A work-of-equal-value assessment process should be repeatable, evidence-based and gender-neutral. Employers should start with accurate job information, define objective criteria, include the Article 4 factors of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions, weight factors according to their relevance, assess jobs consistently, test the results for gender bias, identify categories of workers performing equal work or work of equal value, document the methodology and review assessments when jobs materially change. Relevant soft skills should not be undervalued, and workers' representatives should be involved where required by Article 4 and national law.
Jurisdiction: European Union
Step 1: Define Governance Before Scoring Jobs
Start by identifying who owns the methodology, who supplies job evidence, who validates scoring and how workers' representatives will participate where they exist. Article 4 requires objective, gender-neutral criteria agreed with workers' representatives where such representatives exist. Clear governance reduces the risk that different departments apply different standards or that one manager can change a result without an evidence trail.
Step 2: Collect Evidence About the Work Actually Performed
Job titles and historic descriptions are not enough. Gather current information about duties, decision-making, skills, effort, responsibility, working conditions and any other relevant job demands. Evidence can come from validated job descriptions, manager input, worker input, organisational records and operational documentation. The purpose is to evaluate the job as it exists, not the status traditionally attached to it.
Step 3: Define Gender-Neutral Factors and Levels
The methodology should include skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Employers may use additional criteria where they are relevant and justified. Each factor should have clear definitions and levels so evaluators can distinguish lower and higher demands consistently. Relevant soft skills should be visible within the framework rather than treated as natural personal traits with no job value.
Step 4: Weight Factors According to Job Relevance
Recital 26 recognises that the four core factors are not equally relevant to every position and may be weighted according to their relevance. Weighting should therefore follow the real demands of the work rather than historical assumptions about which types of work are more prestigious. Employers should document why the weighting makes sense and test whether it systematically favours one occupational group without justification.
Step 5: Evaluate Roles Consistently Across the Organisation
Apply the same definitions, evidence standards and scoring logic across departments. Calibration sessions can help identify inconsistent interpretations. Where two evaluators reach different conclusions, record the reason and resolve the difference through an agreed method. Cross-department consistency is essential because work-of-equal-value analysis is designed to identify comparability that may not be visible within one reporting line.
Step 6: Test the Results for Gender Bias
After scoring, review whether female-dominated and male-dominated roles are distributed in ways that suggest certain skills or demands may have been undervalued. Check whether care, coordination, communication, emotional effort or other relevant soft skills are captured. A technically neutral-looking model can still reproduce bias if factor definitions or weightings systematically reward one type of work and overlook another.
Step 7: Build Categories of Workers From the Results
Directive (EU) 2023/970 defines a category of workers as workers performing the same work or work of equal value grouped non-arbitrarily using the objective, gender-neutral criteria referred to in Article 4. Employers should therefore use the evaluation results to create defensible comparison groups. Categories should be explainable and should not be manipulated simply to hide or dilute a pay difference.
Step 8: Document and Revisit the Assessment
Record the methodology, factor definitions, weightings, evidence, scores, calibration decisions and category outcomes. Review the assessment when roles materially change through automation, restructuring, new responsibilities or different working conditions. A work-of-equal-value framework should function as an operating system for pay decisions, not as a one-off project created only when reporting or a dispute makes comparison unavoidable.
Frequently Asked Questions
What factors must be included in a work-of-equal-value assessment?
Article 4 identifies skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions as the core criteria, while additional relevant and justified factors may also be used.
Can employers weight the factors differently?
Yes. Recital 26 recognises that the factors may have different relevance for different jobs, but the weighting should be objective, documented and gender-neutral.
Should workers' representatives be involved?
Article 4 provides that the criteria should be agreed with workers' representatives where such representatives exist, subject to national law and practice.
How often should the assessment be reviewed?
The Directive does not prescribe one universal review interval. Employers should review when jobs, structures or relevant working conditions materially change and according to national implementation requirements.
Related Guides
Official Sources
Requirements and practices differ by jurisdiction and organisation. Check current local law, official guidance and professional advice for a specific situation.