The UK Pay Transparency Regulations: apparent transparency without accountability?

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-05-26 DOI:10.1017/lst.2023.12
Sara Benedi Lahuerta, Peter Rejchrt, Alex Patrick
{"title":"The UK Pay Transparency Regulations: <i>apparent</i> transparency without accountability?","authors":"Sara Benedi Lahuerta, Peter Rejchrt, Alex Patrick","doi":"10.1017/lst.2023.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The UK enacted its first legal measure to address gender pay inequity, the Equal Pay Act 1970, more than 50 years ago. Yet, in 2021, the gender pay gap (GPG) still stood at 15.4%. Departing from the remedial and individual approach that characterises equal pay legislation, the 2017 Gender Pay Gap Information Regulations (the Regulations) require private and voluntary sector organisations with 250+ employees to annually publish pay data broken down by gender. The long-term aspiration of the Regulations is to contribute to closing the GPG within a generation. It is also hoped that they will encourage the public disclosure of pay data and changes in workplace policies to reduce organisational GPGs (immediate aims) and improve employers’ accountability (underlying aim). This paper considers whether the Regulations have what it takes to meet those immediate and underlying aims. Our assessment framework is built on the premise that for public disclosure to be useful and for employers to tackle the causes of the GPG, the information reported must be of sufficient quality, meaningful and relevant. The paper draws on both doctrinal analysis and empirical data reported by FTSE 100 Index companies to assess the Regulations and determine whether they hold the potential to meet those aims.","PeriodicalId":46121,"journal":{"name":"Legal Studies","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2023.12","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The UK enacted its first legal measure to address gender pay inequity, the Equal Pay Act 1970, more than 50 years ago. Yet, in 2021, the gender pay gap (GPG) still stood at 15.4%. Departing from the remedial and individual approach that characterises equal pay legislation, the 2017 Gender Pay Gap Information Regulations (the Regulations) require private and voluntary sector organisations with 250+ employees to annually publish pay data broken down by gender. The long-term aspiration of the Regulations is to contribute to closing the GPG within a generation. It is also hoped that they will encourage the public disclosure of pay data and changes in workplace policies to reduce organisational GPGs (immediate aims) and improve employers’ accountability (underlying aim). This paper considers whether the Regulations have what it takes to meet those immediate and underlying aims. Our assessment framework is built on the premise that for public disclosure to be useful and for employers to tackle the causes of the GPG, the information reported must be of sufficient quality, meaningful and relevant. The paper draws on both doctrinal analysis and empirical data reported by FTSE 100 Index companies to assess the Regulations and determine whether they hold the potential to meet those aims.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国薪酬透明度条例:表面透明却没有问责制?
50多年前,英国颁布了首部解决男女薪酬不平等问题的法律措施——《1970年同酬法》。然而,到2021年,性别收入差距(GPG)仍为15.4%。与同工同酬立法的补救和个人方法不同,2017年《性别薪酬差距信息条例》(以下简称《条例》)要求员工人数超过250人的私营和志愿部门组织每年公布按性别分类的薪酬数据。该条例的长期目标是在一代人的时间内关闭GPG。他们还希望他们能鼓励公开披露薪酬数据,并改变工作场所政策,以减少组织的ggs(近期目标),提高雇主的问责制(潜在目标)。本文考虑《条例》是否具备满足这些直接和潜在目标所需的条件。我们的评估框架是建立在这样一个前提上的,即公开披露的信息必须足够高质量、有意义和相关,从而使雇主能够解决导致GPG的原因。本文借鉴了富时100指数公司报告的理论分析和实证数据,以评估这些规定,并确定它们是否有潜力实现这些目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Conspiracy! Or, when bad things happen to good litigants in person European human rights law and the legality of sex offence prosecutions based on deception as to gender history Deportation and human rights: the right to respect for private life in MK (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality Imprisonment for breach of injunctions: what is happening in the civil courts? Medical negligence and disclosure of alternative treatments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1