Article 6 — Defining Equal Work and Work of Equal Value

The Core Requirement

Article 6 of the EU Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to determine whether workers perform "the same work" or "work of equal value" — and to pay them equally when they do. This is not new in principle (equal pay has been an EU treaty right since 1957), but the Directive adds structural teeth: documented criteria, accessible information, and enforceable transparency.

Same Work vs. Work of Equal Value

Same work: Two workers perform substantially identical tasks with the same skills, under the same conditions, and with the same responsibilities. The clearest case — same role, same level, same location.

Work of equal value: Two workers perform different roles, but the objective value of their work to the organization is equivalent when assessed on the four factors. This is the harder determination — and where most organizations struggle.

Article 4(4): "The assessment of whether workers are in a comparable situation shall not be limited to situations in which male and female workers work for the same employer, but may extend to a single source establishing the pay conditions, including where no actual comparator exists — a hypothetical comparator may be used."

The Four Assessment Factors

Article 4 establishes the criteria that must be used to assess work value. They apply equally to determining "same work" and "work of equal value":

1. Skills — The educational, professional, and practical capabilities required to perform the role. Includes formal qualifications, certifications, and demonstrated competencies.
2. Effort — The physical, mental, and emotional demands. Must include all forms of effort, not just physical — this addresses historical bias where physically demanding (male-dominated) roles were valued higher than emotionally demanding (female-dominated) roles.
3. Responsibility — The scope of decision-making authority, accountability for outcomes, supervisory duties, and organizational impact.
4. Working conditions — The physical environment, schedule requirements, hazards, travel, and psychological demands of the role.

Gender-Neutral Application

The Directive emphasizes that these factors must be applied "in an objective, gender-neutral manner, excluding any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sex." In practice, this means:

• Do not weight physical effort disproportionately over mental or emotional effort
• Do not assume management roles are inherently more valuable than specialist/expert roles
• Do not use criteria that correlate with gender (e.g., using height or physical strength as proxy for capability)
• Apply the same evaluation methodology to all roles — not different methods for different functions

Practical Steps for Segregating Equal Work

1. Establish worker categories — Group roles that share similar factor profiles. These become the comparison units for pay gap analysis.
2. Apply factor scoring — Evaluate every role on all four factors using a consistent methodology (e.g., Korn Ferry Hay, WTW GGS, gradar, or custom analytical framework).
3. Identify comparable pairs — Roles with similar total factor scores are candidates for "work of equal value" — even if they sit in different families or functions.
4. Analyze pay within categories — Compare compensation between male and female workers within each category. Gaps above 5% require investigation and, if unjustified, remediation.
5. Document and publish criteria — Article 6 requires that pay criteria and progression criteria be "easily accessible" to workers. This means the evaluation methodology is not a confidential HR document — it must be available to employees.

The Hypothetical Comparator

A landmark provision: where no actual comparator exists (no worker of the other gender in the same or equivalent role), the Directive allows comparison with a hypothetical comparator — what a worker of the other gender would be paid in the same role, based on the objective criteria. This eliminates the defense of "we have no one to compare with."

Job Architecture as the Compliance Solution

A well-structured job architecture is the single most effective tool for Article 6 compliance:

• Roles are already organized into families, clusters, and levels — natural worker categories
• Each role is evaluated on skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions — the required factors
• The evaluation is documented, version-controlled, and auditable
• Pay bands are tied to levels and grades — making compensation structure transparent
• Comparable work is identifiable directly from the architecture — no ad-hoc analysis needed