Boston doesn’t have an employee dating policy, but neither do many other cities – WGBH

Report on Municipal Workplace Policies and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Analysis of Boston’s Municipal Governance in Relation to SDG 16

Incident Overview and Institutional Response

A recent incident involving a top mayoral aide at Boston City Hall has brought the city’s internal governance policies under scrutiny, particularly in the context of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). An external investigation cleared the aide of misconduct, stating that no specific policy was violated. The city’s reliance on general conflict-of-interest and ethics laws, rather than a dedicated policy on workplace relationships, highlights a potential weakness in achieving Target 16.6, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. Mayor Michelle Wu confirmed that the city’s approach is governed by existing conflict-of-interest laws, which also apply to familial relationships among the many married city employees.

Call for Policy Re-evaluation to Strengthen Institutional Integrity

In response to the incident and the city’s current policy framework, Boston City Councilor Ed Flynn has formally called for a re-evaluation of the city’s approach to employee dating. This call aligns with SDG Target 16.7, which emphasizes the need for responsive, inclusive, and representative decision-making. A review of existing policies is a critical step toward strengthening institutional integrity and ensuring that governance structures are robust enough to prevent potential conflicts of interest and maintain public trust.

Promoting Decent Work (SDG 8) and Gender Equality (SDG 5) through Clear Workplace Romance Policies

National Context and Workplace Environment

Workplace romances are a common feature of the American workforce. A survey by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that 52% of U.S. workers have been involved in a workplace romance. The absence of clear policies can create environments that undermine the principles of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). Ambiguity can lead to accusations of favoritism, claims of harassment, and reputational damage, thereby failing to meet SDG Target 8.8, which aims to protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers. Furthermore, unclear power dynamics in relationships can disproportionately affect women, creating barriers to equality and a safe workplace as outlined in SDG Target 5.1 and 5.2.

Typology of Existing Corporate Policies

The SHRM survey identified several common approaches by organizations, which have varying impacts on fostering a safe and equitable work environment:

• Clear and Structured: Implemented by 33% of organizations, these policies allow relationships but set clear boundaries to maintain professionalism, strongly supporting SDG 5 and SDG 8.
• Flexible: Used by another 33%, this approach handles relationships on a case-by-case basis, offering a reactive rather than proactive stance.
• Hands-off: Found in 22% of organizations, this lack of a formal policy exposes the employer and employees to significant risks, running counter to the protective aims of the SDGs.
• Strict and Restrictive: Only 5% of employers prohibit relationships, though the enforceability of such policies is questionable.

SHRM advisors note that even reactive policies expose employers to less risk, but proactive policies, such as requiring employees to disclose a consensual relationship, are a valuable tool for protecting both the organization and its employees, thereby advancing goals for decent work and institutional accountability.

Comparative Analysis of U.S. Municipal Policies and SDG Alignment

Cities with Structured Policies Promoting Accountability and Equality

An informal survey of major U.S. cities reveals that several have adopted clear policies that align with the principles of the SDGs by promoting transparency, equality, and accountability.

1. New York City: All employees are required to disclose romantic relationships to Human Resources, a measure that directly supports institutional transparency (SDG 16.6).
2. San Jose: Supervisors must notify their superiors of a relationship with a subordinate to ensure alternative supervisory arrangements are made, directly addressing power imbalances and promoting fairness (SDG 5, SDG 8).
3. Phoenix: The city prohibits managers from supervising anyone with whom they have a “conflicted relationship” and requires disclosure, upholding principles of decent work and institutional justice (SDG 8, SDG 16).
4. San Antonio: Intimate relationships between supervisors and employees within their chain of command are explicitly prohibited, providing clear boundaries to protect against exploitation and ensure gender equality (SDG 5).

Cities with Ambiguous or Reactive Policies

Many cities, like Boston, lack explicit policies and instead rely on broader conflict-of-interest rules. This approach represents a governance gap that fails to proactively support key SDG targets.

• Municipalities such as Charlotte, Denver, Houston, San Diego, Somerville, and Worcester follow Boston’s model of relying on general ethics laws.
• Cambridge has a “soft” policy in its employee handbook suggesting that a transfer may be necessary if a supervisor-subordinate relationship develops.

This reliance on reactive measures falls short of building the strong, transparent, and equitable institutions envisioned by the Sustainable Development Goals.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • The article touches upon issues of power dynamics in workplace relationships, particularly between supervisors and subordinates. Such dynamics are central to ensuring a safe and equitable work environment, free from harassment, which is a key component of gender equality. The text explicitly mentions the risk of “sexual assault or harassment claims” that employers face, a risk that disproportionately affects women in the workplace.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • The core theme of the article is workplace human resource (HR) policies, professionalism, and the creation of a safe working environment. It discusses how different policies (or the lack thereof) can “protect the organization” and manage risks like “lawsuits,” “accusations of favoritism,” and “reputational damage.” This directly relates to promoting safe and secure working environments for all workers.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article is centered on a “messy City Hall scandal” and examines the effectiveness and transparency of municipal governance. It scrutinizes Boston’s reliance on general “conflict of interest law and ethics laws” instead of a specific, clear policy. The comparison with other cities like New York and San Jose, which have “clear and structured policies,” highlights the need for effective and accountable institutions. The call from a City Councilor for Boston to “reevaluate its approach” is a direct appeal for institutional improvement.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including… sexual and other types of exploitation.
     • The article supports this by highlighting that a lack of clear policies on workplace romance exposes employers to the risk of “sexual assault or harassment claims.” Implementing structured policies is presented as a way to mitigate these risks and protect employees.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers…
     • The entire article analyzes different approaches to HR policy (“clear and structured,” “flexible,” “hands-off”) to manage workplace romances. The goal of these policies, as stated by an expert, is to “manage those workplace relationships while protecting the organization,” which includes preventing harassment and favoritism, thereby contributing to a safer and more secure work environment.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     • The article critiques Boston’s “hands-off” approach, which came under fire after a scandal. It contrasts this with cities like New York and San Jose that have “clear and structured policies,” implying these are more effective and transparent. The call by Councilor Ed Flynn for Boston to “reevaluate its approach” is a direct push for the city to develop more effective institutional policies.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. For Target 5.2 (Eliminate violence and harassment)

   • Indicator: Number of sexual assault or harassment claims.
     • The article implies this is a key metric of risk. A reduction in such claims could indicate progress towards a safer environment, which is the goal of having clearer policies.

2. For Target 8.8 (Promote safe work environments)

   • Indicator: Existence and type of formal policy on workplace romance.
     • The article provides a clear framework for this indicator through the SHRM survey, which categorizes policies as “clear and structured” (33%), “flexible” (33%), “hands-off” (22%), or “strict and restrictive” (5%). An increase in the percentage of organizations with “clear and structured” policies would signify progress.
   • Indicator: Proportion of employees required to disclose workplace relationships.
     • The article explicitly mentions that New York City, San Jose, and Phoenix have policies requiring disclosure. This is a measurable action that indicates a proactive stance on managing potential conflicts of interest and ensuring a safe environment.

3. For Target 16.6 (Develop effective institutions)

   • Indicator: Proportion of municipalities with explicit policies versus reliance on general ethics laws.
     • The article’s informal survey of cities provides a basis for this indicator. It identifies cities like Boston, Charlotte, and Denver that rely on general rules, and others like NYC and San Jose with explicit policies. Tracking the shift from the former to the latter would measure progress in institutional effectiveness and transparency.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: wgbh.org