Gender equality in employment and occupation : European implementation assessment. Annex III, Ensuring equal pay and equal access to employment through gender-neutral job evaluation and classification.
Date: 2017-03-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services
Subjects: EU Member State, anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, directive (EU), employment policy, equal pay, gender equality, job access, social security, working conditions

Gender equality
in employment and occupation

European Implementation Assessment

ANNEX III

Ensuring equal pay and equal access to
employment through gender-neutral job
evaluation and classification

Research paper

by Prof. Dr Isabell M. Welpe, Dr Prisca Brosi
and Dipl.-Psych. Tanja Schwarzmüller

Abstract

This  research  paper  analyses  the  implementation  of  Directive  2006/54/EC
with  a  focus  on  job  evaluation  /  classification.  Applying  research  on  gender
stereotypes,  it  analyses  1)  the  current  description  of  gender-neutral  job
evaluation / classification, 2) the application of gender-neutral job evaluation
/classification  for  increasing  female  access  to  employment,  decreasing  the
gender  pay  gap  and  improving  occupational  social  security  schemes,  and  3)
current  actions  of  Member  States,  social  partners,  and  equality  bodies  in
promoting  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification.  Based  on  these
analyses,  recommendations  on  the  enforcement  of  the  Directive  and  the
promotion of gender-neutral job evaluation and classification are provided.

III - 1

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

AUTHORS
This study was written by Prof. Dr Isabell M. Welpe, Dr Prisca Brosi and Dipl.-Psych.
Tanja Schwarzmüller of the Technische Universität München, at the request of the Ex-
Post Impact Assessment Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European
Added Value, within the Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG
EPRS) of the General Secretariat of the European Parliament.

The  current  paper is part  of  the  European  Implementation  Assessment  of  the
Directive 2006/54/EC ('Recast Directive') for the Committee on Women's Rights and
Gender Equality FEMM, together with other analyses on the same issue.

RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR
Helmut Werner, Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit
To contact the Unit, please e-mail EPRS-ExPostImpactAssessment@europarl.europa.eu

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS
Original: EN

DISCLAIMER
The  content  of  this  document  is  the  sole  responsibility  of  the  author  and  any  opinions
expressed  therein  do  not  necessarily  represent  the  official  position  of  the  European
Parliament.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Members  and  staff  of  the  EP  for  their  parliamentary
work.  Reproduction  and  translation  for  non-commercial  purposes  are  authorised,
provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice
and sent a copy.

Manuscript completed in April 2015. Brussels © European Union, 2015

PE 547.546
ISBN 978-92-823-7145-9
DOI 10.2861/900052
CAT QA-01-15-413-EN-N

III - 2

Gender equality in employment and occupation

Contents

Executive summary....................................................................................................................... 5

1. Concepts and definitions of the Directive 2006/54/EC....................................................... 7
1.1 General description of the Directive 2006/54/EC ...................................................... 7
1.2 Description of gender-neutral job evaluation / classification systems .................... 7

2. Quantitative analysis of the implementation of the Directive 2006/54/EC .................... 8
2.1 Access to employment .................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Working conditions ....................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Occupational social security schemes ......................................................................... 11
2.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 12

3. Implementation and enforcement of the Directive 2006/54/EC with regard to

job evaluation / classification ............................................................................................. 12
3.1 Evaluation of job evaluation / classification as described in Commission

Staff Working Document SWD(2013)512 ................................................................... 13

3.2 Evaluation of job evaluation / classification with regard to access to

employment, working conditions and occupational social security systems ....... 18

4. Implementation of job evaluation / classification in the EU .......................................... 21
4.1 Implementation of job evaluation / classification in organisations ....................... 22
4.2 Implementation of job evaluation / classification at national level........................ 22
4.3 Promotion of job evaluation / classification in the social dialogue........................ 27

5. Access to legal recourse and compensation and overview on legal remedies............. 34

5.1 Discrimination by assigning different criteria evaluations within the same

job evaluation / classification scheme (case from the United Kingdom) ............. 34

5.2 Discrimination by applying different job evaluation / classification schemes

(case from Germany) ..................................................................................................... 35

6. Difficulties encountered by Member States in the implementation of the Directive

2006/54/EC..................................................................................................................... 35
6.1 Difficulties encountered by organisations.................................................................. 35
6.2 Difficulties encountered by national governments ................................................... 35
6.3 Difficulties encountered by social partners ................................................................ 36
6.4 Difficulties encountered by equality bodies............................................................... 36

7. Summary of recommendations ............................................................................................ 36
7.1 Enforcement of job evaluation and classification in the Directive 2006/54/EC ... 36
7.2 Promotion of job evaluation and classification by national governments,

social partners and equality bodies ............................................................................. 38

7.3 Transparency and monitoring of the implementation of the Directive

2006/54/EC .................................................................................................................... 39

III - 3

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

8. References ................................................................................................................................ 40

9. Annex: Overview on the implementation of Directive 2006/54/EC ............................... 45
Annex I: Overview on the methodological approach of this research paper ...... 45
9.1
Annex II: Summary of measures taken by the national governments, social
9.2
partners and equality bodies in the six focus countries.......................................... 46

III - 4

Gender equality in employment and occupation

Executive summary

Based on psychological and organisational research on gender stereotypes, this research
paper analyses  the implementation of Directive  2006/54/EC with  a  focus  on  gender-
neutral job evaluation / classification.

In short, the description of job evaluation / classification currently includes

 The  recommendation  to  use  the  same  job  evaluation  system  throughout  the  whole

company

 Descriptions of job factors and sub-factors
 Descriptions how job factors and sub-factors should be weighed to derive a summary

point score which should be connected to pay levels

Against  the  background of  pertaining  horizontal  and  vertical  gender  segregation, the
gender  pay  gap  and  gender  differences  in  occupational  social  security  schemes,  we
provide  the  following  recommendations  on  how  the  application  of  job  evaluation  /
classification can be enhanced.

For ensuring  gender-neutrality  of  job  evaluation  /  classification,  the  description of
gender-neutral  job  evaluation  and  classification  systems  in  the  Directive should  be
complemented by the following guidelines.

In  each  organisation,  an evaluation  committee for  conducting  job  evaluation  /
classification, which is mixed-sex, trained, critical and accountable, should be set up.
Job evaluations should be made for all positions described by gender-neutral job titles,
using clearly defined sub-factors  generated  from structured free recall procedures.  They
should be based  on standardized interviews from various perspectives including  both
male and female interviewees, which  should  be  translated  into  factor  points  by several
members of the evaluation committee.
Internal and external weighting should be controlled for gender-neutrality by means
of a weighting grid.
Job classification should be conducted by blind assignment of point levels to job classes
(before job evaluation) and checked for gender-neutrality.

For increasing female access to employment, gender-neutral selection processes can be
created  by  using  job  descriptions  from  job  evaluation  /  classification  for  the  following
steps in the recruitment and selection process.

 Generation of objective, behaviourally-based job descriptions.
 Formulation of gender-neutral job advertisements.
 Creation  of  gender-neutral  assessments  of  participants’  competence  including work

samples and behaviourally-anchored rating scales.

For reducing  the  gender  pay  gap,  the  following  steps  should  be  taken  in  addition  to
increasing gender-neutrality in the application of job evaluation / classification.

 Transparency  on  starting  wages should  be  increased  and  the salience  of  gender in  pay

negotiation processes should be reduced.

III - 5





Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

 The  principles  of  gender-neutrality  for  job  evaluation  /  classification  should  be

transferred to performance-based pay.

 The notion of “equal pay for work of equal value” should include the notion of “equal pay

for equal performance”.

Governments, social partners and equality bodies in Member States should
Support the preventive examination of gender neutrality in pay schemes.

 Provide clear and unambiguous guidelines on the necessary steps to implement gender-

neutral job evaluation / classification systems.

 Governments  should  establish  databases including  (sub-)factors  and  point  ratings  for
level and/or databases should  be

specific  jobs  and  occupations  on  national
established on European level by the European Commission.

Recommendations  on strengthening  the  principle  of  equal  pay  through  transparency
should include the transparency of human resource processes.

Monitoring of the implementation of the Directive 2006/54/EC should include

 Surveys  on  the  application  of  job  evaluation  /  classification in  organisations  across

European countries.

 Longitudinal examinations of the implementation in discrete time intervals.
 Analysis  of  internal  and  external  weighting of  factors  and  sub-factors  on  a  national  or

European level.

III - 6


Gender equality in employment and occupation

1. Concepts and definitions of the Directive 2006/54/EC

In  the  following  we  will  outline  the  basic  concepts  and  definitions  of  Directive
2006/54/EC that are central to this research paper.

1.1 General description of the Directive 2006/54/EC

Directive 2006/54/EC was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in July
2006.  Its  primary  goal  is  to  implement  the  principle  of  equal  opportunities  and  equal
treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation throughout the
European Union.

1.2 Description of gender-neutral job evaluation/classification systems

the  Bauer 

report  and 

SWD(2013)512, 

Directive 2006/54/EC states that job classification systems for determining pay should be
based on the same criteria for both men and women to avoid sex-based discrimination. In
line with the description of job evaluation / classification included in Commission Staff
the Commission
Working Document
Recommendations  on Strengthening  the Principle of Equal Pay  between Men  and
Women  through Transparency  point  out  that  Member  States  should  promote  the
development and use of gender-neutral job evaluation / classification1. These documents
recommend  making  use  of  analytical  job  evaluation  methods  that  analyse  and  weigh
different  factors  for  every  position.  By  analysing  the  same  factors  for  every  position,
different positions (e.g., male- and female-typed ones) can be compared and adherence to
the  principle  of  “equal  pay  for  work  of  equal  value”  can  be  ensured.  The Commission
Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2013)512 advises  to  take  into  account  the  following  four
job  evaluation  factors  (including  their  respective  sub-factors): Skills (e.g.,  knowledge,
interpersonal skills, problem-solving), responsibility (e.g., for people, goods, information,
financial resources), effort (e.g., mental and psycho-social, physical) and working conditions
(e.g.,    physical,  psychological,  emotional  or  organisational  environment).  After  having
identified  the  relevant  factors  and  sub-factors,  each  of  them  should  be  weighted  by
assigning  points  relative  to  their  importance  for  the  organisation,  meaning  that  the
assigned  points  will  be  organisation-specific.  Two  types  of  weighting  are  necessary:  (1)
external  weighting,  determining  the  relative  importance  of  each  of  the  four  factors  with
regard  to  the  overall  evaluation  and  (2) internal  weighting,  determining  the  relative
importance  of  each  of  the  different  sub-factors  with  regard  to  their  respective  factor.
Based on the weighting of factors and sub-factors, each job is assigned a certain number
of points. Jobs with similar amounts of points are then classified into groups, which are
finally connected to pay levels.

In  order  to  ensure  that  job  evaluation  /  classification  is  actually  gender-neutral,  the
Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2013)512 recommends the following: Using
the same job evaluation system throughout the whole company and for male- as well as

1 The Bauer report further recommends training women on job classification, asking sectors and
companies to examine if their job evaluation / classification is gender-neutral and asking Member
States to carry out assessments focusing on female-dominated professions. These recommendations
are not included in the commission recommendations on strengthening the principal of equal pay
between men and women through transparency.

III - 7

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

female-dominated  jobs,  including  both  typically  male  as  well  as  typically  female
requirements,  evaluating  male- and  female-typed  requirements  according  to  their  real
value  for  the  organisation,  assessing  the  same  requirement  only  with  one  instead  of
multiple  criteria,  defining  requirements  as  unambiguously  as  possible  and  evaluating
requirements closely.

In order to evaluate the success of Directive 2006/54/EC, we will follow a quantitative and
qualitative  approach  and  analyse  six  different focus  countries  (Germany,  France,  Malta,
Latvia,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom)  which  have  been  chosen  based  on  several  equality-
relevant criteria (i.e., vertical and horizontal access to employment, gender pay gap)2.

2. Quantitative analysis of the implementation of the

Directive 2006/54/EC

First,  we  will  analyse  how  access  to  employment,  working  conditions  and  occupational
social security schemes have developed in the period from 2005 (before the entry into force
of the Directive) to 2013 (newest available data) based on official data from the EU (Eurostat,
2014). Even though developments over time cannot be interpreted in a causal way (e.g., by
directly attributing improvements with regard to the gender pay gap to the implementation
of  the  Directive)  these  data  enable  us  to  assess  whether  the  situation  in  our  six  focus
countries (and the EU as a whole) has improved since the entry into force of the Directive.

2.1 Access to employment

2.1.1 Women’s employment rates
Figure 1 shows how women’s employment rates have developed over time3.

Figure 1: Women’s employment rates (2005-2013)

)

%
n
i
(

s
e
t
a
r

t
n
e
m
y
o
l
p
m
e
s
'
n
e
m
o
W

75,0

70,0

65,0

60,0

55,0

50,0

45,0

40,0

35,0

30,0

25,0

EU-28

Germany

France

Latvia

Malta

Sweden

UK

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2 For a detailed overview of the methodological approach of this research paper, please see Annex I.
3 Data on EU-level refer to EU-28 if possible; if data for EU-28 are not available, we will refer to EU-
27 instead; data include persons aged 15 to 64 years, if not indicated otherwise.

III - 8

 
 
 
 
Gender equality in employment and occupation

The  data  indicate  that  women’s  employment  rates  have  remained  relatively  stable  over
time,  with  a  slightly  positive  trend  in  recent  years.  Women’s  employment  rates  have
increased  most  strongly  in  Malta  (13.6  %  from  2005  to  2013),  whereas  there  has  been  a
temporary  decline  of  women’s  employment  in  Latvia.  Sweden  and  Germany  show  the
highest absolute employment rates for women.

2.1.2 Vertical segregation – Percentage of female board members
Figure 2 shows the degree of horizontal segregation, i.e., the representation of women in
high-ranking leadership positions (on corporate boards).

Figure 2: Percentage of women on boards (2005-2013)

)

%
n
i
(

s
r
e
b
m
e
m
d
r
a
o
b
e
l
a
m
e
F

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

EU-28

Germany

France

Latvia

Malta

Sweden

UK

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Despite  still  being  below  30%,  the  percentage  of  women  on boards  has  substantially
increased during the observed time span in all focus countries except for Malta (with the
largest increase occurring in France: 23.0 %). Currently, Sweden, Latvia and France have
the highest percentage of women on boards.

2.1.3 Horizontal segregation – Employment rates in male- and female-typed

domains

Figure  3  displays  horizontal  segregation  of  the  labour  market,  i.e.,  the  percentage  of
women’s  representation  in  male-dominated  (e.g.,  mechanic,  engineer),  neutral  (e.g.,
finance  professionals)  and  female-dominated  (e.g.,  service  clerk,  nurse)  professions
throughout the EU-27 in the year 2010 (European Union, 2014)4.

4 Data on horizontal segregation could not be found on a national level.

III - 9

 
 
 
 
Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

Figure  3:  Percentage  of  women  in  male-dominated,  neutral  and  female-dominated
professions throughout the EU-27 (2010)

As can be seen from these data, there still is considerable gender segregation in Europe.
In total, only 16 % of all employees work in “gender-neutral” (i.e., mixed sex) occupations.
Thus, men and women continue to choose or be selected into different jobs.

2.2 Working conditions

2.2.1 Gender pay gap
Figure 4 displays the development of the gender pay gap over time5.

Figure 4: Gender pay gap (2006-2012)

)

%
n
i
(
p
a
g
y
a
p
r
e
d
n
e
G

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

EU-27

Germany

France

Latvia

Malta

Sweden

UK

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

5 Data on the gender pay gap are only available for the time span between 2006 and 2012.

III - 10

 
 
 
 
Gender equality in employment and occupation

As  can  be  seen,  the  gender  pay  gap  has  remained  relatively  stable  over  time,  with  the
largest  decrease  in the  UK  (5.2  %).  The  UK  and  Germany  have  the  highest  gender  pay
gaps of all focus countries, whereas pay differences between the sexes are relatively low
in Malta.

Part-time employment

2.2.2
Figure 5 displays the development of women’s part-time employment over time.

Figure 5: Percentage of female part-time employees (2005-2013)

)

%
n
i
(
s
e
e
y
o
l
p
m
e
e
m

i
t
-
t
r
a
p
e
l
a
m
e
F

50,0

45,0

40,0

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

EU-28

Germany

France

Latvia

Malta

Sweden

UK

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

By trend, the percentage of women working part-time has increased over time, with the
strongest  increase  occurring  in  Malta  (5.5%).  The  percentage  of  women  working  part-
time is generally highest in Germany and UK.

2.3 Occupational social security schemes

Figure  6  shows  the  difference  in  relative  income  between  male  and  female  retirees
(persons aged 65 or older).

Whereas  in  2005,  female  retirees  were  more  likely  to  have  a  lower  income than  male
retirees  in  all  focus  countries  except  for  Malta,  this  pattern  had  changed  in  2013,  when
income rates were already more similar between the sexes. Only in Latvia, women today
still have a much lower income as retirees than men (11.4 %).

III - 11

 
 
 
 
Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

Figure 6: Difference in relative income between male and female retirees (2005-2013)

e
m
o
c
n
i
e
v
i
t
a
l
e
r
n
i
e
c
n
e
r
e
f
f
i

D

s
e
e
r
i
t
e
r
e
l
a
m
e
f
d
n
a
e
l
a
m
n
e
e
w
t
e
b

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

-5,0

-10,0

-15,0

-20,0

-25,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

EU-27

Germany

France

Latvia

Malta

Sweden

UK

2.4 Conclusion

The  quantitative  data  outlined  above  indicate  that  for  the  EU  as  a  whole,  progress  has
been  made  with  regard  to  women’s  general  employment  rates,  women’s  representation
on  boards,  and  income-differences  between  men  and  women  in  old  age.  Despite  this
general progress, especially vertical and horizontal segregation remain on relatively high
levels  and  the  gender  pay  gap  still  persists.  The  data  also  show  that  there are  large
differences between the focus countries. Whereas the gender pay gap is currently (as of
2012) still on a high level in Germany (22.4 %), it is way lower in Malta (6.1%). In contrast,
whereas all other focus countries have increased the percentage of female board members
over the past years, Malta has not made progress in this regard (women’s representation
on boards remains on a low level: 2.0 % in 2013).

3.

Implementation and enforcement of the Directive
2006/54/EC with regard to job evaluation /
classification

As  outlined  above,  it  is  difficult  to  evaluate  the  success  of  the  implementation  of  the
Directive  on  a  quantitative  basis.  Therefore,  we  will  now  qualitatively  analyse  the
implementation  of the  Directive (a) from a scientific  point of view and (b) by analysing
the  activities  of  relevant  stakeholder  groups  (ministries,  equality  bodies,  trade  unions,
employer representations) within the specific focus countries.

III - 12

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gender equality in employment and occupation

3.1 Evaluation of job evaluation / classification as described in

Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2013)512

In  the  following  sections,  we  will  comment  on Commission Staff Working Document
SWD(2013)512 accompanying the Commission report on the implementation of Directive
2006/54/EC from  the  scientific  perspective  of  research  on  gender stereotypes.  The
literature  defines  gender  stereotypes  as  widely  shared  expectations  about  the
competencies  and  traits  of  men  and  women.  Whereas  men  are  usually  assumed  to  be
agentic (i.e.,  decisive,  independent,  forceful),  women  are  seen  as communal (i.e.,  nice,
caring and sensitive). With these gendered trait ascriptions also come expectations about
the social roles men and women are suited for: Whereas men are seen as a good match
for high-status roles such as leadership, women are seen as more adept for interpersonal
roles such as nurse or teacher (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001; Schein, 1973, 2001).
Thus,  expectations  about  the  traits  and  capabilities  of  men  and  women  may  produce
biased evaluations of their respective competencies.

In a similar vein, studies (e.g., Eckes, 2002) have shown that expectations about “typical
men”  and  “career  men”  are  highly  similar  (with  both  being  characterized  by  high
competence,  but  only  moderate  social  warmth),  whereas  expectations  about  “typical
women” and “career women” strongly diverge (with typical women usually seen as high
in  social  warmth,  but  relatively  low  in  competence,  and  career  women  seen  as  quite
competent,  but  very  low  in  warmth).  Thus,  by  being  competent,  women  lose  perceived
communality, which in turn often leads to social backlash (e.g., being seen as hostile and
therefore  being  unlikely  to  be  hired  or  promoted;  Heilman,  Wallen,  Fuchs,  &  Tamkins,
2004). To sum up, gender stereotypes often lead to indirect discrimination against women.

3.1.1 Benefits of the outlined approach to job evaluation / classification
Several of the measures for gender-neutral job evaluation / classification outlined in the
Commission Staff Working  Document SWD(2013)512 accompanying  the  Commission
report  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2006/54/EC are  highly  valuable  from  a
scientific  point  of  view. Analytical  approaches to  job  evaluation  bear  less  potential  for
gender biases than non-analytical (i.e., global) ones as they reduce the ambiguity within
the  job  evaluation  process.  Ambiguity  has  been  reliably  demonstrated  as  a  condition
fuelling the application of gender stereotypes (Heilman, 2001, 2012). In the same vein, the
suggestion  of  a clear  definition  of  factors  and  sub-factors reduces  the  ambiguity  of  the
evaluation  criteria. Utilising  all  defined  factors  for  every  position  in  the  company  and
developing  only one  job  classification  system for  the  whole  company  is  also  in  line  with
scientific recommendations as it avoids shifting standards for different positions (Murtha,
1993). As recommended, different sub-factors should not overlap (Weiner, 1991) and both
male- and  female-typed  factors should  be  considered  in  order  to  avoid  overvaluation  of
male-typed  and  undervaluation  of  female-typed  jobs  (Murtha,  1993).  Finally, gender-
neutral  job  titles should  be  chosen  in  order  to  encompass  both  male- and  female-typed
factors.

Further steps to avoid gender biases in job evaluation / classification

3.1.2
Even though the measures for designing job evaluation / classification systems outlined
above  provide  viable  ways  to  reduce  the  influence  of  gender  bias,  there  are  additional

III - 13

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

aspects  on  various  stages  throughout  the  job  evaluation  and  classification  process  that
should  be  taken  into  account  in  order  to  ensure  gender-neutrality.  The  main  point  of
improvement from a gender stereotypes perspective is to reduce the ambiguity currently
inherent  in  the  process  by  giving  more  specific  guidelines  for  implementing  gender-
neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification.  These  specific  details  necessary  for  avoiding
indirect discrimination during job evaluation will be outlined below.

3.1.2.1

Establishment of the evaluation committee

Developing  a  job  evaluation  /  classification  system  usually  starts  by  establishing  an
evaluation committee executing the entire process. In order to ensure that there will be no
gender  biases  introduced  by  the  evaluation  committee,  several  aspects  have  to  be
considered.

Sex distribution of the evaluation committee: As outlined by a recent meta-analysis, male
raters  show  stronger  gender  biases than  female  ones  (Koch,  D’Mello,  &  Sackett,  2014).
Therefore, it is crucial that the sex distribution  of the evaluation committee  is balanced.
This also carries the advantage of reducing the perceived maleness of the overall setting
(Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995), which might beneficially affect the following process.

Training  of  the  evaluation  committee: In  addition,  the  evaluation  committee  should  be
trained  with  regard  to  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification.  As  stereotyping  is
usually  an unconscious  process  (Greenwald  &  Banaji,  1995)  raising  awareness  about
stereotypes  is  generally  important  and  necessary  to  motivate  subsequent  changes  of
behaviour  (Sanchez  &  Medkik,  2004).  Therefore,  members  of  the  evaluation  committee
have to be taught how the influence of gender biases can be avoided in job evaluation /
classification  (Murtha,  1993).  Short  but  comprehensive  checklists  (such  as  provided  by
Belgium’s Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, 2010) that can be handed out to
members  of  the  evaluation  committee  provide  a  good  way  of  distributing  necessary
information.

Assigning the role of devil's advocate: As outlined above, biases are unconscious rather
than  conscious  processes  (Greenwald  &  Banaji,  1995).  Yet  even  when  people  are  made
aware of their existence, they still tend to have a “bias blind spot” (Pronin, Lin, & Ross,
2002). This means that people are often unable to recognize their own biases – but can see
their  influence  in  the  evaluations  given  by  others.  Therefore,  it  makes  sense  to
strategically name one or two of the committee’s members devil's advocate, whose role it
is to critically assess whether processes and criteria are gender-neutral or not.

Enhancing accountability: Finally, the evaluation committee should be made aware of the
fact that it will have to justify its evaluation decisions in front of an external party after
having  completed  the  process  (Brtek  &  Motowidlo,  2002).  Enhancing  perceived  (and
actual) accountability is important as it has been shown to increase raters’ motivation to
look at decisions carefully and to avoid stereotyping (Koch et al., 2014).

3.1.2.2 Generation of job descriptions

After  the evaluation committee has  been set  up,  job  descriptions  for  all  the  positions  in
the company need to be developed. In order to do so, factors and sub-factors are selected.
Then qualitative information on job positions is obtained for each one of those sub-factors,

III - 14

Gender equality in employment and occupation

on the basis of which ratings on sub-factors for each job position are made. In every step
of this process, certain details have to be considered in order to ensure gender-neutrality:

Use of neutral job-titles for all positions: The job-titles of all positions should be framed in
a gender-neutral way. It is also important to avoid status-related titles as these will similarly
trigger  biased  evaluations  (so  that  a  ‘customer  services  assistant’  might  be  evaluated  as
possessing  lower  overall  responsibility  than  a  ‘customer  services  officer’;  Equality  and
Human Rights Commission, 2014; Smith, Hornsby, Benson, & Wesolowski, 1989).

Preselection of factors and sub-factors central to all positions in the company:
As outlined in the Commission Staff Working  Document SWD(2013)512, it is important
to have a single, company-wide job evaluation system, which encompasses the following
factors: Skills, responsibility, effort, and working conditions. Each of these factors has to
be  further  divided  into  sub-factors,  which  need  to  be  determined  within  the  job
evaluation  process.  The Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2013)512 outlines
that  these  sub-factors  themselves  need  to  be  gender-neutral.  However,  research  has
already  shown  that  sub-factors  usually  are  not  gender-neutral:  Whereas  for  example
interpersonal  skills are typically seen as female-typed (Heilman, 2012), problem-solving
is seen as a rather male-typed skill (Atwater, Brett, Waldman, DiMare, & Hayden, 2004;
Martell  &  DeSmet,  2001).  In  order  to  ensure  that  the  selected  sub-factors  are  gender-
neutral in sum, it is therefore necessary to include all relevant sub-factors for both male-
typed and female-typed factors (Eagly & Karau, 2002).

To do so, structured free recall procedures (Baltes, Bauer, & Frensch, 2007; Bauer & Baltes,
2002) should be used when developing company-wide sub-factors. For each factor (e.g.,
skills),  first  female-typed  (e.g.,  interpersonal  competencies),  then  male-typed  (e.g.,
analytical  problem  solving)  potential  sub-factors  should  be  collected  strategically.  To
ensure that these are representative for all positions in the company, several exemplary
male- and  female-typed  positions  ought  to  be  used  as  examples  during  this  procedure
(Weiner,  1991).  Such  methods  would  safeguard  the  implementation  of  the Commission
Staff  Working  Document SWD(2013)512’s  advice  to  take  into  account  both  male-typed
and female-typed sub-factors.

Once an encompassing list of potential company-wide sub-factors has been developed, it
is  important  to  reduce  the  potential  ambiguity  of  these  sub-factors.  Each one should
receive a clear definition in order to avoid evaluators having to rely on their ‘gut feeling’
when assessing whether it is relevant for a position at hand or not (Heilman, 2012). This
definition  should  break  down  the  rather  global  sub-factors,  which  are  hard  to  evaluate
(e.g., interpersonal competencies), into more specific behaviours (Flanagan, 1954; Lance,
Lambert,  Gewin,  Lievens,  &  Conway,  2004). Examples for  both  male- (e.g.,  negotiating
with  suppliers)  and  female-typed  behaviours  (e.g.,  calming  down  upset  customers)
representing  the  respective  sub-factor  should  be  given  (in  alphabetical  order  instead  of
male-first; Murtha, 1993; Weiner, 1991).

Finally, for each sub-factor, different requirement levels have to be defined. These levels
should also be assigned clear labels to facilitate evaluation and reduce ambiguity (e.g., for
interpersonal  competencies: 1  =  needs  to  interact  only  rarely  with  other  people,  such  as
colleagues,  customers  or  suppliers,  existing  interactions  are  only  of  minor  importance  to  the

III - 15

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

company; 7 = successful interaction with other people, such as colleagues, customers or suppliers
is extremely frequent and relevant for the company’s success; for further examples, please see
International  Labor  Office,  2008,  p.  37).  To  further  ensure  gender-neutrality,  male- and
female-typed  sub-factors  should  have  the  same  number  of  levels  (Equality  and  Human
Rights Commission, 2014)

Collecting standardized data for specific positions: To assess specific positions’ sub-factor
requirement  levels,  literature  on  gender  stereotypes  recommends  questioning  several
persons familiar with the position: Current position holders, their colleagues and leaders
(Heilman, 2012; Murtha, 1993). If possible, both male and female interview partners should be
chosen to ensure a balanced point of view – men and women might talk differently about
their  positions  (Murtha,  1993).  To  collect  the  data, structured  interviews  or  structured
questionnaires ought to be used (for examples, see International Labor Office, 2008, p. 44-
47). To restrict the influence of biases, closed-ended questions are the method of choice –
even  though  a  preceding  thorough  search  for  company-wide  sub-factors,  as  described
above, is crucial (Murtha, 1993).

Assessing the degree to which a specific position requires different levels of sub-factors:
Finally, based  on  the  answers  of  the  interviewees,  the levels of  the  different  sub-factors
required  for  a  position  (described  by  gender-neutral  job  titles)  should  be  determined
based  on  the  qualitative  information  retrieved  from  structured  interviews.  In  order  to
reduce  subjectivity,  ratings  should  be  done  by  several  members  of  the  evaluation
committee,  who  should  subsequently  reach  consensus  by  discussing  diverging  ratings
(Arvey, 1986).

3.1.2.3

Internal and external weighting of factors

After  factors  and  sub-factors  have  been  defined  and  their  position-specific  levels  have
been  determined,  weighting  has  to  take  place.  After  external  weighting,  i.e.,  the
determination  of  the  relative  importance  of  each  of  the  four  factors  with  regard  to  the
overall evaluation, internal weighting, i.e., determining the relative importance of each of
the different sub-factors with regard to their respective factor, should follow. As outlined
in  the Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2013)512,  this  weighting  process  has
to  occur  in  a  bias-free  way – which  is,  however,  challenging  as  weighting  is  a  highly
subjective  process.  Nevertheless, 
indirect
discrimination during weighting can be reduced.

there  are  several  means  by  which 

Development  of  a  weighting  grid: The  determined  factors  and  sub-factors  need  to  be
assigned points relative to their importance for the mission of the company. Using a total
of  1000  points  is  generally  recommended.  In  order  to  distribute  them,  the  four  main
factors  first  have  to  be  ranked  (i.e.,  how  important  are  skills,  responsibility,  effort  and
working  conditions  for  the  organisation?).  After  this  first  ranking,  these  factors  will  be
assigned a relative weight (i.e., a percentage). Experts recommend assigning 20% to 35%
for  qualifications,  25%  to  40%  for  responsibility,  15%  to  25%  for  effort  and  about  5%  to
15% for working conditions. Afterwards, the same procedure (ranking and distribution of
percentages)  should  be  repeated  for  the  sub-factors  (International  Labor  Office,  2008, p.
70-72).

III - 16

Gender equality in employment and occupation

Checking the weighting grid for gender-neutrality: As outlined in the Commission Staff
Working  Document  SWD(2013)512,  the  weighting  grid’s  gender-neutrality  needs  to  be
checked.  While  the Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2013)512 does  not  state
explicitly  how  this  can  be  done, research  suggests  the  following  method:  The  mean
percentages assigned to male-typed versus female-typed sub-factors should be analysed.
In case of differences in the weighting of male-typed and female-typed sub-factors (with
on average, for example, 15 % assigned to each male, but only 11 % to each female sub-
factor), these should be critically questioned and it should be checked whether these can
actually  be  justified  (a  process  that  while  not  eliminating  gender  bias,  does  reduce  it;
International  Labor  Office,  2008,  p.  72-76).  This  procedure  could,  e.g.,  ensure  that
responsibility  for  people  is  rated  as  highly  as  responsibility  for  financial  resources  (as
requested  in  the Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2013)512 and  the  Bauer
report).

3.1.2.4

Assignment of points to jobs and job classification

After the distribution of points to sub-factor levels has taken place, the final steps of job
classification have to be implemented in a gender-neutral way.

Assignment of points to jobs: Based on the specific points just assigned to the sub-factor
levels, a point value for each position in the company can be determined (e.g., a secretary
might be assigned 342 of 1000 available points; International Labor Office, 2008, p. 76-79).
As  gender-stereotypes  tend  to  influence  the  interpretation  of  available  information,  this
mathematical  procedure  (summing  up  points)  is  an  adequate  way  of  reducing  the
potential  effects  of  biases  at  this  stage  (Heilman,  in  press;  McCarthy,  Iddekinge,  &
Campion, 2010).

Job  classification: After  point  values  have  been  assigned  to  each  job,  jobs  with  similar
point  values  will  be  grouped  into  classes  of  similar  value – a  process  called  job
classification. The design of the job classes offers a lot of ambiguity – and therefore a high
potential  for biased  decisions.  Substantiating  this  notion,  research  has  shown  that  job
classification  often  only  corresponds  loosely  to  the  points  assigned  to  specific  jobs
beforehand  (van  Sliedregt,  Voskuijl  &  Thierry,  2001).  Evaluators  might  redefine  job
classes  in accordance  with  gender  stereotypes  (Uhlmann  &  Cohen,  2005) – assigning  a
lower  pay  class  to  female-typed  jobs  and  a  higher  pay  class  to  male-typed  jobs,  even
though the respective number of points assigned to them is actually similar. In order to
avoid this redefinition of pay classes and to support the European Commissions’ striving
for equal pay as expressed in Directive 2006/54/EC, it would be advisable to assign point
levels to job classes before starting the evaluation process. In addition, it should be checked
whether  female-typed  jobs  tend  to  end  up  at  upper interval  boundaries whereas  male-
typed jobs tend to end up at lower interval boundaries as this might indicate biases (i.e.,
undervaluation  of  female- and  overvaluation  of  male-typed  jobs; International  Labor
Office, 2008, p. 79).

III - 17

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

3.2 Evaluation of job evaluation / classification with regard to access
to employment, working conditions and occupational social
security systems

3.2.1 Access to employment
Although gender-neutral job evaluation is mainly advocated for reducing the gender pay
gap, it can also be the basis for equal access to employment for men and women. In the
following, we will outline  how results  of the job evaluation processes can be applied to
enhance  gender-neutrality  in  the  personnel  selection  processes.  Additional  and  more
detailed information about gender-neutral personnel selection processes can be found in
Welpe,  Brosi  and  Schwarzmüller  (2014)  and  Schwarzmüller,  Brosi  and  Welpe
(forthcoming)6.

3.2.1.1 Gender neutral job descriptions

Connecting job evaluation with personnel selection processes, the factors and sub-factors
developed for all positions in a company need to be translated into very clear, objective
job  descriptions  for  personnel  selection  in  a  specific  position  (Viswesvaran,  Ones, &
Schmidt, 1996).

Developing  behaviourally-based  job  descriptions: To  do  so,  literature  has  consistently
recommended  using behaviourally-based instead  of  competency-based job  descriptions
(Flanagan, 1954; Lance et al., 2004). This would mean defining - based on the interviews
with  current  position  holders,  their  colleagues  and  their  leaders  conducted  during  job
evaluation - which behaviours characterise someone having high levels of a certain skill
(e.g.,  interpersonal  competency)  in  the  specific  position to  be  filled.  For  a  secretary,
interpersonal  competency  might  include  behaviours  such  as  efficiently  calming  upset
managers or dealing in a friendly and professional way with requests made under time-
pressure.  In  contrast,  for  a  mechanic,  interpersonal  competency  might  mean  carefully
analysing  customers’  concerns  or  working  together  effectively  with  colleagues  when
repairing a machine. Thus, developing a clearly defined job description - encompassing
all  behaviours  relevant  for  successfully  filling  the  open  position - reduces  ambiguity
about the skills required for the position (Heilman, 2012).

3.2.1.2 Designing gender-neutral job advertisements

job  advertisement.  Gender-neutral 

After  having  derived  a  gender-neutral  job  description,  this  has  to  be  translated  into  a
job  advertisements  reduce  the
gender-neutral 
perceived maleness of the position (Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011), making women more
likely  to  apply  for  them  (Horvath  &  Sczesny,  2015a)  and  evaluators  more  likely  to  hire
them (Horvath & Sczesny, 2015b). Thus, by getting more women into the applicant pool,
women’s token status is reduced (i.e., high salience due to being one of few women in a
group of applicants; Heilman, 1980), especially in male-typed professions. In addition to
using the gender-neutral job titles from  job evaluation, job advertisements can  be made
gender-neutral by doing the following.

6 Articles available from the authors on request.

III - 18

Gender equality in employment and occupation

Making  use  of  gender-neutral  overall  wording: Job  advertisements  can  also  be  made
gender-neutral by using gender-neutral overall wording (Gaucher et al., 2011).
Gender-neutral  overall  wording  refers  to  a  balanced  use  of  agentic  (e.g.,  “independent,
decisive, strategic”) and communal (e.g., “empathic, team, together”) words throughout
the job advertisement (Gaucher et al., 2011).

3.2.1.3

Assessments of applicants’ competence

A  crucial  point  in  personnel  selection  processes  is  the  assessment  of  applicants’
competence.  Thereby,  results  from  job  evaluation  provide  the  basis  for  creating
assessments which reduce biases from gender stereotypes.

Designing  the  right  work samples: Studies  have  consistently  shown  that  having  more
information about applicants’ job-relevant competencies reduces ambiguity and thereby
stereotyping  (e.g.,  Heilman  et  al.,  2004).  As  work  samples  have  been  characterized  as  a
good tool to get individualised information about applicants’ work-related competencies (Blickle,
2011), they should be used in addition to selection interviews. Work samples should be
strongly  related  to  results  of  job  evaluations,  and  should  provide  the  opportunity  to
evaluate whether applicants are able to show the behaviours identified as necessary for
success beforehand.

Use  of  behaviourally-anchored  rating  scales: To  reduce  ambiguity  with  regard  to  the
evaluation criteria, there should be behaviourally-anchored rating scales for each criterion to
be judged (Macan, 2009). Thus, which types of behaviour are seen as little versus highly
interpersonally competent should be defined and recorded beforehand, based on results
from  job  evaluation.  Behaviourally-anchored  rating  scales  should  be  used  for  both  the
assessment of work samples and in highly structured interviews in which both the questions
themselves  and  their  sequence  are  standardized  (Bragger,  Kutcher,  Morgan,  &  Firth,
2002). Moreover, all evaluators should be trained to ensure a common understanding of
the evaluation criteria (Woehr & Huffcutt, 1994).

3.2.2 Working conditions focusing on pay
We will focus on pay within working conditions, because as outlined by the Commission
Staff Working Document SWD(2013)512, job evaluation / classification mainly targets at
tackling  the  gender  pay  gap.  For  this  purpose,  its  application  in  the  context  of  working
conditions  including  pay  seems  to  be  straightforward:  Employees  with  the  same  job
classification should be assigned to the same pay level.

However,  this  connection  might  be  more  problematic  than  it  seems.  Recall  that  job
evaluation  builds  on  factors  such  as  required  skills,  responsibility,  effort  and  working
conditions  of  the  job  position.  Thus,  job  evaluation  refers  to  the  inputs which  are
necessary for fulfilling a position. In contrast, organisations often aim to connect pay to
the  necessary  (expected)  outcomes,  i.e.,  performance.  Specifically,  pay  fulfils  an
incentivising  effect  in  organisations,  which  refers  to  the  impact  of  pay  on  employees’
motivation in order to increase their performance (Gerhart, Rynes, & Fulmer, 2009). This
incentivising  effect  is  used  for  motivating  prospective  employees  to  enter  the
organisation and for  motivating existing employees to exert effort and achieve  working

III - 19

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

goals. Within the following sections, we will describe why and how these effects appear
to be threats to gender equality, and describe potential remedies.

3.2.2.1

Starting pay negotiations

Women  are  less  likely  than  men  to  initiate  negotiations  for  starting  pay  (Babcock,
Laschever, Gelfand, & Small, 2003). In consequence, it is not surprising that women have
been found to have lower starting pay than men (Gerhart & Rynes, 1991). These gender
differences are severe as they have been shown to significantly influence subsequent pay
levels (Harris, Gilbreath & Sunday, 2002). Against this background, it has been proposed
that  women  should  be  trained  in  negotiation  skills  (e.g.,  see  the  Bauer  report)  and
platforms such as the Austrian wage calculator7 aim to create transparency on wages in
order  to  enable  women  to  start  pay  negotiations.  But  although  these  measures  are
valuable in raising women’s awareness about the importance of negotiating their starting
pay,  research  shows  that  women  are  confronted  with  social  backlash  for  initiating  pay
negotiations  (Bowles,  Babcock  &  Lai,  2007;  the  effect  of  social  backlash  is  described  in
section 3.1.). Thus, as long as organisations do not create circumstances which reduce the
risk  of  social  backlash  for  women  who  start  negotiations,  these  measures  will  not  be
effective. In order to create such circumstances, organisations can do the following:

Reduce  structural  ambiguity:  Research  shows  that  reducing  structural  ambiguity,  i.e.,
enhancing  both  parties’  understanding about  the  economic  circumstances  of  a
negotiation,  reduces  the  influence  of  gender  stereotypes  (Bowles,  Babcock,  &  McGinn,
2005). These circumstances relate to factors such as the knowledge of average wages and
wage  limits.  Thus,  creating  transparency  in negotiations  about  starting  pay  in  terms  of
average  wages  and  wage  limits  helps  to  reduce  structural  ambiguity.  Not  only  women
need this information, especially their negotiation partners should be made aware of it in
order to reduce the risk of social backlash.

Reduce  the  salience  of  gender:  Another  factor  which  increases  the  probability  that
initiating a negotiation is followed by social backlash for women is the salience of gender
(Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). A situational circumstance making gender salient is
for example women’s token status, i.e., situations in which there are only few women in a
group of applicants (Heilman, 1980). Thus, increasing the number of female applicants is
not  only  a  desirable  outcome  itself,  but  also  supports  organisations  in  reducing  the
gender pay gap.

3.2.2.2

Performance-based pay

Performance-based  pay  reduces  the  strength  of  the  connection  between  job  classes  and
pay,  turning  job  evaluation  /  classification  into  a  less  powerful  tool  for  reducing  the
gender pay gap. This circumstance has so far been broadly acknowledged (e.g., Equality
and Human Rights Commission, 2010) but recommendations on how gender equality can
be  promoted 
in  performance-based  pay  schemes  are  still  missing.  However,
recommendations  can  be  given  for  increasing  gender-neutrality  in  performance-based
pay,  which  parallel  the  recommendations  for  increasing  gender-neutrality  in  job
evaluation / classification.

7 http://www.gehaltsrechner.gv.at/

III - 20

Gender equality in employment and occupation

influences 

Reducing  gender-stereotypic 
in  performance  assessments:  In  general,
performance  assessments  are  based  either  on behaviour-based  criteria,  e.g.,  supervisor
ratings, or outcome-based criteria, e.g., productivity, sales volume, and profitability (Rynes,
Gerhart & Parks, 2005). Outcome-based criteria are more objective than behaviour-based
criteria, but are often not available or do not cover all performance domains of a position.
Therefore, many organisations use subjective criteria, which can be influenced by gender
stereotypes,  resulting  in  women  being  judged  as  performing  less  well  than  men  (e.g.,
Joshi, Son, & Roh, in press). A powerful remedy for reducing the influence of stereotypes
in  performance  evaluations  is reducing ambiguity (Heilman,  2012): Increasing the quantity
and quality of information about performance, increasing the clarity with which performance can
be  attributed  to  women  and  men,  increasing  the  clarity  of  evaluation  criteria, and increasing
clarity about the way in which evaluation criteria should be combined to an overall performance
assessment are therefore ways to reduce the influence of gender stereotypes.

Connect  performance  with  performance-based  pay:  A  recent  meta-analysis  shows  that
gender  differences  in  rewards  (including  salary,  bonuses  and  promotions)  are  fourteen
times  higher  than  gender  differences  in  performance  assessments  (Joshi,  Son,  &  Roh,
2015). This finding highlights the importance of connecting performance-based pay with
performance.  This  principle  is  further  stressed  by  research  showing  that  leaves or
absences, i.e., the usage of family-friendly policies, can lead to long-term consequences in
terms  of  lower  salary  increases  even  when  controlling  for  performance  (Judiesch  &
Lyness, 1999). Although this result pertained to men and women, women are more likely
than  men  to  make  use  of  gender-friendly  policies  (e.g.,  Greenhaus  &  Powell,  2006).  In
consequence, especially those measures aiming to support women may backfire, as they
might increase the gender pay gap when pay is not firmly connected with performance,
such  as  when  managers  are  given  discretion  about  the  allocation  of  performance-based
pay (Rynes, Gerhart & Parks, 2005). Thus, parallel to connecting pay with the results of
job  evaluations,  performance-based  pay  should  be  clearly  connected  with  performance
criteria.

3.2.3 Occupational social security schemes
In general, it is difficult to make recommendations on social security schemes because of
the  diverse  nature  of  occupational  security  systems  throughout  the Member  States (see
Burri & Van Eijken, 2014, p. 15-16). Furthermore, job evaluation / classification is usually
not directly related to occupational social security schemes, but may indirectly influence
occupational social security schemes to the extent that social security schemes are tied to
pay. To the same extent, the provided qualitative assessment of the gender pay gap also
relates to social security schemes.

4.

Implementation of job evaluation / classification in the
EU

In order to qualitatively asses the current application of job evaluation / classification in
the EU, we will examine the application of job evaluation / classification in organisations,
the enforcement of job evaluation / classification by governments, the promotion of job
evaluation  /  classification  by  social  partners  and  the  promotion  of  job  evaluation  /
classification by equality bodies.

III - 21

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

4.1 Implementation of job evaluation / classification in organisations

Comparative  analyses  of  the implementation of  job  evaluation  /  classification  in
organisations are so far scarce. The best data are available for the United Kingdom and
show the following points: First, whereas 80% of organisations in the public / voluntary
sector make use of formal job evaluation schemes, only about half of the organisations in
the private sector (49%) use formal job evaluation  schemes (E-reward, 2007). Second, of
those  organisations  using  formal  job  evaluation  schemes,  53%  use  explicitly  weighted
point-factor schemes and 61% apply progressive (geometrical) scoring systems (E-reward,
2007). Third, across positions, i.e., senior management, middle management, professional,
sales, administration or production, about half of respondents judged their job evaluation
scheme as ineffective in carrying out the compensation philosophy and/or the purpose of
their job evaluation (WorldatWork, 2009). Fourth, job evaluation schemes are widespread
in  large  organisations,  but  relatively  rare  in  small  organisations  with  fewer  than  250
employees (El-Hajji, 2011).

These  points  provide  first  indications,  but  extrapolating  from  these  results  to  other
countries in the EU is difficult, because although job evaluation / classification schemes
are well promoted by the government and the equality body in the United Kingdom, the
gender  pay  gap  in  the  United  Kingdom  is  relatively  high.  In  order  to  provide  reliable
evidence  on  the  use  of  job  evaluation  /  classification  in  organisations  across  the  EU,
quantitative research based on primary data collections is necessary.

4.2 Implementation of job evaluation / classification at national level

Overall, two different approaches in which national governments enforce job evaluation
/ classification could be detected. A first approach includes the definition of criteria for
job  evaluation  /  classification  such  as  the  complexity  of  work,  responsibility,  physical
and  psychological  strain,  working  conditions,  efficiency,  experience,  skills,  qualification
and  comparable  work  results.  This  approach  is  applied  in  countries  such  as  the  Czech
Republic, Hungary and Slovenia (Burri & Van Eijken, 2014). A second approach refers to
the  definition  of  gender-neutral  processes  for  job  evaluation  /  classification.  Thus,
instead  of  specifying  concrete  criteria,  this  approach  targets  at  specifying  how  job
evaluation  /  classification  needs  to  be  conducted  in  order  to  deliver  gender-neutral
results.  This  approach  is  for example  applied  in  Belgium  (Institute  for  the  Equality  of
Women and Men, 2010).

For  the  focus  countries,  we  examined  the  level  of  collective  bargaining,  as  collective
bargaining  often  determines  the  preconditions  for  legislation,  legislation  itself –
particularly  with  regard  to  the  definition  of  equal  pay  and  equal  work – as  well  as
additional activities by the government,  which are reported to  support the enforcement
of job evaluation / classification.

4.2.1 Germany
In Germany, wage bargaining is centralised on a medium level; thus, bargaining mainly
takes  place  on  a  sector  or  industry  level  (Eurofound,  2014a).  Furthermore,  union
concentration  is  exceptionally  high  in  Germany  (Eurofound,  2014a).  Due  to  the  way  in
which autonomy of collective bargaining (freedom of coalition) is defined in the German

III - 22

Gender equality in employment and occupation

Constitution,  the  Federal  Labour  Court  decided  that  the  evaluation  of  work  and  the
establishment  of  systems  of  pay  are  crucial  parts  of  this  autonomy,  in  which  the  State
must  not  interfere  (Burri  &  Van  Eijken,  2014).  Thus,  most  wages  and  job  evaluation  /
classification systems are set under the Act on Collective Bargaining (Tarifvertragsgesetz),
which does not include provisions on equal pay (Burri & Van Eijken, 2015). Furthermore,
the General Act on Equal Treatment includes a general prohibition of discrimination, but
no definition of equal pay. Neither are concepts of pay and work of equal value defined
in statutory legislation. Likewise, the AGG (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) does
not refer to equal pay but includes a general prohibition of discrimination (Burri & Van
Eijken, 2014).

In collaboration with the major German employer associations, the German government
provides tools for the implementation of gender-neutral pay, which include some of the
principles of gender-neutral job evaluation / classification.

4.2.1.1

Logib-D

Logib-D is an analytical tool which supports organisations in detecting gender-disparity
in their pay structures8. The tool analyses the gender pay gap while controlling for age,
tenure, education, and working time. In addition, gender-disparity on ratings of demand
level  (ranging  on  a  6-point  scale  from  simple  and  repetitive  tasks  to  demanding  and
complex  tasks)  and  job  position  (ranging  on  a  6-point  scale  from  no  leadership
responsibility  to top-level  leadership  responsibility)  can  be  examined.  Data  is  provided
for  individual  employees.  Thus,  Logib-D  is  a  very  useful  tool  for  examining  if  gender
inequalities  exist.  However,  it  does  not  provide  support  in  detecting  the  root  causes  of
gender-disparities and is not connected with job evaluation / classification.

4.2.1.2

Eg-check.de

Eg-check  provides  three  tools  for  detecting  gender-inequality  in  pay:  1)  structures  for
aggregating  data,  2)  questions  for  detecting  discriminating  rules,  and  3)  criteria  for  the
direct comparison of jobs9. The last tool applies criteria for job evaluation / classification
as  pay  is  examined  in  relation  to  criteria  such  as  knowledge  and  abilities,  psychosocial
competencies,  responsibility  and  physical  demands.  However,  jobs  are  evaluated  on  an
individual level comparing a male employee with a female employee – a method which
can  bias  ratings  of  criteria,  criteria  are  only  broadly  defined,  providing  ambiguity  that
furthers  the 
is  designed to  examining
discrimination  claims;  thus,  it  is  reactive  rather  than  designed  for  supporting  the
preventive examination of pay schemes.

influence  of  stereotypes,  and  the  tool 

4.2.1.3

Abakaba

In  order  to  facilitate  the  application  of  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification,
Abakaba (Analytische Bewertung von Arbeitstätigkeiten nach Katz und Baisch) provides
a  catalogue  of  specific  criteria  which  are  clustered  within  an  intellectual  area,  a
psychosocial  area,  a  physical  area  and  responsibility  (Katz  &  Baisch,  1996).  The  criteria
include work demands and impairments and are additionally rated with regard to their

8 www.logib-d.de/startseite
9 www.eg-check.de/html/278.htm

III - 23

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

frequency (Katz & Baisch, 1996). Based on Abakaba, the diagnostic tool VIWIV (Verdiene
ich,  was  ich  verdiene?)  is  provided,  which  aims  to  support  the  evaluation  of  pay
discrimination  on  an individual  level  (Katz  &  Baisch,  1996).  Thus,  VIWIV  provides  job
evaluation / classification for a reactive examination, but does not support the preventive
examination of pay schemes.

4.2.2 United Kingdom
In  the  United  Kingdom,  wage-bargaining  is  highly  decentralised  as  it  takes  place  on  a
local  or  company  level  and  shows  a  low  level  of  coordination  (Eurofound,  2014a).
Legislation  is  driven  by  a  comparator  approach  in  equal  pay  cases,  specifying  that  a
comparator is a person of the opposite sex who is employed by the same employer in the
same establishment, or one for whom broadly similar terms and conditions apply (Burri
& Van Eijken, 2015). Thereby, legislation refers to like work (i.e., same or broadly similar
work), work of equal value (i.e., different work of equal value in terms of factors such as
effort, skill and decision-making), and work rated as equivalent (i.e., different work rated
under the same job evaluation scheme) as being work of equal value (Burri & Van Eijken,
2014).  Thus,  legislation  specifically  refers  to  job  evaluation  and  further  details  that  job
evaluation  must  be  thorough,  analytic,  based  on  jobs  (instead  of  the  person  who  is
currently  doing  the  job),  and  non-discriminatory  in  criteria  and  weighting.  In  line  with
those  specifications,  United  Kingdom  shows  a  high  level  of  activities  for  promoting
gender-neutral job evaluation / classification to employers.

4.2.2.1

Job evaluation for civil servants

For  civil  servants,  the  government  published  a  practical  guide  including  job  evaluation
and  grading  support10 and  a  specific  guide  focusing  on  job  evaluation  of  senior  posts11.
Both  practical  guides  provide  guidance  on  processes  for  gender-neutral  job  evaluation
including  checklists  and  templates  for  job  evaluation.  The  concrete  process  steps
suggested  are  1)  qualitative  interviews  with  post-holders  and  managers,  2)  scoring  of
anonymised  job  profiles  by  two  evaluators,  and  3)  formal  sign  off  of  the  resulting  job
evaluation by a senior manager. The general guide includes the following factors for the
job evaluation: Problem solving, decision making, autonomy, management of resources,
and  impact  in  addition  to  asking  for  required  skills  and  experience  and  the  guide  for
senior  posts  specifies  managing  people,  accountability,  judgment,  influencing  and
professional competence as factors for job evaluation.

4.2.2.2

Think, act, report12

In  addition,  the  United  Kingdom  has  launched  a  voluntary  initiative  with  the  aim  to
promote  transparency  on  gender  equality.  This  initiative  promotes  the  identification  of
issues around gender equality by collecting and considering relevant data (think), taking
steps to address the identified issues (act), and creating transparency on the actions which
are taken (report). Although this framework does not explicitly refer to job evaluation and

10 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/job-evaluation-and-grading-support-jegs-for-
civil-servants
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/job-evaluation-for-senior-posts-good-practice-
guide
12 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-
society/supporting-pages/think-act-report

III - 24

Gender equality in employment and occupation

job  classification,  it  recommends  narrative  descriptions  of  the  organisation’s  approach
and  actions  to  promote  gender  equality  in  addition  to  quantitative  workforce  and  pay
measures.  With  job  evaluation  and  job  classification  being  one  of  those  recommended
approaches, the initiative indirectly promotes reporting of job evaluation / classification
and therefore increases transparency on its use.

Sweden

4.2.3
Sweden is characterised by highly coordinated bargaining on the sector or industry level.
Thus,  there is  an  informal  centralisation  of  bargaining  by  monopolistic  and  powerful
union  confederations  with  or  without  government  involvement  (Eurofound,  2014a).
Chapter  3  of  the  2008  Discrimination  Act  defines  the  concept  of  equal  pay  in  the
following  way:  ”Work  is  to  be  considered  equal  in  value  to  other  work  if,  based  on  an
overall  assessment  of  the  nature  of  the  work  and  the  requirements  imposed  on  the
worker, it may be deemed to be of similar value. Assessments of work requirements shall
take  into  account  criteria  such  as  knowledge  and  skills,  responsibility  and  effort.  When
the  nature  of  the  work  is  assessed,  particular  regard  shall  be  taken  of  the  working
conditions” (Burri  &  Van  Eijken,  2014). In  addition,  Swedish  companies  are  obliged  to
monitor  pay  practices  in  the  workplace  and  to  regularly  present  surveys,  analyses  and
action plans for equal pay (e.g. Burri & Van Eijken, 2015).

In  all  likelihood  facilitated  by  the  high  level  of  centralisation,  gender-neutral  job
evaluations are reported to be often included in the framework of collective agreements
based  on  the  following  four  criteria:  Knowledge  and  experience,  degree  of  effort,
responsibility  and  working  conditions.  In  addition,  factors  such  as  physical  and  mental
stress, competence, degree of independence, planning, and decision making can be taken
into account13.

France

4.2.4
According  to  Eurofound  (2014a),  France  is  characterised  by  collective  bargaining  at  the
sector  or  industry  level,  with  low  levels  of  coordination.  For  equal  pay  for  men  and
women, the Labour Code provides the definition ”for the same job or a job of equal value”
(Burri & Van Eijken, 2014), whereby pay is defined in line with Article 157 TFEU (Burri &
Van  Eijken,  2014)  as  ”the  ordinary  basic  or  minimum  wage  or  salary  and  any  other
consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly,
in respect of his employment, from his employer”14. The 2006 Act on Equal Pay between
Women and Men requires compulsory annual bargaining of wages and other advantages
in cash or in kind for organisations with more than 50 employees, which are required to
deal  with  equality.  In  order  to  ensure  that  negotiations  cover  gender  equality,  specific
and quantitative information on gender equality must be provided covering recruitment,
qualifications,  work-life  balance,  training,  and  pay  (Commission  Staff  Working
Document  SWD(2013)512). The  social  partners  are  also  obliged  to  establish  instruments
that measure equality in pay; afterwards, they have to report on the progress made on a
yearly  basis  (Burri  &  Van  Eijken,  2015). Furthermore,  sanctions  are  imposed  on

13 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/national-action/job-
evaluation/index_en.htm
14 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN

III - 25

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

organisations which do not conclude agreements on gender equality (Burri & Van Eijken,
2014). Finally, legislation specifies that evaluation criteria must not lead to discrimination
and  take  into  account  all  relevant  skills.  In  case  of  discrimination  identified,  the
evaluation criteria will be corrected. With regard to additional activities, the government
provides a diagnostic framework for detecting gender differences.

4.2.4.1 Diagnostic Égalité Professionelle15

The diagnostic framework for detecting gender differences roughly examines the gender
pay  gap  for  different  employee  groups  differentiated  between  workers,  employees,
supervisors,  and  technical  specialists.  Apart  from  this  rough classification,  it  does  not
provide additional job evaluation criteria for the examination of the gender pay gap.

Latvia

4.2.5
In Latvia, wage bargaining takes place on the local or company level and is characterised
by  a  low  level  of  coordination  (Eurofound,  2014a).  Although  there  are  some  sectors  of
industry with generally binding collective agreements such as construction, medicine or
the  railways,  these  do  not  specifically  deal  with  issues  concerning  gender  equality.
Employers are generally obliged ”to define equal pay for men and women for the same
work  or  work  of  equal  value”  (Burri  &  Van  Eijken,  2014).  However,  there  are  no
legislative acts to define such concepts as “equal work” and “work of equal value” (Burri
&  Van  Eijken,  2015).  Deviating  from  EU  law,  pay  is  defined  as  “regularly  paid
remuneration for work, which also includes bonuses and other kinds of remuneration in
connection with employment as provided by normative acts” (Burri & Van Eijken, 2014).
Furthermore, there is no case law dealing with issues such as justifications for differences
in pay (Burri & Van Eijken, 2014). Additional activities by the government could not be
detected.

4.2.6 Malta
Malta is characterised by wage bargaining on the local or company level and shows a low
level  of  coordination  (Eurofound,  2014a).  Equal  pay  is  defined  in  line  with  Article  157
TFEU and Recast Directive 2006/54/EC (Burri & Van Eijken, 2014). However, neither the
Employment  and  Industrial  Relations  Act  nor  the  Equality  for  Men  and  Women  Act
define  the  concept  of  “work  of  equal  value” (Burri  &  Van  Eijken,  2015).  Legislation
clearly  transfers  the  obligation  to  ensure  equal  treatment  in  pay  for  equal  work  to
employers (Burri & Van Eijken, 2014). Further activities by the government could not be
detected.

Summary

4.2.7
With  the  differences  in  definitions  of  pay  and  equal  pay  across Member  States and
resulting  consequences  being  discussed  in  detail  elsewhere  (Burri  &  Van  Eijken,  2013),
the following points focus on the enforcement of job evaluation / classification. First, the
general  enforcement  of  job  evaluation  /  classification  is  so  far  relatively  low;  only  the
United  Kingdom  could  be  found  to  promote  job  evaluation  /  classification  both

15

www.cite.gov.pt/asstscite/downloads/disp_salariais/Exemple_de_tableau_Diagnostic_Egalite_Pr
ofessionnelle.pdf

III - 26

Gender equality in employment and occupation

internally for public organisations and externally for private organisations. Second, there
are  preventive  instruments  which  are  valuable  for  detecting  the  gender  pay  gap  in
organisations.  Yet,  these  instruments  do  not  apply  principles  of  job  evaluation  /
classification  and  do  not  allow  for  the  analysis  of  the  mechanisms  which  lead  to  the
gender  pay  gap.  Thus,  they  are  valuable  for  detecting  if  there  is  a  gender  pay  gap,  but
they are less valuable for identifying measures to reduce it. Third, there are instruments
which  apply  job  evaluation  /  classification  themes,  but  do  this  in  a  reactive  manner
serving  primarily  as  analytical  tools  for  examining  discrimination  claims.  Thus,  these
instruments  are  not  helpful  for  examining  pay  schemes  preventively  and  likewise  not
valuable for the analysis of the mechanisms which lead to the gender pay gap. However,
analysing these would be necessary in order to take corrective measures before litigation.

4.3 Promotion of job evaluation / classification in the social dialogue

As the Directive has outlined the crucial role of social dialogue (employer representations
and trade unions) for the implementation of the Directive, we will now analyse the social
dialogue  about  the  equality  of  pay  and  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification  in
Europe as well as in the focus countries.

4.3.1

Social dialogue on a European level

4.3.1.1

Employer representations

On  a  European  level,  the  main  employer  representations,  i.e.,  Businesseurope,  UEPME,
and  CEEP,  prioritise  addressing  gender  roles,  promoting  women  in  decision-making,
supporting  work-life  balance  and  tackling  the  gender  pay  gap  to  promote  gender
equality.  Within  tackling  the  gender  pay  gap,  employer  representations  commit
themselves  to  ensure  that  pay  systems,  including  job  evaluation,  are  transparent  and
gender-neutral  (Framework  of  actions  on  gender  equality,  2009). Furthermore,
Businesseurope,  UEPME,  and  CEEP  have  established  a  toolkit16 for  gender  equality  in
practice  including  100  exemplary  initiatives  for  promoting  gender  equality.  Searching
this database for job evaluation and job classification provides two results:

The  European  Federation  of  Public  Service  Unions  refers  to  training  courses  on
equal pay including gender-neutral job evaluation17

 Merkur,  a  Slovenian  retailer,  refers  to  a  system  of  job  classification  which

includes roles, competences and standards of responsibilities18

Thus, except from these two examples, best practice examples and concrete guidelines on
job  evaluation  /  classification  are  still  largely  missing  on  a  European  employer
representation level.

16 http://erc-online.eu/gendertoolkit/#/
17 http://erc-online.eu/gendertoolkit-etuc/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/European-
Federation-of-Public-Service-Unions-EPSU_Europe.pdf
18 http://erc-online.eu/gendertoolkit-etuc/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2014/08/Merkur_Slovenia.pdf

III - 27


Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

4.3.1.2

Trade Unions

Compared to employer representations, European level trade unions have focused more
specifically  on  tackling  the  gender  pay  gap  and  in  this  vein  also  on  gender-neutral  job
evaluation  /  classification.  The  ETUC  (Confederation  Syndicat  European  Trade  Union)
has e.g., published a comprehensive document called “Bargaining for Equality”19 in five
different  languages.  This  document  aims  at  reducing  the  gender  pay  gap  via  collective
bargaining and also deals with the topic of gender-neutral job evaluation / classification
(Pillinger, 2014). However, it does not give specific guidelines on these topics but rather
cites  initiatives  by  national  trade  unions  to  implement  gender  neutral  job  evaluation  /
classification.  The  EPSU  (European  Federation  of  Public  Service  Unions)  argues  for
enhancing the transparency of pay20 and does comprehensive surveys on the gender pay
gap  and  initiatives  to  reduce  it  in  public  services21.  Within  these  surveys,  it  also  deals
extensively  with  gender-neutral  job  evaluation.  Additionally,  it  offers  workshops  for
gender-neutral job evaluation / classification.

4.3.1.3

Summary

Although European-level employer representations are a strong force in promoting social
dialogue  on  gender  equality  in  general,  only  trade  unions  have  so  far  engaged  in  very
specific activities focusing on gender-neutral job evaluation / classification systems on a
European  level.  It  therefore  would  be  very  valuable  if European-level employer
representations would become more involved as well.

Social dialogue on a national level

4.3.2
On a national level, a recent study on the work of social partners on gender equality in
Europe concludes that whereas trade unions often have an equality body and a specific
action  plan  for  gender  equality,  employer  representations  usually  do  not  (Eurofound,
2014b,  p.  2).  The  study  further  shows  that  there  are  clear  differences  between  countries
regarding  the  priority  given  to  achieving  gender  equality  and  the  way  in  which  social
partners aim at increasing gender equality. In the Eastern European and Baltic states, the
social partners are mainly involved through formulating laws, strategies and policies by
tripartite dialogue with national governments. In the Nordic and Benelux countries and
to  some  extent  also  in  France,  Germany  and  Italy,  collective  bargaining  is  used.
Independently  from  different  social  dialogue  systems,  i.e.,  decentralised  collective
bargaining systems such as in Cyprus, Malta and the UK, or more centralised ones such
as in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, well-developed gender equality activities
are reported among social partners (Eurofound, 2014b. p. 2).

Within  the  following,  the  concrete  results  for  the  six  focus  countries  are  presented
including  the  general  pattern  of  activity  and  specific  activities  on  gender-neutral  job
evaluation and job classification.

19 www.etuc.org/publications/bargaining-equality#.VNyohC5qIQu
20 www.epsu.org/a/7421
21 www.epsu.org/r/580

III - 28

Gender equality in employment and occupation

4.3.2.1 Germany

Overall,  social  partners  have  relatively  well-developed  activities  on  gender  equality
issues  in  Germany.  All  national  trade  unions  and  all  or  some  employer  representations
possess  external  action  plans  and  strategies,  i.e.,  action  plans  that  aim  at promoting
gender equality in the labour market and society (Eurofound, 2014b, p. 13). The necessity
of  a  new  pay  and  grading  system  without  discrimination  has  been  recognized due  to
protests by workers in municipal social and child care services and negotiations on this
matter are planned by the respective social partners (Pillinger, 2014).

Unions: The  large  German  trade  unions  all  engage  in  activities  for  reducing  the  gender
pay gap. In order to do so, the IG Metall for example promotes transparency of pay and
gender-neutral job evaluation22 (but without giving explicit guidelines for implementing
these).  To  reduce  discrimination  against  women,  IG  Metall  has  enforced  that  physical
requirements  must  not  be  taken  into  account  anymore  during  job  evaluation /
classification23. The  dbb,  representing Germany’s  civil  servants,  is  relatively  active  with
regard to gender-neutral job evaluation: In conferences dealing with equal pay, the dbb
has repeatedly addressed the topic of gender-neutral job evaluation and possible tools for
reaching it24. In addition, the dbb has proposed that female-typed competencies such as
interpersonal skills, which are so far not used for civil servants’ job evaluation, should be
taken  into  account25 and  has  published  an  elaborate  brochure  on  equal  pay  specifically
focusing on gender-neutral job evaluation26. In addition, both trade unions Ver.di and the
DWB request equal pay for equal work.

Employer  representations: Employer  representations  are  partnering  with  the  German
government.  In  2001,  the  German  government,  the  Bundesverband  der  Arbeitgeber
(BDA),  the  Bundesverband  der  Deutschen  Industrie  (BDI),  the  Deutsche  Industrie- und
Handelskammer  (DIHK)  and  the  Zentralverband  des  Deutschen  Handwerks  (ZDH)
signed  a  contract  for  the  promotion  of  equal  opportunities  for  women  and  men  in  the
private  industry.  The  contract  stipulates  that  employer  representations  recommend
measures to organisations to promote equal opportunities, work-family balance, increase
of women in leadership positions, and the education of young women for future-oriented
apprenticeships and studies. By now, the employer representations have published their
fifth report on equal opportunities and the progress of activities agreed in this contract,
which  includes  progress  in  the  fields  of  education,  employment,  work  and  family,
women  in  leadership  positions  and  fair  pay.  Within the  field  of fair  pay,  Logib-D  is
mentioned as well as measures on re-entry in employment and the equal pay day, yet job
evaluation  and  job  classification  are  not  explicitly  mentioned. The BDA,  for  example,
explicitly  negates  the  existence of gender-based  differences  in  job  evaluation  and
classification27.

22 www.igmetall.de/entgeltgerechtigkeit-fuer-frauen-11302.htm ; www.igmetall.de/equal-pay-
day-2014-13372.htm
23 www.igmetall.de/internet/internationaler-frauentag-interview-helga-schwitzer-3728.htm
24 www.dbb.de/cache/teaserdetail/artikel/fachbroschuere-der-dbb-bundesfrauenvertretung-was-
ist-frauen-arbeit-wert/archivliste/2013/Juni.html
25 www.dbb.de/fileadmin/pdfs/2013/130121_leitantrag_gerechte_bezahlung.pdf
26 www.frauen.dbb.de/publikationen/geschlechtergerechte_leistungsbezahlung.pdf
27 www.arbeitgeber.de/www/arbeitgeber.nsf/id/de_mythos-entgeltdiskriminierung

III - 29

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

4.3.2.2

United Kingdom

Social  partners  are  classified  as  having  relatively  well-developed  activities  on  gender
equality  issues;  all  national  trade  unions  and  some  employers’  organisations  have
external  action  plans  and  strategies  (Eurofound,  2014b,  p.  13).  In  addition,  a  coalition
between trade unions and employer representations (the National Joint Council for Local
Government in England and Wales, NJC) has developed its own, very detailed guidelines
on  job  evaluation  and  classification28. The  social  partners  in  UK‘s  health  sector  have
negotiated the so called 'Agenda for Change', involving a job evaluation of all grades in
the health sector29. In this realm, they have developed the extensive ‘NHS job evaluation
job
handbook‘,  giving very  specific information  on  developing  (gender-neutral) 
evaluation systems30.

Unions: Unite  has  initiated  the ‘PAY  UP!’ Equal  Pay  campaign  in  order  to  reduce  the
gender  pay  gap.  Moreover,  it  has  developed  the  “Fair  Pay  and  Equality  Audit
Checklist”31 that  also  gives  guidelines  on  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification.
UNISON, the public service union, also strives for defending the ‘Agenda for Change’32
and  negotiates  with  employers  to  create  fair  and  equal  pay  grading  structures  for
members33. Similar attempts have been made by GMB (EPSU, 2013).

Employer representations: The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) mainly promotes
measures on greater transparency, stronger advocacy and widening the talent pool (CBI,
2015),  whereas  the  British  Chamber  of  Commerce  promotes  shared  parental  leave,
measures  on  recruitment,  age  equality,  and  the  promotion  of  the  “think,  act,  report”
initiative  of  the  British  Government  in  an  event  series.  Job  evaluation  /  classification
schemes were not specifically mentioned.

4.3.2.3

Sweden

Social  partners  have  relatively  well-developed  activities  on  gender  equality  issues;  all
national  trade  unions  and  all or  some  employers’  organisations  have  external  action
plans and strategies (Eurofound, 2014b, p. 13). According to a Swedish expert,  Swedish
social  partners  are generally engaged  in  the  debate  about  equal  pay for  work  of  equal
value,  yet  usually do not  deal  with  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  and  classification  in
specific.

Unions: During the collective bargaining campaign in 2013, the LO worked explicitly to
tackle the  gender pay  gap  between  sectors dominated by women and  men (Eurofound,

28

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQ
FjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl.org.uk%2FImages%2FGreen%2520book.pdf&ei=2FoIVY3rI6
zX7QaHjYCwDg&usg=AFQjCNGj1n4awjjxfI3xZvgWUDP0vf7yfQ&sig2=PA9T6xoYHNkBnp3qjSt1
zA&bvm=bv.88198703,d.ZGU
29 www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-benefits/agenda-for-change-pay-rates
30

www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Publications/NHS_Job_Evaluation_Handbook.pdf
31 www.unitetheunion.org/unite-at-work/equalities/equalityrepstoolkit
32 www.unison.org.uk/at-work/health-care/key-issues/defending-agenda-for-change/the-facts
33 www.unison.org.uk/get-help/pay/grading-claims/overview

III - 30

Gender equality in employment and occupation

2014b). Unionen SE and SACO also deal with the equality of pay34. Insular unions seem
to have implemented job evaluation based on objective and analytical criteria (Pillinger,
2014).

Employer  representations: Despite  the  positive  evaluation  by  Eurofound  (2014b),
information on gender equality activities by Svenskt Näringsliv, Svensk Industriförening
and  Arbetsgivaralliansen  was  scarce,  indicating  a  focus  on  internal  activities  and  no
information on job evaluation / classification could be found.

4.3.2.4

France

Social  partners  have  relatively  well-developed  activities  on  gender  equality  issues;  all
national  trade  unions  and  all  or  some  employers’  organisations  have  external  action
plans and strategies (Eurofound, 2014b, p. 13). Activities on job evaluation / classification
of social partners are supported by legislation which explicitly refers to job evaluation /
classification.

Unions: Trade unions have the goal of increasing the value of female work. In 2004, they
developed  a  job  evaluation  grid  in  order  to  assess  the  equivalence  of  male  and  female
work.  They  have  pointed  out  that  typically  female  competencies  must  not  be
undervalued. CFDT has  for  example  suggested  that  gender-neutral  criteria  should  be
used  to  develop  job  evaluation  /  classification  systems. Furthermore, CFDT plans  to
develop  a  method  for  detecting  the  existence  of  possibly  discriminating  criteria  in  job
evaluation systems (Pillinger, 2014). CGT Mines Énergie has proposed that the grading of
female-dominated  occupations  should  be  reviewed,  however,  this proposal has  so  far
remained without success (EPSU, 2013).

Employer representations: The UNAPL, the Medef and CGPME promote a broad set of
measures including work-family balance, tackling stereotypes in education, gender roles,
quotas  for  supervisory  boards,  promoting  women  in  decision  making  and  tackling  the
gender  pay  gap.  The  Medef  particularly  highlight  the  responsibility  of  management  for
equal  pay  and  career  opportunities;  but  job  evaluation  and  job  classification  are  not
mentioned explicitly.

4.3.2.5

Latvia

According  to  Eurofound  (2014b,  p.  13) and  a  national  Eurofound  expert  for  Latvia
contacted  in  the  realm  of  this  study,  gender  equality  is  not  a  stated  priority  of  social
partners  and  no  specific  policy  commitments  have  been  developed  by  social  partner
organisations.  Furthermore,  neither  trade  unions  nor  employers’  organisations  have
external action plans and strategies (Eurofound, 2014b).

Unions: No information on gender equality-related issues could be found on the websites
of Latvian unions (e.g., the Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia).

Employer representations: No information could be found on gender equality measures
on the websites by LTRK, the Association of Mechanical Engineering and Metalworking
Industries  of  Latvia  and  the  Latvian  Federation of  Food  Companies. The  Latvian

34 www.unionen.se; www.saco.se/vara-fragor/jamstalldhet/jamstallda-loner-kostar-36-miljarder

III - 31

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

Employers’  Confederation  analyses  the  general  topic  of  gender  equality  in  working
conditions by conducting surveys (Eurofound, 2014b).

4.3.2.6 Malta

Overall,  the  activities  of  social  partners  on  gender  equality  issues  are  classified as
relatively  well-developed,  but  neither  trade  unions  nor  employers’  organisations  have
external action plans and strategies (Eurofound, 2014b).

Unions: The Confederation of Malta Trade Unions provides information on the Equal Pay
Day, but does not explicitly target job evaluation35. For more information, it links to the
homepage of the European Commission.

Employer representations: No information could be found on measures regarding gender
equality  on  websites  by  the  Malta  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Enterprise  and  Industry,  the
Malta Federation of Industry and the Malta Employers' Association.

4.3.2.7

Summary

The  outlined  results  indicate  that  across  countries,  unions  are  more  strongly  promoting
job  evaluation  /  classification  than  employer  representations.  Furthermore,  there  are
strong  differences  in  the  degree  to  which  the  social  partners  in  the  different Member
States engage in measures to promote equal pay and gender-neutral job evaluation and
classification. Whereas France and the UK are highly involved in this issue and provide
some  very  specific  guidelines  for  implementation,  other Member  States’  actions  are  not
this advanced. Whereas German unions and employer representations deal with the topic
of  equal  pay,  specific  recommendations  for  the  implementation  of  job  evaluation  /
classification are largely lacking. Gender-neutral job evaluation and classification do not
seem to play a role in the social dialogue in Malta and Latvia.

Promotion of job evaluation / classification by equality bodies

4.3.3
In  order  to  ensure  equality  and  fairness  for  all  groups  within  a Member  State,  all  EU
Member  States have  established  equality  bodies.  As  outlined  in  the Commission  Staff
Working Document SWD(2013)512 and the Bauer report, these bodies play a crucial role
in promoting and monitoring gender-neutral job evaluation / classification systems. We
will now outline which activities the equality bodies in the focus countries have engaged
in after the entry into force of the Directive.

4.3.3.1 Germany

In  its  publication  “Wichtige  Entwicklungen  beim  Diskriminierungsschutz  im  Jahr
2013“  the  German  equality  body  (Antidiskriminierungsstelle)  informs  briefly  about  the
Directive 2006/54/EG. In the publication „Gleiche Arbeit, ungleicher Lohn?“ it states that
job evaluation / classification should be performed equally for men and women and that
biased evaluation systems should be updated. The equality body also offers internet links
to tools such as eg-check.de and Logib-D and the homepage of the European Commission.
In the publication "Ihre Arbeit ist es wert" it explains the gender pay gap and gives advice
to individual women (e.g., "tell your employer about tools such as eg-check.de or Logib-

35 www.cmtu.org.mt/#!equal-pay-day-2014/ceft

III - 32

Gender equality in employment and occupation

D")36.  As  can  be  seen  from  these  documents,  pay  equality  is  an  important  topic  for  the
German  equality  body. However,  it  seems  that  the  importance  of  job  evaluation  /
classification  for  achieving  this  goal  has  not  been  sufficiently  recognised.  The  equality
body  also  states  that  so  far,  it  has  only  dealt  with  very  few  lawsuits  regarding  the
equality of pay.

4.3.3.2

United Kingdom

Based on the Equal Pay Law, the Equality and Human Rights Commission recommends a
five-step equal pay audit model. With the analysis of equal work being a central step of
this  model,  the  Commission  further  provides  guidelines  on  job  evaluation within  the
Equal Pay Resources and Audit Toolkit (Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice). This guide
details  and  defines  gender-neutral  job  evaluations  and  provides  elaborate  checklists  for
the  gender-neutral  design  and  implementation  of  job  evaluation  schemes  (Equality  and
Human Rights Commission, 2010)37. The United Kingdom’s equality body thus provides
a wealth of valuable information on gender-neutral job evaluation / classification.

4.3.3.3

Sweden

Sweden’s  equality  body  has  developed  a  computer  program  for  assessing  the  job
evaluation processes in companies as well as the existence of pay equality38. In order to
determine which jobs are equivalent in wage surveys, a review of job demands is made in
a systematic and gender-neutral manner. The program can be used in the evaluation and
grouping of similar activities in conjunction with a salary survey. The method is based on
the main areas of knowledge and skills, responsibility, effort and working conditions, as
recommended  in  the Commission  Staff  Working  Document SWD(2013)512.  The
publication  "Pay  surveys - provisions  and  outcomes"  deals  with  the  topic  of  work  of
equal value. In addition, it addresses possible systematic undervaluation of female-typed
compared  to  male-typed  skills.  Finally,  workshops  are  offered  to  help  employers  with
implementing gender-neutral job evaluation systems.

4.3.3.4

France

The  French  equality  body  has  published  an  extensive  guideline  on  the  topic  of  equal
work  of  equal  value  that  was  developed  together  with  the  social  partners 39 .  This
guideline  describes  job  evaluation  practices  that  seem  gender-neutral  but  are  not,  uses
best practice strategies from other countries and outlines  how to  make job evaluation  /
classification gender-neutral. In 2013, the Defender of Rights (le Défenseur des droits) has
introduced the measures for gender-neutral job evaluation outlined in this publication to
a national expert group striving for promoting the principle of equal pay. In addition, in
order  to  encourage  a  review  of  classifications,  the  Defender  of  Rights  has  met  many
different  stakeholders  (such  as  trade  unions,  the  National  Association  of  HR  managers,
companies, etc.) and  organized conferences and workshops40. Thus, the French equality

36 www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/Home/home_node.html
37 www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/employing-
people/managing-workers/equal-pay/equal-pay-audit-toolkit/carrying-out-equal-pay-
audit/step-2-additional-information
38 www.do.se/sv/Material/Analys-lonelots/
39 www.aravis.aract.fr/defenseur-des-droits-un-guide-pour-une-evaluation-non-discriminante-des-
emplois-a-predominance-feminine/
40 www.defenseurdesdroits.fr

III - 33

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

body  uses  a  comprehensive  and  well-designed  approach  specifically  targeting  gender-
neutral job evaluation / classification.

4.3.3.5

Latvia

As outlined in the Report on the Year 2013 by the Latvian Ombudsman41, the focus of fair
pay  seems  to  lie  less  on  wage  differences  between  men  and  women,  but  more  on  the
overall  amount  of  wage  (that  is  usually  only  little  above  the  legal  minimum).  In
accordance,  no  information  on  the  gender  pay  gap  and  job  evaluation  /  classification
could be found on the homepage of the Latvian Ombudsman.

4.3.3.6 Malta

The  National  Commission  for  the  Promotion  of  Equality  awards  the  Equality  Mark42 to
companies  that  have  good  employment  practices,  including  on  equal  pay,  which  go
beyond  what  is  determined  by  law  (Directive  2006/54/EC).  However,  descriptions  do
not refer specifically to job evaluation / job classification schemes. Malta’s equality body
links to the Directive on its websites.

4.3.3.7

Summary

As  outlined  above,  the  activities  on  equal  pay  and  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /
classification of equality bodies strongly differ between the Member States. Whereas the
United Kingdom, France and Sweden already have very elaborate material and activities
for  promoting  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification,  the  other Member  States
scrutinised have more diffuse activities for achieving equal pay.

5. Access to legal recourse and compensation and

overview on legal remedies

In  general,  only  few  cases  are  considered  with  regard  to  pay  discrimination.  If  so,
processes are usually lengthy, which speaks to the inefficiency of processes. In addition,
some  countries  such  as  the  United  Kingdom  particularly  stress  the  importance  of  a
comparison,  i.e.,  a  target  person  must  be  compared  to  another  person  in  a  comparable
situation  (Commission  Staff  Document,  2013),  which  impedes  case  law  based  on  job
evaluation  /  classification.  Nevertheless,  two  cases  which  explicitly  refer  to  job
evaluation / classification could be detected.

5.1 Discrimination by assigning different criteria evaluations within the
same job evaluation / classification scheme (case from the United
Kingdom)

In 1999 P became regional director on a salary of £40,000 p.a. Three colleagues, R, W and
H, were all paid more than her, with R earning the highest salary at £55,000 p.a. All four
were  graded  as  Level  6  Range  3  on  the  pay  scale.  The  organisation  had  a  pay  scheme
based on  job  evaluation  /  classification  but  rated  P  differently  in  several  criteria.  The
tribunal examining the case rejected the reasons for the different ratings and noted “that

41 www.tiesibsargs.lv/files/content/zinojumi/Tiesibsarga%20gada%20zinojums_2013_ENG.pdf
42 https://socialdialogue.gov.mt/en/NCPE/Pages/The_Equality_Mark/The_Equality_Mark.aspx

III - 34

Gender equality in employment and occupation

the  employer  had  introduced  a  salary  scheme,  based  on  experience,  skills,  knowledge
and ability, but after a few years it fell into disuse and salaries were again determined on
an ad hoc basis. Individuals would know their classification and their own salary but not
where  they  fell  within  a  salary  band.  According  to  the  tribunal,  the employer  only
operated an objective pay structure for a few years”, then let go of it (Barrow, 2012).

5.2 Discrimination by applying different job evaluation / classification

schemes (case from Germany)

In a logistics company in Hamburg, women were employed under a different collective
agreement  than  men  despite  equal  work,  which  led  to  wage  differences  of  up  to  300€
(women  were  employed  under  the  Angestelltentarifvertrag  and  men  were  employed
under the Lohntarifvertrag). In this lawsuit, the workers’ council achieved (on the basis
of § 17(2) of the Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz AGG) that the employer agreed to
an arrangement after receiving order and subsequently to a bargaining agreement on the
abolition of this discriminating practice (ArbG Hamburg, enactment from 24.08.2007- 17
BV 2/07)43.

6. Difficulties encountered by Member States in the
implementation of the Directive 2006/54/EC

6.1 Difficulties encountered by organisations

Developing  an  individualised  job  evaluation  /  classification  system  is  a resource-intense
process that requires a lot of time and expertise (see also International Labor Office, 2008).
Therefore,  particularly  small- and  medium-sized  companies  may  face  difficulties  in
engaging  in  this  process  (which  is  reflected  for  example  in  the  low usage  rates  of  job
evaluation  /  classification  systems  in  these  companies,  as  described  in  4.1.).  An
additional  difficulty  encountered  by  organisations  is  the  fact  that  the  principle  of  job
evaluation only partly matches the logic of their own pay allocation systems: As outlined
in  3.2.2,  organisations  often  allocate  pay  at  least  partially  according  to  individual
employees’  performance  (i.e.,  actual  outcomes)  instead  of  the  requirements  of  certain
positions  (i.e.,  necessary  input).  Thus,  the  Directive  might seem  to  organisations  as  not
fitting with their business logic which might further decrease their willingness to engage
in this resource-intense process.

6.2 Difficulties encountered by national governments

First, gender equality is  not the  most important point on  the agenda of some countries,
especially  of  those  which  were  severely  hit  by  the  economic  crisis  (Eurofound,  2014b).
Thus,  for  these  countries  it  might  be  difficult  to  take  the  necessary  means  such  as  the
introduction of definitions for pay and equal pay in compliance with the EU legislation.
Second, organisations are reluctant to adopt measures which dictate the course of action
without leaving room for organisation-specific adaptations. The fact that analytical tools

43 www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/Home/home_node.html

III - 35

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

for examining the gender pay gap are either preventive but not based on job evaluation /
classification schemes or based on job evaluation / classification but reactive (as outlined
in point 4.2.7) might reflect organisations being only willing to apply the principles when
forced to do so (by potential litigation).

6.3 Difficulties encountered by social partners

As  outlined  in  the  Eurofound  Study  on  social  dialogue  (2014b),  several  difficulties
regarding  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification  have  emerged  for  the  social
partners.  Especially  trade  unions  have  criticised  a  lack  of  instruments  for  actually
implementing  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /  classification  and  have  asked  for  explicit
guidelines  on  this  topic  (Pillinger,  2014).  Moreover,  in  order  to  be  able  to  include  wage
rates for  every  job  into  collective  agreements,  trade  unions  have  demanded  access  to
information on pay and job descriptions, as this information is currently lacking.

6.4 Difficulties encountered by equality bodies

As  outlined  in  4.3.3.7,  the degree  to  which  equality  bodies  engage  in  activities  to apply
the  Directive  varies  to  a  great  extent.  Whereas  some  equality  bodies  (in  the  United
Kingdom,  France,  and  Sweden)  very  specifically  target  gender-neutral  job  evaluation  /
classification,  others  do  not  promote  this measure  at  all.  Thus,  for  those  countries
currently  using  no  or  unspecific  measures  for  tackling  the  gender  pay  gap,  a  lack  of
information seems to represent the main difficulty in the implementation of the Directive.
In addition, national experts highlighted the crucial role of the national governments in
promoting the use of gender-neutral job evaluation systems.

7. Summary of recommendations

In  the  following  we  will  outline  our  scientific  recommendations  for  the  enforcement  of
gender-neutral job evaluation / classification in the Directive as well as for its promotion
and monitoring.

7.1 Enforcement of job evaluation and classification in the Directive

2006/54/EC

We will start with those recommendations which target at enhancing gender-neutrality in
each step of the job evaluation / classification process.

7.1.1 Measures necessary to ensure gender-neutrality of job evaluation and

classification systems

7.1.1.1

Establishment of the evaluation committee

In order to reduce potential stereotypic influences resulting from subjective ratings of the
evaluation committee, the evaluation committee should be set up as a mixed-sex evaluation
committee and provided with training beforehand. Furthermore, the role of devil’s advocate

III - 36

Gender equality in employment and occupation

(see 3.1.2.1) should be explicitly assigned and the evaluation committee should be made
accountable for the whole job evaluation process.

7.1.1.2 Generation of job descriptions

In order to generate gender-neutral job descriptions, the evaluation committee should use
job-titles,  which  should  be defined  in  a gender- and  status-neutral way,  and engage  in
structured  free  recall  procedures  for  generating  gender-neutral  sub-factors, which should  be
clearly  defined and described  by  both male- and  female-typed  examples. Standardized
interviews or questionnaires should be used for job evaluation, which should be translated
into point scores by several members of the evaluation committee.

7.1.1.3

Internal and external weighting

In order to control gender-neutrality in internal and external weighting, a weighting grid
should  be  developed  by  ranking  both  factors  and  sub-factors  according  to  their
importance  for  the  organisation  and  be  subsequently checked  for  gender-neutrality by
analysing the mean percentages allocated to both male- and female-typed sub-factors.

7.1.1.4

Assignments of points to jobs and job classification

In  order  to  avoid  gender  influences  on  job  classification, point levels should be assigned to
job  classes  before starting  the  job evaluation  / classification  process.  After  the  job
classification process it should be checked whether female-typed positions tend to end up
at upper interval boundaries as this might indicate undervaluation due to gender biases.

7.1.2 Measures to translate gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
into equal access to employment and working conditions focusing on
pay

We  will  now  summarise  our  recommendations  for  translating  gender-neutral  job
evaluation  /  classification  into  equal  access  to  employment  and  equal  working
conditions44.

7.1.2.1

Equal access to employment

To  ensure  gender-neutrality  in  access  to  employment,  job  descriptions  from  the  job
evaluation process should be used in personnel selection processes. Therefore, the global
job  description  developed  in  the  job  evaluation  process  ought  to  be  translated  into  an
objective,  behaviourally-based  job  description for  personnel  selection.  Based  on  this  job
description, job  advertisements should  be  formulated  using gender-neutral  job  titles and
gender-neutral  wording.  Finally,  applicants’  competence  should  be  measured  by  making
use  of work  samples, behaviourally-anchored  rating  scales and highly  standardised  selection
interviews based on job descriptions derived from the job evaluation process.

44 As outlined in 3.2.3, the diverse nature of occupational social security systems and the only
indirect link of job evaluation and classification to social security systems make it difficult to give
recommendations. Therefore, occupational social security systems are not included in the summary
of recommendations.

III - 37

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

7.1.2.2

Equal working conditions focusing on pay

As job evaluation / classification does not provide information on how to deal with pay
negotiations and  performance-based  pay,  we  recommend  the  following  measures  in
addition  to  those  measures  recommended  for  increasing  gender-neutrality  in  job
evaluation  /  classification  (see  7.1.1).  For  reducing  gender-differences  in  starting  pay,
transparency about average salaries and wage limits should be enhanced for both female
applicants and personnel decision makers and the salience of gender should be reduced in
personnel  selection  processes,  e.g.,  by  making  sure  that  women  are  not  a  minority  in
applicant pools. For performance-based pay, the principles of gender-neutrality outlined
for  job  evaluation  /  classification  should  be  applied  to reduce  ambiguity  in  performance
assessment and linking pay to performance.

As  these  recommendations show,  it  might  prove  valuable  to enhance the notion of “equal
pay  for  work  of  equal  value” and  the  recommendations  on  how  to  achieve  it  from  the
current  input-based  manner  to  an  outcome-based  notion  such  as ”equal  pay  for  equal
performance”.

7.2 Promotion of job evaluation and classification by national

governments, social partners and equality bodies

together  with 

As outlined in the Directive, in the Commission report on its implementation (COM(2013)
861) 
accompanying Commission  Staff  Working  Document
SWD(2013)512 and in the European  Parliament  resolution  of  10  March  2015,  national
governments, social partners and equality bodies play a crucial role in promoting gender-
neutral job evaluation and classification.

its

In  addition  to those  measures  targeting the identification  (without  applying  job
evaluation / classification) and reactive examination of pay discrimination (by applying
job  evaluation  /  classification), national  governments,  social  partners,  and  equality
bodies  should particularly promote instruments  for  the preventive  examination of
organisational pay schemes’ gender neutrality. In addition to checklists, these could include
analytical tools such as weighting grids and checks for gender-equality in resulting job classes.
Furthermore,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  application  of  job  evaluation  /  classification
systems, clear  and  unambiguous  guidelines on  the  necessary  steps  to  implement  job
evaluation / classification systems should be provided.

A further step in facilitating the implementation of job evaluation /classification could be
to establish  databases which  include  factors  and  factor  ratings  for  specific  jobs  and
occupations. These should be enforced by national governments on national level or – as
research  shows  that  job-specific  information  on  work  activities  and  necessary  skills  is
comparable across countries (Taylor, Li, Shi & Borman, 2008) – even European level45 by
the European Commission.

45 The European Commission’s efforts to establish European Skills, Competences, Qualifications
and Occupations (ESCO) within the scope of the Directive 2005/36/EC could provide a valuable
start for establishing such a database.

III - 38

Gender equality in employment and occupation

7.3 Transparency and monitoring of the implementation of the

Directive 2006/54/EC

We would  advise  to  broaden  the  recommendations  on  strengthening  the  principle  of
equal  pay  between  men  and  women  through  transparency46 from wage  transparency to
transparency of human resource processes. Protecting personal and organisation-specific data,
a  first  step  could  be  to  encourage  organisations  to  descriptively  report  those  measures
which  aim  to  foster  gender-neutrality  in their human  resource  processes. For  example,
governments  and  social  partners could  enforce  the  inclusion  of  this  topic  in annual
reports.

In  addition,  some  measures  could  be  taken  in  order  to  enhance  the  monitoring  of  the
implementation of  the  Directive  2006/54/EC.  First,  a survey  on  the  application  of  job
evaluation / classification schemes in organisations across European countries would help in
assessing  the  initial  situation  and  thereby  improve  recommendations  on  further
necessary actions. The European employer representations and unions could be entrusted
with  distributing  this  survey  to  organisations  within  countries. Its  results  should  be
summarised in a report, highlighting positive, but also negative / insufficient practices in
the member states, giving starting points for further improvements. Second, a systematic
and  longitudinal  examination would  provide  intermediate  results  and  could  help  to
identify  when  additional  corrective  actions  are  necessary. The European  Parliament
resolution  of  10  March  2015  on  progress  on  equality  between  women  and  men  in  the
European Union asks for a recast and enforcement of Directive 2006/54/EC. In order to
systematically  assess  the  success  of  this  recast  and  enforcement,  the  above  mentioned
survey on the application of job evaluation / classification schemes should be carried out
before the recast of the Directive is published / measures for its enforcement are initiated.
The  success  of this recast  /  reinforcement  could  then  be  evaluated  by  repeating  the
survey in discrete time intervals of about 2 years, which would allow assessing whether
improvements with regard to job evaluation / classification have been made over time.
Finally, analyses of internal and external weighting of factors and sub-factors on a country-level
or  European  level would  allow  for  the  examination  of  differences  in  factor  weighting
across  sectors  and  thereby  increase  the transparency  of  the  pay  gap between  (male- and
female-typed) sectors. To  do so, information on job  evaluation and classification should
be gathered on the occupational level comparably to the European Skills, Competencies,
Qualifications  and  Occupations database.  This  database  would  allow  the  analysis  of
weighting factors and calculation of reference values for gender-neutral pay levels. Based
on  the  results  of  these  analyses, a  deeper  insight  particularly  on  the  pay  gap  across
professions and occupations and more fine-grained recommendations for enhancing the
gender-neutrality of job evaluation and classification systems could be provided.

46 Commission recommendation from 7.3.2014

III - 39

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

8. References

Arvey, R. D. (1986). Sex bias in job evaluation procedures. Personnel Psychology, 39, 315–

335.

Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., Waldman, D., DiMare, L., & Hayden, M. V. (2004). Men's and

women's perceptions of the gender typing of management subroles. Sex Roles,
50(3-4), 191–199.

Babcock, L., Laschever, S., Gelfand, M., & Small, D. (2003). Nice girls don’t ask. Harvard

Business Review, 81, 14–15.

Baltes, B. B., Bauer, C. B., & Frensch, P. A. (2007). Does a structured free recall

intervention reduce the effect of stereotypes on performance ratings and by what
cognitive mechanism? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 151–164.

Barrow, T. (2012). Equal pay cases and pay audits. A report for government equalities office by

incomes data services. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equal-pay-cases-and-pay-
audits-report

Bauer, C. C., & Baltes, B. B. (2002). Reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on

performance evaluations. Sex Roles, 47(9), 465–476.

Bauer Report. P7_TA(2012)0225 Equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or
work of equal value.  European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2012 with
recommendations to the Commission on application of the principle of equal pay
for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value
(2011/2285(INI)). Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0225+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

Blickle, G. (2011). Personalauswahl (p. 225–252). In F. W. Nerdinger, G. Blickle, & N.
Schaper (Eds.), Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie. Berlin: Springer.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the

propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organisational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational

mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
951–965.

Bragger, J. D. N., Kutcher, E., Morgan, J., & Firth, P. (2002). The effects of the structured

interview on reducing biases against pregnant job applicants. Sex Roles, 46(7),
215–226.

Brtek, M. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Effects of procedure and outcome accountability

on interview validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 185–191.

Burri, S., & Van Eijken, H. (2014). Gender equality law in 33 European countries: How are EU

rules transposed into national law in 2013? Report published by the European
Commission.

Burri, S., & Van Eijken, H. (2015). Gender equality law in 33 European countries: How are EU

rules transposed into national law in 2014? Report published by the European
Commission.

Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the

selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655–702.

III - 40

Gender equality in employment and occupation

Commission report  COM(2013) 861 of 6.12.2013 on the application of Directive

2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the
implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of
men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). Retrieved
from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0861&rid=1

Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2013)512. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2013:0512:FIN:EN:PDF

Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on

the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of
men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). Retrieved
from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0054&qid=1415700208930

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female

leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of

leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145.

Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from

the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47(3-4), 99–114.

El-Hajji, M. A. (2011). An analytical approach to the unequivocal need of organizations
for job evaluation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(18), 8–13.
E-Reward (2007). The e-reward job evaluation survey 2007. Retrieved from http://www.e-

reward.co.uk/pdf/JEsurveysummary.pdf

EPSU (2013). The gender pay gap in public services. Retrieved from

http://www.epsu.org/a/10142

Equality and Human Rights Commission (2014). Gender-neutral job evaluation schemes. An

introductory guide. Retrieved from
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/gender-neutral-job-
evaluation-schemes-introduction-guide

Eurofound (2014a). Pay in Europe in the 21st century. Publications Office of the European

Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2014b). Social partners and gender equality in Europe. Publications Office of the

European Union, Luxembourg.

European Union (2014). Progress on equality between women and men in 2013. A Europe 2020

initiative. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Eurostat (2014). Database. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from
category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and
motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 23, 1–74.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. (1991). Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations
by male and female MBA graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 256–262.
Gerhart, B., Rynes, S. L., & Fulmer, I. S. (2009). Pay and performance: Individuals, groups,

and executives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 251–315.

III - 41

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job

advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101(1), 109–128.

Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of" blind" auditions

on female musicians. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 715–741.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of
work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem,

and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.

Harris, M. M., Gilbreath, B., & Sunday, J. A. (2002). Why are women paid less than men,
but given higher raises? Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(4), 499–514.

Heilman, M. E. (1980). The impact of situational factors on personnel decisions
concerning women: Varying the sex composition of the applicant pool.
Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 26(3), 386–395.

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent
women's ascent up the organisational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–
674.

Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organisational

Behavior, 32, 113–135.

Heilman, M. E. (forthcoming). Gender stereotypes: Impediments to women’s career

progress.

Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in
employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189–198.

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:
Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 416–427.

Horvath, L. K. & Sczesny, S. (2015a). How to make leadership positions more attractive: The

impact of gender-fair language in job advertisements. Unpublished manuscript.

Horvath, L. K., & Sczesny, S. (2015b). Reducing the lack of fit for women in leadership: Can

gender-fair language bring more women to the top? Unpublished manuscript.

Institute for the Equality of Women and Men (2010). Checklist Gender neutrality in job

evaluation and classification. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=r
ja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Figvm-
iefh.belgium.be%2Ffr%2Fbinaries%2F39%2520-%2520Checklist_ENG_tcm337-
99809.pdf&ei=uvzZVIeWLMGsU6TfgfgK&usg=AFQjCNHeKjoK5Rs1Unaw20FJy
wAfYAzChw&sig2=ifT1mNWyUvLG6MJwiybnjw&bvm=bv.85464276,d.d24

International Labor Office (2008). Gender-neutral job evaluation for equal pay: A step-by-step

guide. Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.org/declaration/info/publications/eliminationofdiscrimination
/WCMS_122372/lang--en/index.htm

Johnston, L. C., & Macrae, C. N. (1994). Changing social stereotypes: The case of the

information seeker. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(5), 581–592.
Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. (in press). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic

test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management
Journal.

III - 42

Gender equality in employment and occupation

Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, L. S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on

managers’ career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(6), 641–651.

Katz, C., & Baitsch, C. (1996). Lohngleichheit für die Praxis. Zwei Instrumente zur

geschlechtsunabhängigen Arbeitsbewertung. Zürich: vdf.

Koch, A., D'Mello, S., & Sackett, P. (2014). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias

in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied
Psychology.

Konrad, A. M., Ritchie Jr, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and

similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
126(4), 593–641.

Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype

confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(6), 942–952.

Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., Ryan, M. K., Alexander Haslam, S., & Renneboog, L. D.

(2011). Who gets the carrot and who gets the stick? Evidence of gender disparities
in executive remuneration. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 301–321.
Lance, C. E., Lambert, T. A., Gewin, A. G., Lievens, F., & Conway, J. M. (2004). Revised
estimates of dimension and exercise variance components in assessment center
postexercise dimension ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 377–385.

Macan, T. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions
for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 203–218.
Martell, R. F., & DeSmet, A. L. (2001). A diagnostic-ratio approach to measuring beliefs

about the leadership abilities of male and female managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(6), 1223–1231.

Macrae, C. N., Hewstone, M., & Griffiths, R. J. (1993). Processing load and memory for

stereotype

based information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1), 77–87.
McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Campion, M. A. (2010). Are highly structured
job interviews resistant to demographic similarity effects? Personnel Psychology,
63(2), 325–359.

‐

Murtha (1993). Job evaluation: A quest for gender neutrality. Kingston, Ontario: Hewson &

White Printing.

Pillinger, J. (2014). Bargaining for equality. How collective bargaining contributes to eliminating

pay discrimination between women and men performing the same job or job of equal
value. Retrieved from http://www.etuc.org/publications/bargaining-
equality#.VNyohC5qIQu

Pronin, E., Lin, D.Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self
versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381.
Rubery, J. (1995). Performance-related pay and the prospects for gender pay equity.

Journal of Management Studies, 32(5), 637–654.

Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance

evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571–600.

Sanchez, J. I., & Medkik, N. (2004). The effects of diversity awareness training on
differential treatment. Group & Organisation Management, 29(4), 517–536.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95–100.

Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in

management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688.

III - 43

Annex III - Job evaluation and classification

Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., & Welpe, I. M. (forthcoming). Reducing perceived lack-of-fit:
Promoting women’s success by training stereotype-proof selection procedures. In
I. M. Welpe, P. Brosi, L. Ritzenhöfer und T. Schwarzmüller (Eds.), Auswahl von
Männern und Frauen als Führungskräfte: Perspektiven aus Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft,
Medien und Politik. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Sczesny, S., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Meta-cognition about biological sex and gender-

stereotypic physical appearance: Consequences for the assessment of leadership
competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 13–21.

Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., Benson, P. G., & Wesolowski, M. (1989). What is in a name:

The impact of job titles on job evaluation results. Journal of Business and Psychology,
3(3), 341–351.

Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive

language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 757–769.
Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria redefining merit to justify

discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474–480.

Van Sliedregt, T., Voskuijl, O. F., & Thierry, H. (2001). Job evaluation systems and pay
grade structures: do they match? International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12(8), 1313–1324.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the

reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 557–574.

Weiner, N. J. (1991). Job evaluation systems: A critique. Human Resource Management

Review, 1(2), 119–132.

Welpe, I. M., Brosi, P., & Schwarzmüller, T. (2014). Wenn Gleiches unterschiedlich

beurteilt wird. Die Wirkung unbewusster Vorurteile. [When the same is
evaluated differently. How unconscious biases operate.].
OrganisationsEntwicklung, 23(4), 32-35.

Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A

quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 67(3),
189–205.

Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A

quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 67(3),
189–205.

WorldatWork (2009). Job evaluation and market pricing practices: A survey brief by

WorldatWork. Retrieved from
https://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=31378

III - 44

Gender equality in employment and occupation

9. Annex: Overview on the implementation of Directive

2006/54/EC

9.1 Annex I: Overview on the methodological approach of this

research paper

Step 1: Quantitative analysis

Based  on  data  from  Eurostat,  we analysed available  statistical  indicators  for  women’s
access  to  employment,  working  conditions  including  pay,  and  occupational  social
security  systems in  the  six  focus  countries  and  the  EU  as  a  whole.  We  analysed  their
development over time in order to compare the status quo before the entry into force of
the  Directive  with  the  current  status  quo several  years  after  the entry  into  force of  the
Directive.

Step 2: Qualitative analysis

Evaluation of job evaluation and
classification with regard to gender
stereotypes

Analysis of homepages and publications
of national governments, social partners
and equality bodies

Based on scientific theories and empirical
evidence with regard to gender
stereotypes we analysed the
recommendations given in the Directive
and in the Commission Staff Working
Document SWD(2013)512. Moreover, we
developed scientific recommendations for
translating gender-neutral job evaluation
and classification into equal access to
employment, working conditions focusing
on pay, and occupational social security
systems.

Based on homepages and available
publications, we analysed to which degree
measures to promote equal pay in general
and gender-neutral job evaluation and
classification were applied in the six focus
countries.

For each focus country, we analysed
homepages and publications of ministries,
three major employer representations and
three major trade unions as well as the
equality bodies.

In addition, we studied scientific
publications and reports by official
authorities.

To validate our results, we contacted
several experts on gender equality in the
six member states and included the
information provided by them47.

47 In sum, Eurofound experts from 4 member states provided additional information on the topic of
gender-neutral job evaluation and classification in the social dialogue. Likewise, a renowned expert
from the United Kingdom sent further information on the activities of social partners in several
member states. Finally, the answers of two equality bodies could be incorporated.

III - 45

Annex III - job evaluation and classification

9.2 Annex II: Summary of measures taken by the national governments, social partners and equality bodies in the

six focus countries

Germany

United Kingdom

Sweden

National government
 Collective bargaining in centralised on a

Social partners
 Well-developed activities on gender

medium level.

 The state does not interfere with social
partners’ decisions about job evaluation
and the equality of pay.

 Together with the major employer
representations the government
provides tools for the implementation
of gender-neutral pay such as Logib-D.

equality issues.

 Unions: Specific initiatives to reduce
the gender pay gap and to develop
gender-neutral job evaluation
systems.
Employer representations: Partner
with the government to promote
equal opportunities for men and
women.

 Collective bargaining is highly

 Well-developed activities on gender

decentralised and shows low levels of
coordination.

 Legislation refers specifically to job-

evaluation.

 The government provides a wealth of
information on gender-neutral job
evaluation and classification such as a
practice guide and checklists.
 Collective bargaining is informally
centralised and highly coordinated.
 Gender-neutral job evaluation and

classification have often been part of
collective bargaining.

equality issues.

 Unions: Provide specific guidelines

on gender-neutral job evaluation and
classification.
Employer representations: Advocate
for transparency and a greater use of
the available talent pool as well as
other diversity-related measures.
Relatively well-developed activities
on gender equality issues.

 Unions: Focus on tackling the gender

pay gap.
Employer representations: Only
scarce information available.

III - 46

Equality Body

Pay equality as an important
topic.
Publications about the gender
pay gap and tools for assessing it.
Little information on gender-
neutral job evaluation and
classification.

Pay equality as an important
topic.

 Very detailed recommendations
on a five-step equal pay audit
model.

 Detailed information and

checklists for gender-neutral job
evaluation and classification.

Pay equality as an important topic
Own tool for assessing potential
gender pay gaps.
Detailed information and
workshops on gender-neutral job
evaluation and classification.












National government
 Collective bargaining is centralised on a

medium level with low levels of
coordination

 Collective negotiations must include
gender equality and thereby also pay
equity

 Collective bargaining is centralised on a
low level and is also little coordinated.

 There are no legislative acts defining
equal work and work of equal value.

 Collective bargaining is of low
centralisation and coordination.
 There are no legislative acts defining
equal work and work of equal value.

France

Latvia

Malta

Ensuring equal pay and equal access to employment

Social partners

Equality Body

Relatively well-developed activities
on gender equality issues. Social
partners have influence on gender-
neutral job evaluation and
classification due to legislation.
 Unions: Suggest making use of

gender-neutral job evaluation and
classification.
Employer representations: Broad set
of measures to promote gender
equality.

 No specific activities on gender

equality issues.

 Unions: No information available.
Employer representations: No
information available.
Relatively well-developed activities
on gender equality issues, but no
external strategies.

 Unions: No information available.
Employer representations: No
information available.

Pay equality as an important
topic.
Very extensive guidelines for
gender-neutral job evaluation
and classification.
Equality body strongly promotes
gender-neutral job evaluation
and classification by talking to
different stakeholders.

Pay equality not a central topic.
No specific information on
gender-neutral job evaluation
and classification.

Award for companies that have
good employment practices
including equal pay.
No specific information on
gender-neutral job evaluation
and classification.

47













Annex III - job evaluation and classification

III - 48