Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to show how pay compares between women and men, using a ratio for basic salary and for total remuneration. In practice, it is about whether the organisation can explain the comparison clearly and consistently, rather than only giving a headline statement about equal pay. The focus is on the reported relationship between women’s and men’s pay, based on the organisation’s own workforce data.
The practical emphasis is on coverage and comparability: the organisation should be clear about which parts of the business are included, and whether the figures reflect the whole organisation or only selected sites, functions, or employee groups. A useful report will make it easy to see the scope of the data, so readers can understand how representative the ratio is and avoid mistaking a partial view for the full picture.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
＋ Show GRI 405-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Use the organisation’s own definition for what counts as a major site or operating location, and apply it consistently.
Group workers into the relevant staff category used for this disclosure, using the organisation’s chosen classification.
Calculate the pay comparison for women and men using basic salary only, then express it as a ratio.
Calculate the wider pay comparison for women and men using total remuneration, then express it as a ratio.
Identify which sites qualify as major operating locations under the organisation’s definition, and use that set for reporting.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first: decide which sites count as material operating locations for this disclosure, and make sure the same boundary is used consistently across the figures and the explanation.
2Fix the employee grouping you will use before you calculate anything, so the pay comparison is built on one clear staff classification rather than mixed or shifting categories.
3Gather the underlying payroll evidence for the chosen population, including the pay data needed to compare women and men on both base pay and total pay, and keep the source records traceable.
4Calculate and present the two required percentages separately: one for base salary and one for overall pay, using the same scope and employee grouping for each result.
5Write down how you treated the term for material operating locations, including the definition you applied and any exclusions, assumptions, or changes from prior reporting periods.
6Check the final disclosure against the official source to confirm you have covered every required item, used the right scope, and not missed any supporting explanation or evidence.
Request the data
Request pay ratio data from People Analytics
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How do pay levels for women and men compare across our main operating locations and employee groups, using the same basis for pay and total pay?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the disclosure fields. For example, use your internal site names, job families, grades, pay elements and reporting periods rather than framework wording, and only translate them into the disclosure terms at the end.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 405-2 data for significant locations of operation and employee categories, including the the evidence needed for GRI 405:GRI 405-2.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only and does not tell the owner which internal report, site list, pay basis, source file, or calculation method to use. It also leaves the definition of major operating locations unclear, so the returned data may not match the organisation’s own payroll and reward reporting.
Better request
Please send the pay comparison extract for [reporting period] using our internal site list and employee groupings. Include base pay and total pay comparisons for women and men, the source system or file, the calculation method, any exclusions, and the definition used for major operating locations. Please return the table with a short note on assumptions and who can approve it.
Industry examples
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
State which sites were treated as the organisation’s key operating locations, explain how employee groups were defined, and note the basis used to calculate each women-to-men pay comparison.
Context note
Explain what the ratios mean in practice by showing whether women’s pay sits below, at, or above men’s pay within each employee group and across the organisation’s main operating sites.
Fluctuation statement
If the ratios moved materially from the prior period, link the change to shifts in employee mix, site coverage, or pay-setting decisions, and note any one-off effects that affected the result.
Content index entry
GRI 405-2 Ratio of basic salary and remuneration of women to men — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 405-2 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner, wrong language
The request goes to the wrong team because it is framed in disclosure jargon instead of the payroll, HR or reward terms people actually use.
No clear boundary
The data pull starts before the team has agreed which sites, worker groups and business units are in scope, so different people collect different populations.
Definition left vague
No one records how the organisation is using the phrase for major operating sites, so the same location can be included by one person and excluded by another.
Mixed time basis
One source is taken from a current payroll run while another is taken from a different cut-off date, so the figures do not relate to the same period.
Different counting bases
Basic pay and total reward are gathered from different calculation methods, which makes the two ratios impossible to compare cleanly.
Source labels stripped out
The original field names and system labels are lost during export, so the team cannot trace each number back to the payroll or reward report it came from.
Groups merged too early
Women and men are combined across employee categories or locations that should stay separate, which hides the differences the disclosure is meant to show.
Evidence trail missing
The team keeps the numbers but not the supporting extracts, date stamps and reviewer notes, so there is no audit trail for sign-off.
No review sign-off
The draft data pack is circulated without a named reviewer confirming the scope, definitions and source files, so errors can survive into the final disclosure.
Where judgement is often needed
Set the site list before calculating the ratios
Decide which operating sites count as significant, explain that basis, and keep the same site set for both pay measures unless a change in the business makes a revised scope necessary.
Explain how you treat bought-in or sold businesses
If acquisitions or disposals change the workforce covered, state whether you use the post-deal structure, a restated comparison set, or another consistent cut-off, and describe the effect on the figures.
Use one job-grouping method and say what it is
Where local job titles or grading systems differ across countries, map people into employee groups using a single documented approach and disclose that mapping so readers can see how like-for-like comparisons were made.
Be clear about people near the boundary
State how you handle workers who sit close to the scope line, such as part-time staff, fixed-term hires, secondees, or contractors if they are included in your pay population, and explain any exclusions.
Choose a single pay basis and keep timing aligned
If pay data can be taken from different payroll dates or pay periods, use one consistent cut-off for both women and men, explain the timing choice, and note any material timing mismatch.
Say when figures are measured and when they are estimated
If complete payroll records are not available for every site or group, disclose where you used estimates, the method used to fill gaps, and whether the same approach was applied across both pay measures.
Round in a way that does not distort the comparison
Apply one rounding rule to both ratios, disclose it if it affects the reported result, and avoid rounding at a level that hides a meaningful difference between the two figures.
Protect privacy when groups are small
Where a site or employee group is too small to show separately without risking identification, combine it with another group or present it at a higher level, and explain the aggregation choice.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing
We have set out a synthetic illustration of pay comparison across our main operating sites, using our own working definition of major locations as those with 250 or more employees or where a site is operationally critical. The figures below compare women and men in each employee group at those sites, showing both base pay and total pay on a like-for-like basis.
Illustrative only: this example shows how a reporter might present the pay comparison for major sites and employee groups, alongside the site-screening rule used.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Retail distribution
This synthetic illustration uses a site threshold of 100 or more workers, plus any depot that handles national fulfilment, to define the locations included. It compares women and men across our employee groups at those locations, for both base salary and overall pay.
Illustrative only: this example shows a different plausible way to define major locations and present the same pay comparison by employee group.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 405-2
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Grupo Cibest S.A.
Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Colombia · 2025
Grupo Cibest S.A.’s 2025 Management Report provides data on significant locations of operation (p.313) and includes detailed figures on salary rates by employee category, grade level, and gender (p.329), as well as percentages of employees with performance evaluations by gender and job category (p.190). The report also addresses remuneration for work of equal value in the context of reducing inequalities (p.325). However, there is no clear narrative or methodological explanation available for some aspects of the disclosure, as no quotable evidence was found for narrative item (b).
Advantech Co., Ltd.
Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan · 2024
Advantech Co., Ltd.'s 2024 ESG Report provides data on gender pay ratios, with specific references to the ratio of basic salary and remuneration of women to men found on pages 235 and 233, and narrative details about the gender pay gap linked to foreign migrant workers at the headquarters on page 156. The report also notes that 100% of employees across all operating locations receive pay benchmarked against local living wage amounts (p.180). However, the report does not clearly disclose comprehensive gender pay gap figures across all locations or detailed comparative analyses beyond these points.
Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited
Oil and Gas · Thailand · 2025
Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited's Integrated Sustainability Report 2025 provides several relevant data points, including the identification of 11 stations not located in Significant Locations with heightened biodiversity risk (p.108) and detailed employee demographics by region and gender (p.166). The report also includes a ratio of basic salary between women and men of 1.11 and a community engagement score of 91% (p.21). However, there is no clear narrative or methodological explanation available for some aspects of the disclosure, as indicated by the absence of quotable evidence in that area.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 405-2?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
1 free answer
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A group reports pay data for three large sites: one in Manchester, one in Leeds and one in Dublin. The HR team has separate figures for shop-floor staff, supervisors and managers, but the draft note only lists the overall company average.
QWhat should you do before finalising the disclosure so the reader can see the pay comparison in the right places and staff groups?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Break the figures out for each location that matters to the organisation’s reporting approach, and for each employee group used in the analysis. Then present both the pay comparison for base pay and the pay comparison for total pay, rather than only one blended company-wide figure. If the organisation uses a special meaning for which sites count as significant, include that explanation as well and adapt the wording to your organisation before sign-off.
Why this matters · The comparison needs to be shown by the relevant sites and staff groups, not hidden in one overall average.
A preparer has calculated that women’s base pay is 92% of men’s in one employee group, but the remuneration figure is 88% because bonuses and allowances differ. The draft currently shows only the 92% figure because it looks simpler.
QCan you leave out the total-pay figure if the base-pay result is already available?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑No. The disclosure needs both measures: one for base pay and one for total pay. If the two figures differ, both should be shown for the same employee group and location set, so the reader can see the full picture. Check the official source before sign-off and adapt the presentation to your organisation’s reporting format.
Why this matters · Base pay and total pay are separate comparisons, so both need to be reported where relevant.
The payroll team has used the phrase 'major operating sites' in the draft, but the internal methodology actually defines the relevant places as the three sites where most staff are based and where pay data is complete. The sustainability team is unsure whether to keep the internal phrase or explain it.
QWhat should the disclosure do about the way the relevant locations are defined?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑State the organisation’s own definition of which locations count for this analysis, using clear plain language. The point is to explain how the sites were selected, not to rely on a vague label that could be misunderstood. A possible LRA training template would be to describe the rule used for choosing the sites, then adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.
Why this matters · Readers need to understand how the relevant sites were chosen, not just see a label.
A draft table lists the ratios for women to men as 101% for senior managers and 97% for all other staff, but it does not say which employee groups those numbers relate to or whether the same site set was used for both measures. The team assumes the figures speak for themselves.
QWhat extra context is needed so the numbers are interpretable?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Link each percentage to the employee group it relates to, and make clear the locations covered by the calculation. If the organisation uses different groupings or site sets, those should be described consistently so the reader can tell what each figure represents. Keep the wording in your own terms, adapt it to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Why this matters · A ratio only makes sense when the staff group and site scope are clear.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
For GRI 405-2, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare five datapoints: key operating sites, worker group split, base pay gender ratio, total pay gender ratio, and the basis used to define a site. It also has a step-by-step preparation section you can use to organise the work.
How should I decide the scope for GRI 405-2 across sites and worker groups?+−
Use the page’s plain-language explainer and the site definition basis datapoint to set a consistent scope before you calculate the ratios. The worker group split is also a core input, so make sure the groups you use are clear and repeatable.
What does the page mean by 'site definition basis' for GRI 405-2, and why does it matter?+−
The page treats site definition basis as one of the datapoints to prepare, so it is part of the methodology you need to document. It helps show how you decided which locations count as key operating sites for the disclosure.
Who should own the GRI 405-2 data collection and sign-off process?+−
The page is aimed at sustainability and ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can explain the data and evidence. Use the step-by-step preparation section and evidence pack to make responsibilities clear.
What evidence should I include in the pack for GRI 405-2 assurance readiness?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside five assurance claims to verify. Use those together so the pack supports the claim, the risk, and the evidence for each point.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when reporting GRI 405-2?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful as a pre-submission check. In practice, use it to spot missing scope detail, weak methodology, or incomplete supporting evidence before you draft.
How do I turn the GRI 405-2 data into a draft disclosure?+−
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical way to move from the prepared datapoints into a first draft.
Can I use the GRI 405-2 workbook to prepare the disclosure and the assurance file at the same time?+−
Yes — the Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is designed to support both preparation and assurance readiness. The page also offers a printable Library Card in PDF form if you want a lighter reference copy.
What should I check in the synthetic example before I use it as a model for GRI 405-2?+−
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, so you can see how the disclosure might look in practice. Treat it as a worked example only and make sure any figures you prepare are internally consistent.
How can I use the 'From company reports' table on the GRI 405-2 page?+−
The table links to real published reports where the topic is disclosed, so it is useful for seeing how others present the information. Use it for inspiration on structure and presentation, not as a substitute for your own data and methodology.
Is the ESRS S1 link on the page enough to reuse my GRI 405-2 data for another framework?+−
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS S1 (Own Workforce), so the same underlying data may be reusable. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you still need to check the other framework’s own disclosure needs.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 405-2 disclosure checklist: what should I have ready before drafting?How do I map key operating sites for GRI 405-2 in a way that is consistent year on year?What evidence pack items does the GRI 405-2 page suggest for assurance?How do I use the GRI 405-2 Prep & Assurance workbook?What are the most common GRI 405-2 reporting gaps to check for?How do I write the narrative for a GRI 405-2 diversity and equal opportunity disclosure?What is the best way to show the base pay gender ratio and total pay gender ratio in GRI 405-2?How do I assign HR, ESG and site-level ownership for GRI 405-2 data?What should an assurance reviewer look for in a GRI 405-2 evidence pack?Can I use the GRI 405-2 example table as a template for my own disclosure?Where can I find real company report examples for GRI 405-2 on the page?How does the GRI 405-2 page help with ESRS S1 data reuse?
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 405-2 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →