Pay Equity Initiatives

Equal Pay Day moved BACKWARD in 2025 to March 25th, revealing a harsh truth: transparency without enforcement doesn't create equality. 60% of job postings now include salary information—up from just 18% in 2020—yet women still earn just 85 cents to a man's dollar. Even more disturbing? The gap is widening. Of 98 countries with equal pay laws, only 35 have implemented any accountability mechanisms. We're seeing the illusion of progress without the substance. True salary transparency requires action at every level: For individuals: - Share your salary information with "trusted" colleagues - Explicitly ask for pay ranges before interviews - Document salary discussions and decisions - Normalize compensation conversations in your workplace - Research industry standards using sites like Glassdoor and Payscale For managers: - Conduct regular pay equity audits in your teams - Establish clear compensation criteria based on skills and responsibilities - Remove salary history questions from your hiring process - Advocate for transparent promotion pathways For organizations: - Implement formal pay bands with clear progression criteria - Regularly publish company-wide gender and racial pay gap data - Create accountability mechanisms for addressing inequities - Train managers on recognizing and addressing unconscious bias in compensation decisions The data is clear: companies with meaningful transparency see pay gaps narrow significantly in the first year alone. But posting a salary range isn't enough if there's no accountability behind it. Let's move beyond performative transparency toward meaningful equity. Please share this post if you think salary transparency should come with real action. Joshua Miller #SalaryTransparency #PayEquity #Workplace

📢 For the past 18 months I have been serving on a Government Taskforce - looking at how we can supercharge Women-led *High Growth* Businesses (inc. a few trips to Number 10 Downing Street)... 📈 This builds on much of the great work already started by The Rose Review & Rose Review Board which looks at *all* women led businesses, and the valuable data collection led by the British Business Bank, British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (BVCA), Diversity VC Level 20 and The Treasury with the Investing in Women Code. This Taskforce was specific to *High Growth* Women-Led Businesses - and was led by one - the indomitable Anne Boden. Anne founded Starling Bank in 2014 and has since scaled it to 3.6m customers, £353m in revenue last year and £195m in profit.* She truly embodies the potential of High-Growth Women-Led Businesses and we need 10,000x more Starlings in order to power our economy forward. Being on this Taskforce was not without its challenges as the topics we're tackling are so vast and complex. I wish we had the time and resources to do much more. However - today we launch our (92 page!) final report, including recommendations on how to break down barriers and support the economy. The key recommendations are: Recommendation 1: Investors should better monitor the proportion of funding they invest in female founded businesses. Recommendation 2: Firms should set their own voluntary targets for the number of women in senior investment professional roles and report against them on their websites. Recommendation 3: Increase signatories to the Investing in Women Code, particularly for private debt funds and Limited Partners, to boost investment in women-led enterprises. Recommendation 4: Drive inclusive behaviour in the investment ecosystem. The FCA should reduce the threshold for companies below 251+ employees to incorporate venture capital firms to drive greater diversity in the companies and, thus, their decision making. Recommendation 5: Roll out Female Founder Growth Boards across England. Recommendation 6: Inspire girls and women to become high-growth entrepreneurs. Recommendation 7: Improve data collection on the number of female founders. Thanks to my fellow Taskforcers ●     The Chair, Anne Boden MBE, founder of Starling Bank ●     June Angelides MBE: Investment Manager, Samos, and CEO and Founder, Mums in Tech ●     Judith Hartley: former CEO of British Patient Capital and British Business Investments, British Business Bank ●     Zandra Moore: CEO and Co-founder, Panintelligence ●     Deepali Nangia, Partner, Speedinvest and Co-founder Alma Angels ●     Jan Putnis: Partner, Slaughter and May ●     Angela Scott: Founder, TC BioPharm Ltd ●     Helen Steers: Partner, Pantheon ●     Sam Smith: Founder and former CEO at finnCap Cavendish Group Plc I couldn't have been part of this Taskforce without support from Matt Penneycard the team at Ada Ventures. 🙏 *Figures at at March 23. Link below.

When KPMG UK became the first business to report our socio-economic background pay gap and set a senior socio-economic background representation target in 2021, I said it would take a collective and sustained focus, through organisations working together, to make real and lasting change. Last year, in partnership with Bridge Group, our pioneering study – the biggest ‘progression gap’ ever published by a business – found that socio-economic background has the strongest effect on an individual’s career progression. Our goal was to deepen understanding of social inequalities in the workplace, while sharing these insights with the wider business community. Socio-economic background can be complex and emotive. It requires us to confront how our upbringing shapes the opportunities we have access to later in life. But as businesses we need to lean into this discomfort if we are to make progress. So I’m delighted that we are co-sponsoring the ‘Levelling the Playing Field’ report published today by the The Social Mobility Foundation and Bridge Group. This is a practical guide to help employers calculate their socio-economic background pay gap.   Improving opportunities for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds is not only a moral imperative, but an economic necessity for the professional services sector and the wider UK economy.   https://lnkd.in/e4J-zMKa #SocialMobility #ClassPayGap #ClassPayGapDay #OurKPMG 

Progress on gender equality is once again in the spotlight and I’d like to share with you some of the results as WGEA publishes today, for just the second time, the gender pay gaps of Australian employers with 100 or more employees. Today we have published results for some 7,800 individual employers and 1,700 corporate groups, representing the experiences of over 5.3 million Australian workers. For the first time, employees working in a subsidiary of a corporate group will be able to see their individual employer’s gender pay gap and well as the result for the whole group. And the new data on average base salary and total remuneration gender pay gaps will hopefully be a catalyst for discussion about the drivers of workplace inequality. The gender pay gap is still too wide, as women continue to be paid, on average, $28,000 less than men each year. There is evidence of progress. It’s not flashy. It’s slow. But the barriers to fair access to opportunities and outcomes is being improved through the deliberate careful action of employers. In the past year, 56% of employers have reduced their average total remuneration gender pay gap. More employers have taken the critical first steps of consulting their employees about their experiences at work and conducting a gender pay gap analysis to find out what’s driving their gap. The data that WGEA collects and publishes is helping drive real change. Now is the time to increase momentum. I invite you to read WGEA’s 2023-24 employer gender pay gaps report https://lnkd.in/g92FDT-v and to view the employer gender pay gaps on our Data Explorer: https://lnkd.in/gzfKDT5Y And I encourage executives and managers to seek out the many resources available through WGEA’s website to help you take action to end your gender pay gap – there’s everything from free masterclasses to instructional videos to help you dive into the Data Explorer. Workplace Gender Equality Agency Australia | WGEA If you haven’t already done so, test your gender equality knowledge with our quiz, as part of our campaign to increase knowledge and End the Gender Pay Gap: https://lnkd.in/gRnqksDd #endthegenderpaygap #genderequality Workplace Gender Equality Agency

Startup equity is not cash. Obvious! But we see early-stage founders and HR get ahead of themselves on this all the time. The AI bubble has only made it worse. With valuations getting wild, employees can be dazzled by equity offers expressed as massive dollar figures...but ask a few startup folks who joined rocket ships in 2021 how often those numbers actually hit the bank account. Okay: you're a Series A founder (company valued at $60M) and you're trying to close an amazing engineer. In her offer, you list the base salary, any potential bonuses, and the equity options package (Incentive Stock Options or ISOs). 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘀: • Annual base salary: $153,000 • Potential bonus: Up to $8,000    • Equity: Annual value of $26,000 ❌ 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱: • Annual base salary: $153,000 • Potential bonus: Up to $8,000    • 4-Year Equity Grant: 15,000 options which represent 0.054% of fully-diluted shares + a link to a scenario model the employee can utilize to project the future Is that as easily understandable as the dollar amount? No! But it's far more honest. Expressing equity in dollar terms should be reserved for startups that are valued at hundreds of millions of dollars - because the modal outcome for Series A equity is $0. It's why the discussion of "what % of my compensation is equity vs cash" can be quite misleading at young companies. Besides share count and % ownership, candidates should also ask: • 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴: What is the post-money valuation of the company? When did that round take place? Has the company had to raise any convertible bridge financing since then? Are there plans to raise more capital?    • 𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀: What is the current strike price? What is the vesting period? What is the post-termination equity period for these options (typically they'll say 90 days after you leave, which is..not a lot! Could be a negotiation point for you to push on).    • 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: When this company goes public or gets acquired, what's the minimum valuation it needs to achieve for common stock to make a profit?    Venture-backed dollars can come with strings attached. Those strings (liquidity preferences, participating preferred, etc) can make it harder for employees to get any real value out of their equity EVEN WHEN the company exits. This question may not be something a recruiter can answer. Remember: equity is not cash. It's upside only. The more you know. #startups #salary #equity #founders #compensation  

When Moms First was starting out, a lot of people asked me: Why moms? Why not all parents? This is why: https://lnkd.in/eh3gqwPm ------ "This month, the U.S. Census Bureau published a bombshell finding: The gender wage gap just got wider for the first time in two decades ‒ with women now earning just 83 cents to a man’s dollar. That’s maddening. But, for moms at least, it’s hardly surprising. It’s next to impossible to balance work and family in this country ‒ and as this new data shows, women are taking the hit. As the cost of child care continues to soar, women will just keep falling further behind. On paper, there’s no reason to believe that women should be earning less than men. Girls are more likely to graduate from high school and more likely to hold a bachelor’s degree. More women than men go to law school and medical school, and women’s enrollment in MBA programs has reached record highs. In fact, women do earn nearly as much as men ‒ at least early in their careers. On average, women in their late 20s and early 30s are much closer to parity, taking home at least 90 cents on the dollar compared with the guys sitting next to them at graduation or new hire orientation. Then, when women hit their mid-30s, something changes. The pay gap gets wider. It’s no coincidence that that’s precisely when women are most likely to be raising kids. All of a sudden, women are forced to make very hard choices to manage the demands of work and family. As the founder of Moms First, I’ve heard versions of this story from more women than I can count. Maybe mom drops down to part-time so she can make it to school pickup. Or maybe she switches to a new job that pays less but offers more flexible hours. Or maybe she drops out of the workforce entirely, because the cost of day care would have outpaced her salary anyway. Make no mistake, we are talking about moms here. When women are paid less than men anyway (and, in the case of Black and Hispanic women, way less), deprioritizing their careers can feel like the only logical decision, even if it isn’t what they wanted. This creates a vicious cycle, where pay inequity begets more pay inequity ‒ and women are systematically excluded from economic opportunities. At the same time, while women experience a motherhood penalty, men experience a fatherhood premium ‒ working more hours and reaping bigger rewards than those without kids. As Nobel laureate Claudia Goldin put it, when describing her pioneering research on the pay gap, 'Women often step back, and the men in their lives step forward.' Because here’s the thing: The 'choice' to step back from the workforce isn’t much of a choice at all. If grandma isn’t around to pitch in and child care costs more than rent, what other option do you have?"

Did you know Australian women just set a record?🏅 Women's labour force participation rate reached a new high of 63.5% in January 2025. That's a half-percentage-point jump from the previous month. Which is big in labour statistics land. It's this rise in women's labour force participation that drove the overall increase in the national rate (as men's participation rate fell slightly). Proof why it's important to always add a gender lens. January is the month where many new jobseekers and new hires are joining the labour market. As well as mothers who have been juggling summer holiday demands, and whose children will now be starting childcare or school, changing their working availability and preferences. Some will still be in the process of looking for opportunities and yet to be matched to a suitable job. This start-of-year job searching can help explain why the unemployment rate ticked up very slightly to 4.1% (again it was women's unemployment rate that drove the overall change, as men's rate was unchanged). Also today we found out Australia's latest gender pay gap, reported for November 2024. Men are earning on average $2073 in full-time weekly wages, compared to $1826 for women. That's a gap of $247 a week, tallying to around $12,800 a year. It equates to women earning 11.9% less than men on average, a gap which has widened since the last calculation (11.5% in May 2024). Men's earnings surged more rapidly than women's during this six-month period, particularly in sectors such as the Real Estate where jobs growth is strong. And partly the gender earnings gap reflects compositional changes. For example, between May and Nov 2024, we saw a notable expansion in women's employment in the Preschool and School Education sector. But because that's not a high-paying sector, it can dampen the calculation of women's overall average earnings. The Australian Government's legislated pay rise for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers came into effect in Dec 2024, so will be reflected in the next gender pay gap calculation. These numbers come fresh from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Labour Force and Average Weekly Earnings datasets released yesterday. The takeaway from these numbers is that women's opportunities to join and stay in the paid workforce – and gain economic independence – continue to grow. Government policies, company initiatives, working-from-home and hybrid work, as well as the financial necessity of cost of living pressures, are all likely factors contributing to this record-breaking rise in women's workforce participation. But, we still need sustained and strengthened efforts to undo patterns of gender concentration, rectify the undervaluation of female-concentrated sectors, and unravel the biases and barriers that still underpin the gender pay gap. There are still more records to be broken. #genderpaygap #gendergap #genderlens #womenintheworkforce #genderequality #economics #labourmarket #ausecon

Women represent 50% of P1s but only 20% of the C-Suite: the biggest underlying issue behind the gender pay gap is representation rates at senior levels Many public gender pay gap reports look at the “unadjusted” or “raw” delta. This just looks at all employees who identify as women vs. men in a sample set. And many pay transparency laws–such as the EU Pay Transparency Directive–focus on this “unadjusted” gender pay gap. However, the “unadjusted” analysis represents an incomplete picture. When you normalize for other factors–most notably, job level–new patterns emerge with even starker takeaways. _______________ 𝗔𝗱𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 The adjusted pay gap when you normalize for level is smaller than the typically reported unadjusted or raw pay gaps. For example, in Pave’s dataset, the adjusted gender pay ratio is 98.6% for P1s, 96.2% for P5s, and 92.2% for P6s. These numbers certainly highlight a gap, but not nearly as large as the raw gaps we hear about in the news or see in Pave’s dataset. This begs the question–how can there be such a contrast between the “adjusted” and “unadjusted” gender pay gaps? _______________ 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 One key force is that gender representation rates by level become stark as employees get more senior. Specifically, 50% of P1s in Pave’s dataset identify as women. But only 25% of P5s and 20% of C-Level execs identify as women. 𝗧𝗵𝘂𝘀, 𝗜’𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀. (This said, the adjusted pay gap still exists and highlights that this complex issue is not solely about gender representation rates.) _______________ Why do women represent far fewer senior ICs, managers, and execs compared to P1s whereas they account for 50% of all P1s in Pave’s dataset? It likely ties into some or all of the following forces (which we plan to analyze and post about soon): –Promotion rates by gender –Attrition rates by gender –Hiring rates by gender at the more senior roles Stay tuned. #pave #genderpaygap #benchmarks

AI just told women to accept 20% less pay A new study from the Technical University of Würzburg-Schweinfurt (linked in comments) just confirmed what many of us suspected: ChatGPT and other AI models systematically recommend lower salaries for women than men with identical qualifications. Up to 20% lower. In some cases, that's a $120,000 difference just by changing "he" to "she" in the prompt. 😵💫 Let that sink in for a moment. As someone who's spent years helping women negotiate their worth, this doesn't shock me. These AI models are trained on data that reflects decades of systemic bias - the same bias that created the gender pay gap in the first place. But here's what concerns me most: women are increasingly turning to AI for career advice, including salary negotiation guidance. And now we know these tools are literally programming women to undervalue themselves. So let me be crystal clear about this: ⚡ Stop outsourcing your worth to machines that don't understand your value! ⚡ Your salary negotiation shouldn't be guided by an algorithm trained on historical inequality. It should be based on your actual market value, the specific problems you solve & the measurable impact you create and linking that to what companies truly need. The real issue isn't just biased AI - it's that many women lack the confidence and skills to negotiate effectively in the first place. And now AI is reinforcing those insecurities with "data-driven" advice that's actually discrimination-driven. Here's what you should do instead: 💪 Learn to negotiate as a core professional skill, focusing on advocating for yourself rather than others (which women tend to struggle more with than men) 💪 Research salary data from multiple sources, including human ones 💪 Build confidence through practice and preparation 💪 Focus on the value you bring, not what others "think" you deserve Because here's the truth: if we don't learn to advocate for ourselves effectively, we'll always be at the mercy of systems - human or artificial - that undervalue us.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗨 𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝘅 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀. 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆? For companies operating in Europe, this is a seismic shift in how you structure, report, and communicate pay. The Directive flips the burden of proof - it’s now up to employers, not employees, to justify pay differences. That means deep changes are coming in how you manage reward, recruitment, and reporting. Here’s what your organisation needs to prepare for: 🔹𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 - Implement a robust grading framework using fair, gender-neutral criteria - Be ready to justify differences in pay - for performance, experience, geography - with clear, defensible logic - Without a consolidated HRIS, this becomes even more complex and will require planning 🔹𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 - Pay bands, criteria, and pathways need to be codified and shared 🔹𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 - Individuals, unions or works councils can request average pay data by category and gender - Employers must proactively inform employees of this right annually 🔹𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 - Starts in 2027, based on 2026 data - Requires gender pay gaps by band, by quartile - including all variable components (bonuses, LTI, commissions etc) 🔹𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: 𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 - If a pay gap >5% exists and isn’t closed within six months, you’ll be required to undergo a formal Joint Pay Assessment - this is likely to be onerous 🔹𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 - No asking candidates about current pay - Pay ranges must be disclosed before interviews - Must take care in setting starting salaries to avoid introducing pay gaps from day one - Gender-neutral job titles, salary decisions and progression criteria are essential - Employees must be free to discuss pay without consequence This is about more than compliance - it’s about credibility and trust and making meaningful progress in addressing pay gaps. If your organisation has a pay gap to close and needs identifying how to address this, we’re here to help. #PayTransparency #GenderEquity ************************* I help global organisations close the gender leadership gap - not with quick fixes, but with evidence-based change that lasts, through talent acceleration programmes, coaching and gender equity diagnostics and consulting. Join our mailing list to be the first to hear about our research, insights, and real-world solutions > shapetalent.com