Summary
This is Equally Ours’ response to the Office for Equality and Opportunity's consultation on the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, which we have submitted.
We are grateful to all our members and associate members who contributed their expertise to the development of the response.
We are sharing it on our website to increase awareness of the consultation, support knowledge exchange, and inform our members' and wider network's individual responses to the consultation. The deadline for submissions is 10 June 2025.
This is Equally Ours’ response to the Office for Equality and Opportunity’s consultation on the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, which we have submitted.
We are grateful to all our members and associate members who contributed their expertise to the development of the response.
We are sharing it on our website to increase awareness of the consultation, support knowledge exchange, and inform our members’ and wider network’s individual responses to the consultation. The deadline for submissions is 10 June 2025. Details of the consultation are here.
Our overall approach to the consultation
We welcome the introduction of mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting by employers, which Equally Ours called for in our 2024 manifesto for a new government. Recent discussions in the policy influencing working group (PIWG) have reaffirmed our support for increasing transparency and improving data on pay and employment disparities between ethnic groups and between disabled and non-disabled people.
We favour a comprehensive and holistic approach to pay and employment reporting on protected characteristic groups by employers, which aligns approaches for different protected characteristics where possible, to improve comparability of data, enable intersectional analysis and minimise administrative burdens on employers, enabling them to focus resources on improving their employment practices.
The overall policy objective of mandatory pay reporting is to drive reductions in workplace inequalities between different protected characteristic groups by:
- giving employers better data on which to base their actions to reduce workplace inequalities
- enabling employers to assess their equality performance against that of others, with the expectation that this will drive poorer performers to take action in order to improve employee relations and gain competitive advantage in the jobs market
- applying public pressure on employers to reduce their published pay gaps to protect their brand reputation
- providing employees with data to assess whether they are being treated fairly at work and take action if they are not
- giving prospective employees information about how inclusive different employers are
- enabling trade unions and other employee representative groups to identify where employment practices require improvement
- improving the data available to campaigning organisations concerned about workplace inequalities.
Mandatory pay gap reporting operates at the micro (individual employer) level but is aimed at driving reductions in labour market inequalities at the macro (national) level. There is evidence that the gender pay gap reporting regime introduced in 2017 has had a measurable positive impact on gender pay disparities within some employers. However, the national gender pay gap has reduced only marginally – from 19.8% in 2011/12 to 17.4% in 2019/20 – with evidence from the IFS showing that pay gap narrowing can mostly be accounted for by a narrowing in the educational gap.
So, while we strongly support the Government’s proposals to increase transparency on pay gaps through extending mandatory reporting to ethnicity and disability, we are also clear that mandatory reporting alone is not sufficient to tackle the many barriers certain protected groups face to equal participation and reward in the labour market.
In 2017 the Equality and Human Rights Commission published Fair opportunities for all: a strategy to reduce pay gaps in Britain, drawing on extensive research into the size and causes of gender, ethnicity and disability pay gaps. Its recommendations for the action needed to address pay gaps extended beyond pay gap reporting, reducing discrimination and improving fairness and inclusive practices in workplaces, to include addressing differences in subject and career choices, educational attainment and access to apprenticeships and encouraging men and women to share childcare responsibilities.
According to the 2024 Equal Pay Report by the Fawcett Society, “Mothers see a greater gender pay gap than women without children, with differences in occupation and industry accounting for 45% of this gap. A lack of affordable childcare, a lack of well-paid flexible work, and discrimination at every stage means a narrower range of jobs available to mothers, regardless of their careers before they had children. However, the overall gender pay gap isn’t purely down to the motherhood penalty.”
We agree that broader societal factors – including inequalities in education, perverse incentives in the welfare benefits system, inequalities in housing and healthcare, poor availability and accessibility of public transport and financial services, and a lack of affordable childcare and quality part-time work – play a major role in contributing to pay gaps.
These broader systemic factors need to be addressed through a cross-government strategy if pay gaps are to be minimised and substantive equality in the labour market is to be achieved. Equally Ours therefore continues to call for a cross-government strategy that effectively embeds equality across its missions, particularly around growth and the green economy.
Our response to the consultation is based on this analysis, together with the findings and recommendations of the Institute of Directors and Disability@Work in their report Progress Through Transparency – The case for mandatory disability employment and pay gap reporting, Liz Sayce’s 2018 LSE report Switching Focus, Race in the workplace: the McGregor-Smith review (2017), existing government guidance on ethnicity pay reporting and findings of other relevant reports, including a 2025 Institute of Labor Economics discussion paper on a study indicating that disability employment inequalities exist predominantly within, rather than between, employers, the Chartered Management Institute’s report Filling in the gaps (2025), and the Business Disability Forum’s report Towards meaningful disability workforce and pay gap reporting.
This latter report, based on a small qualitative study, warns of potential unintended consequences and concerns about the proposed approach to mandatory disability pay gap reporting – including use of the Equality Act definition of disability, linking disability data to individuals’ personal records, potential pressure on disabled people to take higher-paid roles which wouldn’t work for them, negative impact on providing reasonable adjustments such as hours reductions or “job-carving”, and diverting resources away from making improvements in inclusive practices towards data collection and analysis. In shaping our response to the consultation, we have considered how the risk of potential unintended consequences can be mitigated; we believe that the proposed requirement on employers to publish action plans, alongside a proportionate approach to the collection and reporting of meaningful data while protecting the privacy of individuals, should result in action to improve employment practices and minimise any risk of unintended consequences.
We also draw from the following analysis of the effectiveness of the existing mandatory gender pay gap reporting requirements in reducing the gender pay gap.
Effectiveness of gender pay gap reporting
Gender pay gap reporting has been mandatory for employers in Great Britain with 250 or more employees since 2017. Evaluations of its effectiveness have been mixed, and there have been concerns about unintended consequences. A 2021 employment tribunal case alleging the dismissal of highly-paid male executives to reduce the employer’s gender pay gap was well-publicised. A 2021 study by the Centre for Economic Performance identifies three main concerns about the design and operation of the regime: first, that many employers do not have the capabilities to calculate the statistics correctly; second, that the enforcement mechanism is weak and focusses only on the fact of publication and not the accuracy of the data; and finally that company partners are generally excluded from the calculations as they are not employees. This study found that the introduction of gender pay gap reporting requirements led to a 1.6 percentage-point increase in women’s hourly wages compared to those of men at employers just above the 250-employee threshold within the sample, driven primarily by a decline in male wages and not by a change in the composition of the workforce – this corresponds to around 19% of the gender pay gap within the sample. The author suggests that a preference among some workers against high pay gap employers, with evidence showing that female workers in particular exhibit a significant preference for low pay gap employers. In a hypothetical choice experiment, over half of women accept a 2.5% lower salary to avoid a high pay gap employer. The report also suggested that the public availability of data influences worse performing employers, more exposed to public scrutiny, to reduce their gender pay gap the most.
The Government conducted a post-implementation review of the gender pay gap regulations in 2023. This identified the following objectives of the regulations:
- to increase transparency around the gender pay gap through reporting
- … with the aim of prompting action to narrow the gap on the part of employers
- … and ultimately lead to a reduction in the national gender pay gap.
The review concluded that most objectives had been achieved to some extent. The regulations had delivered greater transparency, although not necessarily coupled with greater public understanding of the gender pay gap. They had also contributed to some reduction in the overall gender pay gap in organisations just above the employee threshold, and there was some evidence that they had contributed to an improvement in the organisation’s median gender pay gap or the gender balance highest-paid roles in just over half of employers. Some employers had taken up the option of publishing a narrative to explain their figures. However, only half of employers planned to or were taking effective action to close their gap. The review did not find evidence that the regulations were having an adverse impact. It found that the annual cost of complying with the regulations is less than £500 per company.
Overall, the available evidence suggests that mandatory gender pay gap reporting has some positive impacts at the micro level – it does enable interested people to make more informed choices about where they choose to work, and gives women information that could enable them to take action where they are paid lower than a male colleague.
At the macro level, because the majority of the gender pay gap is accounted for by broader societal factors such as occupational segregation and the parenthood penalty, mandatory gender pay gap reporting by employers cannot on its own be an effective response to the national gender pay gap. It may also risk unintended consequences – there is some evidence from the United States that greater pay transparency makes employers less likely to increase the pay of individuals workers, potentially bringing down overall average wages and affecting economic growth. This effect is more muted where collective pay bargaining or clear pay scales exist.
To improve the effectiveness of gender pay gap reporting requirements, Equally Ours, other campaigning groups and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have called for them to be supplemented by a duty on employers to publish an action plan showing the steps they are taking to reduce their gender pay gap. Provision enabling this is included in Clause 31 of the Employment Rights Bill, currently proceeding through Parliament.
Response to the consultation questions
Question 1:
Do you agree or disagree that large employers should have to report their ethnicity pay gaps?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Requiring employers to publish their ethnicity pay gaps will improve transparency about pay disparities between ethnic groups. This will help all employees, particularly ethnic minority employees, to assess whether they are being paid fairly, provide potential job applicants with additional information about prospective employers, and provide employers with data to ensure their pay arrangements are not discriminatory and their employment practices are inclusive.
Applying the requirement to employers with 250 or more employees will provide consistency with the existing gender pay gap reporting requirements, ensuring a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, enabling intersectional analysis and avoiding disproportionate administrative burdens on small employers. However, consideration should be given in due course to the case for extending equality pay gap reporting requirements to smaller employers, given the large proportion of the labour force working in smaller organisations.
Question 2:
Do you agree or disagree that large employers should have to report their disability pay gaps?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Requiring employers to publish their disability pay gaps will improve transparency about pay disparities between disabled people and non-disabled people. This will help disabled employees to assess whether they are being paid fairly, provide disabled potential job applicants with additional information about prospective employers, and provide employers with data to ensure their pay arrangements are not discriminatory and their employment practices are inclusive.
Applying the requirement to employers with 250 or more employees will provide consistency with the existing gender pay gap reporting requirements, ensuring a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, enabling intersectional analysis and avoiding disproportionate administrative burdens on small employers. However, consideration should be given in due course to the case for extending equality pay gap reporting requirements to smaller employers, given the large proportion of the labour force working in smaller organisations.
Question 3:
Do you agree or disagree that ethnicity pay gap reporting should have the same geographical scope as gender pay gap reporting?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Aligning the geographical scope of ethnicity pay gap reporting with that of gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 4:
Do you agree or disagree that disability pay gap reporting should have the same geographical scope as gender pay gap reporting?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Aligning the geographical scope of disability pay gap reporting with that of gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 5:
Do you agree or disagree that employers should report the same 6 measures[1] for ethnicity pay gap reporting as for gender pay gap reporting?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
The six proposed measures will provide a good indicator of the position of the different ethnic groups in the workforce, and of any disparities in the level and distribution of hourly and bonus pay between different ethnic groups. Bonus pay calculations should include consolidated and non-consolidated performance-related awards, in order to provide transparency about any ethnic disparities in discretionary performance pay.
Aligning the measures with those already in place for gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 6:
Do you agree or disagree that employers should report the same 6 measures (see footnote 1) for disability pay gap reporting as for gender pay gap reporting?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
The six proposed measures will provide a good indicator of the position of disabled people groups in the workforce, and of any disparities in the level and distribution of hourly and bonus pay between disabled and non-disabled employees. Bonus pay calculations should include consolidated and non-consolidated performance-related awards, in order to provide transparency about any disparities between disabled and non-disabled people in discretionary performance pay.
Aligning the measures with those already in place for gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 7:
Do you agree or disagree that large employers should have to report on the ethnic breakdown of their workforce?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
As well as providing context for their ethnicity pay gap data, reporting on the ethnic breakdown of their workforce will enable employers (and their employees) to assess whether outreach, recruitment and promotion practices are operating fairly for different ethnic groups. It will also provide potential job applicants with additional information about prospective employers.
Question 8:
Do you agree or disagree that large employers should have to report on the breakdown of their workforce by disability status?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
As well as providing context for their disability pay gap data, reporting on the disability status breakdown of their workforce will enable employers (and their employees) to assess whether outreach, recruitment and promotion practices are operating fairly for disabled people. It will also provide potential job applicants with additional information about prospective employers.
Question 9:
Do you agree or disagree that large employers should have to submit data on the percentage of employees who did not state their ethnicity?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Reporting on the percentage of employees who did not state their ethnicity will give important context to an employer’s ethnicity workforce and pay gap data. Particularly low or high rates of disclosure of ethnicity may also be a useful indicator of employees’ views on the inclusiveness of the culture of the organisation.
Question 10:
Do you agree or disagree that large employers should have to submit data on the percentage of employees who did not state their disability status?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Reporting on the percentage of employees who did not state their disability status will give important context to an employer’s disability workforce and pay gap data. Particularly low or high rates of disclosure of disability status may also be a useful indicator of employees’ views on the inclusiveness of the culture of the organisation.
Question 11:
Do you agree or disagree that employers should have to produce an action plan about what they are doing to improve workplace equality for ethnic minority employees?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Requiring employers to publish an action plan setting out the steps they will take to reduce their ethnicity pay gap and improve workplace equality for ethnic minority employees will help to ensure that employers actively address under-representation and pay disparities for ethnic minority workers, and enable employees and their representatives to hold employers to account. It should help to mitigate, in a transparent way, against the unintended consequences and poor employer practice seen in some jurisdictions following the introduction of other measures to reduce pay gaps.
We recommend that the requirements for ethnicity equality action plans are aligned with those for equality action plans for gender equality under the power to be introduced by Clause 31 of the Employment Rights Bill. They should include a narrative explaining the factors likely to be contributing to the size of any ethnicity pay gaps and the actions planned and taken, with timescales and associated impact measures, relevant to the recruitment, development, progression and retention of ethnic minority employees. They should be reviewed and updated annually.
We also recommend that, where ethnicity pay gap reporting has identified a pay gap above a prescribed size, employers should be required to include in their action plan their plans to conduct an audit by the end of the reporting year to explore in more detail the factors contributing to their ethnicity pay gap and identify actions they will take to address them. The findings of the audit and the actions to be taken as a result should be included in the following year’s action plan.
Question 12:
Do you agree or disagree that employers should have to produce an action plan about what they are doing to improve workplace equality for disabled employees?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Requiring employers to publish an action plan setting out the steps they will take to reduce their disability pay gap and improve workplace equality for disabled employees will help to ensure that employers actively address under-representation and pay disparities for disabled workers, and enable employees and their representatives to hold employers to account. It should help to mitigate, in a transparent way, against the unintended consequences and poor employer practice seen in some jurisdictions following the introduction of other measures to reduce pay gaps.
We recommend that the requirements for disability equality action plans are aligned with those for equality action plans for gender equality under the power to be introduced by Clause 31 of the Employment Rights Bill, and include a narrative explaining the factors likely to be contributing to the size of any disability pay gaps and the actions planned and taken, with associated timescales and impact measures, relevant to the recruitment, development, progression and retention of disabled employees, including arrangements for making reasonable adjustments. They should be reviewed and updated annually.
We also recommend that, where disability pay gap reporting has identified a pay gap above a prescribed size, employers should be required to include in their action plan their plans to conduct an audit by the end of the reporting year to explore in more detail the factors contributing to their disability pay gap and identify actions they will take to address them. The findings of the audit and the actions to be taken as a result should be included in the following year’s action plan.
Question 13:
Do you agree or disagree that public bodies should also have to report on pay differences between ethnic groups by grade and/or salary bands?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Public bodies generally have clear and established grading and salary band structures covering all roles within their organisation. Reporting on the ethnic breakdown of employees within each grade or salary band and pay differences between ethnic groups for each grade or salary band will provide greater transparency about the position of ethnic minorities within the workforce and any ethnicity pay disparities within each grade or salary band, enabling employers and employees to identify where action to address barriers to recruitment, promotion and pay progression for different ethnic groups may be needed.
Where private and voluntary sector employers have clear and established grading and salary band structures, they should also be encouraged to report on ethnicity pay differences by grade or salary band as a matter of good practice.
Question 14:
Do you agree or disagree that public bodies should also have to report on recruitment, retention and progression by ethnicity?
Somewhat Agree
Comments:
Reporting against the six proposed measures, the overall breakdown of the workforce by ethnicity and the ethnic breakdown of, and pay differences for, employees within each grade or salary band will provide a good indication over time of the movement of different ethnic groups into, within and out of a public body’s workforce. However, we consider that collecting and analysing ethnicity data on recruitment, retention and progression should be done routinely by employers to ensure their processes are operating fairly. Reporting this data would increase transparency and enable employers to be held to account for any improvements needed to ensure fair and inclusive practices. Reporting this data should not, therefore, impose disproportionate administrative burdens on most public bodies. However, further consideration should be given to the extent to which reporting such data would provide a robust basis for drawing conclusions where there are low numbers of recruitments, leavers and promotions within the reporting period. It may, therefore, be appropriate to set some thresholds for the reporting of this data.
Where private and voluntary sector employers meet any thresholds set for reporting ethnicity data on recruitment, retention and progression, they should also be required to do so, or encouraged to do so as a matter of good practice.
Question 15:
If public bodies have to report on recruitment, retention and progression by ethnicity, what data do you think they should have to report?
Comments:
Reporting should provide data on the percentage of people recruited or promoted and leaving employment within the reporting period in each ethnic group, using the same approach to classification as for ethnicity pay gap reporting.
Question 16:
Do you agree or disagree that public bodies should have to report on pay differences between disabled and non-disabled employees, by grade and/or salary bands?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Public bodies generally have clear and established grading and salary band structures covering all roles within their organisation. Reporting on the disability status breakdown of employees within each grade or salary band and pay differences between disabled and non-disabled employees for each grade or salary band will provide greater transparency about the position of disabled people within the workforce and any disability pay disparities within each grade or salary band, enabling employers and employees to identify where action to address barriers to recruitment, promotion and pay progression for disabled employees may be needed.
Where private and voluntary sector employers have clear and established grading and salary band structures, they should also be encouraged to report on disability pay differences by grade or salary band as a matter of good practice.
Question 17:
Do you agree or disagree that public bodies should have to report on recruitment, retention and progression by disability?
Somewhat Agree
Comments:
Reporting against the six proposed measures, the overall breakdown of the workforce by disability status and the disability status breakdown of, and pay differences for, employees within each grade or salary band will provide a good indication over time of the movement of disabled people into, within and out of a public body’s workforce. However, we consider that collecting and analysing disability data on recruitment, retention and progression should be done routinely by employers to ensure their processes are operating fairly. Reporting this data would increase transparency and enable employers to be held to account for any improvements needed to ensure fair and inclusive practices. Reporting this data should not, therefore, impose disproportionate administrative burdens on most public bodies. However, further consideration should be given to the extent to which reporting such data would provide a robust basis for drawing conclusions where there are low numbers of recruitments, leavers and promotions within the reporting period. It may, therefore, be appropriate to set some thresholds for the reporting of this data.
Where private and voluntary sector employers meet any thresholds set for reporting disability data on recruitment, retention and progression, they should also be required to do so, or encouraged to do so as a matter of good practice.
Question 18:
If public bodies have to report on recruitment, retention and progression by disability, what data do you think they should have to report?
Comments:
Reporting should provide data on the percentage of disabled and non-disabled people recruited or promoted and leaving employment within the reporting period, using the same approach to classification as for disability pay gap reporting.
Question 19:
Do you agree or disagree that ethnicity pay gap reporting should have the same reporting dates as gender pay gap reporting?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Aligning the reporting dates for ethnicity pay gap reporting with those of gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 20:
Do you agree or disagree that disability pay gap reporting should have the same reporting dates as gender pay gap reporting?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Aligning the reporting dates for disability pay gap reporting with those of gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 21:
Do you agree or disagree that ethnicity pay gap data should be reported online in a similar way to the gender pay gap service?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Aligning the reporting mechanism for ethnicity pay gap reporting with that of gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability and transparency of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 22:
Do you agree or disagree that disability pay gap data should be reported online in a similar way to the gender pay gap service?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Aligning the reporting mechanism for disability pay gap reporting with that of gender pay gap reporting will ensure a coherent approach across different protected characteristics, support comparability and transparency of different pay gap data sets and make it simpler for employers to comply.
Question 23:
Do you agree or disagree that ethnicity pay gap reporting should have the same enforcement policy as gender pay gap reporting?
Somewhat Disagree
Comments:
Aligning the enforcement mechanisms and policy for pay gap reporting across different protected characteristics will ensure a coherent approach, making it simpler for employers to understand the consequences of failing to comply with their obligations.
However, we consider that an additional enforcement mechanism should be put in place for all equality pay gap reporting requirements. Failure to report online by the relevant reporting deadline should result in the automatic imposition of a fixed financial civil penalty, with an increasing financial penalty imposed monthly until the required data is reported online. This would reduce the administrative burden and costs for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) having to write to non-reporters, send a clear signal to employers about the importance of complying with their reporting obligations, and generate income to the Exchequer.
Enforcement action in relation to concerns about the accuracy of reported pay gap data should continue to be taken under the EHRC’s existing enforcement powers and policy. This should also include enforcement of the proposed requirement to publish an ethnicity equality action plan, and enforcement to ensure commitments in action plans (including the conduct of pay audits, as recommended in response to Question 11) are implemented.
In addition, consideration should be given to broadening the consequences of non-compliance with the ethnicity pay gap reporting requirements, for example by making compliance a condition of award of public contracts.
Question 24:
Do you agree or disagree that disability pay gap reporting should have the same enforcement policy as gender pay gap reporting?
Somewhat Disagree
Comments:
Aligning the enforcement mechanisms and policy for pay gap reporting across different protected characteristics will ensure a coherent approach, making it simpler for employers to understand the consequences of failing to comply with their obligations.
However, we consider that an additional enforcement mechanism should be put in place for all equality pay gap reporting requirements. Failure to report online by the relevant reporting deadline should result in the automatic imposition of a fixed financial civil penalty, with an increasing financial penalty imposed monthly until the required data is reported online. This would reduce the administrative burden and costs for the EHRC having to write to non-reporters, send a clear signal to employers about the importance of complying with their reporting obligations, and generate income to the Exchequer.
Enforcement action in relation to concerns about the accuracy of reported pay gap data should continue to be taken under the EHRC’s existing enforcement powers and policy. This should also include enforcement of the proposed requirement to publish a disability equality action plan, and enforcement to ensure commitments in action plans (including the conduct of pay audits, as recommended in response to Question 12) are implemented.
In addition, consideration should be given to broadening the consequences of non-compliance with the disability pay gap reporting requirements, for example by making compliance a condition of membership of the Disability Confident Scheme and the award of public contracts.
Question 25:
Do you agree or disagree that large employers should collect ethnicity data using the GSS harmonised standards for ethnicity?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Collecting ethnicity data using the GSS harmonised standards for ethnicity will ensure that employers’ ethnicity pay gap data is consistent over time and comparable with other important national and regional data sources such as the Census and the Labour Force Survey. These ethnicity classifications have been carefully tested and are well-understood. As noted in response to Question 9, a “prefer not to say” option should be included for those who are not willing to share their ethnicity with their employer and have it linked to their personnel and pay records. Employers should be required to report on the percentage of their employees declining to disclose their ethnicity.
Question 26:
Do you agree or disagree that all large employers should report ethnicity pay gap measures using one of the binary classifications as a minimum?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
One of the binary classifications should only be permitted to be used by employers for reporting ethnicity pay gap measures where it is necessary to do so to avoid disclosing information about individuals.
Question 27:
Do you agree or disagree that there should be at least 10 employees in each ethnic group being reported on? This would avoid disclosing information about individual employees.
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Having a minimum of 10 employees in each ethnic group reported on will protect the privacy of employees. However, employers must still collect ethnicity data using the GSS harmonised standards for ethnicity.
Question 28:
Do you agree or disagree that employers should use the ONS guidance on ethnicity data to aggregate ethnic groups? This would help protect their employees’ confidentiality.
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Using the ONS guidance on ethnicity data to aggregate ethnic groups, where necessary, will ensure a coherent and tested approach is used and by employers and that the analysis of ethnicity pay gap data is consistent and comparable across employers and within employers over time.
Question 29:
Is there anything else you want to tell us about ethnicity pay gap reporting?
Comments:
2017 research for the Equality and Human Rights Commission examined the causes of the ethnicity pay gap, identifying age, sex, place of birth, geographical location, education, occupation and work pattern as key drivers of pay differences between different ethnic groups. While the available evidence indicates that mandatory pay gap reporting has some positive impacts in reducing pay gaps within individual employers, and can influence employees’ choice of employer, we are clear that ethnicity pay gap reporting alone is not sufficient to tackle the many barriers some ethnic minority groups face to equal participation and reward in the labour market.
Broader societal factors – including inequalities in education, perverse incentives in the welfare benefits system, inequalities in housing and healthcare, poor availability and accessibility of public transport and financial services, and a lack of affordable childcare and quality part-time work – play a major role in contributing to ethnicity and other pay gaps. These factors need to be addressed through a cross-government strategy if pay gaps are to be minimised and equality of opportunity and fair pay in the labour market are to be achieved for everyone.
Question 30:
Do you agree or disagree with using the ‘binary’ approach (comparing the pay of disabled and non-disabled employees) to report disability pay gap data?
Strongly Agree
Comments:
While improved understanding of pay gaps for disabled people with different impairment types would be extremely valuable in understanding the different barriers they may face in access to and treatment in the labour market, we consider that these questions would be better addressed through targeted research across a range of sectors and employers. We agree that a binary approach is more appropriate for mandatory disability pay gap reporting as this will avoid the complexity of reporting where individuals have more than one type of impairment and protect the privacy of individuals.
Question 31:
Do you have any feedback on our proposal to use the Equality Act 2010 definition of ‘disability’ for pay gap reporting?
Comments:
We agree with the proposal to use the Equality Act 2010 definition of ‘disability’ for pay gap reporting. This definition aligns with the GSS harmonised standards for long lasting health conditions and illness and activity restriction. Using this definition will ensure that employers’ disability pay gap data is consistent over time and comparable with other important national and regional data sources such as the Census and the Labour Force Survey. The GSS standards have been carefully tested and are well-understood by employers and employees.
As noted in response to Question 10, a “prefer not to say” option should be included for those who are not willing to share their disability status with their employer and have it linked to their personnel and pay records. Employers should be required to report on the percentage of their employees declining to disclose their disability status.
Question 32:
Do you agree or disagree that there should be at least 10 employees in each group being compared (for example, disabled and non-disabled employees)? This would avoid disclosing information about individual employees.
Strongly Agree
Comments:
Having a minimum of 10 employees in each group being compared (disabled and non-disabled) will avoid disclosing information about individuals’ disability status and protect the privacy of employees.
Question 33:
Is there anything else you want to tell us about disability pay gap reporting?
Comments:
2017 research for the Equality and Human Rights Commission examined the causes of the disability pay gap, identifying, sex, ethnicity, education, occupation and work pattern as key drivers of pay differences between different disabled people and non-disabled people, and between disabled people with different impairment types. Part-time working was the most important contributory factor for most groups. While the available evidence indicates that mandatory pay gap reporting has some positive impacts in reducing pay gaps within individual employers, and can influence employees’ choice of employer, we are clear that disability pay gap reporting alone is not sufficient to tackle the many barriers some disabled people face to equal participation and reward in the labour market.
Broader societal factors – including inequalities in education, perverse incentives in the welfare benefits system, inequalities in housing and healthcare, poor availability and accessibility of public transport and financial services, and a lack of affordable childcare and quality part-time work – play a major role in contributing to disability and other pay gaps. These factors need to be addressed through a cross-government strategy if pay gaps are to be minimised and equality of opportunity and fair pay in the labour market are to be achieved for everyone.
Equally Ours
19th May 2025
Annex
Equally Ours Signatories
Members
Age UK
Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE)/Just for Kids Law
Disability Rights UK
Discrimination Law Association
End Violence Against Women Coalition
Equality Trust
Fair Play South West
Fawcett Society
Friends, Families and Travellers
Gender Identity Research Education Society (GIRES)
Humanists UK
Law Centres Network
Maternity Action
Mind
National Alliance of Women’s Organisations (NAWO)
Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
Royal National Institute for Deaf People
Royal National Institute of Blind People
Runnymede Trust
Security Women
SignHealth
Stonewall
Trades Union Congress (TUC)
Traveller Movement
UNISON
Women’s Budget Group
Women’s Resource Centre
Associates
Just Fair
- mean differences in average hourly pay
- median differences in average hourly pay
- pay quarters – the percentage of employees in 4 equally-sized groups, ranked from highest to lowest hourly pay
- mean differences in bonus pay
- median differences in bonus pay
- the percentage of employees receiving bonus pay for the relevant protected characteristic.
