Employers should determine whether jobs are comparable by examining the real content and value of the work through objective, gender-neutral criteria rather than relying on title or department. Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 identifies skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions as the core factors. Employers may use other relevant criteria where justified, but the method should be consistent, documented and capable of explaining why two roles are or are not comparable. Where workers' representatives exist, the criteria should be agreed with them.
Jurisdiction: European Union
Start With the Work Actually Performed
Job comparability should begin with reliable information about the role itself. Employers should review current job descriptions, responsibilities, decision-making authority, required knowledge, working patterns and material working conditions. Historic titles and grading structures can be useful context, but they should not substitute for evidence about the work actually performed. Where job descriptions are outdated, interviews with job holders or managers may be needed. A comparison based on inaccurate role information can produce a formally neat result that does not reflect real job value.
Apply the Four Core Article 4 Factors
Article 4 identifies skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions as the core criteria for assessing work value. Employers should define each factor clearly enough that different roles can be evaluated consistently. Skills may include technical, professional and interpersonal capability. Effort may include mental, physical and emotional demands. Responsibility may involve people, assets, budgets, safety or organisational decisions. Working conditions may include environment, hours, risk, travel or other demands attached to the work. The same factor framework should be capable of evaluating roles across different occupational groups.
Use Additional Criteria Only When They Are Relevant and Justified
The Directive allows additional criteria where they are relevant and justified for a specific job or position. Employers should resist adding factors simply because they reinforce an existing pay hierarchy. Any extra criterion should have a clear connection to job value and should be applied consistently. The reason for using it should be documented. This is particularly important where a factor is likely to advantage one occupational group over another. A defensible system can explain both why a factor matters and why the chosen weighting reflects the real demands of the jobs being assessed.
Check the Method for Gender Bias
A comparison method can reproduce historic bias even where no factor expressly refers to sex. Employers should test whether the factor definitions and weightings systematically reward work more common in male-dominated roles while overlooking demands common in female-dominated roles. Article 4 specifically warns against undervaluing relevant soft skills. Communication, care, coordination, emotional demands and relationship management should therefore be recognised where they are genuinely part of the job. Bias testing should be part of the methodology rather than an afterthought once pay gaps appear.
Do Not Let Titles or Departments Decide the Result
Comparable jobs can sit in different departments and carry different titles. Employers should therefore treat organisational labels as factual context rather than a final answer. The same is true of reporting lines and occupational families. A role may be comparable with another role outside its immediate function if the objective value of the work is equivalent. Conversely, workers with the same title may not be comparable in every case if their responsibilities or working conditions differ materially. The assessment should follow job content and value rather than organisational convenience.
Document the Decision and Review It When Jobs Change
The comparability decision should be capable of being reproduced later. Employers should record the job information reviewed, the factor definitions, any weighting decisions, the scoring or classification outcome and the rationale for the conclusion. Where workers' representatives exist, their involvement in agreeing criteria should also be documented. The assessment should be revisited when a role changes materially through restructuring, technology, new responsibilities or altered working conditions. A maintained comparison framework is more useful than a one-off exercise created only when a dispute arises.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should employers use to compare jobs for equal-pay purposes?
They should use objective, gender-neutral criteria focused on the actual work, including skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
Can employers compare jobs in different departments?
Yes. Department boundaries do not prevent comparison where the jobs are equivalent in value.
Should job-comparison criteria be documented?
Yes. Employers should preserve the evidence, criteria, weighting and rationale so the assessment can be explained and reproduced.
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.