What it means
Two employees hold different titles but perform work that requires comparable skill, effort and responsibility. Their pay may differ for valid reasons, but the company should be able to explain those reasons using consistent evidence.
A pay-equity review therefore looks beyond a simple headline gap, because fair pay decisions require defensible job comparisons, accurate data and follow-through, not only a polished dashboard. The ILO explains equal remuneration for work of equal value, and OECD research discusses country differences in gender pay-gap reporting.
These sources give a global starting point while leaving local legal requirements to be checked where staff work. Define compensation broadly, covering base pay, bonuses, allowances and other relevant rewards, because a narrow salary comparison can miss important differences.
Map roles and duties, because similar titles can hide different work and different titles can describe comparable work. Choose job-evaluation factors that relate to the work, such as skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, and apply them consistently, since a process that undervalues care or support work can reproduce historical bias.
Collect pay data with a date, currency, employment status and working hours, because annual salary and hourly pay are not interchangeable. Identify legitimate, documented factors such as experience, performance or location where applicable, and do not assume a label makes every difference justified.
A raw pay gap between two groups can indicate a question but may also reflect different role distribution, while a small overall gap can conceal inequity within a specific role or level, so use both broad and focused views and adjust part-time figures carefully for comparison. Sample sizes matter, because a percentage from a very small team may be unstable and can expose individual pay, and data quality matters too, since missing bonus records or wrong job codes can create false results.
Protect employee confidentiality: analysts may need detailed records, but managers should receive only information appropriate to their role. Set a process for employee questions or complaints, review starting offers, promotions and annual increases so a fair pay band does not drift through unmanaged exceptions, and document the reason for each pay decision at the time rather than only when a discrepancy is challenged.
Use pay ranges thoughtfully, because a broad range with unexplained placements may not provide genuine transparency, and train managers on offers and performance reviews since inconsistent discretion can undermine a sound policy. Where an unexplained difference appears, investigate its cause and choose a correction plan, noting that the right response depends on facts and local law.
Do not cut anyone's compensation simply to narrow a statistical gap without checking contracts and obligations, budget for adjustments, and monitor whether new hiring recreates the difference. Keep a pay-equity review distinct from a diversity or representation review, explain methods and limits when reporting because one number cannot prove compliance, track progress across comparable periods, check local definitions, privacy rules and reporting obligations in each country, and seek qualified legal and compensation advice before making compliance claims.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A firm compares base salary and bonus across roles with similar evaluated duties, rather than relying on job titles. It finds two roles scored the same on skill, effort and responsibility but paid differently. HR asks for the documented reasons before the next pay cycle.
Example
An analyst examines pay within a level after an overall average hides a gap. The company-wide figures look close, yet one level shows a clear difference between comparable staff. The team investigates the cause rather than adjusting the headline number.
Example
A company records the reasons for starting-pay exceptions at the time of each offer and reviews them at the next pay cycle. When a manager cannot explain an exception, it is corrected or documented properly. Over time the exceptions stop accumulating unnoticed.
Formula
Calculation
No single formula proves pay equity. An illustrative raw group pay gap is (comparison-group average pay - focal-group average pay) / comparison-group average pay x 100; define the groups and compare job value separately.
Worked example. Suppose the comparison group averages $80,000 and the focal group averages $76,000. The raw gap is ($80,000 - $76,000) / $80,000 x 100 = $4,000 / $80,000 x 100 = 5%.
That headline number is only a signal. Within one job level the picture may differ: if Level 2 staff in both groups average $50,000, the gap there is ($50,000 - $50,000) / $50,000 = 0%, but if Level 4 averages $70,000 for the comparison group and $63,000 for the focal group, the gap is ($70,000 - $63,000) / $70,000 x 100 = $7,000 / $70,000 x 100 = 10%. The overall 5% hides a 10% gap at one level, which is why role-level views and documented reasons matter more than a single average.Case study
Seen in the real world.
In this fictional case, Laurel Services found different pay for comparable roles after reviewing duties, hours and bonuses. It checked records, documented valid differences and planned corrections for unexplained ones with local advice. The case is invented and states no real legal outcome.
Of 120 staff reviewed, Laurel could explain the differences for most through documented experience and location. Nine employees had differences it could not justify, and it budgeted an average adjustment of $3,000 each, a total of $27,000. The company also added a pay-decision log for new offers and repeated the review a year later to check that hiring had not recreated the gaps.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Using job title alone as proof two roles are comparable.
- Assuming a raw overall gap establishes or rules out unfair pay.
- Ignoring bonuses, hours and local legal requirements.
Questions
People also ask.
Is pay equity the same as a gender pay gap?
No. A broad gap is one signal; equity also requires work comparisons and reasons for differences.
Can performance justify a difference?
It may in some settings, if relevant, consistently assessed and lawful locally.
Does one global rule fit all countries?
No. Use common principles and check each location's current requirements.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%