# Pay transparency and equal pay: UK benchmark 2026

> In the 2026 lumi reward benchmark, 46.8% of UK employers do not publish pay ranges on job adverts, and 19.9% publish them for all roles (n = 267).

Source: https://lumihr.co.uk/research/pay-transparency-equal-pay-2026
Author: David Whitfield (https://lumihr.co.uk/about/david-whitfield)
Answers: Do UK employers publish salary ranges in job adverts?
Data: lumi reward benchmark · national · collection window 2026 H1
Review by: when the next collection window closes

---
*lumi research · Collection window 2026 H1 · By David Whitfield*

**In the lumi reward benchmark, 46.8% of UK employers do not publish pay ranges on job adverts, and 53.2% publish them for some or all roles (33.3% + 19.9%) (n = 267, 2026 H1).**

> **Key findings**
> - 49.8% of UK employers have no documented pay transparency approach or policy (n = 267). A documented approach is rare, at 19.9%, and 30.3% have one in development.
> - 46.8% do not publish pay ranges on job adverts (n = 267). 53.2% publish them for some or all roles (33.3% + 19.9%).
> - 47.6% do not give employees access to pay ranges for their grade or role family (n = 267). Separately, 72.6% have a formal policy describing pay progression within bands (n = 259).
> - 63.5% say employees cannot request an explanation of how their individual pay was determined (n = 266).
> - 69.3% have a pay transparency readiness assessment in progress (n = 267), and 46.4% plan to expand external pay transparency over the next 12 to 24 months (n = 267).
> - 50.0% do not run proactive equal-pay audits (n = 268). 31.0% run them annually.
> - 8.3% have fully grouped roles into "work of equal value" categories (n = 264). The most common answer is "In progress", at 36.7%.

## About the data

This paper reports how UK employers answered lumi's questions on pay transparency and equal pay. The lumi reward benchmark covers 269 UK organisations across 14 sectors and five size bands. Data was collected in the 2026 H1 collection window. Each figure gives its base (n): the number of organisations that answered that question. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place, so a distribution can add up to 100.1%. Figures here are national. Sector and size comparisons are available to lumi members. See [how lumi works](/methodology) for the method.

## The legal context

Gender pay gap reporting is required of employers with 250 or more employees. On 6 April 2026, gender equality and menopause action plans were introduced on a voluntary basis. They are due to become mandatory in 2027, with timing to be confirmed. Publishing pay ranges, whether on job adverts or to employees, is not set by statute.

The benchmark also asked about the EU Pay Transparency Directive. This paper does not set out the directive's terms. It reports how prepared employers say they are.

## How transparent are UK employers about pay?

The broadest question asked employers to place themselves on one scale: *How open is your organisation about pay, in adverts, internal ranges and published policy?* Each organisation gave one answer.

| Answer | % of base (n = 267) |
|---|---|
| No transparency | 46.1% |
| Internal ranges only | 28.5% |
| Ranges on adverts | 17.6% |
| Published transparency policy | 7.9% |

"No transparency" is the common answer. "Internal ranges only" is an alternative. "Ranges on adverts" and "Published transparency policy" are both rare. Taken together, 54.0% chose one of the three answers that describe some openness (28.5% + 17.6% + 7.9%).

The scale shows position, not the work behind it. It does not say whether an employer answering "No transparency" has defined ranges at all.

A second question asks about documentation: *Does your organisation have a documented pay transparency approach or policy?* (n = 267). "No" is the common answer, at 49.8%. "In development" is an alternative, at 30.3%. "Yes" is rare, at 19.9%. Adding the two positive answers, 50.2% either have a documented approach or are developing one (19.9% + 30.3%).

The two questions measure different things. A documented approach can be an internal document; the "Published transparency policy" answer describes a policy made public. Documentation is a governance matter: whether the rules on disclosure are written down and owned. The openness scale describes what employees and candidates can see.

## Can employees see pay ranges and how their pay was set?

Three questions look at what employees can see and ask about their own pay.

The first is *Do employees have access to pay ranges for their grade/role family?* (n = 267). "No" is the common answer, at 47.6%. "Yes" is an alternative, at 35.2%. "Partial" is rare, at 17.2%. In total, 52.4% give employees full or partial access to ranges (35.2% + 17.2%). The data does not break "Partial" down further.

The second is *Is there a formal policy describing pay progression within bands?* (n = 259). "Yes" is the common answer, at 72.6%. "No" is the alternative, at 27.4%.

A progression policy sets out how pay moves within a band. That is a different decision from letting employees see the band. An organisation can have one without the other. Answers in this paper are not linked across questions, so the data cannot show how many employers with a progression policy also share ranges.

The third is *Can employees request an explanation of how their individual pay was determined (documented process)?* (n = 266). "No" is the common answer, at 63.5%. "Formal right/process" is rare, at 19.9%, as is "Informal via manager", at 16.5%. Adding the two routes, 36.4% give employees some way to ask (19.9% + 16.5%).

The choice is about who answers and from what record. A formal process gives every request the same route and leaves a record. An informal route depends on how much each manager knows about the way pay was set, so answers may differ between teams.

## Do UK employers publish salary ranges in job adverts?

*Does your organisation publish pay ranges on job adverts?* (n = 267). "No" is the common answer, at 46.8%. "Some roles" is an alternative, at 33.3%. "All roles" is rare, at 19.9%. Adding the two positive answers, 53.2% publish ranges on at least some adverts (33.3% + 19.9%).

This question and the openness scale are worded differently. The scale asks for one position across adverts, internal ranges and published policy; this question asks about adverts alone. Their figures are not directly comparable.

A "Some roles" approach means deciding which vacancies carry a range, and explaining that line to candidates and to staff. An "All roles" approach removes the choice but needs a range for every advertised role. An advertised range is visible to current employees as well as candidates, so it becomes a reference point inside the organisation too.

*Have you removed salary-history questions from your hiring process?* (n = 265). "No" is the common answer, at 72.1%. "Yes" is the alternative, at 27.9%.

Asking about previous pay gives a hiring manager a reference point that comes from another employer's pay decisions. Removing the question means an offer is set from the role's own range, the candidate's skills and experience, or other information the employer holds. The design question is which reference point an offer rests on, and how that is recorded.

## How ready are UK employers for pay transparency rules?

*Have you completed a pay transparency readiness assessment (e.g., audit of structures, data quality, communications)?* (n = 267). "In progress" is the common answer, at 69.3%. "Yes" is rare, at 17.2%, as is "No", at 13.5%. Adding the first two, 86.5% have completed an assessment or have one under way (17.2% + 69.3%).

The question's examples show what an assessment covers: pay structures, pay data quality and communications. A completed assessment tells an employer what it could disclose with confidence. It does not decide what it will disclose.

*Over the next 12-24 months, do you plan to expand external pay transparency?*

| Answer | % of base (n = 267) |
|---|---|
| Yes - expand | 46.4% |
| No change | 41.6% |
| Reduce | 6.7% |
| Under review | 5.2% |

"Yes - expand" is the common answer. "No change" is an alternative. "Reduce" and "Under review" are both rare. These are stated plans from one collection window. They describe intentions, not outcomes.

*How prepared are you for the EU Pay Transparency Directive?*

| Answer | % of base (n = 266) |
|---|---|
| Not started | 33.8% |
| Assessing | 32.3% |
| Planning | 18.4% |
| Implementing | 13.5% |
| Compliant | 1.9% |

"Not started" is the common answer. "Assessing" is an alternative. "Planning", "Implementing" and "Compliant" are all rare. Adding every answer beyond "Not started", 66.1% report some activity (32.3% + 18.4% + 13.5% + 1.9%). The data does not record which respondents employ staff in the European Union, so it cannot show how far the directive bears on each workforce.

## How many UK employers run equal pay audits?

*Have you grouped roles into 'work of equal value' categories — by skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions — as equal pay law defines them?*

| Answer | % of base (n = 264) |
|---|---|
| In progress | 36.7% |
| No | 34.1% |
| Partially | 20.8% |
| Fully | 8.3% |

"In progress" is the common answer. "No" and "Partially" are both alternatives. "Fully" is rare. 29.1% have grouped roles fully or partially (8.3% + 20.8%). Including work in progress, the figure is 65.8% (8.3% + 20.8% + 36.7%).

Equal-value grouping compares roles that look different, using the four factors named in the question. It needs information about each role against each factor, and judgement about how roles compare. It also defines which roles can be compared when pay is checked.

*Do you run proactive equal-pay audits, and how often?*

| Answer | % of base (n = 268) |
|---|---|
| No | 50.0% |
| Annually | 31.0% |
| Ad hoc | 15.3% |
| More than annually | 3.7% |

"No" is the common answer. "Annually" is an alternative. "Ad hoc" and "More than annually" are both rare. 50.0% run proactive equal-pay audits in some form (31.0% + 15.3% + 3.7%), and 34.7% run them at least annually (31.0% + 3.7%).

*Does the organisation run pay equity analyses across comparable roles (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability), and how often?*

| Answer | % of base (n = 257) |
|---|---|
| No | 59.9% |
| Yes – every 2 years | 14.8% |
| Yes – ad hoc | 13.6% |
| Planned / in development | 7.8% |
| Yes – at least annually | 3.9% |

"No" is the common answer. Every other answer is rare. Adding the three "Yes" answers, 32.3% run pay equity analyses in some form (14.8% + 13.6% + 3.9%).

The frequency answers describe a trade-off. A fixed cycle gives a regular reading that can be set against the last one, at a predictable cost in time and data work. Ad hoc analysis can be timed to a pay review or a restructure, but leaves no fixed interval between checks. The pay equity question names ethnicity and disability as well as gender, so it reaches beyond what gender pay gap reporting covers.

## What the data means for reward decisions

The data describes separate choices rather than one decision. Internal ranges, advertised ranges, a documented approach, a published policy and a route for pay explanations can each be adopted on its own, with its own audience and cost. A rare answer describes a less frequent choice, not a wrong one.

**Who sees what.** Ranges for employees and ranges for candidates reach different people, but an advertised range is visible to both. An employer that advertises ranges without sharing them internally gives staff their view of pay through adverts.

**Rules and numbers.** A progression policy and a documented transparency approach are rules about pay. Ranges are the numbers. Rules need owners and review. Visible numbers need data that holds up when people compare them.

**Formal and informal routes.** A formal route for pay explanations brings consistency and a record, and needs a process to run it. An informal route is lighter to set up, and depends on what each manager knows.

**Groundwork and checks.** Equal-value groupings define which roles are compared. Audits and pay equity analyses test pay across those groups, and their frequency sets how soon a difference is found.

Questions a head of reward might ask:

- Which of our roles have ranges we are content for candidates and employees to see?
- Does our progression policy describe movement within a band in terms an employee could follow?
- If an employee asked how their pay was set, who would answer, and from what record?
- Have we grouped roles by skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, and do our audits use those groups?
- How often do we analyse pay across gender, ethnicity and disability, and what prompts an analysis outside that cycle?
- Does the EU Pay Transparency Directive bear on any part of our workforce?

## Frequently asked questions

**What percentage of UK employers publish salary ranges in job adverts?**

In the lumi reward benchmark, 53.2% of UK employers publish pay ranges on at least some job adverts (33.3% + 19.9%) (n = 267, 2026 H1), and 46.8% publish none. 33.3% publish ranges for some roles and 19.9% for all roles.

**Do UK employees get to see the pay range for their own grade?**

In the lumi reward benchmark, 47.6% of UK employers do not give employees access to pay ranges for their grade or role family (n = 267, 2026 H1). 35.2% give full access and 17.2% partial access, so 52.4% give some access (35.2% + 17.2%). Separately, 72.6% have a formal policy describing pay progression within bands (n = 259).

**How many UK employers run equal pay audits?**

In the lumi reward benchmark, 50.0% of UK employers run proactive equal-pay audits in some form (31.0% + 15.3% + 3.7%) (n = 268, 2026 H1), and 50.0% run none. Annual audits are the most common form, at 31.0%, with 15.3% ad hoc and 3.7% more than annually.

**Can employees ask how their pay was decided?**

In the lumi reward benchmark, 63.5% of UK employers say employees cannot request an explanation of how their individual pay was determined (n = 266, 2026 H1). 19.9% offer a formal right or process and 16.5% an informal route via a manager, so 36.4% give employees some way to ask (19.9% + 16.5%).

**Do UK employers ask candidates for their salary history?**

In the lumi reward benchmark, 72.1% of UK employers have not removed salary-history questions from their hiring process (n = 265, 2026 H1), and 27.9% have removed them. Removing it means an offer rests on the role's own range rather than previous pay.

**How prepared are UK employers for the EU Pay Transparency Directive?**

In the lumi reward benchmark, 33.8% of UK employers have not started preparing for the EU Pay Transparency Directive (n = 266, 2026 H1), and 66.1% report some activity (32.3% + 18.4% + 13.5% + 1.9%). Only 1.9% say they are compliant. The data does not record which respondents employ staff in the European Union.

## Related

- [How to publish salary ranges in job adverts](/guides/how-to-publish-salary-ranges-job-adverts): a practical guide to putting ranges into vacancies and briefing hiring managers.
- [Pay gap reporting and equality action plans](/research/pay-gap-reporting-2026): what UK employers report on pay gaps, and how they are approaching action plans.
- [Pay structures and pay review governance](/research/pay-review-governance-2026): benchmark data on grades, pay ranges and who signs off pay decisions.

## Notes

- Base, "Not applicable" handling and rounding as described in "About the data".
- No question in this paper excludes "Not applicable" from its base, and no distribution reported here includes a "Not applicable" answer.
- Bases range from 257 to 268 because not every organisation answered every question.
- Combined figures add the listed percentages for options within one question, with the parts shown. No figure combines answers from different questions.

## Data appendix

All national figures used in this paper, as recorded in the lumi reward benchmark (collection window 2026 H1).

**Does your organisation have a documented pay transparency approach or policy?**  
Base: 267 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 49.8% | 133 | common |
| In development | 30.3% | 81 | alternative |
| Yes | 19.9% | 53 | rare |

**Do employees have access to pay ranges for their grade/role family?**  
Base: 267 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 47.6% | 127 | common |
| Yes | 35.2% | 94 | alternative |
| Partial | 17.2% | 46 | rare |

**Does your organisation publish pay ranges on job adverts?**  
Base: 267 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 46.8% | 125 | common |
| Some roles | 33.3% | 89 | alternative |
| All roles | 19.9% | 53 | rare |

**Over the next 12-24 months, do you plan to expand external pay transparency?**  
Base: 267 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes - expand | 46.4% | 124 | common |
| No change | 41.6% | 111 | alternative |
| Reduce | 6.7% | 18 | rare |
| Under review | 5.2% | 14 | rare |

**Have you completed a pay transparency readiness assessment (e.g., audit of structures, data quality, communications)?**  
Base: 267 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| In progress | 69.3% | 185 | common |
| Yes | 17.2% | 46 | rare |
| No | 13.5% | 36 | rare |

**Is there a formal policy describing pay progression within bands?**  
Base: 259 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 72.6% | 188 | common |
| No | 27.4% | 71 | alternative |

**Have you removed salary-history questions from your hiring process?**  
Base: 265 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 72.1% | 191 | common |
| Yes | 27.9% | 74 | alternative |

**Have you grouped roles into 'work of equal value' categories — by skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions — as equal pay law defines them?**  
Base: 264 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| In progress | 36.7% | 97 | common |
| No | 34.1% | 90 | alternative |
| Partially | 20.8% | 55 | alternative |
| Fully | 8.3% | 22 | rare |

**Do you run proactive equal-pay audits, and how often?**  
Base: 268 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 50.0% | 134 | common |
| Annually | 31.0% | 83 | alternative |
| Ad hoc | 15.3% | 41 | rare |
| More than annually | 3.7% | 10 | rare |

**How open is your organisation about pay, in adverts, internal ranges and published policy?**  
Base: 267 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No transparency | 46.1% | 123 | common |
| Internal ranges only | 28.5% | 76 | alternative |
| Ranges on adverts | 17.6% | 47 | rare |
| Published transparency policy | 7.9% | 21 | rare |

**Can employees request an explanation of how their individual pay was determined (documented process)?**  
Base: 266 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 63.5% | 169 | common |
| Formal right/process | 19.9% | 53 | rare |
| Informal via manager | 16.5% | 44 | rare |

**How prepared are you for the EU Pay Transparency Directive?**  
Base: 266 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not started | 33.8% | 90 | common |
| Assessing | 32.3% | 86 | alternative |
| Planning | 18.4% | 49 | rare |
| Implementing | 13.5% | 36 | rare |
| Compliant | 1.9% | 5 | rare |

**Does the organisation run pay equity analyses across comparable roles (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability), and how often?**  
Base: 257 organisations

| Answer | % of base | Organisations | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 59.9% | 154 | common |
| Yes – every 2 years | 14.8% | 38 | rare |
| Yes – ad hoc | 13.6% | 35 | rare |
| Planned / in development | 7.8% | 20 | rare |
| Yes – at least annually | 3.9% | 10 | rare |

**See how your organisation compares with other UK employers.** [Book a call](https://lumihr.co.uk/demo)