This chapter provides an overview of gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems that are mandated or recommended across OECD countries. It presents evidence on the potential of gender-neutral job evaluation to compare the value of diverse work and to support the establishment of job classifications that seek to be free from gender bias. It then focusses on different approaches adopted in OECD countries to support employers in the design and implementation of such systems, and concludes with an overview of relevant key policy changes in the context of the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Pay Transparency in Progress
Valuing Jobs, Closing Gender Pay Gaps
Abstract
Just under half of OECD countries mandate gender-neutral job evaluation in the private sector, requiring employers to assess which jobs have equal value. Almost 40% of OECD countries (15 of 38) require private sector employers to conduct gender-neutral job evaluations, which compare the value of work in a gender-sensitive manner, while others (12 of 38) recommend such practices or are implementing reforms. Countries employ diverse approaches: embedding requirements within equal pay audits (Canada – for federally regulated employers, Iceland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland), linking them to collective bargaining obligations (Belgium, Costa Rica and Denmark), or establishing specific evaluation factors (Colombia and Korea).
There is strong international convergence in the factors used to assess what constitutes work of equal value, with convergence around four core criteria for assessing work value: responsibility (22 countries), skills (20 countries), effort (20 countries) and working conditions (17 countries). Countries differ in definitions of criteria and sub-criteria, weighting approaches, and flexibility allowed to employers.
Fewer countries mandate gender-neutral job classification systems. Only five OECD countries (Belgium, France, Iceland, Italy and Spain) mandate gender-neutral job classification systems in the private sector, while seven countries recommend them (Australia, Canada, Korea, Lithuania, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland).
Significant convergence in approaches to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification are expected across EU OECD countries. The European Union’s Pay Transparency Directive is driving significant convergence in approaches to job evaluation and classification among EU OECD Member States, with most countries currently working on its transposition.
Countries are taking varied approaches to helping employers strengthen job-evaluation and classification. Across countries, four main types of support have been made available: analytical tools and toolkits for conducting evaluations; methodological guidance on implementation; capacity-building through training and technical assistance; and specific measures addressing valuation bias. Specialised equality bodies and government agencies play a central role in many countries in the provision of tools, frameworks and guidance for employers.
Several countries have launched specific initiatives to address the undervaluation of female‑dominated work, including Belgium’s BE‑MAGIC project, France’s guidance on integrating gender equality into classification systems, and Australia’s Fair Work Commission review of potentially undervalued job classifications.
Ensuring equal pay for work of equal value is widely recognised as a central principle for addressing persistent gender pay gaps. While equal pay for equal work applies to identical or very similar jobs, the broader concept of work of equal value recognises that different jobs may have comparable value and should be compensated as such. This principle is particularly pertinent in labour markets characterised by strong horizontal segregation, where women and men tend to be concentrated in different occupations and sectors. In such contexts, achieving pay equity depends not only on transparency, but also on the existence of robust mechanisms to assess and compare the value of diverse forms of work in a gender-neutral manner. Establishing what constitutes work of equal value is not always straightforward, and requires comparing different jobs that may vary in content but entail comparable demands on the worker. Gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems play a key role in operationalising the principle of equal work for equal value, by providing structured, objective approaches to identify work of equal value and to detect and address potential undervaluation of female‑dominated occupations (OECD, 2021[1]).
Gender-neutral job evaluation is an analytical process to assess and compare the relative value of different jobs based on objective, gender-neutral criteria – though achieving full objectivity requires deliberate effort to counter historical biases. These approaches aim to systematically assess job content by assessing measurable factors to determine the demands made on workers carrying out given tasks, for example their skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2023[2]; Chicha, 2008[3]). By comparing jobs that differ in nature but are similar in demands, job evaluation aims to establish which jobs can be considered to be “work of equal value.”. Effective job evaluation provides a strong foundation to detect indirect pay discrimination by revealing whether male‑dominated and female‑dominated jobs of equal value receive comparable remuneration (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2023[2]).
Gender-neutral job classification systems categorise jobs into groups, grades, or levels that determine pay structures within an organisation or sector. In some countries these systems are the direct output of job evaluation processes; in others they are established through collective bargaining negotiations. Gender-neutral job classification systems must be based on objective, gender-neutral criteria and structured to exclude discrimination on the basis of sex.
Explicit gender-neutrality matters because traditional job classifications can perpetuate gender bias in how work is valued, leading to the undervaluation of occupations typically associated with women (OECD, 2021[1]). Without gender-neutrality, job evaluation and classification systems may embed unequal pay structures: (European Commission, 2013[4]). evidence shows that female‑dominated occupations tend to be undervalued even when they require comparable skill levels, effort and responsibility (OECD, 2023[5]). This occurs particularly when traditional stereotypes influence the selection or weighting of factors for male‑ and female‑dominated tasks; as well as when skills typically associated with female‑dominated work (such as psycho-social competences, caring responsibilities, interpersonal abilities, and manual dexterity) are undervalued or overlooked (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2023[2]). A gender-neutral approach helps to ensure that job evaluations and classification reflect an accurate assessment of the value of work, rather than those performing it (OECD, 2021[1]).
Gender-neutral job evaluation explicitly accounts for the gender composition of job categories and attempts to ensure that objective criteria are applied equally to work performed by men and women, avoiding discriminatory practices such as disproportionate weighting of factors typical to male‑dominated jobs or the failure to evaluate requirements generally associated with female‑dominated professions. The gender-neutrality of classification systems is also particularly critical because even well-designed evaluation processes can be undermined if the final classification structure maintains traditional hierarchies that systematically undervalue work performed predominantly by women, and/or if jobs assessed as having equal value are nonetheless assigned to different pay grades (see a concrete example in Box 2.2).
Identifying which jobs hold “equal value” is difficult when the skills and education required differ substantially. The OECD’s 2023 report on Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD countries (OECD, 2023[5]) illustrates this challenge by comparing truck drivers and nursing aides: both are occupations with lower formal educational requirements, facing worker shortages and occupational risks, and involving significant physical demands (lifting heavy objects versus lifting people with limited mobility) – yet truck drivers earn nearly USD 250 more per week. A likely contributing factor is that the interpersonal, organisational and emotional skills required in roles such as caregiving are often undervalued compared to the physical demands emphasised in male‑dominated occupations.
This chapter takes stock of country approaches to comparing the value of work, focussing specifically on national approaches to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification. While many countries have established and require job evaluation and classification systems, this chapter focusses specifically on the mechanisms used to ensure these systems are gender neutral. This chapter is structured as follows: Section 2.2 provides an overview of job evaluation systems across OECD countries; Section 2.3 focusses on job classification systems; Section 2.4 sets out the tools, methodologies, and support that countries provide to employers to implement these systems; and Section 2.5 gives an overview of key developments on job evaluation and classification linked to the EU Pay Transparency Directive. In-depth case studies on job evaluation and classification system in Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain are included in Chapter 4.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive (Directive (EU) 2023/970) emphasises gender-neutral job evaluation and classification as a foundation for achieving equal pay for work of equal value:
Pay structure requirements: Member States must ensure that employers have pay structures in place that guarantee equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. These pay structures must “enable the assessment of whether workers are in a comparable situation in regard to the value of work on the basis of objective, gender-neutral criteria agreed with workers’ representatives where such representatives exist” [Art. 4(4)].
Criteria for assessing work of equal value: The Directive specifies that job evaluation criteria “shall not be based directly or indirectly on workers’ sex” and must include [Art. 4(4)]: skills; effort; responsibility; working conditions; and, if appropriate, any other factors relevant to the specific job or position. Each criterion “should be weighed by the employer depending on the relevance of those criteria for the specific job or position concerned” [Recital 26]. Importantly, the Directive specifies that these criteria “shall be applied in an objective gender-neutral manner, excluding any direct or indirect discrimination based on sex. In particular, relevant soft skills shall not be undervalued” [Art. 4(4)]. This provision addresses concerns that skills typically associated with female‑dominated roles have historically been undervalued in job evaluation systems
Analytical tools and methodologies: Member States must, in consultation with equality bodies, ensure that “analytical tools or methodologies are made available and are easily accessible to support and guide the assessment and comparison of the value of work.” Tools must “allow employers and/or the social partners to easily establish and use gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems that exclude any pay discrimination on grounds of sex” [Art. 4(2)].
Role of job evaluation in joint pay assessments: When employers are required to conduct a joint pay assessment (triggered by an unjustified pay gap of at least 5%), the implementation of remedial measures “shall include an analysis of the existing gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems or the establishment of such systems where it’s missing, to ensure that any direct or indirect pay discrimination on the grounds of sex is excluded” [Art. 10(4)].
Role of social partners: The Directive recognises the important role of social partners in job evaluation and classification. In addition to the requirement to agree pay structure criteria with workers’ (see above), categories of workers should be established “in co‑operation with the workers’ representatives” where applicable [Art. 3(1)(h)]. Member States may also entrust social partners with “the development of analytical tools or methodologies” for job evaluation [Art. 33(a)].
Support for implementation: Member States must “provide support, in the form of technical assistance and training, to employers with fewer than 250 workers and to the workers’ representatives concerned, to facilitate their compliance with the obligations laid down in this Directive,” including those related to job evaluation and classification [Art. 11].
For a more general overview of the EU Pay Transparency Directive refer to Box 1.2 in Chapter 1.
Source: European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2023[2]), Directive 2023/970 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 to strengthen the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms.
Almost 40% of OECD countries report that private sector employers are required to conduct gender neutral job evaluations to compare the value of work in a gender-sensitive manner (Figure 2.1), including Belgium, Canada (federally regulated employers), Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. At a minimum, such requirements entail the provision of criteria that employers should use to determine and/or compare the value of work. Ten out of these 15 countries also require gender-neutral job evaluation from public sector employers (Canada for federally regulated employers, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Korea, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland). Three countries (Austria, Latvia and Lithuania) report that such requirements apply only in the public sector.
In other countries, gender-neutral job evaluation is recommended but not mandated: this is the case for the private sector in Lithuania, the public sector in Portugal, and in both the private and public sectors in the United Kingdom.
Ten countries report relevant ongoing reforms. These are often in the context of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, discussed in further detail below (Czechia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and the Slovak Republic). Outside of the European Union, a bill on pay equity is currently being processed in the National Congress in Chile. The remaining countries indicated that no such systematic approaches are currently mandated or recommended, or did not answer the questionnaire.
Overview of countries requiring or recommending employers in the private sector to compare the value of work in a gender sensitive manner, July/August 2025
Note: Information is current as of July/August 2025, when the bulk of data collection took place. In Canada job evaluation systems are required under the Pay Equity Act. EU member states appearing in the “none” category reflects the absence of documented national implementing measures at the time of data collection (July/August 2025), rather than non-compliance with the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Source: 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire and desk research by the OECD Secretariat.
2.2.1. Institutional mechanisms: How to embed requirements for gender sensitivity in job evaluations?
Across the 18 countries with requirements for private and/or public sector employers to conduct gender-neutral job evaluations, 13 require or recommend a specific job evaluation method (Austria, Belgium, Canada for federally regulated employers, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Korea, Latvia, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland). National approaches vary, including some embedded within broader equality obligations (e.g. requirements for gender sensitive evaluation in e equal pay audits, equality plans or pay equity ules); and in some cases involving the national definition of specific evaluation criteria, specific job catalogues or job evaluation systems. In the remaining 5 countries (Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania and Sweden) employers can define their own system and approach. Many of these countries provide tools, methodologies and support to guide evaluations, elaborated further in Section 2.4.
Gender-sensitivity embedded within equal pay audits or equality plans
Requirements related to gender sensitivity in job evaluation are often embedded in broader requirements for companies to conduct equal pay audits or develop equality plans (in eight OECD countries, namely Canada for federally regulated employers, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland). Pay auditing is discussed in Section 3.4 in Chapter 3 and explained in more detail in Chapter 4 of the 2023 report Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries (OECD, 2023[5]), and often requires employers to map and explain existing gender pay gaps. They typically combine standardised assessment to compare the value of work, with verification mechanisms.
Requirements for gender-neutral job evaluations range from strongly proactive to mostly reactive. Canada (for federally regulated employers), Iceland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland proactively mandate systematic, regular evaluations regardless of whether discrimination has been identified. Canada requires employers to systematically identify job classes, determine gender composition, evaluate work value, and compare compensation. Iceland requires equal pay certification through external audits for employers with 25+ employees. This is mandatory and recurring, creating a preventive framework before gaps emerge. Sweden requires annual pay mapping and analysis, whereby employers must assess work value using objective criteria every year. Switzerland mandates internal equal pay analysis for employers with 100+ employees using scientific methods, such as the government-provided Logib tool (see Box 2.4), conducted at regular intervals. Spain requires pay audits as part of mandatory equality plans (for 50+ employees), covering all job positions to identify gaps before they become entrenched.
In the remaining countries (Ireland, New Zealand and Portugal) gender-neutral job evaluations have a more reactive nature, as they are triggered by identified gender pay gaps or claims. In Ireland, written reports explaining gender pay differentials and proposed corrective measures are required only “when gender pay differentials are detected.” In New Zealand, worker complaints in the form of pay-equity claims trigger the assessment process. In Portugal, companies must present a plan to assess pay disparities where gender pay differences are identified. This plan must be based on an evaluation of job components using objective criteria, to eliminate any possibility of discrimination based on sex.
Most of these countries mandate that job evaluation use objective, gender-neutral criteria (Canada for federally regulated employers, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Spain and Sweden), while some only recommend (but not mandate) the use of gender-neutral criteria (Portugal and Switzerland; see Section 2.2.2 for more information on criteria used to assess the value of work).
In addition, although Finland and Norway report not requiring gender-neutral job evaluations by private sector employers, they mandate equal pay audits that incorporate core elements of gender-sensitive job evaluation. For example, Norway’s legislation obliges employers to map job classes, analyse gender pay gaps, investigate discrimination risks and implement corrective measures (OECD, 2023[5]) (see Section 3.4 in Chapter 3 for more information on equal pay audits and plans).
Obligations to provide equal pay for work of equal value guide pay setting
Several countries (Belgium, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, France for private sector only, Israel, Poland and the Slovak Republic) refer to statutory obligations on employers to ensure equal pay for work of equal value as guiding principles in wage setting. While these requirements do not necessarily amount to full-fledged job evaluation systems, they nonetheless imply a need to compare the value of work in a gender sensitive manner when determining pay.
Thus, the law provides principles, but not necessarily procedures or concrete systems, with heterogeneity across countries regarding the level of institutionalisation. In Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark and France – countries where wages are often determined through collective agreements – such requirements must be considered during collective bargaining processes. France has structured, recurring obligations for private sector employers: sectoral organisations must negotiate every four years on salaries and gender equality measures, and every five years on revising job classification systems with attention to gender equality.
In Belgium, emphasis is placed on assessing the outcomes of the negotiations: sectoral industrial joint (parity) committees must submit their gender-neutral job classifications to the Federal Public Service for Employment, which are checked by government on a pass/fail basis, and require follow-up action by companies that do not meet the requirements1 (an in-depth overview of Belgium’s approach is contained in Chapter 4).
In Costa Rica and Denmark, social partners have a central role in ensuring gender-sensitivity of negotiation outcomes. For instance, the Costa Rican National Wage Council (tripartite body) plays a regulatory role in developing and regulating work value comparison mechanisms. Furthermore, Costa Rica also operates the INTE‑G:38‑2021 Gender Equality Standards, a voluntary certification that operationalise job evaluation principles by encouraging systematic, gender-neutral comparisons of work.
In Colombia and Korea, legal requirements lay out specific objective and gender-neutral evaluation criteria that employers need to consider when comparing the value of work (see Section 2.2.2 for information on the criteria). Czechia, Israel, Poland and the Slovak Republic define work of equal value in law and provide specific criteria for determining it, but report not requiring gender-neutral job evaluations.
Public sector job catalogues or specific job evaluation systems
In the three countries with public sector requirements for gender-neutral job evaluations (Austria, Latvia and Lithuania), the government provides pre‑established job evaluation systems or job catalogues. In Austria, each post in the Federal public service is assigned to a functional level within its respective pay scale based on specified criteria. This classification is key to determine employees’ remuneration and is based on an analytical procedure anchored in national legislation and set out in publicly available documentation. To ensure that posts are classified in a balanced and consistent manner across the Federal Civil Service, the Federal Chancellery centrally compares the value of work. As a result, posts are frequently reclassified to reflect changes in the tasks they involve: between 8 000 and 10 000 posts are reclassified each year, a number that can rise considerably during periods of major restructuring.
In Latvia, a catalogue of positions of state and local government institutions has been developed with specific procedures for developing job classifications and job descriptions, aimed at ensuring equal pay for equal or comparable work. In Lithuania, methodological recommendations for developing pay systems are mandatory for public sector employers and recommended for private sector use (Government Resolution No. 857, 2023). The recommendations require jobs to be compared using objective job-related criteria, while allowing institutions to determine the specific comparison methodology.
2.2.2. Which gender-neutral criteria are used to assess the value of work?
Fifteen of the 18 countries that mandate or recommend specific evaluation methods explicitly require the use of gender-neutral criteria – either specified in legislation or defined by employers within legal parameters – that employers should use when evaluating jobs (Figure 2.2). There are also countries without job evaluation systems in place in the private sector where the law specifies criteria to compare the value of work or to determine work of equal value (Czechia, Poland and the Slovak Republic).
The breadth and depth of the criteria established varies considerably across countries. Some countries provide highly detailed statutory specifications that break down each criterion into multiple sub-categories, while others establish broad principles that allow employers flexibility in application. Additionally, many EU OECD countries are currently developing or refining their criteria specifications as they transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which mandates the use of gender-neutral, objective criteria centred on four factors: responsibility, skills, effort and working conditions (see Section Box 2.1 for EU requirements relating to gender neutral job evaluations and classifications).
While these national definitions provide a conceptual basis for comparing the value of work, many governments also provide methodological tools and guidance to support employers in applying these criteria in practice (see Section 2.4).
Skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions are the most common criteria
When employers are required or recommended to consider specific gender-neutral criteria to assess the value of work, criteria most often relate to responsibility (22 countries), skills (20 countries), effort (20 countries) and working conditions (17 countries). Countries where legislation requires or recommends any combination of these criteria for both the public and private sectors include Canada (for federally regulated employers), Colombia, Costa Rica, Iceland, Israel, Korea, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – while others apply them only in the public sector (Austria (Federal public service), Korea and Latvia) or in the private sector (France, Portugal and Spain). Several countries report ongoing work to implement these criteria as they transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive, including Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and the Slovak Republic (see Section 2.5 for more information on key developments).
Number of OECD countries requiring or recommending (now or in the future) specific criteria for assessing the value of work in the private and/or public sectors (out of 15 countries)
Note: Each bar represents the count of countries that have specified the criterion as a requirement or recommendation for gender-neutral job evaluations. The “overall” counts represent all countries that include core criteria in any form, whether as a general requirement or with further specifications. The sub-criteria counts represent countries that explicitly specify or elaborate on particular aspects of a core criterion. Some countries require only a subset of the four core criteria, while others supplement these with additional factors. A country that provides detailed specifications appears in both the “Overall” category and in one or more sub-categories. The figure includes countries that currently require or recommend specific criteria, as well as countries that have reported plans to include such criteria in future legislation.
Performance‑related sub-criteria (merit, productivity, attendance, performance factors) differ conceptually from other criteria presented here in that they reflect how an individual performs their role rather than the inherent requirements of the job. They are included for completeness as they appear in countries’ legal frameworks in the context of gender-neutral pay.
Information is current as of July/August 2025, when the bulk of data collection took place.
Source: 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire.
Some countries, such as Korea and Colombia, provide highly detailed definitions and specifications for the interpretation and application of evaluation criteria, offering employers clear guidance and reducing ambiguity. For instance, Korea provides detailed statutory definitions of the four criteria used to assess the value of work, clarifying how each of them should be interpreted in job evaluations: skills refer to the objective level of work performance or competencies required, including qualifications or accumulated experience; effort covers the physical strength and mental strain needed to perform the role; responsibility relates to the nature and scope of duties and the degree to which the employer relies on the worker to perform them; and working conditions encompass the physical and environmental circumstances in which work is carried out, such as exposure to noise, heat and other job-specific conditions.
Many countries break the four criteria down into more detailed components or sub-criteria, tailored to national contexts:
Responsibility (22 countries overall)
Accountability (2 countries): Korea and Spain specify degrees of accountability.
Decision making/Autonomy (2 countries): Switzerland and the United Kingdom include autonomy or decision-making authority.
Specific responsibilities (1 country): Colombia details responsibilities related to requirements the position places on the jobholder (e.g. being a licensed professional, having security clearance, etc.); or handling of equipment and money.
Skills (20 countries overall)
Education (6 countries): Colombia, Iceland, Israel, Korea, Poland and Spain include formal learning requirements such as diplomas, qualifications, or training.
Experience (6 countries): Colombia, France, Iceland, Korea, Poland and Portugal consider work experience, competence, expertise, or seniority.
Knowledge (3 countries): Austria, France and Iceland consider knowledge requirements, such as professional or specialised knowledge.
Specialised/soft skills (3 countries): Iceland, the Netherlands and New Zealand recognise interpersonal, organisational, care‑based, cultural, or other specific skills.
Complexity (3 countries): Czechia, the Slovak Republic and Spain include task complexity or the complexity of skills required.
Effort (20 countries overall)
Mental (5 countries): Austria, Colombia, France, Iceland and Korea specify mental capacity, mental strain, psychological effort, or mental workload.
Physical (3 countries): Colombia, France and Korea distinguish physical strength, physical effort, or physical workload.
Performance (see note on “performance‑related sub-criteria” in Figure 2.2) (2 countries): Portugal and Spain include merit, productivity, attendance, or performance factors.
Working conditions (17 countries overall)
Environmental (3 countries): Colombia, Israel and Korea specify physical, chemical, or environmental conditions such as noise, heat, or hazards.
Psychological (2 countries): Colombia and Spain include stress, isolation, or other psychological workplace factors.
Danger (2 countries): Colombia and Spain explicitly consider health risks, hazardous conditions, or difficult/dangerous nature of work.
Equipment (1 country): Colombia includes assessment of tools, equipment, and safety coverage.
Country requirements for employers to use gender-neutral criteria, and description of criteria to consider in the public and private sector to compare the value of work, July/August 2025
Note: Information is current as of July/August 2025, when the bulk of data collection took place. Unless otherwise specified, required/recommended classification applies to both private and public sector employers. (a) The pay reporting laws in Canada only apply to federally regulated private sector employers, federally regulated Crown corporations, and other federal organisations (under the Employment Equity Act) and to federally regulated private and public sector employers, parliamentary workplaces, and the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices (under the Pay Equity Act). (b) France answered for the private sector only.
Source: 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire.
Country approaches to weighting criteria in job evaluation systems
Several countries also require or permit the weighting of gender-neutral criteria when comparing the value of jobs (such as Colombia, Czechia, France for private sector only, Lithuania, Spain and Switzerland). For instance, in France, professional classifications negotiated at sectoral level may apply different weightings to the criteria used to assess whether jobs are of equal value, with weightings determined through collective bargaining between social partners rather than set unilaterally by employers. Lithuania and Spain have developed tools to support this aspect of job evaluations. In Lithuania, the criteria are described in detail and scored in a job evaluation methodology recommended for the public and private sector, and approved by the social partners. In Spain, a specific job evaluation process tool has been developed (see Spanish case study in Chapter 4), which automatically assigns a weight or value to every evaluation factor (or sub-factor), as well as to the different levels, considering the intensity with which they could occur in a work position. In Czechia, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is developing and will pilot a methodology for employers with fewer than 250 employees, that may also include guidance on ranking or criteria.
Weighting systems help employers tailor job evaluations to reflect the specific demands and requirements of different positions, but should be applied carefully to avoid perpetuating gender bias. As the EU Pay Transparency Directive advises, weights must be applied in an objective gender-neutral manner – in particular, relevant soft skills shall not be undervalued (see Box 2.1).
2.2.3. Some countries have assessed job evaluation systems
Systematic assessments of job evaluation measures remain rare across OECD countries, yet the emerging evidence from those that have undertaken such assessments provides valuable insights into both the strengths and limitations of existing approaches. Country studies from Finland, Iceland and Sweden reveal a complex picture: while a wide range of job evaluation tools exists and cross-institutional comparisons can surface previously hidden limitations in existing frameworks, compliance risks remain significant where assessments become bureaucratic exercises, which can be disconnected from meaningful organisational change.
In Finland, government-commissioned research (Jämsén, Hietala and Maaniemi, 2022[6]) has examined how pay and job evaluation systems, as defined in collective agreements, identify work of equal value in practice. The research found wide variation in pay systems across collective agreements, ranging from analytical job evaluation systems to title‑based systems, with nearly a third of collective agreements still using title‑based approaches despite their limitations for identifying work of equal value. A key finding was that different collective agreements tend to limit job evaluation to specific employee groups, creating gaps in coverage and making cross-agreement comparisons difficult. Where organisations used a single job evaluation tool across all jobs, pay equity could be examined at the organisational level, including across different collective agreements – but such organisation-wide approaches remain rare. Based on these findings, the research recommended broader adoption of organisation-wide pay systems, greater investment in high-quality equality plans and related pay surveys, and increased communication about pay criteria. The authors also recommended potentially clarifying legislation with a definition of work of equal value and a clearer specification of the role of collective agreements.
A follow-up study commissioned by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (Maaniemi and Hietala, 2026[7]) examined the landscape of job evaluation tools in Finland in the context of implementing the EU Pay Transparency Directive. The study identified three main types of job evaluation systems in use: analytical job evaluation systems, systems based on general descriptions of job demand categories, and title‑based systems. Some collective agreements use multiple systems simultaneously for different employee groups. When examining which system predominate, job demand category description systems were most common, appearing in over half of collective agreements, while title‑based systems appeared in approximately one‑third and analytical systems in approximately one‑quarter. Analytical systems and those using verbal descriptions of demand levels were found to offer the greatest transparency, while purely title‑based systems provided the least insight into job demands. Across all systems examined, no gender-discriminatory evaluation criteria were identified, with common demand factors including competence, responsibility, interaction and judgement. However, working conditions and workload were present as evaluation factors in only around a quarter of systems, as these are sometimes addressed through supplementary pay allowances rather than as job demand factors. The study concluded that Finland already possesses a wide range of non-discriminatory job evaluation tools, and that compliance with the Directive’s requirements is likely achievable by building on or further developing existing systems, depending on the final interpretation of the Directive’s requirements. It also highlighted a gap, as no freely available, publicly accessible job evaluation tool currently exists in Finland; and identified a need to develop one for situations where no collective agreement pay system is in place, while recommending that any such tool be maintained by a neutral, non-commercial body.
Iceland’s Job Evaluation Report (Task Force on Pay Equity and Equality in the Labour Market, 2024[8]) piloted a broader approach to job evaluation, comparing the value of work across (public) organisations, rather than solely within them. The project revealed that while equal pay certification allows institutions to evaluate jobs internally, the pay equity principle requires cross-institutional comparisons of jobs to identify work of equal value – highlighting a limitation in existing approaches. Based on these findings, the Task Force proposed concrete follow-up measures which included continuing work with participating organisations to conduct comprehensive job evaluation and salary analysis; establishing a collaborative project on a comprehensive evaluation system initially involving government institutions; creating a working group to develop a negotiation process based on New Zealand’s model, which provides an accessible channel for resolving equal pay claims without court litigation, under supervision of the State Conciliation and Mediation Officer; and developing a toolkit and materials to support collaborative projects on comprehensive job evaluation systems.
Sweden’s experience with mandatory pay audits reinforces these concerns: studies find that audits can become bureaucratic compliance exercises decoupled from organisational decision making, with employers routinely justifying pay differences through reference to experience, market factors, and sector-specific conditions (see Box 2.2 for detailed analysis of Sweden’s experience). This pattern suggests that relying primarily on employer- and social partner-led assessments may be insufficient for addressing equal value issues rooted in sectoral segregation, as organisations – having limited tools to address such underlying causes – tend to externalise or legitimise structural pay gaps. Additionally, the Swedish National Audit Office has audited how well equal pay surveys function in combating unfair gender differences in pay, finding that adjustments are needed to strengthen pay progression analysis, particularly following parental leave, and to improve comparison of work of equal value (Utredningen om genomförande av lönetransparensdirektivet, 2024[9]).
Sweden has implemented mandatory gender pay audits since 1994, making it one of the longest-running transparency regimes in the OECD. In Sweden, requirements for gender-neutral job evaluation are embedded within this equal pay audit process: employers must analyse and compare jobs to identify whether women and men receive equal pay for work of equal value. A review by Sweden’s National Audit Office (2019[10]) finds – through a comparison of employers with 20‑24 employees (exempted from pay audit obligations) and employers with 25‑30 employees – only a marginal effect of pay audits in reducing the gender pay gap. Sweden’s case also provides rich qualitative evidence on how organisations may respond to transparency requirements in ways that undermine policy effectiveness, and more specifically, how implicit gender biases can influence job evaluation processes in practice.
Challenges in linking audits to organisational action
Salminen-Karlsson and Fogelberg Eriksson (2022[11]) investigate processes in five Swedish municipalities through interviews to understand why gender pay audits generally do not level out men’s and women’s salaries as intended. They find that gender pay audits became a bureaucratic process to fulfil legal requirements and were decoupled from core organisational practices and salary policies. This decoupling was furthered by recognition that addressing audit results would require large structural changes in pay policies for which there were no financial means. The review found that organisations went through the motions of conducting audits without integrating findings into actual decision making about compensation and promotion
Variation in how pay differences are interpreted
Their follow-up study (Salminen-Karlsson and Fogelberg Eriksson, 2024[12]) uses critical discourse analysis to examine how pay inequality is justified in Swedish municipal employers’ mandatory pay audit reports. The authors conclude that employers overwhelmingly do not find unjust salary differences, with differences routinely justified by reference to men’s experience, special tasks, individual salaries, and market explanations. The authors argue that such pay audit reports discursively reproduce inequality regimes rather than challenge them: by framing observed disparities as justified and explainable, audit reports tend to legitimise existing pay structures rather than subject them to critical scrutiny
Structural factors beyond audit scope
Carlson (2019[13]) provides legal analysis comparing Swedish equal pay approaches to those in Iceland and the United Kingdom. Importantly, women are mostly paid the same as men for the same work, but pay equity issues (equal pay for comparable work) are not squarely addressed. Carlson argues that the problem lies in Sweden’s sector-based collective bargaining system, where different unions represent male‑dominated and female‑dominated sectors separately. These unions negotiate wages independently for their respective sectors, meaning that even if transparency reveals comparable skill and effort requirements across occupations, wages are set through separate sectoral negotiations rather than through direct comparison of work value. This structure can lock in market-based wage differences between sectors – which themselves reflect historical gender discrimination and occupational segregation. This is illustrated in the midwives’ cases (AD 1996 no. 41 and AD 2001 no. 13) with the Labour Court accepting the argument that wage differences were justified by market rates in the private sector, effectively rejecting pay equity analysis
Considerations for policy design
Formal compliance may differ from substantive outcomes: Mandatory audits do not automatically generate organisational transformation. Accountability mechanisms that examine whether explanations for pay disparities are adequate may strengthen effectiveness.
Transparency as one component among several: Evidence suggests that disclosure may be more effective when combined with enforcement mechanisms, employee participation in analysing findings, and organisational resources for implementing corrective measures.
Addressing broader labour market structures: There are limits to the extent to which pay auditing systems within companies can influence structural factors such as occupational segregation or sector-based bargaining arrangements that contribute to gender pay gaps.
Evaluating implementation quality: Assessments might consider not only whether audits are conducted but also whether they inform decision making and lead to concrete actions.
Source: Salminen-Karlsson and Fogelberg Eriksson (2022[11]; 2024[12]), Carlson (2019[13]), “Rethinking Equal Pay in Sweden in Light of the Transparency Approaches in the UK and Iceland” and OECD (2026[14]), Gender wage gap (indicator).
In the private sector, five countries require the use of gender-neutral job classification systems (Belgium, France, Iceland – also in the public sector, Italy – also in the public sector, and Spain), and seven countries recommend rather than mandate gender-neutral job classifications both in the public and private sectors (Australia, Canada for federally regulated employers, Korea, Lithuania, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland) (Figure 2.3). This marks an increase from previous iterations of the OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire (OECD, 2021[1]), where no country reported mandating gender-neutral job classification systems. This increase comes from both tightened and new requirements. Belgium, France, Iceland and Spain previously mandated gender-neutrality if job classifications were used; these countries now mandate both that job classifications must be used and that they be gender-neutral. Italy now requires gender-neutral job classifications, whereas it previously reported no policy in place. Additionally, several countries (Australia, Korea, Lithuania, Sweden and Switzerland) now report recommending these systems.
In many of these countries job classifications are interlinked with job evaluation systems (see Section 2.2). For instance, among the countries with legal mandates, in Belgium, job evaluations in collective agreements must be conducted such that they result in gender neutral job classifications. These classifications must be submitted to the Federal Public Service for Employment to be assessed using a control instrument with criteria considered “good practices” for achieving gender neutrality. Iceland and Spain embed their job evaluation systems within equal pay audits. Specifically, Iceland’s Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights no. 150/2020 requires companies and institutions to implement classification systems based on predetermined, objective criteria evaluating responsibilities, workload, competence, and working conditions, ensuring equal or equally valuable jobs are classified together. Spain’s Article 22 of the Workers’ Statute requires companies to establish classification systems reflecting objective criteria without gender-based biases, as mandated by Royal Decree 902/2020.
France has a particularly comprehensive approach to job classification as a central component of its private sector collective bargaining architecture. Although the concept of classification is not explicitly defined in law, Article L.2261‑22 of the Labour Code links it to formal qualifications (diplomas) and the right to qualification. Job classification statutorily defines employee categories and plays an essential role for both employers and workers by linking job categories to minimum wage levels, supporting job and skills management policies, and ensuring contractual security since the classification of a position must be reflected in legal and administrative documents. In practice, classification systems are negotiated at sectoral level and are based on the organisation of jobs, occupations or qualification levels (for more details on job evaluation in classification in France, see the case study in Chapter 4).
Italy’s job classification system is regulated by both collective agreements and statutory law. The Civil Code (Article 2095) defines four broad categories of employees: executives, middle managers, white‑collar workers and blue‑collar workers. Sectoral collective agreements allocate workers to these categories through detailed classifications based on the actual duties performed by employees. These duties are grouped into homogeneous classifications linked to the level of competence and responsibility, each corresponding to a specific pay level. Although structured around ostensibly objective criteria, gender-neutrality is built in through comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, namely the Code of Equal Opportunities between men and women (Legislative Decree 198/2006), which prohibits discrimination in access to employment, training, career advancement, working conditions, compensation, and the attribution of duties. This includes protection against indirect discrimination – defined as apparently neutral practices that disadvantage workers of one sex.
Among countries with recommendations only, Lithuania, Sweden and Switzerland do not have standalone gender-neutral job classification systems; rather, their classification-related recommendations are embedded within broader requirements or recommendations to conduct gender-neutral job evaluations. In Korea and Portugal, the government provides an optional, free to use gender-neutral job-classification system: the National Competency Standards (NCS) system in Korea, and the Portuguese Classification of Occupations 2010.
Australia’s approach shows a systematic effort to incorporate gender-neutrality in job classifications. It operates through its “Modern Award” system, which forms the foundation of the national workplace relations framework. Modern Awards are legally enforceable instruments that set minimum terms and conditions of employment for specific occupations and industries, supplementing the National Employment Standards (NES). These Awards contain detailed classifications that describe the types of duties employees are expected to perform, supervisory responsibilities, required experience and qualifications for each level of work, and corresponding rates of pay. The Fair Work Commission, Australia’s independent national workplace tribunal, is responsible for creating and maintaining Modern Awards and has the statutory authority to set minimum wages and employment conditions.
Since December 2022, the Fair Work Commission has been required to embed principles of gender equality in its decision making processes and to take gender equality into account when determining minimum rates of pay in Modern Awards. However, the implementation of gender-neutral classification practices by the Commission remains at an early stage. There are more than 120 Modern Awards in operation under the Fair Work system. The Commission is currently conducting a review of a number of Awards to remedy potential gender-based undervaluation, which commenced with 5 priority awards2 covering female‑dominated occupations. While the Fair Work system covers most Australian workplaces, application differs across states and territories, with public sector employees in some states covered under those states’ systems rather than the national framework.
As far as practices in the public sector are concerned, Austria (Federal public service) and Latvia mandate gender-neutral job classifications through their job evaluation systems, while New Zealand recommends them and supports their implementation with tools including the Spotlight Skills Recognition Tool and Te Orowaru pay-equity assessment tool (see Section 2.4 for more information on support provided to employers).
Canada mandates a distinctive approach centred on gender sensitivity, beyond neutrality. Under the Pay Equity Act, federally regulated employers (or pay equity committees) are legally required to create job classes using explicit statutory criteria: similar duties and responsibilities, similar qualifications, same compensation plan, and same salary range. However, these job classes are not required to be gender neutral. Instead, Canada’s system is designed to be explicitly gendered: after creating job classes, employers must determine the gender predominance of each class (female‑dominated, male‑dominated, or gender-neutral) based on the gender composition of the current and past workforce, and gender-based occupational stereotyping. Pay equity analysis then compares only predominantly female job classes with predominantly male job classes of equal value, with gender-neutral job classes excluded from these comparisons. While the subsequent job evaluation – i.e. the assessment of work value – uses gender-neutral criteria consistent with pay equity principles, the job classification system itself is intentionally gendered rather than gender-neutral. This approach reflects a policy choice to identify and address gender-based pay disparities by explicitly comparing female‑dominated and male‑dominated work, rather than attempting to create gender-neutral classifications from the outset. When compensation differences between predominantly male and predominantly female job classes of equal value are detected, employers must increase compensation for the job class which is paid less (typically the predominantly female one) to achieve pay equity. These increases are due three years after employers become subject to the Pay Equity Act. If increases represent more than 1% of the employer’s annual payroll, they may be phased in over three to five years (depending on employer size), with each annual increase representing at least 1% of payroll. Employees or bargaining agents may file complaints with the Pay Equity Commissioner if employers fail to comply, and the Commissioner may order compensation increases based on investigation or audit findings.
Several countries have job classification systems with some gender-neutral features by using objective criteria but are not explicitly designed to be gender-neutral: Czechia (public sector only, where a mandatory Job Catalogue applies using objective criteria such as complexity, responsibility and strenuousness of work, though not explicitly designed as gender-neutral, expected to change with the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive), Colombia (where the Unique Classification of Occupations, CUOC, established through Decree 654/2021 and Resolution 771/2021, adapts ILO’s ISCO classification, with occupational titles in generic masculine form intended to include all genders), Costa Rica (Costa Rican Occupational Classification, COCR, developed by the National Institute of Statistics and Census), and Israel (where the Central Bureau of Statistics – CBS Occupation Classification categorises occupations based on skill level, field and type of work, with gender neutrality currently being internalised and potentially becoming mandatory in future).
Countries requiring or recommending employers to use a gender-neutral job classification system in the private sector, July/August 2025
Note: Information is current as of July/August 2025, when the bulk of data collection took place. Austria, Latvia and New Zealand require or recommend gender-neutral job classifications in the public sector only. In Belgium, establishing job classifications is not mandatory at a national level, though sectoral classifications must be gender-neutral and are subject to public control. Such classifications are widespread in practice, resulting in broad coverage across the private sector. Canada requires federally regulated employers to create job classes using objective criteria but does not require these classifications to be gender neutral. Instead, job classes are intentionally categorised as female‑dominated, male‑dominated, or gender-neutral based on incumbency patterns and occupational stereotyping. Pay equity analysis then compares predominantly female and male job classes of equal value, with gender-balanced classes excluded from comparison.
Source: 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire.
Where job classification systems are mandated, they tend to operate at the national level – including Australia, Austria in the Federal public service, Iceland, Korea, Latvia in the public sector, and Portugal – though in some cases they are embedded in sectoral systems in various levels (e.g. Belgium, France and Italy), or are left to individual companies (e.g. Lithuania, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland).
2.3.1. Transparency requirements make pay determination criteria visible to workers
Many OECD countries require employers to make pay criteria available to workers, though the specific mechanisms and scope of these requirements differ substantially (Table 2.2). Countries like Australia, Austria (Federal public service only), Canada (federally regulated employers), Czechia, Iceland, Israel, Korea, Latvia (public sector only), Lithuania and Sweden have established formal processes requiring employers to provide detailed information about pay scales, classification systems, and wage components, often through written documents or specific reporting mechanisms. Other countries like Italy primarily provide information through workers’ representatives. By contrast, in some countries, like Norway, workers who suspect discrimination can demand written confirmation of pay levels and criteria for comparison purposes. Several countries exempt smaller employers from the requirement to make pay criteria visible, suggesting a recognition that smaller organisations may face disproportionate compliance challenges.
Regarding workers’ rights to request individualised or aggregate pay information, the landscape is more fragmented. Ten countries have established some form of right for workers to request pay data beyond what employers are required to proactively disclose. The nature and scope of these rights vary considerably, though processes are expected to standardise and expand given the EU Directive provisions on information rights for workers. Israel, Italy, Norway and Spain provide relatively robust mechanisms for workers to request information about pay levels for comparable positions or worker categories, often broken down by gender to facilitate pay equity monitoring. In contrast, several countries with strong proactive disclosure requirements, such as Australia, Czechia and Korea, do not provide workers with specific rights to request additional pay information. Canada represents an intermediate approach, requiring federally regulated employers to develop comprehensive pay equity plans that are accessible to workers, but not granting individual employees the right to demand aggregate data.
Requirements for employers to make available to workers the criteria used to determine workers’ pay, pay levels and pay progression; ways to provide information; exception for certain employers; and workers’ right to request pay information, July/August 2025
Note: Information is current as of July/August 2025, when the bulk of data collection took place. “NA” means “not applicable”.
1. Pay reporting laws in Canada only apply to federally regulated private sector employers, federally regulated Crown corporations, and other federal organisations (under the Employment Equity Act) and to federally regulated private and public sector employers, parliamentary workplaces, and the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices (under the Pay Equity Act).
2 France answered for the private sector only.
Source: 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire.
A variety of tools and methods exist across OECD countries to support gender-neutral job evaluation and classification. These can be broadly categorised into analytical tools and toolkits, methodological guidance, capacity-building initiatives, and measures specifically designed to address valuation bias (see Table A.A.1 in Annex A for an overview of these tools and methodological approaches). The prevalence of published guidelines, web-based toolkits, and downloadable resources indicates a strong preference for scalable, accessible support mechanisms that can reach diverse employer populations. At the same time, the concurrent availability of consulting services and direct training suggests recognition that written materials alone may be insufficient for complex organisational transformation. This section discusses these support systems in more detail.
The institutional architecture for delivering support to employers reveals three predominant models. First, specialised equality bodies often play a leading role in the provision of technical guidance and training, as evidenced by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission in Australia, the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men in Belgium, the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the United Kingdom, and the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud in Norway. Second, labour ministries assume direct responsibility for developing methodological resources and conducting employer training, particularly visible in Czechia, where authorities provide awareness-raising, tools and methodological guidance to support the assessment and comparison of the value of work; in Korea, where authorities provide guidance to companies on methodologies for assessing work of equal value;3 and in Japan where Prefectural Labour Bureau staff provide advice adapted to each company, and in Canada where the Office of the Pay Equity Commissioner develops comprehensive resources. Third, multi-stakeholder partnerships involving government agencies with social partners have been active in countries such as Belgium (where the BE‑MAGIC project engages employers’ and workers’ representatives in improving national guidance and awareness – Box 2.5), Denmark (where social partners provide support to their members on how to compare the value of work in line with the Danish labour market model), New Zealand (where public service guidance has been developed collaboratively with unions and diverse employee representatives), and Spain (whose job evaluation tool was developed through technical negotiating tables bringing together workers’ and employers’ organisations, independent experts, and government ministries). The European Commission and EIGE have updated EU-wide guidelines for employers and social partners on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification in the context of Article 4 of the EU Pay Transparency Directive (Box 2.3).
In addition to publicly provided tools and methodologies, private organisations and consultancies across countries offer commercial job evaluation tools and advisory services. These range from analytical software that employers can use to conduct their own assessments to full-service consultancy where firms carry out the job evaluation process on behalf of clients.
In line with Article 4(3) of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, the European Commission and EIGE have updated EU-wide guidelines on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems. The revised, evidence‑based step-by-step toolkit is designed to support implementation of the Directive and to help employers ensure equal pay for equal work or work of equal value.
The toolkit, which is available free of charge, is a voluntary resource designed primarily for employers of all sizes across the public and private sectors. It is also relevant for social partners, workers and their representatives, equality bodies, policymakers and practitioners involved in pay-setting, collective bargaining, enforcement and monitoring of equal pay.
The toolkit provides step-by-step guidance for assessing the value of jobs using objective and gender-neutral criteria – skills, responsibility, effort and working conditions – while addressing the risk of gender bias and the systematic undervaluation of female‑dominated work. The results aim to enable employers to establish a gender-neutral and transparent pay structure, covering both basic pay and complementary or variable pay components.
The toolkit offers three tailored pathways adapted to organisational size: a simplified pathway for micro‑organisations (fewer than 10 workers), using a graduated factor comparison method; a simplified pathway for small and medium-sized organisations with up to 15 job roles, based on pair comparison; and a standard pathway for medium-sized and large organisations, using a comprehensive analytical point-factor method.
The following resources are available to support implementation:
Step-by-step toolkit (PDF): A comprehensive document providing structured guidance for conducting gender-neutral job evaluation and classification, including ten practical tools, templates, checklists, case studies and downloadable Excel worksheets. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/gender-neutral-job-evaluation-and-classification-step-by-step-toolkit.pdf.
Web toolkit: A simpler and more accessible online version of the toolkit, structured around the three organisational size pathways, with interactive navigation and supporting materials. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gender-neutral-job-evaluation.
Video tutorials: Short guidance videos showing how different organisations can navigate the web toolkit and conduct gender-neutral job evaluation and classification in practice (micro‑organisations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X9PjEQ-EQo; small and medium-sized organisations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ8P7DyW_o; large organisations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfwLXVgpkw).
Factsheet: A summary of the toolkit’s main components, intended as a quick-reference overview for employers and social partners. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/gender-neutral-job-evaluation-and-classification-factsheet.pdf.
Policy brief (by EIGE and Eurofound): A brief highlighting the benefits of gender-neutral job evaluation and classification for employers, social partners and workers. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/policy-brief-building-successful-and-inclusive-organisations-why-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-and-classification-pays-off.pdf.
Launch webinar: A two‑hour online webinar introducing the toolkit to users, including demonstrations of the tools and templates and an opportunity to engage with experts. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/newsroom/events/webinar-launching-eu-wide-guidelines-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-and-classification.
Source: EIGE (n.d.[15]; 2025[16]) and (EIGE, 2026[17]) webinar: “Launching the EU-wide guidelines on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification”.
2.4.1. Analytical tools and toolkits can streamline job evaluation
Governments in many OECD countries have developed standardised analytical tools for use by employers The Australian Public Service Commission provides the APS Role Evaluation Tool to support a common approach to determining the relative value of roles in the federal public service. Belgium’s Institute for Gender Equality has developed a Checklist on Non-Sexism in Job Evaluation and Classification to detect gender discrimination; employers must indicate whether they used it when submitting their classifications. Canada provides a comprehensive Pay Equity Toolkit designed for medium-sized federally regulated organisations, which includes a pay equity plan tool, templates, a job evaluation guide, an hourly wage calculator, and the Pay Equity Compass – an online tool to determine applicability of the Pay Equity Act. Germany offers eg-check.de, provided by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, to identify risks of unequal pay.
In New Zealand, the Ministry for Women developed the Spotlight Skills Recognition Tool, an online checklist to ensure skills and qualifications are recognised consistently and fairly. Pay equity information from previous pay equity claims has also been collected into the Employment Services Repository, including job descriptions, anonymised wage and salary data, summary job profiles, anonymised interview transcripts, areas of job responsibility and skills, workforce analysis and evidence reports. If parties to a claim agree, they can use employees covered by a previous settlement (settled after 14 May 2025) as a comparator in their own claims. Portugal’s Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment (CITE) has developed a support guide for job evaluation based on objective criteria common to both women and men, though the system is recommended rather than mandatory.
Spain has made available a national job evaluation tool (Figure 2.4), developed through social dialogue, to implement Royal Decree 902/2020 on equal pay. The tool, published online in 2022 and supported by Order PCM/1047/2022 establishing official job-evaluation procedures and technical guidelines, is not compulsory but sets minimum requirements to ensure companies’ job evaluations are objective and gender-neutral (for more details see Box 4.5 in Spain’s case study in Chapter 4).
Screenshot of the Excel-based job evaluation tool developed by Spain’s Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Equality in collaboration with social partners
Note: Translated from Spanish. The tool’s main interface provides access to multiple worksheets: job listings, evaluated positions, workforce distribution by position, and job mapping. The lower section displays analytical outputs through charts. Users can also define optional “other” subfactors for organisation-specific requirements. The tool automatically groups positions of equal value based on total points, enabling companies to identify potential pay inequities across jobs that may have different titles but equivalent objective requirements.
Source: The tool is available at https://www.mites.gob.es/es/portada/herramienta_valoracion_puesto/index.htm.
Switzerland has developed Logib, a web-based tool enabling employers to analyse the gender pay gap and apply a systematic approach to setting wages (Box 2.4); Czechia and Luxembourg have also adapted or tested Logib for national use.
Switzerland developed Logib as a free, online tool to help employers calculate and analyse gender pay gaps. First introduced in 2006 and subsequently updated, Logib has become a cornerstone of Switzerland’s pay transparency framework and has been adapted for use in other countries.
Key features
Free and accessible: available online at no cost to all employers
Anonymous and secure: ensures confidentiality of employer data
User-friendly design: guides employers through the analysis process
Dual methodology: offers two modules tailored to company size (Module 1 for companies with 50 or more employees; Module 2 for small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 50 employees)
Comprehensive reporting: generates detailed gender pay gap reports.
Employers complete a standardised data sheet template with information on their workforce and compensation. The tool then uses these data to calculate gender pay gaps and automatically generate an analysis report, providing employers with clear insights into their pay structures.
How it works
Employers complete a standardised data sheet template with information on their workforce and compensation. The tool then uses thesxe data to calculate gender pay gaps and automatically generate an analysis report, providing employers with clear insights into their pay structures. The pay systems analysis component evaluates whether the criteria used to determine salaries (such as skills, responsibilities, and working conditions) are applied in a gender-neutral manner, highlighting areas where pay structures may inadvertently disadvantage women or men.
Screenshots of the Logib tools: Equal pay analysis (Module 2 for small and medium-sized enterprises) and Pay systems, offered by Switzerland
Source: The tools are available at https://www.ebg.admin.ch/en/equal-pay-analysis-with-logib.
The Equal Pay International Coalition (https://www.equalpayinternationalcoalition.org/) – a global initiative led by the OECD, ILO and UN Women which bring together different stakeholders (including employers) and facilitates knowledge exchange and the sharing of good practices to close gender pay gaps – has designated Logib as an “EPIC Good Practice” and shares it with member organisations worldwide.
Source: Government of Switzerland Logib website (https://www.logib.admin.ch/home); EPIC (n.d.[18]), “Logib is Epic’s 1st Good Practice”; 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire.
2.4.2. Governments provide methodological guidance for job evaluations
Other countries have produced detailed methodological guidance to support implementation. Belgium stands out for its comprehensive approach developed by the Institute for Gender Equality, which includes a manual on gender-neutral job classification (“Classification de fonctions sexuellement neutre”) and a practical guide to analytical job classification (“Classification de fonctions analytique”). Canada’s Pay Equity Toolkit includes a user guide explaining how to create a pay equity plan and a job evaluation guide helping employers understand the principles of job evaluation. Czechia has published several handbooks for employers and employees under its Action Plan for Equal Pay for Women and Men 2023‑2026, providing methodologies for assessing and comparing the value of work with practical guidance materials, examples and criteria. It has also developed a detailed methodology for the public sector that serves as guidance for the private sector. In Estonia, the Ministry of Finance has developed methodology for the public sector.
France’s National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions (ANACT) published a Guide to professional classifications for branch negotiators in May 2024, providing guidance on professional classification systems used in branch-level collective bargaining. Lithuania has a publicly-available job evaluation methodology first approved in 2004, with further methodological recommendations published in 2023. New Zealand has developed a practical guide explaining the job evaluation standard NZS 8007:2006 and how to apply it in a gender-inclusive way. In Norway, the Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs has issued guidance materials on pay mapping obligations that outline how employers should assess whether different jobs are of equal value. Portugal’s Technical Committee for Equal Pay between Women and Men developed a Management System Standard for Equal Pay (NP 4588:2023), published in June 2023. Spain issued Order PCM/1047/2022, establishing an official job-evaluation procedure and technical guidelines; the associated tool sets minimum requirements to ensure companies’ job evaluations are objective and gender-neutral, though it is not compulsory. In Sweden, the Equality Ombudsman provides Lönekartläggning, a guide to support employers in annual pay surveys.
Israel’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued guidelines regarding the implementation of Equal Pay for Female and Male Employees Act Amendment No. 6, which include explanations and examples concerning the classification of types of employees, job positions, and ranking levels, providing operational guidance on applying the principle of equal pay for work of equal value; however, they do not mandate a specific job evaluation methodology nor establish a formal, standardised job classification system.
2.4.3. Countries deliver capacity-building through training, support and sectoral engagement
Countries have implemented varied capacity building-on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems Broadly speaking, governments typically offer more structured guidance to their own public service entities through specialised training centres and mandatory procedures.
Austria provides support to the private sector via the project “100% – equality pays off”, which offers advice on equality-oriented framework conditions and concrete measures for gender equality in the workplace, while supporting the public sector by offering courses on job description preparation and federal evaluation procedures at the central training centre of the Federal Civil Service. Belgium launched the BE‑MAGIC project to improve guidance and tools for gender-sensitive job evaluation and raise awareness among employers and workers’ representatives in support of implementing the EU Pay Transparency Directive (Box 2.5).
Canada offers a case study demonstrating the steps an organisation takes to create their first pay equity plan and, in collaboration with TÉLUQ University, provides a free online course on the pay equity process. Czechia’s Action Plan for Gender Equality includes plans for training all employers on equal pay and pay though implementation is forthcoming. Finland for now relies on commercial actors to provide capacity-building support.
Norway’s Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud provides guidance on anti-discrimination legislation, including advice in individual cases, lectures and training courses. Portugal’s Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment (CITE) has promoted online clarification sessions on equal pay and the implementation of Law No. 60/2018, alongside email and telephone support. Sweden’s Equality Ombudsman is mandated to supervise compliance with the Discrimination Act and to inform, educate, and have contact with authorities, companies, individuals, and organisations. Switzerland offers a helpline for Logib and organises workshops through the Federal Office for Gender Equality to support employers.
France presents a notable model of sectoral engagement wherein the General Directorate for Labour (DGT) actively monitors wage negotiations across 171 occupational branches, through a wage monitoring committee. This committee meets twice a year with nationally representative unions and employer organisations to review collectively agreed minimum wages. Branches facing difficulties such as low minimum wage levels, compressed wage grids, or outdated classifications may be met by the Ministry of Labour to encourage progress in negotiations. In the most difficult cases, branches may be placed under the supervision of a Mixed Joint Committee, chaired by an external facilitator (sometimes a civil servant), to facilitate the progress of negotiations. However, this does not guarantee that negotiations will necessarily resume.
Beyond national initiatives, collaboration and peer-learning between countries play an important role in capacity-building for gender-neutral job evaluation. The adaptation of Switzerland’s Logib tool by Czechia and Luxembourg exemplifies how countries can learn from and build upon each other’s experiences. Such peer-learning also occurs in the context of the Equal Pay International Coalition (EPIC – https://www.equalpayinternationalcoalition.org/). In the European Union, the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme funds projects to promote gender equality, including specific calls for proposals to support Member States in developing national guidance and tools for gender-sensitive job evaluation and classification systems.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive requires Members states to make analytical tools or methodologies available to employers, to help them to meet their obligations to ensure equal pay for equal or equivalent work. To this end, Belgium has launched the EU-co-funded BE‑MAGIC project (Belgium – Modernisation and Adaptation of Gender neutral Instruments of Classification). In addition to ensuring the correct transposition and implementation of the Directive into Belgian law, the project supports social partners in sectoral consultation on pay structures by providing them with tools for gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems. It also offers training for social partners and chairpersons of joint committees. The project will examine the directive’s impact on Belgian legislation and sectoral pay structures. In addition, existing tools will be evaluated and new ones developed.
Source: 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire and Federal Public Service (2025[19]), “Pay transparency: the BE-MAGIC project”.
2.4.4. Specific initiatives combat systematic undervaluation of female‑dominated work
Several countries have developed specific tools and guidance to help identify and address gender bias embedded in job evaluation criteria and processes. Belgium launched the BE‑MAGIC project (see Box 2.5). Germany’s “EVA list” (evaluation of job assessment procedures), developed by the Institute for Economic and Social Research on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, enables social partners to evaluate whether job assessment procedures in collective bargaining agreements are gender-neutral, helping to identify procedural gaps or inconsistencies that may give rise to gender bias in evaluation outcomes. New Zealand offers guidance and tools – such as the Spotlight Skills Recognition Tool and the Te Orowaru work assessment tool – to support bias-free assessment of work value, including skills that may have been historically overlooked.
Some countries have conducted or are conducting centralised assessments of job evaluations and classifications – including Australia, Austria and Belgium. Australia has implemented mandatory measures through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022, requiring the Fair Work Commission to consider gender equality when determining minimum pay rates under Modern Awards. The Commission is reviewing five modern awards as a priority, and found that employees under these awards have been the subject of gender-based undervaluation. As of July/August 2025 the Commission has made decisions to vary classifications and minimum wage rates in multiple awards as a result of the review, which is ongoing. In Austria job evaluation for the Federal public service is carried out centrally by the Federal Chancellery to ensure consistency across the system. They also note that it is often necessary to re‑classify posts to reflect changes in the tasks they involve: between 8 000 and 10 000 posts are re‑classified per year; however, this number can rise considerably in times of major restructuring. In Belgium, the Directorate General for Collective Labour Relations checks gender-neutral job classifications submitted by sectoral level industrial joint committees using 12 established criteria. According to responses to the 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire, around 255 classifications were assessed in the initial review (in 2015), and 45 were found not to be gender-neutral, primarily due to the use of gendered job titles, and required revision. Currently, almost all sectoral job classifications are considered neutral on the minimum requirement of neutral job titles (see Belgium case study in Chapter 4).
Interestingly, both Norway and Sweden rely primarily on employers themselves to address gender bias through legislative obligations. Norway’s Section 26 of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act obliges all employers, regardless of sector or size, to work actively, purposefully and systematically to promote equality and prevent discrimination, with Bufdir’s guidance recommending that employers examine how unconscious biases may contribute to pay disparities. Similarly, Sweden’s Discrimination Act requires employers to promote gender balance through education, training, skills development, and other appropriate measures. Evaluations by independent experts suggest that this employer-driven approach may have limited effectiveness in addressing underlying gender-based valuation biases (see Box 2.2).
Training initiatives and awareness-raising actions can complement tools
Multiple countries complement methodological developments with training initiatives and awareness-raising actions to increase employer capacity. For example, in Spain the Women’s Institute provides companies with 50 or more employees with equality training for human resources staff, aimed at reinforcing the detection of bias in recruitment and work evaluation, while Sweden’s Discrimination Act obliges employers to promote gender balance in different job categories through training, skills development and other measures.
Some countries incentivise good practices with recognition schemes
Some countries have established voluntary recognition programmes to incentivise companies to adopt equitable evaluation and pay practices. Mexico promotes two key distinctions: the UNDP Gender Equality Seal, awarded to companies promoting equal pay, inclusion, and equitable evaluation of professional skills by assessing hiring, promotion and training practices; and the Distinction for Equality Between Women and Men, which recognises companies incorporating gender equality criteria into human resources processes, including efforts to properly value roles traditionally held by women. Portugal’s Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment (CITE) annually awards the Equal Pay Seal to companies with pay gaps between ‑1% and 1%.
2.4.5. Countries are developing new job evaluation frameworks and adjusting existing ones
Several countries are developing initiatives indicating broader momentum toward pay transparency. In the EU, these are largely in anticipation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Iceland presents a particularly ambitious example: in March 2023, the Icelandic Government and the Association of Icelandic Municipalities announced the development of a new job evaluation system based on recommendations of an Action Group on Pay Equality and Equality in the Labour Market. The system will focus specifically on eliminating wage disparities resulting from a gender-segregated labour market and the systemic undervaluation of traditionally female‑dominated occupations. A steering committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Housing, the Confederation of Icelandic Employers, employees’ associations, and public sector employers’ associations was appointed to develop the system, with overall responsibility held by the Ministry of Equality. The committee is expected to submit proposals by the end of 2026. Notably, Iceland’s approach explicitly acknowledges that occupations where women constitute a large majority and which were previously carried out within the home – such as teaching and nursing – have not been fairly remunerated, and commits to conducting evaluations based on factors that traditional assessment systems have failed to recognise as professional competences, including emotional effort (managing sensitive psychological situations), responsibility for individuals’ well-being (as distinct from financial or asset responsibility), communication skills in complex interpersonal contexts, and care‑giving responsibilities. The approach recognises these skills as acquired professional skills that have been undervalued due to their historical association with unpaid domestic labour.
Other countries are also preparing new frameworks in the context of the EU Pay Transparency Directive (see Section 2.5). Outside the EU, New Zealand’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is developing guidance on pay equity legislation changes, including methods for assessing job size and identifying gender bias.
The importance of gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems for ensuring equal pay has been reinforced by the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which places establishes core requirements regarding pay structures, specifying criteria for assessing work of equal value, and requiring EU Member States to ensure analytical tools and methodologies are made available to support employers in establishing gender-neutral systems (see Box 2.1 for a detailed overview of the Directive’s provisions on job evaluation and classification).
As EU member states work to transpose the Pay Transparency Directive by June 2026, countries are at varying stages of transposition regarding job evaluation and classification systems (Table 2.3). Annex B gives an overview of the key actors involved in the definition, transposition and implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Implementation of the Directive’s provisions related to gender-neutral job classification and evaluation is progressing at varying speeds. Several EU OECD countries have already taken steps to implement them. Spain has substantial legislation in place that addresses many of the Directive’s provisions, though full formal transposition is still pending. Royal Decree 902/2020 sets specific criteria to determine when work must be considered of equal value (though the criteria are not exactly those required by the Directive). In 2022, Spain published an online job evaluation tool developed through social dialogue. Every Spanish company must have a job classification scheme based on professional groups reflecting objective criteria free of gender bias, as mandated by Royal Decree 902/2020. Companies required to implement equality plans must also assess pay disparities for workers assessed to be doing work of equal value, conduct equal pay audits based on objective job evaluation, and establish corrective action plans where disparities are identified.
Belgium launched the BE‑MAGIC project to support implementation of Article 4.2 of the Directive in Belgian law and collective bargaining practice (see Box 2.5). Greece established a working group on the directive, which completed its work with its final meeting, held on 13 February 2026. Lithuania is preparing to transition from its current system – where employers must use gender-neutral criteria but can choose their own – to requiring evaluation using the Directive’s four core criteria: skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. Additional countries have published draft legislation (Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden) or established expert commissions (Germany), while others report having working groups or consultations underway.
Several countries are developing comprehensive frameworks and tools to support employers with gender-neutral job evaluation. Czechia’s Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is developing a practical methodology for assessing work value, a job evaluation tool for small and medium-sized employers, and modelling internal pay regulations, drawing on international methods from Canada, Spain, and the ILO, though political consensus and draft legislation are still lacking. Finland published draft legislation in December 2025 and plans to develop analytical tools based on gender-neutral criteria (though not mandatory). It also recognises the need for training (yet to be prepared) and noted that they will apply EU-wide guidelines (Box 2.3). Latvia is transposing the Directive and has launched an EU-funded project (“Promotion of Equal Opportunities and Non-Discrimination”) preparing step-by-step guidelines for SMEs on developing gender-neutral job evaluation systems. Poland is developing analytical tools to support employer compliance with the Directive’s job evaluation requirements, building on existing Labour Code criteria that employers use to determine work value.
Other countries are focussing on specific legal and procedural aspects. Austria is discussing two key needs: ensuring pay transparency when initiating employment and defining job evaluation criteria through further development of Section 9 of the Equal Treatment Act; and creating employer obligations to provide information on pay determination criteria and individual employee rights to information about average pay levels for comparable work. Italy is working on legal definitions of “equal work” and “work of equal value” in line with the Directive, building on its collective bargaining system. The Netherlands has published draft legislation requiring employers to establish pay structures that enable value comparison, with criteria to be agreed with workers’ representatives. the Slovak Republic published draft legislation in September 2025, following by public consultation through October 2025, and Sweden – following an inquiry – published a 388‑page report with proposals for the transposition in May 2024.
Several countries have established working groups or initiated consultations but have provided limited public information on specific transposition plans. France has begun consultations with social partners, with implementation under development following government changes in 2025. Germany established an expert commission that published a comprehensive report in November 2025 with recommendations for draft legislation expected in early 2026. Hungary has a working group considering transposition proposals, though specific timelines and deliverables have not been publicly documented.
Key changes related to job evaluation and classifications, by country and implementation status (not yet, planned, ongoing, implemented), July/August 2025
Note: Information is current as of July/August 2025, when the bulk of data collection took place. Country responses have been supplemented with desk research. (a) France answered for the private sector only.
Source: 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire.
References
[13] Carlson, L. (2019), “Rethinking Equal Pay in Sweden in Light of the Transparency Approaches in the UK and Iceland”.
[3] Chicha, M. (2008), Promoting equity: Gender-nuetral job evaluation for equal pay:A step-by-step guide, ILO.
[17] EIGE (2026), Webinar: Launching the EU-wide guidelines on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification, European Institute for Gender Equality, https://niva.org/course/how-to-close-the-gender-pay-gap-pathways-to-equal-pay-for-work-of-equal-value/.
[16] EIGE (2025), Testing of the Draft Step-by-Step Toolkit on Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation, https://eige.europa.eu/newsroom/events/testing-draft-step-step-toolkit-gender-neutral-job-evaluation.
[15] EIGE (n.d.), Practical guidance and tools on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems, https://eige.europa.eu/about/projects/practical-guidance-and-tools-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-and-classification-systems.
[18] EPIC (n.d.), Logib is Epic’s 1st Good Practice, https://www.equalpayinternationalcoalition.org/whats_new/logib-is-epics-1st-good-practice/.
[4] European Commission (2013), Commission staff working document on the application of Directive 2006/54/EC, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6697b608-60c1-11e3-ab0f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
[2] European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2023), Directive 2023/970 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 to strengthen the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/970/oj.
[19] Federal Public Service (2025), Pay transparency: the BE-MAGIC project, https://emploi.belgique.be/fr/themes/egalite-et-non-discrimination/transparence-des-remunerations-projet-be-magic.
[6] Jämsén, S., H. Hietala and J. Maaniemi (2022), Samanarvoinen työ -hankkeen loppuraportti [Equal Value Work Project Final Report], Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-5439-7.
[7] Maaniemi, J. and H. Hietala (2026), Pay Transparency Directive and tools for assessing work of equal value: Current situation and development needs in Finland.
[14] OECD (2026), Gender wage gap (indicator), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/gender-wage-gap.html.
[5] OECD (2023), Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform, Gender Equality at Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea13aa68-en.
[1] OECD (2021), Pay Transparency Tools to Close the Gender Wage Gap, Gender Equality at Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eba5b91d-en.
[12] Salminen-Karlsson, M. and A. Fogelberg Eriksson (2024), “Men are always better? How Swedish municipalities justify pay differences in gender pay audit reports”, NORA-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, Vol. 32/1, pp. 35-48.
[11] Salminen-Karlsson, M. and A. Fogelberg Eriksson (2022), “Decoupling gender equality from gender pay audits in Swedish municipalities”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 43/4, pp. 1588-1609.
[10] Swedish National Audit Office (2019), The Discrimination Act’s equal pay survey requirement – a blunt instrument for reducing the gender pay gap, https://www.riksrevisionen.se/en/auditreports/audit-reports/2019/the-discrimination-acts-equal-pay-survey-requirement---a-bluntinstrument-for-reducing-the-gender-pay-gap.html.
[8] Task Force on Pay Equity and Equality in the Labour Market (2024), Job Evaluation Report of the Task Force on Pay Equity and Equality in the Labour Market, Prime Minister’s Office, Government Offices of Iceland, https://www.government.is/library/Files/Job%20evaluation.%20Report%20of%20the%20Task%20Force%20on%20Pay%20Equity%20and%20Equality%20in%20the%20labour%20market_.pdf.
[9] Utredningen om genomförande av lönetransparensdirektivet (2024), Genomförande av lönetransparensdirektivet [Implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive], Regeringskansliet, https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/23c9dac352834019998a08b31c8c1b94/sou-2024_40_inlaga_pdf-a.pdf.
← 1. All companies in the private sector are subject to collective agreement nr. 25 of the National Labour Council, which requires equal pay between male and female workers in all elements and conditions of remuneration, including job evaluation systems. While sectoral agreements cover almost all private sector workers through extension mechanisms, those not covered by sectoral agreements are still bound by this national-level collective agreement (nr. 25) requiring gender-neutral pay practices.
← 2. Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010; the Children’s Services Award 2010; the Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020; and the Pharmacy Industry Award 2020 (for more information see https://www.fwc.gov.au/hearings-decisions/major-cases/gender-undervaluation-priority-awards-review).
← 3. In Korea, the legal basis for supporting the comparison of the value of work is provided by Article 8 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act and the Regulations on the Administration of Equal Employment Opportunity Measures (Administrative Rules of the Ministry of Employment and Labour, August 2023). Practical guidance is delivered through two main channels: corporate consulting on Affirmative Action, and regular workshops for honorary supervisors for equal employment, both of which guide companies on methodologies for assessing work of equal value.