching both at the amateur and professional
levels. 
In light of these
figures, the European Commission invited a group of experts to develop a
proposal for strategic and specific actions on gender equality in sports for
the 2014-20 period. The experts identified a number of priority areas:
gender equality in decision-making, coaching, and media coverage and putting an
end to gender-based violence in sports. These priorities were well received at
a conference in December 2013 in Vilnius, which helped put the topic back on
the political agenda of Member States and sports organisations. The initiative
will be followed up at Council level under the Greek EU presidency (first
semester of 2014) and through possible actions within the sports chapter of the
EU’s Erasmus+ funding programme. 

4. Dignity,
integrity and ending gender-based violence

Gender-based violence
can take many forms: violence in close relationships, sexual violence
(including rape, sexual assault and harassment), trafficking in human beings,
slavery and different forms of harmful practices, such as forced marriages,
female genital mutilation and so-called ‘honour’ crimes. In 2013, the EU has made
a breakthrough in how it collects evidence on gender-based violence. It has also
taken a strong stance against female genital mutilation and it has stepped up
its efforts to prevent violence and protect victims. 

4.1 First European Survey on Violence
Against Women: building an Evidence Base 

The first EU-wide survey on women’s experiences of
various forms of violence, carried out by the European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights (FRA)[69]
and based on interviewees with 42,000 women, has shown that many women across
the EU continue to suffer from gender-based violence, including physical and
sexual violence, as well as domestic violence. One in three women (33% has
experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15. One in 20
women (5%) has been raped since the age of 15. Domestic violence is widespread:
22% of women have experienced physical and/or
sexual violence by a partner. Among these victims, 67% did not report the most
serious incident of partner violence to the police or any other organisation.
The survey also documented
the extent, nature and consequences of stalking and sexual harassment, showing
in particular that cyber stalking and cyber (sexual) harassment disproportionately
affect young women. The survey also showed that 55% of women in the EU have
been confronted with some form of sexual harassment since the age of 15.[70] Sexual harassment is
still widespread: 21% of women experienced it in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Overall, 32% of female sexual harassment victims said that the sexual
harassment had occurred at the workplace, which stresses the importance of effectively
implementing existing EU legislation[71]
and policies in the area of employment.[72]

In addition, the European
Institute for Gender equality organised several events and meetings in 2013,
paving the way to improving the collection of indicators and comparable data on
gender-based violence.

4.2 Eliminating female genital mutilation 

On the
International Day against Violence against Women, the Commission and the
European External Actions Service adopted their Communication "Towards
the Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation". This Communication
builds on the results of a high-level round-table on female genital mutilation
(FGM) hosted by Vice-President Reding in March 2013, a public consultation and an Opinion from the Commission’s
Advisory Committee on equal opportunities for women and men.[73] It also takes into
account a report of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
which maps the situation in the EU.[74]
The report finds that there are victims, or potential victims, in at least 13
EU countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. 
This Communication
defines a list of measures that the Commission will take to push forward the
elimination of this unacceptable form of violence against women and girls. It
has a strong focus on prevention, and includes both internal
and external actions. It :

 reiterates the
     need for improving understanding of the issue in the EU; 
 emphasises that
     FGM is a deep-rooted social norm and that sustainable social change is
     needed;
 highlights the
     need for multidisciplinary cooperation to protect children at risk
     and support victims, and underlines the importance of civil society
     organisations in this regard; 
 asks the European Institute for Gender
     Equality to develop a common methodology and indicators to measure the
     prevalence of FGM, to estimate the number of women and girls at risk of
     being mutilated and the number of women affected by FGM in the EU;
 calls for protection
     of women and girls, recalling that FGM needs to be recognized as
     grounds for asylum and that asylum procedures must be gender-sensitive;
 recalls that FGM
     is prosecutable in all EU Member States, even though prosecutions
     are rare; and 
 acknowledges the
     significant role of civil society organisations.
4.3 Violence against women: prevention and
protection

The European
Protection Order[75], which applies to protection measures
adopted in criminal matters, ensures that victims of violence can still rely on
restraint or protection orders issued against the perpetrator in their home
country if they travel or move abroad. These EU instruments do not harmonise
protection measures in the Member States. They are based on the principle of
mutual recognition: the measure of one Member State will be transmitted and
recognised in another Member State. For example, women who have suffered
domestic violence will be able to rely on a restraining order obtained in their
home country wherever they are in the EU.
Moreover, in all
its activities related to the elimination of violence against women, the
Commission called on the Member States to ratify individually the Council of
Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and
domestic violence. In 2013, the process of national ratification had been
concluded by three Member States: Austria, Portugal and Italy.
In 2013 the
European Commission used funding to strengthen the fight against
gender-based violence: 14 national campaigns against gender-based violence were
co-funded through the PROGRESS programme (with EUR 3.7 million) and projects
run by civil society organisations, regional or local authorities, or other
public services were supported through the DAPHNE programme (with EUR 11.4
million). They raise awareness of violence against women, fight harmful
practices (FGM, forced marriage and honour crimes), and support victims of
violence. 
Some groups of
women are more vulnerable to some specific forms of gender-based violence, in
particular because they are less likely to report it. The European Parliament
resolution on "Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma
Inclusion Strategies"[76]
and the Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in
the Member States[77]
emphasises the need to "fight violence, including domestic violence,
against women and girls, trafficking in human beings, underage and forced
marriages (...)." Moreover, in its study on "Discrimination Generated
by the Intersection of Gender and Disability"[78] and in a
resolution[79],
the European Parliament underlines that women with disabilities are at a
high risk of abuse. The Commission has therefore given priority to funding
projects that fight violence against women with disabilities, both through the
Progress and Daphne programmes.
Trafficking in
human beings occurs mainly for sexual exploitation purposes and affects mostly
women. The Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings
and protecting its victims[80]
acknowledges that trafficking in human beings is a gendered phenomenon and
creates legal obligations for gender-specific measures for prevention and
protection, as well as assistance and support, to victims. In April 2013 the
deadline for transposition of the anti-trafficking Directive expired. As
thirteen Member States had not communicated by that deadline any measures
transposing the directive, infringement procedures have been launched against
them[81].

Spain has developed various ICT-based resources
and services to improve the protection, safety, care and recovery of female victims
of gender-based violence, as well as of their children. For example, to verify
the compliance with a precautionary restraining order imposed by a court, a
wristband worn by the perpetrator broadcasts a positioning signal and alerts
the victim if the distance is not respected. Victims at high risk may also
receive a mobile phone allowing permanent contact with a care centre and if
needed, an immediate response to emergency situations, 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year and regardless of the place in which they are situated.
Ireland has developed domestic violence
perpetrator programmes that aim to reduce men’s violent and controlling
behaviour. Men complete the programme together with their current and/or future
female partners and children. These programmes are built on a partnership
approach between women’s service providers (i.e. women’s refuges and rape crisis
centres) and those working with men, and offer a community alternative to
prison.

5.
Gender equality in external actions

The EU promotes
gender equality and women’s empowerment in candidate countries for EU
Accession[82],
European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries[83], and third countries.
This chapter provides an overview of the most recent activities carried out at the
international level.
In March 2013, the
EU presented a common position to the 57th session of the Commission on the
Status of Women, the UN principal global policy-making body on gender
equality and advancement of women, whose priority theme was the elimination and
prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls. More than 600
million women live in countries where domestic violence is not considered a
crime, and even where it is illegal, perpetrators often go unpunished.[84] Together with the
other UN partners, the EU successfully contributed to the adoption of Agreed
Conclusions in which all forms of violence against women and girls are
condemned, without any exceptions based on culture, tradition, or religion.  
While continuing to strive towards achieving the Millennium
Development Goals, the EU continued refining its position on the
post-2015 agenda. In its Communication entitled 'A Decent Life for All -
Ending Poverty and Giving the World a Sustainable Future', published in
February 2013[85],
the Commission highlighted the role that women must play in the new post-2015 overarching
framework and the need to remove all forms of barriers to equal participation.
It stated that the framework should put “particular emphasis on moving towards
a rights-based approach to development, on reducing inequalities, as well as on
the promotion and protection of women’s and girls’ rights and gender equality”. These principles were reaffirmed and reinforced
in the Council Conclusions on “The overarching post-2015 agenda”, adopted in June 2013[86]and setting out the EU’s
common position for negotiations on the post-2015 agenda. The EU identifies
three concrete themes which would contribute to the common aim and which need
to be emphasised in a post-2015 framework: 1. Women’s economic and social
empowerment which are central to gender equality and economic development. 2.
Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls,
combining legislative and non-legislative measures. 3. Promotion of women’s
equal participation and representation in decision making processes at all
levels, in all spheres, and elimination all forms of discrimination hindering
them.
The EU Plan of
Action on Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment in Development 2010-15[87] outlines the Commission’s, the European External Action Service's and Member States'
commitments to supporting developing countries' efforts to improve the
situation of women regarding equal rights and empowerment. The third
implementation report, published in 2013, concludes that gender equality is
increasingly mainstreamed in various fields (e.g. infrastructure).
Furthermore, the number of sectors that use sex-disaggregated indicators has
increased this year, from 5 to 18, including sectors providing water and
sanitation, agriculture and forestry, regional development, environment, and
public finance. The report also explains that almost all EU Delegations
maintain regular dialogue with civil society, in order to get their input for
future programmes.
In the context of the EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in
Development 2010-15, a gender perspective is being integrated into every step
of a water and sanitation project in Chad. In practice, this means that
women are recruited among the project staff and are equally involved in the
decision-making process about where drinkable water sources should be located and
the price of water supply. Furthermore, a “gender team” was created in the ministry
in charge of water and sanitation, and gender training is being provided to
several stakeholders involved in the project’s implementation.
The EU Delegation in Guatemala organises an annual
Human Rights Defenders Forum that includes special sessions for women human
rights defenders. A series of training sessions on gender concepts and the
integration of gender into the project cycle have been provided to 24 civil
society organisations. In Madagascar, the EU Delegation holds monthly
meetings with NGOs funded through the European Instrument for Democracy and
Human Rights (EIDHR). These meetings facilitate the exchange of information and
discussion about a gender-related topic.
In fragile states,
the EU continues to provide support for capacity building on the UN Security
Council Resolutions 1325 and related resolutions, focusing on increasing the
participation of women in all United Nations peace and security efforts and
addressing sexual violence in conflict.[88]
In this context, a cross-regional "Women Connect across Conflicts"
programme[89],
concluded in June 2013, aimed to enhance the capacity of women’s human
rights advocates to effectively and meaningfully engage, influence, and mobilise
to dialogue on security and peace issues nationally and regionally, in South
Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan), the Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia) and Central Asia / Fergana Valley (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan). 
In its document Gender in Humanitarian Aid:
Different Needs, Adapted Assistance[90],
published in 2013, the European Commission outlined its approach to gender
equality in humanitarian aid. It aims to improve the quality and effectiveness of
humanitarian assistance by promoting actions that effectively respond to the
specific needs of women, girls, boys and men. In order to support policy
implementation and coherence, a gender-age marker was designed to foster and
track gender- and age- sensitive programming and will be applied to all funded
actions in 2014.
The 3rd
Ministerial Conference on Strengthening the Role of Women in Society in the
Euro-Mediterranean region was successfully concluded on 12 September 2013
with the adoption of a Ministerial Declaration. In addition to re-affirming
commitments and obligations set at the Istanbul (2006) and Marrakesh (2009) conferences,
the ministers have committed themselves to developing measures to achieve
specific objectives in the following main areas: equal participation of women
and men in political, economic and social areas of life; fighting against all
forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls; changing
attitudes towards women and challenging stereotypes. The ministers also agreed
on a dedicated follow-up mechanism, which will involve regular stock-taking on
progress made in implementing the measures.
The 2013 European
Neighbourhood Policy Package[91],
adopted in March, focused on progress made in implementing the partner
countries’ reform agenda, as well as on the EU’s commitment to provide stronger
political, financial, and economic support. The Communication states that there
is much room for improvement in terms of gender equality in the East.
Furthermore, cultural and social discrimination against women remains a problem
in the South. In order to enhance sustainable democracy, it is crucial that the
transition process and constitutional reform do not hinder progress on gender equality
in the law and in society.
In its annual Enlargement
Package, published in October 2013[92],
the European Commission indicates that more needs to be done to improve the
position of women and ensure gender equality in the pre-accession countries.
In terms of significant developments in the enlargement process, Croatia became a Memb  er State on 1 July 2013, having fulfilled the accession requirements. In
the context of accession negotiations with Montenegro, so-called screening
meetings (explanation of the EU acquis to the candidate country) on
chapter 19 "Social policy and employment", which covers inter
alia gender equality, were carried out in spring 2013. In the context of
accession negotiations on chapter 23 on "Judiciary and Fundamental
rights", Montenegro adopted an action plan that includes measures in the
area of gender equality.

6. Horizontal issues

Institutional
mechanisms within Member States
Achieving gender
equality requires strong governance and institutional mechanisms, including effective
government structures, independent bodies for promoting equal treatment of
women and men in accordance with EU law[93],
adequate resources, gender mainstreaming tools and the dissemination of
sex-disaggregated data and information. 
In 2013, the
European Institute for Gender Equality published an overview of the
institutional mechanisms for promoting gender equality in the EU and their
evolution since 2006. This review highlights some progress but also some
challenges. The resources allocated to gender equality (in terms of number
of employees in national administrations) have decreased in 11 Member States, increased
in another 11s and remained the same in three. Trends are therefore uneven. They
are also ambivalent as regards gender mainstreaming: 15 Member States have made
progress in developing gender mainstreaming, but the use of tools such as
gender impact assessment and gender budgeting is still not very common. When it
comes to independent bodies for promoting of equal treatment for women and men,
the report documents a tendency to merge the gender equality body with bodies
dealing with discrimination on other grounds (age, disability, religion or
belief, sexual orientation, ethnic origin). In this context, the Council
(EPSCO) adopted Conclusions on the "Effectiveness of institutional
mechanisms for the advancement of women and gender equality" and called
to maintain strong institutional mechanisms for promoting gender equality.
The European
Research Area engages equally the Member States and research
institutions in promoting gender equality through institutional
changes. The aim is to remove
barriers that hinder women’s careers and limit the integration of the gender
dimension in research content. The Commission has
established strong collaboration with funding agencies and research
organisations, including universities, making significant steps ahead on their
gender equality agenda in particular through Gender Equality Plans. However, the
first ERA Progress report published in September 2013 revealed great
disparities among Member States and clearly recommended Member States to implement comprehensive strategies
of institutional change. An expert report on “Structural change in research
institutions: enhancing excellence, gender equality and efficiency in research
and innovation” identifies the remaining problems and the structural changes
that are necessary to advance gender equality in research and innovation.[94]
EU financial
instruments supporting equality between women and men
The EU’s new Multi-Annual
Financial Framework (MFF) covering 2014-20, which was adopted in 2013, reflects
the EU’s commitment to promoting equality between
women and men. A part of the new programme, Rights, Equality and Citizenship
Programme[95],
on which a political agreement was reached at the end of 2013, will be
dedicated to equality between women and men. This Programme is the successor of
three 2007-2013 programmes: the PROGRESS Programme (Gender Equality and
Anti-discrimination strands), the Daphne Programme and the Fundamental Rights
and Citizenship Programme. 
The objectives of
the REC Programme include the following:
·     
to promote equality between women and men and to
advance gender mainstreaming;
·     
 to prevent and combat
all forms of violence against children, young people and women, as well as
violence against other groups at risk, in particular groups at risk of violence
in close relationships, and to protect victims of such violence.
The programme aims
to achieve these objectives through financing the following types of actions:
analytical activities; training activities; mutual learning, cooperation, awareness-raising and dissemination
activities; and support to key stakeholders. Throughout
the implementation of the REC Programme, appropriate and fair distribution of
funds between different areas shall be ensured. This distribution will take
into account the level of funding allocated to different policy areas under the
2007‑2013 programmes (ex-PROGRESS, ex-DAPHNE III, ex- Fundamental Rights and
Citizenship Programme).
The European
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) will support Member States in promoting gender equality. They will do this by providing funding for
‘equality between men and women in all areas, including in access to
employment, career progression, reconciliation of work and private life and
promotion of equal pay for equal work’, and through projects that are not under
the specific gender investment priority but contribute to gender equality in a
more transversal way.
Moreover, the gender perspective will be included throughout the preparation and implementation
phases of all programmes, including the monitoring, reporting and evaluation
phase. In addition, under the new programming period, a ‘dual approach’ that
includes gender mainstreaming and the programming of specific actions will be
mandatory in all European Social Fund (ESF)[96] programmes.
In Horizon 2020[97] - the new European Framework Programmes
(FP) for Research and Innovation adopted in 2013 - gender will be addressed as a cross-cutting issue
in order to correct
deficiencies and promote gender equality along three objectives: 
•             Improving female
scientists´ careers, 
•             Ensuring gender
balance in decision making and
•             Integrating
gender analysis in research content and programme[98].
Gender equality
should also be taken into account in the management of all EU financial
instruments. In a Joint Declaration, the European Parliament, the Council and
the Commission agreed that the annual budgetary procedures applied for the
2014-20 MFF will integrate, where appropriate, gender-responsive elements, and take
into account the ways in which the EU’s overall financial framework contributes
to more gender equality (and ensures gender mainstreaming).’[99]
Raising
awareness of remaining gender gaps
The European
Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) released a gender equality index on 13
June 2013[100].
This new tool is the first attempt to catch existing inequalities between women
and men at EU level in one single overview. It presents the current gaps
between women and men in one single index composed of six core areas (work,
money, knowledge, time, power, health) and two satellite areas (intersecting
inequalities and violence). In addition to a country-by-country comparison this
index will make it possible to assess the evolution of gender equality over
time. EIGE plans to update the index every other year and is already working on
its improvement in preparation for the next edition in 2015. 
Statistical
annex
Table 1: Employment rate of population aged
20-64 (as %) – men and women – in 2012, 2008 and 2013Q3, and the corresponding
gender gap (in percentage points)
   || Women || Men || Gender Gap 
 2002 || 2008 || 2013Q3 || 2002 || 2008 || 2013Q3 || 2002 || 2008 || 2013Q3 
 EU28 || 58.0 || 62.7 || 62.8 || 75.4 || 77.9 || 74.8 || 17.4 || 15.2 || 12.0 
 BE || 55.8 || 61.3 || 63.1 || 74.0 || 74.7 || 72.2 || 18.2 || 13.4 || 9.1 
 BG || 52.3 || 65.4 || 62.2 || 59.4 || 76.1 || 68.3 || 7.1 || 10.7 || 6.1 
 CZ || 62.3 || 62.5 || 63.9 || 80.9 || 82.0 || 81.5 || 18.6 || 19.5 || 17.6 
 DK || 73.1 || 75.5 || 73.4 || 82.3 || 83.9 || 78.7 || 9.2 || 8.4 || 5.3 
 DE || 61.9 || 67.8 || 72.7 || 75.6 || 80.1 || 82.2 || 13.7 || 12.3 || 9.5 
 EE || 64.5 || 72.8 || 69.6 || 74.5 || 81.7 || 78.0 || 10.0 || 8.9 || 8.4 
 IE || 59.6 || 64.1 || 60.5 || 81.8 || 80.4 || 71.5 || 22.2 || 16.3 || 11.0 
 EL || 46.6 || 52.5 || 43.5 || 78.7 || 80.4 || 63.4 || 32.1 || 27.9 || 19.9 
 ES || 47.6 || 58.3 || 53.3 || 77.7 || 78.1 || 63.8 || 30.1 || 19.8 || 10.5 
 FR || 61.9 || 65.5 || 65.9 || 75.6 || 75.5 || 74.1 || 13.7 || 10.0 || 8.2 
 HR || 50.9 || 55.2 || 50.8 || 66.3 || 70.7 || 59.5 || 15.4 || 15.5 || 8.7 
 IT || 44.9 || 50.6 || 49.5 || 74.0 || 75.4 || 70.1 || 29.1 || 24.8 || 20.6 
 CY || 64.7 || 68.2 || 61.7 || 86.2 || 85.2 || 72.7 || 21.5 || 17.0 || 11.0 
 LV || 63.0 || 72.1 || 68.3 || 71.4 || 79.7 || 72.9 || 8.4 || 7.6 || 4.6 
 LT || 63.9 || 68.8 || 68.8 || 70.8 || 75.5 || 72.5 || 6.9 || 6.7 || 3.7 
 LU || 55.4 || 60.1 || 63.7 || 80.8 || 77.2 || 79.1 || 25.4 || 17.1 || 15.4 
 HU || 54.3 || 55.1 || 57.2 || 69.0 || 69.0 || 71.0 || 14.7 || 13.9 || 13.8 
 MT || 34.4 || 39.4 || 50.4 || 81.0 || 78.2 || 79.5 || 46.6 || 38.8 || 29.1 
 NL || 66.8 || 72.2 || 71.5 || 84.6 || 85.5 || 81.3 || 17.8 || 13.3 || 9.8 
 AT || 64.1 || 68.6 || 71.3 || 79.6 || 81.7 || 81.3 || 15.5 || 13.1 || 10.0 
 PL || 51.4 || 57.3 || 58.2 || 63.6 || 73.0 || 73.0 || 12.2 || 15.7 || 14.8 
 PT || 65.7 || 67.0 || 62.7 || 81.8 || 79.4 || 69.4 || 16.1 || 12.4 || 6.7 
 RO || 56.8 || 57.3 || 57.3 || 70.1 || 71.6 || 73.1 || 13.3 || 14.3 || 15.8 
 SI || 63.8 || 68.5 || 63.6 || 74.1 || 77.4 || 72.5 || 10.3 || 8.9 || 8.9 
 SK || 57.2 || 60.3 || 58.0 || 70.2 || 77.4 || 72.3 || 13.0 || 17.1 || 14.3 
 FI || 70.4 || 73.1 || 72.2 || 74.8 || 78.4 || 76.0 || 4.4 || 5.3 || 3.8 
 SE || 76.6 || 77.2 || 77.9 || 80.3 || 83.5 || 83.4 || 3.7 || 6.3 || 5.5 
 UK || 67.5 || 68.8 || 69.3 || 81.6 || 81.8 || 81.0 || 14.1 || 13.0 || 11.7 
Source: LFS, Eurostat
Table 2: employment rate in full-time equivalent of population aged
20-64 (as %) – men and women – in 2012, 2008 and 2013Q3, and the corresponding
gender gap (in percentage points)
   || Women || Men || Gender Gap 
   || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 
 EU-27 || 50.8 || 54.3 || 53.6 || 74.5 || 76.3 || 72.4 || 23.7 || 22.0 || 18.8 
 AT || 53.3 || 55.2 || 55.6 || 78.1 || 79.9 || 78.7 || 24.8 || 24.7 || 23.1 
 BE || 46.5 || 51.5 || 51.5 || 72.7 || 73.2 || 70.9 || 26.2 || 21.7 || 19.3 
 BG || 52.5 || 64.9 || 59.5 || 59.7 || 75.9 || 65.2 || 7.2 || 11.0 || 5.7 
 CY || 61.8 || 65.0 || 60.6 || 87.1 || 85.2 || 74.1 || 25.3 || 20.2 || 13.5 
 CZ || 60.9 || 60.7 || 60.5 || 81.1 || 81.9 || 79.9 || 20.2 || 21.2 || 19.4 
 DE || 48.8 || 51.8 || 55.2 || 73.8 || 77.1 || 78.3 || 25.0 || 25.2 || 23.1 
 DK || 66.6 || 68.4 || 64.3 || 81.2 || 81.2 || 75.0 || 14.6 || 12.8 || 10.8 
 EE || 62.4 || 70.4 || 66.2 || 74.6 || 81.1 || 74.4 || 12.2 || 10.7 || 8.2 
 ES || 43.4 || 52.5 || 47.7 || 77.5 || 77.4 || 62.8 || 34.0 || 24.9 || 15.2 
 FI || 67.3 || 68.9 || 67.8 || 74.6 || 76.6 || 73.4 || 7.2 || 7.6 || 5.6 
 FR || 55.3 || 58.8 || 58.2 || 75.0 || 74.1 || 72.1 || 19.7 || 15.3 || 13.9 
 GR || 45.3 || 50.2 || 42.7 || 79.5 || 80.7 || 64.2 || 34.2 || 30.5 || 21.5 
 HR || 48.9 || 53.1 || 48.5 || 65.4 || 70.0 || 59.6 || 16.5 || 16.8 || 11.1 
 HU || 53.6 || 54.0 || 54.8 || 69.9 || 68.6 || 67.5 || 16.3 || 14.6 || 12.8 
 IE || 51.4 || 55.0 || 50.0 || 80.7 || 79.2 || 64.5 || 29.3 || 24.2 || 14.5 
 IT || 41.7 || 44.8 || 44.0 || 73.2 || 74.1 || 69.7 || 31.4 || 29.3 || 25.6 
 LT || 63.2 || 67.8 || 66.2 || 71.7 || 75.4 || 68.5 || 8.5 || 7.6 || 2.3 
 LU || 48.5 || 50.1 || 55.1 || 81.0 || 76.6 || 77.3 || 32.5 || 26.5 || 22.2 
 LV || 62.7 || 71.9 || 64.7 || 70.9 || 80.1 || 69.2 || 8.2 || 8.2 || 4.4 
 MT || 32.4 || 35.5 || 42.5 || 81.5 || 78.8 || 78.5 || 49.1 || 43.2 || 36.0 
 NL || 44.4 || 48.7 || 48.1 || 79.6 || 79.9 || 76.1 || 35.2 || 31.2 || 28.0 
 PL || 50.3 || 55.4 || 55.8 || 63.8 || 73.3 || 72.4 || 13.5 || 17.9 || 16.6 
 PT || 62.9 || 63.4 || 58.8 || 82.9 || 79.7 || 67.8 || 19.9 || 16.3 || 9.0 
 RO || 57.1 || 56.0 || 54.8 || 71.1 || 70.9 || 70.4 || 14.0 || 14.9 || 15.6 
 SE || 69.4 || 68.7 || 69.1 || 79.1 || 81.1 || 79.5 || 9.7 || 12.4 || 10.4 
 SI || 63.2 || 66.1 || 61.6 || 74.1 || 76.8 || 71.0 || 11.0 || 10.7 || 9.4 
 SK || 56.4 || 59.4 || 56.0 || 69.5 || 77.2 || 71.9 || 13.1 || 17.7 || 15.9 
 UK || 53.5 || 55.5 || 54.8 || 79.0 || 78.9 || 76.2 || 25.4 || 23.4 || 21.4 
Source: LFS, Eurostat
Figure 9 - NEET rate (%) by type and gender; youth aged
15-29, by country, 2012 
Source: Eurostat, LFS
Table 3: Gender pay gap in unadjusted form in % 
   || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
 EU28 ||   || 17.3 || 17.2 || 16.2 || 16.3 || 16.4 
 BE || 10.1 || 10.2 || 10.1 || 10.2 || 10.2 || 10.0 
 BG || 12.1 || 12.3 || 13.3 || 13.0 || 13.0 || 14.7 
 CZ || 23.6 || 26.2 || 25.9 || 21.6 || 22.6 || 22.0 
 DK || 17.7 || 17.1 || 16.8 || 15.9 || 16.3 || 14.9 
 DE || 22.8 || 22.8 || 22.6 || 22.3 || 22.2 || 22.4 
 EE || 30.9 || 27.6 || 26.6 || 27.7 || 27.3 || 30.0 
 IE || 17.3 || 12.6 || 12.6 || 13.9 || 11.7 || 14.4 
 EL || 21.5 || 22 ||   || 15 ||   ||   
 ES || 18.1 || 16.1 || 16.7 || 16.2 || 17.8 || 17.8 
 FR || 17.3 || 16.9 || 15.2 || 15.6 || 15 || 14.8 
 HR ||   ||   ||   || 15.5 || 17.6 || 18.0 
 IT || 5.1 || 4.9 || 5.5 || 5.3 || 5.8 || 6.7 
 CY || 22.0 || 19.5 || 17.8 || 16.8 || 16.4 || 16.2 
 LV || 13.6 || 11.8 || 13.1 || 15.5 || 13.6 || 13.8 
 LT || 22.6 || 21.6 || 15.3 || 14.6 || 11.9 || 12.6 
 LU || 10.2 || 9.7 || 9.2 || 8.7 || 8.7 || 8.6 
 HU || 16.3 || 17.5 || 17.1 || 17.6 || 18.0 || 20.1 
 MT || 7.8 || 9.2 || 7.7 || 7.2 || 6.2 || 6.1 
 NL || 19.3 || 18.9 || 18.5 || 17.8 || 17.9 || 16.9 
 AT || 25.5 || 25.1 || 24.3 || 24.0 || 23.7 || 23.4 
 PL || 14.9 || 11.4 || 8.0 || 4.5 || 5.5 || 6.4 
 PT || 8.5 || 9.2 || 10.0 || 12.8 || 12.5 || 15.7 
 RO || 12.5 || 8.5 || 7.4 || 8.8 || 11 || 9.7 
 SI || 5.0 || 4.1 || -0.9 || 0.9 || 2.3 || 2.5 
 SK || 23.6 || 20.9 || 21.9 || 19.6 || 20.5 || 21.5 
 FI || 20.2 || 20.5 || 20.8 || 20.3 || 19.6 || 19.4 
 SE || 17.8 || 16.9 || 15.7 || 15.4 || 15.8 || 15.9 
 UK || 20.8 || 21.4 || 20.6 || 19.5 || 20.1 || 19.1 
Source: Structure of earnings survey, Eurostat, EU28 (including Croatia as of 2011)
Table 4: Percentage distribution of couples by share of female
earnings, 2011 (income for 2010) 
Five categories are distinguished: 
-         
One-earner couples where a woman does not work;
-         
Dual-earner couples where a woman contributes less
than 45% of the combined earnings;
-         
Dual-earner couples where both partners have
roughly similar earnings (i.e. a woman earns between 45% and 55% of the
combined earnings);
-         
Dual-earner couples where a woman contributes
more than 55% of the combined earnings;
-         
One-earner couples where a man does not work.
 Country || Woman has no earnings || Woman earns less than man || Roughly equal earnings* || Woman earns more than man || Woman is the only earner 
 AT || 22.0 || 54.3 || 13.6 || 7.2 || 2.9 
 BE || 17.7 || 46.3 || 20.9 || 9.2 || 5.9 
 BG || 16.7 || 44.2 || 17.8 || 14.6 || 6.8 
 CH || 16.6 || 61.8 || 12.8 || 7.0 || 1.9 
 CY || 21.5 || 48.8 || 17.8 || 9.6 || 2.3 
 CZ || 24.0 || 47.7 || 19.0 || 7.3 || 2.1 
 DE || 20.4 || 53.2 || 11.8 || 9.3 || 5.3 
 DK || 6.7 || 44.4 || 28.5 || 14.6 || 5.9 
 EE || 19.4 || 45.1 || 16.7 || 12.9 || 5.9 
 EL || 37.8 || 31.2 || 16.6 || 7.6 || 6.9 
 ES || 32.4 || 33.5 || 15.4 || 9.5 || 9.2 
 FI || 10.5 || 50.5 || 18.4 || 15.5 || 5.2 
 FR || 12.8 || 50.1 || 20.5 || 13.5 || 3.2 
 HR || 28.9 || 31.4 || 18.2 || 12.1 || 9.5 
 HU || 24.9 || 37.0 || 21.2 || 13.3 || 3.6 
 IS || 6.6 || 56.3 || 19.6 || 15.2 || 2.3 
 IT || 38.4 || 37.5 || 13.7 || 6.8 || 3.6 
 LT || 19.6 || 32.4 || 12.3 || 26.1 || 9.7 
 LU || 25.1 || 46.9 || 15.8 || 8.9 || 3.4 
 LV || 18.1 || 38.2 || 12.5 || 22.0 || 9.3 
 MT || 49.4 || 29.8 || 11.2 || 7.9 || 1.8 
 NL || 15.3 || 59.4 || 13.9 || 7.8 || 3.7 
 NO || 6.1 || 60.7 || 20.1 || 10.4 || 2.7 
 PL || 25.1 || 39.1 || 16.0 || 15.4 || 4.4 
 PT || 21.8 || 41.0 || 18.6 || 11.6 || 7.0 
 RO || 29.8 || 33.8 || 27.1 || 5.9 || 3.4 
 SE || 7.1 || 53.2 || 22.8 || 13.1 || 3.9 
 SI || 9.0 || 43.8 || 22.3 || 20.3 || 4.7 
 SK || 16.8 || 46.1 || 22.5 || 10.4 || 4.2 
 UK || 18.4 || 48.5 || 16.6 || 10.5 || 6.0 
Note: * It is considered
that a woman has roughly equal earnings with her partner if her share
constitutes 45-55% of the combined earnings. The calculations are based on the
annual employee cash or near cash income (PY010g).  Sample size for each groups
is reported in Table 1B in Annex 1.
Source: EU-SILC 2011, own calculations
Table 5 People at risk of poverty or social
exclusion (in % of the total population), men and women
   || Women || Men 
   || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
 EU28 ||   ||   || 24.8 || 25.4 || 25.8 ||   ||   || 22.6 || 23.2 || 23.8 
 BE || 22.4 || 21.8 || 21.7 || 21.5 || 22.2 || 19.1 || 18.5 || 20.0 || 20.4 || 21.0 
 BG || 46.4 || 48.1 || 50.9 || 50.5 || 50.9 || 43.0 || 44.1 || 47.3 || 47.7 || 47.6 
 CZ || 17.2 || 15.7 || 16.0 || 16.9 || 16.9 || 13.3 || 12.3 || 12.7 || 13.7 || 13.7 
 DK || 17.0 || 18.2 || 19.0 || 19.5 || 18.9 || 15.7 || 17.0 || 17.7 || 18.2 || 19.1 
 DE || 21.6 || 21.2 || 20.9 || 21.3 || 21.1 || 18.5 || 18.8 || 18.6 || 18.5 || 18.1 
 EE || 24.3 || 25.5 || 22.0 || 22.9 || 24.4 || 18.9 || 21.1 || 21.5 || 23.2 || 22.3 
 IE || 24.7 || 26.4 || 28.1 || 29.8 ||   || 22.7 || 25.0 || 26.5 || 29.0 ||   
 EL || 29.8 || 29.0 || 29.3 || 32.3 || 35.2 || 26.3 || 26.1 || 26.0 || 29.6 || 33.9 
 ES || 25.7 || 25.4 || 27.5 || 28.0 || 28.1 || 23.4 || 23.5 || 26.0 || 27.3 || 28.4 
 FR || 19.7 || 19.7 || 19.9 || 19.9 || 19.6 || 17.3 || 17.1 || 18.4 || 18.6 || 18.4 
 HR ||   ||   || 31.6 || 33.1 || 33.3 ||   ||   || 29.8 || 31.5 || 31.2 
 IT || 27.2 || 26.4 || 26.3 || 29.9 || 31.7 || 23.2 || 22.8 || 22.6 || 26.4 || 28.0 
 CY || 25.9 || 26.0 || 26.3 || 26.4 || 29.0 || 20.5 || 20.9 || 22.8 || 22.8 || 25.1 
 LV || 36.6 || 39.4 || 38.6 || 40.3 || 36.8 || 31.4 || 36.0 || 37.6 || 39.9 || 35.5 
 LT || 29.7 || 31.4 || 33.8 || 33.3 || 33.4 || 25.3 || 27.3 || 32.9 || 33.0 || 31.4 
 LU || 16.7 || 19.6 || 17.7 || 18.0 || 19.4 || 14.2 || 16.0 || 16.5 || 15.6 || 17.3 
 HU || 29.0 || 30.0 || 30.3 || 31.4 || 33.0 || 27.3 || 29.1 || 29.4 || 30.5 || 31.8 
 MT || 21.0 || 21.4 || 21.2 || 22.2 || 23.2 || 18.2 || 19.0 || 19.4 || 20.6 || 21.2 
 NL || 15.5 || 15.9 || 16.0 || 16.6 || 16.3 || 14.3 || 14.3 || 14.1 || 14.9 || 13.6 
 AT || 20.3 || 18.9 || 18.4 || 18.5 || 19.6 || 16.8 || 15.0 || 14.7 || 15.2 || 17.3 
 PL || 31.2 || 28.6 || 28.5 || 27.7 || 27.3 || 29.9 || 27.0 || 27.0 || 26.6 || 26.1 
 PT || 26.8 || 25.8 || 25.8 || 25.1 || 25.9 || 25.0 || 24.0 || 24.8 || 23.8 || 24.6 
 RO || 45.3 || 44.2 || 42.1 || 41.1 || 42.6 || 43.0 || 41.9 || 40.8 || 39.5 || 40.7 
 SI || 20.3 || 19.1 || 20.1 || 21.1 || 20.8 || 16.6 || 15.1 || 16.5 || 17.4 || 18.3 
 SK || 22.0 || 21.1 || 21.6 || 21.7 || 21.3 || 18.9 || 18.0 || 19.6 || 19.5 || 19.7 
 FI || 18.9 || 17.9 || 17.7 || 18.5 || 17.4 || 15.9 || 15.8 || 16.0 || 17.3 || 17.0 
 SE || 16.1 || 17.5 || 16.6 || 18.0 || 19.8 || 13.7 || 14.4 || 13.4 || 14.2 || 16.6 
 UK || 24.7 || 22.8 || 24.2 || 24.1 || 24.8 || 21.7 || 21.1 || 22.1 || 21.4 || 23.4 
Source: EU-SILC, Eurostat
Table  6
: Early leavers from education and
training: % of the population aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary education
and not in further education or training, by sex
   || Women || Men || Gender Gap 
   || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 
 EU28 || 14.9 || 12.7 || 10.9 || 19 || 16.7 || 14.4 || 4.1 || 4 || 3.5 
 BE || 11 || 10.6 || 9.5 || 17.1 || 13.4 || 14.4 || 6.1 || 2.8 || 4.9 
 BG || 19.4 || 15.5 || 13 || 22 || 14.1 || 12.1 || 2.6 || -1.4 || -0.9 
 CZ || 5.9 || 5.4 || 4.9 || 5.4 || 5.8 || 6.1 || -0.5 || 0.4 || 1.2 
 DK || 8.2 || 10 || 7.4 || 9.9 || 15 || 10.8 || 1.7 || 5 || 3.4 
 DE || 12.5 || 11.2 || 9.9 || 12.5 || 12.4 || 11.3 || 0 || 1.2 || 1.4 
 EE || 9.4 || 8.2 || 7.1 || 16.9 || 19.8 || 14 || 7.5 || 11.6 || 6.9 
 IE || 11.2 || 8 || 8.2 || 18 || 14.5 || 11.2 || 6.8 || 6.5 || 3 
 EL || 12.5 || 10.9 || 9.1 || 20.6 || 18.5 || 13.7 || 8.1 || 7.6 || 4.6 
 ES || 24.2 || 25.7 || 20.8 || 36.8 || 38 || 28.8 || 12.6 || 12.3 || 8 
 FR || 11.9 || 9.5 || 9.8 || 14.9 || 13.5 || 13.4 || 3 || 4 || 3.6 
 HR || 6.9 || 3.3 || 3.6 || 9.2 || 4.1 || 4.6 || 2.3 || 0.8 || 1 
 IT || 20.5 || 16.7 || 14.5 || 27.8 || 22.6 || 20.5 || 7.3 || 5.9 || 6 
 CY || 11 || 9.5 || 7 || 22.3 || 19 || 16.5 || 11.3 || 9.5 || 9.5 
 LV || 11 || 10.7 || 6.3 || 22.7 || 20.2 || 14.7 || 11.7 || 9.5 || 8.4 
 LT || 11.4 || 4.7 || 4.6 || 15.4 || 10 || 8.1 || 4 || 5.3 || 3.5 
 LU || 19.6 || 10.9 || 5.5 || 14.4 || 15.8 || 10.7 || -5.2 || 4.9 || 5.2 
 HU || 11.9 || 10.9 || 10.7 || 12.5 || 12.5 || 12.2 || 0.6 || 1.6 || 1.5 
 MT || 49.7 || 25.7 || 17.6 || 56.5 || 32.6 || 27.5 || 6.8 || 6.9 || 9.9 
 NL || 13.8 || 8.8 || 7.3 || 16.8 || 14 || 10.2 || 3 || 5.2 || 2.9 
 AT || 10.2 || 9.8 || 7.3 || 8.7 || 10.4 || 7.9 || -1.5 || 0.6 || 0.6 
 PL || 5.6 || 3.9 || 3.5 || 8.9 || 6.1 || 7.8 || 3.3 || 2.2 || 4.3 
 PT || 37.2 || 28.6 || 14.3 || 52.6 || 41.9 || 27.1 || 15.4 || 13.3 || 12.8 
 RO || 22.1 || 16 || 16.7 || 23.9 || 15.9 || 18 || 1.8 || -0.1 || 1.3 
 SI || 3.2 || 2.6 || 3.2 || 6.8 || 7.2 || 5.4 || 3.6 || 4.6 || 2.2 
 SK || 5.8 || 4.9 || 4.6 || 7.6 || 7.1 || 6 || 1.8 || 2.2 || 1.4 
 FI || 7.6 || 7.7 || 8.1 || 11.8 || 12.1 || 9.8 || 4.2 || 4.4 || 1.7 
 SE || 8.9 || 6.8 || 6.3 || 11 || 9 || 8.5 || 2.1 || 2.2 || 2.2 
 UK || 17.1 || 15.6 || 12.4 || 18.1 || 18.3 || 14.7 || 1 || 2.7 || 2.3 
Source: LFS, Eurostat
Table 7: Tertiary educational attainment by
sex, age group 30-34
   || Women || Men || Gender Gap 
   || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 || 2002 || 2008 || 2012 
 EU28 || 24.4 || 34.2 || 39.9 || 22.5 || 27.8 || 31.5 || -1.9 || -6.4 || -8.4 
 BE || 39 || 48.6 || 50.7 || 31.5 || 37.4 || 37.1 || -7.5 || -11.2 || -13.6 
 BG || 28.8 || 34.5 || 33.6 || 17.7 || 19.7 || 20.5 || -11.1 || -14.8 || -13.1 
 CZ || 11.4 || 15.9 || 29.1 || 13.7 || 14.8 || 22.4 || 2.3 || -1.1 || -6.7 
 DK || 39.4 || 41.8 || 52.6 || 28.7 || 36.8 || 33.7 || -10.7 || -5 || -18.9 
 DE || 21.4 || 27 || 32.9 || 26.8 || 28.3 || 31 || 5.4 || 1.3 || -1.9 
 EE || 33.6 || 39.6 || 50.4 || 22.5 || 28.6 || 28.1 || -11.1 || -11 || -22.3 
 IE || 33 || 52.5 || 57.9 || 30.9 || 39.8 || 44 || -2.1 || -12.7 || -13.9 
 EL || 24.8 || 27.9 || 34.2 || 21.9 || 23.4 || 27.6 || -2.9 || -4.5 || -6.6 
 ES || 35.8 || 44.7 || 45.3 || 31 || 35.3 || 35 || -4.8 || -9.4 || -10.3 
 FR || 34 || 45.2 || 48.6 || 29 || 37.1 || 38.5 || -5 || -8.1 || -10.1 
 HR || 17.6 || 21.4 || 28.8 || 14.8 || 15.8 || 19.4 || -2.8 || -5.6 || -9.4 
 IT || 14.2 || 23.5 || 26.3 || 12 || 14.9 || 17.2 || -2.2 || -8.6 || -9.1 
 CY || 36.1 || 52.9 || 55.5 || 35.9 || 41.3 || 43.6 || -0.2 || -11.6 || -11.9 
 LV || 22.1 || 34.9 || 48.1 || 12.4 || 19.3 || 26.2 || -9.7 || -15.6 || -21.9 
 LT || 29.6 || 48.6 || 56.7 || 17 || 31 || 40.3 || -12.6 || -17.6 || -16.4 
 LU || 21.5 || 42.7 || 48.9 || 25.6 || 36.9 || 50.4 || 4.1 || -5.8 || 1.5 
 HU || 16.1 || 26.3 || 35.5 || 12.8 || 18.6 || 24.7 || -3.3 || -7.7 || -10.8 
 MT || 8.2 || 21.5 || 24 || 10.3 || 20.7 || 20.7 || 2.1 || -0.8 || -3.3 
 NL || 29.3 || 41.8 || 44.6 || 27.8 || 38.5 || 39.8 || -1.5 || -3.3 || -4.8 
 AT ||   || 22.4 || 26.6 ||   || 21.9 || 26 ||   || -0.5 || -0.6 
 PL || 16.7 || 35 || 46.5 || 12.2 || 24.4 || 31.9 || -4.5 || -10.6 || -14.6 
 PT || 16.9 || 26.4 || 30.1 || 9.1 || 17 || 24.3 || -7.8 || -9.4 || -5.8 
 RO || 9 || 17.1 || 23.2 || 9.1 || 14.9 || 20.5 || 0.1 || -2.2 || -2.7 
 SI || 29.1 || 38.4 || 49.6 || 12.9 || 24.3 || 29.5 || -16.2 || -14.1 || -20.1 
 SK || 11.2 || 17.6 || 28.2 || 9.7 || 14 || 19.4 || -1.5 || -3.6 || -8.8 
 FI || 49.3 || 56.6 || 55.4 || 33.4 || 35 || 36.7 || -15.9 || -21.6 || -18.7 
 SE || 31.2 || 47.7 || 53.7 || 25.5 || 36.6 || 42.4 || -5.7 || -11.1 || -11.3 
 UK || 30.7 || 41 || 50.2 || 32.4 || 38.3 || 44 || 1.7 || -2.7 || -6.2 
Source: LFS, Eurostat
Table 8: Formal childcare by age group - % over
the population of each age group
   || Below 3 years old || From 3 years to minimum compulsory age 
   || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 
 EU28 ||   ||   ||   || 28 || 30 ||   ||   ||   || 84 || 83 
 BE || 44 || 43 || 33 || 36 || 39 || 100 || 99 || 99 || 99 || 98 
 BG || 8 || 11 || 8 || 7 || 7 || 59 || 67 || 55 || 54 || 60 
 CZ || 2 || 1 || 3 || 2 || 5 || 69 || 69 || 64 || 71 || 74 
 DK || 70 || 73 || 73 || 78 || 74 || 97 || 96 || 84 || 90 || 98 
 DE || 17 || 19 || 19 || 20 || 24 || 86 || 90 || 88 || 92 || 90 
 EE || 15 || 17 || 25 || 21 || 19 || 86 || 88 || 93 || 92 || 92 
 IE || 24 || 24 || 20 || 29 || 21 || 86 || 85 || 87 || 90 || 82 
 EL || 10 || 12 || 11 || 8 || 19 || 65 || 55 || 58 || 69 || 75 
 ES || 40 || 38 || 36 || 38 || 39 || 92 || 95 || 94 || 95 || 86 
 FR || 27 || 40 || 41 || 43 || 44 || 93 || 96 || 95 || 94 || 95 
 HR ||   ||   ||   || 8 || 15 ||   ||   ||   || 42 || 51 
 IT || 25 || 28 || 25 || 22 || 26 || 90 || 91 || 93 || 87 || 95 
 CY || 18 || 26 || 22 || 24 || 23 || 80 || 78 || 81 || 81 || 73 
 LV || 16 || 14 || 15 || 16 || 15 || 52 || 70 || 74 || 64 || 73 
 LT || 20 || 9 || 10 || 13 || 7 || 59 || 62 || 55 || 67 || 65 
 LU || 25 || 26 || 34 || 36 || 44 || 66 || 77 || 72 || 79 || 73 
 HU || 8 || 7 || 7 || 9 || 8 || 80 || 75 || 74 || 79 || 75 
 MT || 13 || 15 || 8 || 11 || 11 || 65 || 75 || 77 || 74 || 73 
 NL || 43 || 47 || 49 || 50 || 52 || 91 || 89 || 87 || 91 || 89 
 AT || 8 || 6 || 9 || 9 || 14 || 70 || 71 || 79 || 84 || 85 
 PL || 2 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 3 || 31 || 35 || 39 || 42 || 43 
 PT || 27 || 33 || 36 || 37 || 35 || 75 || 78 || 81 || 79 || 81 
 RO || 6 || 8 || 5 || 7 || 2 || 57 || 54 || 63 || 66 || 41 
 SI || 30 || 31 || 31 || 37 || 37 || 84 || 85 || 89 || 91 || 92 
 SK || 2 ||   || 3 || 3 || 4 || 75 || 60 || 76 || 72 || 75 
 FI || 26 || 26 || 27 || 28 || 26 || 76 || 78 || 77 || 77 || 77 
 SE || 47 || 49 || 63 || 51 || 51 || 91 || 95 || 94 || 94 || 95 
 UK || 38 || 35 || 35 || 35 || 35 || 84 || 87 || 91 || 89 || 93 
Source: EU-SILC, Eurostat
Table 9:
Proportion of women in political and economic decision-making
   || Senior Ministers || National parliaments (Single/Lower House) || Board members of the largest publicly listed companies ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || 2003  || 2010  || 2013 || 2003  || 2010  || 2013 || 2003  || 2010  || 2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 EU-28 || 24 || 26 || 27 || 22 || 24 || 27 || 9 || 12 || 18 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 AT || 27 || 43 || 43 || 34 || 28 || 33 || 6 || 9 || 13 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 BE || 36 || 33 || 38 || 36 || 40 || 40 || 6 || 10 || 17 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 BG || 19 || 17 || 39 || 26 || 22 || 25 || 11 || 11 || 17 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 CY || 9 || 17 || 8 || 11 || 13 || 14 || 6 || 4 || 7 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 CZ || : || 0 || 7 || : || 22 || 20 || : || 12 || 11 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 DE || 46 || 38 || 33 || 32 || 33 || 36 || 10 || 13 || 21 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 DK || 28 || 47 || 45 || 38 || 38 || 38 || 13 || 18 || 23 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 EE || 9 || 8 || 8 || 17 || 23 || 18 || 15 || 7 || 7 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 EL || 6 || 17 || 5 || 9 || 17 || 21 || 8 || 6 || 8 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES || 25 || 50 || 29 || 31 || 37 || 40 || 3 || 10 || 15 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 FI || 44 || 55 || 47 || 37 || 40 || 43 || 12 || 26 || 30 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 FR || 21 || 34 || 47 || 12 || 19 || 26 || 5 || 12 || 30 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 HR || 17 || 16 || 19 || 23 || 25 || 24 || : || 16 || 15 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 HU || 13 || 0 || 10 || 10 || 9 || 9 || 11 || 14 || 11 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 IE || 14 || 20 || 13 || 13 || 14 || 16 || 7 || 8 || 11 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 IT || 9 || 22 || 29 || 12 || 21 || 31 || 2 || 5 || 15 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 LT || : || 13 || 7 || : || 19 || 24 || : || 13 || 16 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 LU || 37 || 27 || 27 || 20 || 20 || 23 || 4 || 4 || 11 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 LV || 25 || 21 || 23 || 20 || 19 || 25 || 17 || 23 || 29 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 MT || : || 22 || 13 || : || 9 || 14 || : || 2 || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 NL || 31 || 25 || 38 || 38 || 41 || 38 || 8 || 15 || 25 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PL || : || 25 || 20 || : || 20 || 24 || : || 12 || 12 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PT || 17 || 29 || 20 || 21 || 30 || 31 || 4 || 5 || 9 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 RO || 21 || 12 || 21 || 11 || 11 || 14 || 21 || 21 || 8 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 SE || 52 || 46 || 54 || 45 || 46 || 44 || 18 || 26 || 26 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 SI || 14 || 26 || 21 || 13 || 16 || 33 || 23 || 10 || 22 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 SK || 0 || 14 || 7 || 19 || 16 || 19 || 8 || 22 || 24 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 UK || 24 || 16 || 18 || 18 || 22 || 23 || 15 || 13 || 21 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Source:
European Commission, Database on women and men in decision-making (except 2003
figures for Croatia which were provided by the Croatian Office for Gender
Equality).
Note:
Data for senior ministers and parliaments are collected quarterly. Figures for
2003 refer to the third quarter, figures for 2010 and 2013 refer to the fourth
quarter. Data for companies refer to the situation in October of each year.
[1] COM(2010)491 final
[2]
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she-figures-2012_en.pdf
[3] http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/vaw-survey-main-results
[4] Eurostat, EU-SILC
[5] See The impact of the crisis on the
situation of women and men and on gender equality policies', report of the
European Network of Experts on Gender equality (ENEGE), prepared for the use of
the European Commission, December 2012.
[6] See Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2013, for further
analysis. 
[7] Eurofound, Women, men and working conditions in Europe, October 2013
[8] The indicator captures the extent of this
phenomenon more clearly than the rate of youth unemployment, which excludes the
large number of young people still preparing to enter the labour force. Whereas
the NEET rate is expressed as a proportion of the population in this age group,
the unemployment rate limits the comparison to those in the labour force,
possibly only a small proportion of young people.
[9] Council Recommendation of
22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee, OJ C 120, 26.4.2013, p.
1–6
[10] Eurostat; Labour Force Survey
[11] According to these targets all member states have to strive to
provide child care places for 33% of children under 3 years old and 90% for
children between 3 and mandatory school age
[12] http://europa.eu/epic/news/2013/20130704-ec-progress-report-barcelona_en.htm
[13] See results of the exchange of good practices: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/other-institutions/good-practices/review-seminars/seminars_2013/reconciliation_en.htm
[14] contributing less than 45% of the combined earnings of the couples
[15] European Network of Experts on Gender Equality, Female
employment and tax-benefit systems, to be published in 2014
[16] In 1992 the EU adopted directive 92/85/EEC on paid maternity leave,
making 14 weeks of paid maternity leave the minimum in the EU Member States. 
[17] Thévenon O. and Solaz A. (2012), "Labour Market Effects of
Parental Leave policies in OECD countries", OECD Social, Employment and
Migration Working Papers 141, OECD Publishingand Akgündüz, Y.E. and Plantenga,
J. (2013), "Labour market effects of parental leave", Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 37, 845–862.
[18] See, for instance Olivier Thévenon & Anne Solaz (2012),
"Labour Market Effects of Parental Leave Policies in OECD Countries,"
OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 141, OECD Publishing.
[19] Take-up rates for fathers refer to the percentage of the eligible
population of fathers who took parental leave. It does not refer to the
male/female ratio in the take-up (male and female take-up rates of parental
leave do not add up to 100%).
[20] “Study on the role of men in gender equality”, Study commissioned
by the European Commission, published in 2013
[21] Directive 2010/18/EU
[22] For the full set of recommendations, please see: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm.
[23]  COM(2013)800 final
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2014/ags2014_en.pdf
[24] OECD (2013), "Women entrepreneurs in the OECD". 
[25] COM(2012)795:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:EN:PDF
[26]The unadjusted GPG represents the difference between average gross
hourly earnings of male paid employees and female paid employees as a
percentage of average gross hourly earnings of male paid employees. 
[27] On the basis of an extrapolation of annual percentage growth. Linear
trends are assumed.
[28] Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities
and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation
(recast), OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23-36.
[29] COM (2013)861
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/131209_directive_en.pdf
[30] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap
[31]
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/130422_gpg_brochure_en.pdf
[32] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/equality-pays-off/index_en.htm
[33] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/equality-pays-off-forum-2013/
[34] Commission Work Programme 2014, available at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2014_annex_en.pdf.
[35] Décret n° 2012-1408 du 18
décembre 2012, relatif à la mise en œuvre des obligations des entreprises pour
l’égalité professionnelle entre les femmes et les hommes. 
[36] ENEGE (2013), The gender gap in pensions in the EU.
[37] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/other-institutions/advisory-comittee/index_en.htm
[38] COM(2012)55
[39] Strictly, income less than 60% of the income of the ‘middle
individual’ in sample surveys; the nine amenities are:  to pay rent or utility
bills; to keep their home adequately warm; to pay unexpected expenses; to eat
meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day; a week holiday away from
home; a car; a washing machine; a colour TV; or a telephone. 
[40] Communication from the Commission “Towards Social Investment for
Growth and Cohesion – including implementing the European Social Fund 2014 – 2020”, COM (2013)83
[41] “Study on the role of men in gender equality”, Study commissioned
by the European Commission, published in 2013
[42] OECD (2013), What students know and can do: student performance in
mathematics, reading and sciences – Volume I
[43] 2012/2116(INI)
[44] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/130424_final_report_role_of_men_en.pdf
[45] and are available online in addition to Estonian also with Russian
and English subtitles (www.stereotyyp.ee).
[46] A new method for analysing gender segregation, which focuses on the
twenty most common ISCO-08 2-digit occupations, was developed for the Women,
men and working conditions report of the 2010 European Working Conditions
Survey (Eurofound, 2013) and further implemented for the European Commission
(ENEGE, 2014).  This new method bypasses many of the drawbacks of single
indices. 
[47] The companies covered are the
nationally registered members (max. 50) of the primary index of the national
stock exchange in each country, i.e. the largest companies by market
capitalisation / market trades. The data cover all members of the
highest decision-making body in each company (i.e. non-executive directors,
senior executives and employee representatives, where present). This body is
usually termed the supervisory board (in case of a two-tier governance system)
or the board of directors (in a unitary system).
[48]
Strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015, European Commission,
2010: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0491:FIN:en:PDF
[49]
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:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0614:FIN:en:PDF 

[50]
Loi n° 2011-103 du 27 janvier 2011 relative à la représentation équilibrée des
femmes et des hommes au sein des conseils d'administration et de surveillance
et à l'égalité professionnelle
[51]http://femmes.gouv.fr/parite-dans-les-entreprises-un-palmares-pour-aller-vers-plus-de-transparence-et-creer-de-lemulation/
[52] COM
(2012) 614 final.
[53]
Document no. A7-0340/2013.
[54]
Council document no. 10422/1/13, of 13 June 2013.
[55] Council document no. 16437/13, of 22 November 2013.
[56] Official Journal of the European Union C
133/68, 9 May 2013.
[57] ECOS-V/039. 
[58] See http://xbma.org/forum/danish-update-new-rules-on-gender-quotas-in-boards-of-directors/
[59] See “Principles
of corporate governance in companies in the Treasury” 
http://bip.msp.gov.pl/portal/bip/101/8163/Zarzadzenie_Nr_3_Ministra_Skarbu_Panstwa_z_dnia_28_stycznia_2013_r.html
[60] Senior ministers are those with a seat on the Cabinet or Council of
Ministers. 2004 is the first point from which data are available for 27 Member
States (except Croatia).
[61] Women and Men in leadership positions in the European
Union, 2013
[62]
Although Ireland has a legislative quota in place, since it was introduced in
2012 there are not been any elections; hence it is not included in the list of
those showing progress.
[63]
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/plat1.htm
[64] Advancing gender equality in decision-making in media
organisations: Report, EIGE, 2013. http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/advancing-gender-equality-in-decision-making-in-media-organisations-report
[65]
Council of the European Union conclusions - "Advancing Women’s Roles as
Decision-makers in the Media" , Brussels, 20-21 June 2013 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/137546.pdf
[66] Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, Broadcasting Act, 2009; http://www.bai.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Broadcasting-Act-2009.pdf
[67] According to the 2010 Eurobarometer on sport and physical
activities, men in the EU play more sports than women. 43% of male respondents
say they play sport at least once a week, as opposed to 37% of women.
[68] Pfister, G. (2009). Mapping Gender equality in European sport. Olympia-Equal
opportunities via and within sport project; Loughborough University. (2010).
Gender equality and leadership in Olympic bodies: Women, leadership and the
Olympic movement 2010. Loughborough: International Olympic Committee and Centre
for Olympic Studies & Research, Loughborough University.
[69] The survey is based on face-to-face interviews with a random sample
of 42000 women in the 28 EU's Member States.
[70] The short set includes the following six items: “Unwelcome
touching, hugging or kissing”, “Sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made
you feel offended”, “Somebody indecently exposing themselves to you”, “Sexually
explicit emails or SMS messages that offended you”, “Sending or showing
sexually explicit pictures, photos or gifts that made you feel offended”, “Someone
making you watch or look at pornographic material against your wishes”. In
addition to these, the survey asked whether women had experienced any of the
following acts in a way that was unwanted and offensive: “Inappropriate
invitations to go out on dates”, “Intrusive questions about your private life
that made you feel offended”, “Intrusive comments about your physical
appearance that made you feel offended”, “Inappropriate staring or leering that
made you feel intimidated”, “Inappropriate advances that offended you on social
networking websites such as Facebook, or in internet chat rooms”. Taken
altogether, the questions in the FRA survey covered eleven forms of sexual
harassment.
[71] For example, the Gender Equality Directive (recast) – 2006/54/EC.
[72] For example, the Framework Agreement on Harassment and Violence at
Work (26 April 2007)
[73] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/opinions_advisory_committee/131024_fgm_final_opinion_en.pdf
[74] http://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EIGE-Report-FGM-in-the-EU-and-Croatia_0.pdf
[75] Regulation 606/13/EU on the Mutual Recognition of Civil Law
Protection Measures adopted in June 2013 supplements Directive 2011/99/EU of 13
December 2011 on the European protection order
[76] 2013/2066(INI))
[77]
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/139979.pdf
[78] Available at http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/discrimination-generated-by-the-intersection-of-gender-and-disability-pbBA0313048/
[79] 2013/2065(INI) 
[80] Directive
2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its
victims, OJ 15.04.2011, L 101.
[81] Letters
of formal notice (under Article 258 TFEU) were sent on 29 May 2013 to these
thirteen Member States. In November 2013, Reasoned Opinions on
non-communication basis were sent to four Member States.
[82]
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia,
Iceland, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey
[83]
ENP countries include Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,
the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia in the South, and Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine in the East
[84]
http://unfpa.org/public/home/news/events/CSW57
[85] http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/2013-02-22_communication_a_decent_life_for_all_post_2015_en.pdf
[86] http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/pressdata/EN/foraff/137606.pdf
While already endorsed by Environment
and Development Ministers, the conclusions were approved by the General Affairs
Council on 25 June 2013
[87] http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/SEC_2010_265_gender_action_plan_EN.pdf
[88] UN
SCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security and Security
Council Resolution1820 reinforces Resolution 1325 and highlights that sexual
violence in conflict constitutes a war crime and demands parties to armed
conflict to immediately take appropriate measures to protect civilians from
sexual violence, including training troops and enforcing disciplinary measures.
[89] Women
Connect across Conflicts": Building Accountability for Implementation of
UNSCR 1325, 1820, 1888, 1889
[90] http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/Gender_SWD_2013.pdf
[91]
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/docs/2013_enp_pack/2013_comm_conjoint_en.pdf
[92]
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/strategy_paper_2012_en.pdf
[93] Directive
2002/73/EC
[94]http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/structural-changes-final-report_en.pdf
[95] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:SOM:EN:HTML
[96] http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=325&langId=en
[97] Regulation (EU)
n°1291/2013 of the EP and the Council of 11-12-2013 – JL 347 of 20-12-2013
[98] In this respect, an
expert report was published in 2013 on “Gendered innovations: how gender analysis
contributes to research”: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/gendered_innovations.pdf
[99] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2013-0389&language=EN.
[100] http://eige.europa.eu/content/activities/gender-equality-index