GRI 405: Diversity and Equal Opportunity 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 405-2
Ratio of basic salary and remuneration of women to men
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
5 datapoints ↓
5 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
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
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Key operating sites | List the locations the organisation treats as its main operating sites, using the same basis applied in internal reporting. | Group structure maps, site registers, management reporting packs, or location lists used for reporting. | Finance / reporting |
| Worker group split | Set out the employee groups used for reporting, with the organisation’s own category names and definitions. | HRIS employee classification fields, payroll groupings, or workforce reporting definitions. | HR / people analytics |
| Base pay gender ratio | Calculate the percentage comparison between women’s and men’s basic pay using the same pay basis for both groups. | Payroll extracts, pay review files, and calculation workbook showing the pay basis used. | HR / reward |
| Total pay gender ratio | Calculate the percentage comparison between women’s and men’s total remuneration using one consistent remuneration basis. | Payroll, bonus, benefits, and remuneration calculation schedules supporting the final percentage. | HR / reward |
| Site definition basis | Record the rule the organisation uses to decide which locations count as main operating sites, including the threshold or test applied. | Policy note, reporting methodology, or internal definition paper approved for the disclosure. | Finance / reporting |
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.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set 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.
- Fix 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.
- Gather 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.
- Calculate 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.
- Write 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.
- Check 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 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.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for pay comparison data for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], Could you please share the latest pay comparison extract for [reporting period] so we can prepare the sustainability reporting pack? Please use the organisation’s own groupings and labels, and include: - the locations treated as major operating sites for this analysis; - the employee groups used in the internal report; - the pay basis used for base pay and for total pay; - the source system or file used; - the calculation method applied; - any exclusions or adjustments; - the definition used for major operating locations. If possible, please return the data in a table and include a short note explaining the definitions and any assumptions. Please also confirm who can sign this off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the pay comparison extract for [reporting period]? Please include the internal site names, employee groups, pay basis, calculation method, exclusions, and the definition used for major operating locations. A short note on the source file and assumptions would be helpful. Thanks, [preparer name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A group with several plants and a head office wants to compare shop-floor and office pay across its main sites.
Adapted request. Please provide the pay comparison table for [reporting period] covering our main plants and office locations. Use the internal site names, the workforce groups used in payroll reporting, and the same method for base pay and total pay. Include the source extract, exclusions, and the definition used for major operating sites.
Example response. Site: Midlands plant; Employee group: hourly production; Base pay ratio: 97%; Total pay ratio: 94%; Method: median comparison; Population covered: active employees only; Comments: overtime excluded from base pay, bonus included in total pay.
Financial services
Context. A firm with several business lines wants to compare pay across front office, operations and support teams in its main offices.
Adapted request. Please send the pay comparison extract for [reporting period] using our business-line and grade structure. Include the London and regional offices treated as major operating locations, the pay basis used for salary and total reward, the calculation method, and any exclusions or adjustments.
Example response. Location: London office; Employee group: analyst grades; Base pay ratio: 101%; Total pay ratio: 96%; Method: average comparison; Population covered: permanent staff; Comments: sign-on awards excluded, cash bonus included in total pay.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your 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
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 405-2. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| I used the same reporting boundary as the rest of the people data, and I checked that the coverage figure only includes the sites we had decided were in scope for this disclosure. | An assurer may test whether the boundary was applied consistently, whether any sites were left out without a clear reason, and whether the coverage figure was calculated from the right population. | Boundary memo or reporting policy; list of included and excluded sites; working papers showing how the coverage figure was built; sign-off from the data owner or preparer. |
| I grouped the workforce using the category set we applied for this report, and I kept a record of how each person was assigned so the disclosed split can be traced back to source records. | An assurer may probe whether the category logic was applied consistently, whether people were placed in the right group, and whether the grouping could be reproduced from source data. | Category definitions used for the report; HR or payroll extracts; mapping rules for assigning individuals to groups; reconciliation showing totals by category; review notes or approval trail. |
| I calculated the pay comparison from the underlying salary records for the selected employee groups, and I checked the inputs before publishing the figure. | An assurer may question whether the salary data were complete and accurate, whether the right employee groups were used, and whether the calculation was performed correctly. | Payroll or HR source files; calculation workbook; methodology note for the pay comparison; checks on completeness and accuracy; evidence of review before publication. |
| I prepared the pay-and-reward comparison from the underlying remuneration records, and I carried out a final check that the published ratio matched the working papers. | An assurer may test whether all relevant pay elements were included as intended, whether the source data were reliable, and whether the final published number agrees to the calculation file. | Remuneration data extracts; calculation model; list of included pay elements; reconciliation to source records; reviewer sign-off or publication approval. |
| I documented the rule we used to decide which sites counted as major for this disclosure, and I kept that rule with the working papers so the basis for inclusion is clear. | An assurer may ask whether the definition was set before the numbers were prepared, whether it was applied consistently, and whether it is supported by internal records. | Written definition or internal policy; rationale for the threshold or selection rule; list of sites assessed against the rule; working papers showing application of the definition; approval or governance record. |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
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.
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.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
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.
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.
Retail distribution · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only: this example shows a different plausible way to define major locations and present the same pay comparison by employee group.
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.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- Pay comparison by employee group — bar: How the women-to-men pay ratio differs across employee groups, using separate bars for each group.
- Remuneration comparison by employee group — bar: How the women-to-men total pay ratio differs across employee groups, with one bar per group.
- Pay and remuneration ratios side by side — stacked bar: A direct comparison of the two gender pay measures for each employee group, showing both indicators together.
- Coverage of significant sites — map: Where the organisation’s key operating sites are located, to show the geographic scope behind the figures.
- Employee groups and pay measures — table: Each employee group alongside the two gender-based ratios and the site basis used for the calculation.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
I report 98% for basic pay and 96% for total pay.
Better
I report 98% for basic pay and 96% for total pay, split by our main sites and employee groups, using our own definition of key operating locations.
Best
I report 98% for basic pay and 96% for total pay across our main sites and employee groups for the year ended 31 December 2025, using our own definition of key operating locations, and the small gap from parity reflects a higher share of men in senior roles.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 405-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Grupo Cibest S.A. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Colombia | 2025 | Partial | p. 6 →p. 180 →p. 183 → | Management Report 2025 → | PwC | ||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Grupo Cibest S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows 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).
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Advantech Co., Ltd. | Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan | 2024 | Partial | p. 26 →p. 235 →p. 36 → | 2024 ESG Report → | PwC | ||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Advantech Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows 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.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited | Oil and Gas · Thailand | 2025 | Partial | p. 165 →p. 166 →p. 171 → | Integrated Sustainability Report 2025 → | EY | ||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows 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.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
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.What should you do before finalising the disclosure so the reader can see the pay comparison in the right places and staff groups?
Model 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.Can you leave out the total-pay figure if the base-pay result is already available?
Model 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.What should the disclosure do about the way the relevant locations are defined?
Model 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.What extra context is needed so the numbers are interpretable?
Model 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.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 405-2 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS S1
Own Workforce — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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. ↑ section
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?
✓ 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.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
