Job-evaluation factors should be weighted using a documented rationale that supports objective, gender-neutral comparison across different types of work. Directive (EU) 2023/970 does not prescribe one universal weighting formula. Employers therefore need to decide how much influence each factor should have, test the proposed weights across a diverse set of jobs and check whether the design systematically favours demands common in one occupational group while undervaluing others. Weighting should be transparent enough that an evaluator can explain why one factor has more or less influence on the total job value.
Jurisdiction: European Union
There Is No Single EU Weighting Formula
Article 4 requires objective, gender-neutral criteria for assessing work of equal value, but it does not assign fixed percentages to skills, effort, responsibility or working conditions. Employers should therefore avoid presenting one weighting model as legally mandatory across the EU. The chosen structure must instead be defensible under the employer's methodology and applicable national rules.
Weights Should Reflect a Clear Rationale
A weighting decision should answer why one factor has greater or lesser influence on total job value. The rationale should be connected to the methodology rather than inherited from historical grades or market prestige. Where factors are equally important, equal weighting may be appropriate. Where they are not, differences should be explained and documented.
Test for Hidden Occupational Bias
Weights can create bias even where factor names are neutral. A system that gives very high weight to physical effort or formal people management while assigning little weight to emotional demands, coordination, interpersonal skill or specialist accountability can systematically favour particular occupational groups. Employers should compare outcomes across male-dominated, female-dominated and mixed roles to identify those effects.
Avoid Using Market Pay as the Weighting Logic
Market salary can inform compensation decisions, but using existing market pay to determine factor weights risks circularity. If historically undervalued work receives less market pay, a methodology built around those pay levels may simply reproduce the same inequality. Job-evaluation weights should therefore be grounded in job value rather than current pay outcomes.
Run Sensitivity Checks
Before finalising a point-factor model, employers can test how reasonable changes in weights affect job rankings and grade placement. If small adjustments create dramatic changes for particular occupational groups, the model may be overly sensitive. Sensitivity testing helps identify whether one factor dominates the methodology unexpectedly.
Document and Review Weighting Decisions
The methodology record should show the approved weights, the rationale behind them, the jobs used for testing and any changes made after calibration. When organisational structures or job content change materially, weighting should be reviewed to ensure the model still reflects the intended concept of job value and remains gender-neutral in practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does EU law require fixed percentages for job-evaluation factors?
No. Article 4 requires objective, gender-neutral criteria but does not prescribe one universal weighting formula.
Can unequal factor weights be gender-neutral?
Potentially yes, where the differences have a clear, objective rationale and do not systematically undervalue work associated with one sex.
How should employers test factor weights?
They should apply the proposed weights across diverse roles, review outcomes by occupational pattern and run sensitivity checks before full implementation.
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.