Call for evidence outcome

Equality law call for evidence analysis (all questions)

Updated 29 October 2026

Acknowledgments

This review was conducted by Fortia Insight (formerly RSM UK Consulting). The main authors were Emilio Torrini, Vicky Kaisidou, Georgie Pinchard, Bijun Qin and Samarth Padaliya. We would like to thank Professor Carol Woodhams (University of Surrey) for her inputs and advice.

Executive summary

Between 7 April and 30 June 2025, the Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) conducted a Call for Evidence (CfE) to examine how equality law operates in practice and to identify barriers, enablers, and opportunities for reform. The CfE focused on 6 key policy areas: 

• making the right to equal pay effective and addressing pay discrimination
• improving pay transparency
• strengthening protection against combined discrimination
• ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is met by everyone exercising public functions
• creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment
• commencing the Socio‑Economic Duty (SED)

The CfE invited individuals and organisations across sectors – including civil society organisations (CSOs), academic researchers, employers and employee representatives, and public authorities – to share insights on how equality legislation functions across these policy areas, how it is implemented by employers and public bodies, and where it may fall short of its intended outcomes.

Fortia Insight (formerly RSM UK Consulting), an independent research and evaluation consultancy, were commissioned to analyse the CfE responses and prepare a comprehensive summary of the evidence. A total of 176 submissions were received, of which 147 were included in the final analysis following the removal of duplicates and ineligible responses. Of the 147 included submissions, 59% (87) identified themselves as organisations, 19% (28) identified themselves as individuals, 14% (20) identified themselves as academics or researchers, and 8% (12) identified themselves as ‘other’, including a mix of individuals, groups, and organisations. Submissions consisted of survey responses and supporting documents that respondents attached to their submissions such as research reports, data analyses, and case studies. 

Fortia Insight employed both quantitative and qualitative methods in their analyses. The quantitative analysis summarised patterns in the responses to closed survey questions. The qualitative analysis used a structured thematic approach to analyse the open-text questions and generate themes in responses. 

Key findings 

Equal pay

Patterns in pay discrimination:

Respondents submitted that pay discrimination persists across sex, race, and disability, and most submissions pointed to wider structural disparities as the root cause. Some respondents mentioned examples that could be considered instances of unequal pay for equal work under the Equality Act 2010. However, most referred to broader inequalities such as occupational segregation, differences in valuing roles, and the availability of flexible working, which are not classified as unlawful within the current legal framework. Disabled and ethnic minority workers were seen as particularly disadvantaged in terms of pay, with several respondents giving evidence that these groups face multiple compounding barriers, and some submitting views that legal frameworks do not adequately address intersectional discrimination. Respondents called for clearer guidance on equal pay law, clearer law around reasonable adjustments and equal pay claims, improved data collection and pay transparency, stronger enforcement, and changes to job evaluation schemes.

Effective equal pay rights:

The majority of respondents submitted that the current legal framework offers stronger protections against sex-based pay discrimination than it does for race- and disability-based pay discrimination. They also supported extending equal pay rights to include these groups but highlighted the need for legal reform to reduce complexity and risk. Respondents cited procedural hurdles, unclear laws, and low rights awareness as key barriers to equal pay. Respondents raised that disabled workers may face financial penalties for reasonable adjustments, and employers often lack clarity on pay impacts. Existing tools supporting equal pay include equality clauses, extended time limits, union assistance, and use of statistical evidence. Persisting challenges are lack of comparable data, legal uncertainty around adjustments, limited legal advice, and fear of retaliation. Emotional and financial burdens, especially for disabled and freelance workers, were also noted. Respondents recommended measures such as allowing equal value comparisons for race and disability claims, simplifying procedural rules, reinstating the Statutory Discrimination Questionnaire, expanding legal aid, and providing clearer guidance on how reasonable adjustments interact with pay.

Pay discrimination experienced by outsourced workers:

Respondents gave evidence that outsourced workers – who are more likely to be women, ethnic minority workers, disabled people, and migrants – were at heightened risk of pay discrimination, particularly in low-paid sectors such as cleaning, catering, and care. Respondents believed that outsourcing often leads to lower pay as current legal frameworks stop outsourced workers from comparing their pay with directly employed staff. Recommendations submitted by respondents focused on the need to clarify pay comparison rules, extend liability to principal employers, strengthen protections for outsourced workers, and integrate socio-economic analysis into public procurement.

Enforcement of the equal pay scheme:

Most respondents gave evidence that illustrated concern about weak enforcement of equal pay protections. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was described as under-resourced and reactive, with limited strategic litigation or proactive investigation of pay disparities. Other challenges to enforcement included lack of awareness of legal rights and procedural delays. Factors that were described as supporting enforcement include the EHRC’s legal powers, union-led group claims, and the potential for strategic litigation to drive systematic change. Respondents recommended establishing a dedicated Equal Pay Enforcement Unit, allowing trade unions and charities to bring collective claims, improving access to legal support, and enhancing accountability (for example, through clearer enforcement guidance, specialist tribunal panels, and mechanisms to ensure transparency in settlement outcomes).

Improving pay transparency

Impact of pay transparency measures:

Respondents submitted that pay transparency measures can support pay equality, but its impact varies across sectors, pay types, and groups. Specific positive measures that were mentioned by respondents include standardised and transparent pay bands, established job grading, organisational readiness (for example, leadership commitment), and clear communication around pay transparency. Respondents also submitted several challenges in implementing pay transparency measures, including limited and inconsistent pay data (especially on race and disability), difficulty in assessing pay in sectors with variable pay, confidentiality risks, and risk of employee dissatisfaction if pay differences were revealed without clear plans to address them. Recommendations included extending mandatory pay gap reporting to race and disability, standardising data protocols, implementing clearer government guidance, and phasing implementation to support smaller employers.

Effectiveness of Equal Pay Audit regulations:

Respondents submitted evidence that the Equal Pay Audit regulations have had limited impact in practice. Respondents reported that tribunals can be reluctant to impose audits, and when they do, the scope is often narrow and enforcement minimal. High thresholds to trigger audits, multiple exemptions, and reliance on individual litigation were identified as key limitations of Equal Pay Audit regulations. Respondents also cited challenges such as poor pay records, fragmented HR systems, leadership resistance, and lack of internal expertise. To strengthen the system, respondents recommended allowing for proactive or randomised audits, requiring publication of findings, empowering regulators to initiate reviews based on risk indicators rather than waiting for individual litigation, and requiring broader reviews when patterns of inequality are likely.

Impact of extending Equal Pay Audits to race and disability:

Many respondents, particularly CSOs and employee representatives, supported extending Equal Pay Audits to cover race and disability. However, other respondents warned that without broader reform, the existing post-tribunal model would limit impact. Respondents did not submit evidence on the impact of extending Equal Pay Audits to cover race and disability on pay transparency. However, they identified a few challenges, such as weaknesses in the current audit model (for example, narrow in scope), additional administrative or financial burdens, challenges in collecting accurate data, and lack of in-house expertise in equal pay analyses. Respondents called for clearer legal guidance, consistent audit frameworks, and sector-specific support, as well as aligning audits with existing pay reporting systems and using publicly funded toolkits or sample-based methodologies to reduce audit costs.

Strengthening protections against combined discrimination

Prevalence and patterns of combined discrimination:

Most respondents gave evidence that combined discrimination is widespread across the UK, and is often shaped by workplace culture, stereotypes, and structural inequalities. Respondents noted that limited legal recognition and inadequate intersectional data hinder effective identification and action. They called for improved data collection to capture overlapping characteristics, extending data reporting beyond headline pay gap figures, and embedding intersectional approaches in workplace policies and Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs).

Legal protection against combined discrimination:

Most respondents felt that the current legal framework does not adequately address combined discrimination. Several believed that, in practise, claimants must bring or evidence claims separately for each protected characteristic, even when the discrimination arose from a single act. Respondents linked this perception to the absence of section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 and case law requiring proof for each characteristic independently. They viewed this as problematic because, in their experience, it fragments intersectional experiences, adds complexity and cost, and can make it harder for individuals facing overlapping forms of discrimination to access justice. However, under current law, a claimant can bring one claim alleging discrimination on multiple protected characteristics. They must, however, provide evidence that discrimination occurred on each ground. This requirement ensures that claims succeed only where there is sufficient evidence for each characteristic.. Additional barriers submitted include short time limits, lack of legal aid, and the requirement to identify separate comparators. Recommendations included commencing or expanding section 14 of the Equality Act 2010, developing clear accessible guidance on how combined discrimination claims can be brought (both for judges and tribunal members as well as for potential claimants and advisors), and creating training materials with case studies demonstrating how to successfully navigate the claims process.

Access to redress in cases of combined discrimination:

Respondents reported that procedural barriers (for example, the perception that a separate claim is needed for each demographic characteristic), low public awareness of what combined discrimination is, and limited cultural competence in grievance mechanisms (for example, intersectional harms being dismissed or overlooked) restrict access to redress. Several respondents submitted evidence that trade unions, CSOs, and community-led services played a key role in supporting claimants. Recommendations for improving access to redress included improving access to legal aid in cases of combined discrimination, clarifying tribunal guidance, raising public awareness (for example, via public education campaigns), and recognising caste as a standalone protected characteristic.

Effectiveness of commencing section 14 of the Equality Act 2010:

Most respondents supported commencing section 14 to fill current legal gaps and simplify proceedings. However, a majority of respondents cautioned that its limited scope (covering only direct discrimination and only up to 2 characteristics) would reduce its practical effectiveness by preventing it from addressing indirect discrimination, harassment, or more complex intersectional cases. Recommendations focused on commencing section 14 with clear guidance and training, extending its scope (to include indirect discrimination and harassment, and allow more than 2 characteristics per claim), taking steps to ensure practical effectiveness, and embedding intersectionality in tribunal procedures and public sector duties.

Effectiveness of other actions:

Respondents submitted that factors including inaccessible tribunals and inadequate data structures, prevent people from reflecting their lived experience in legal claims. A few respondents noted that community-led services were better able to respond to combined discrimination than mainstream services as mainstream services lacked strong enforcement mechanisms and accountability across public bodies. Key recommendations included strengthening the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), improving data infrastructure, investing in community-led services, providing intersectionality and cultural competency training for professionals, and introducing intersectional impact assessments.

Ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is met by all parties exercising public functions

Overall compliance:

Respondents reported inconsistent compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) among non-public bodies (NPBs), citing low awareness, limited accountability, and unclear legal obligations. Several CSOs submitted that charities and housing associations often overlook their PSED obligations, resulting in minimal impact on equality outcomes. Respondents noted that weak compliance can lead to exclusion from services. In contrast, embedding PSED requirements into contracts was found to improve service accessibility and inclusion.

Barriers of compliance:

Respondents submitted that key barriers to compliance by NPBs include poor awareness (especially among smaller or voluntary organisations), legal ambiguities, gaps in statutory frameworks (for example, the absence of mandatory Equality Impact Assessments in England), insufficient EHRC enforcement due to lack of funding, vague guidance, and limited organisational capacity or resources to embed equality practices.

Enablers of compliance:

Respondents identified clear contractual requirements, active monitoring, and integration of equality into procurement processes as effective enablers of compliance. Additional enablers included targeted training on the PSED and Human Rights Act, strong commissioner-provider relationships, disaggregated data publication, and dedicated internal equality roles.

Effectiveness of enforcement:

Enforcement mechanisms were widely viewed as weak. Respondents submitted that oversight was limited, breaches of duty were rarely challenged, and judicial review was often inaccessible due to cost and complexity. Respondents reported underuse of EHRC powers and blurred accountability between public and private bodies delivering public services. Some also raised concerns about quasi-public bodies using public funds to contest equality claims which could discourage whistleblowing and legal challenges.

Suggested steps to facilitate compliance:

Respondents made a series of recommendations aimed at improving compliance, including updating sector-specific guidance, strengthening enforcement and access to redress, and embedding PSED in procurement through mandatory EIAs and contract clauses. Respondents also called for improved training and support for smaller organisations, greater data transparency (including workforce reporting and annual objectives), and a shift towards an outcomes-based approach. Additional proposals included aligning with international human rights standards, prioritising vulnerable sectors (care homes, prisons, special schools, and other sectors where individuals have low choice and high vulnerability), and applying financial controls to ensure accountability and value for money in publicly funded services.

Creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment

Creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment:

Respondents submitted evidence on a range of employer-led actions to prevent or reduce workplace sexual harassment. Respondents detailed that effective approaches included accessible and confidential reporting systems, standalone sexual harassment policies with clear procedures and disciplinary measures, regular and trauma-informed training, visible leadership commitment, and risk-based assessments for specific roles and contexts. However, evidence on implementation challenges were also submitted. These included overuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), lack of legal requirements for risk assessments, underreporting, overgeneralised training, normalised inappropriate workplace cultures, limited leadership accountability, and a lack of monitoring and evidence. Recommendations included legally mandating sexual harassment policies, establishing independent reporting channels for large employers, strengthening leadership accountability, improving data transparency, and providing tailored guidance for organisations of different sizes and sectors.

Scope of protections against sexual harassment for volunteers:

Respondents submitted evidence on whether protections under the Equality Act 2010 should be extended to volunteers. Most respondents agreed that volunteers needed more protection. However, there was disagreement on whether protections should cover all volunteers. Respondents identified barriers to extending protections to volunteers, including a lack of legal definition of volunteers, potential administrative burdens, legal liability, and risks of over-regulation or blurring distinctions between volunteering and employment. In addition to amending the Equality Act 2010 to explicitly cover volunteers, recommendations included clear guidance and training for organisations, proportionate regulatory measures, flexible implementation, consultation with smaller organisations, and updates to the EHRC guidance.  Existing safeguards for volunteers that were also identified by respondents include organisational policies and sector-led initiatives, and legal protections such as health and safety or whistleblowing legislation. 

Other steps to prevent workplace sexual harassment:

Respondents submitted evidence on broader government actions to improve accountability and protection against workplace sexual harassment. Suggestions included mechanisms to improve public accountability, involvement of support services that cater to diverse populations, and greater involvement of trade unions in promoting safer workplace culture. Respondents also gave evidence on current gaps in legislation, such as limited protections for freelancers and third-party harassment. Other challenges included lack of visible consequences for employers, tribunal processes which could be retraumatising to victims, unclear definitions of ‘reasonable steps’, and under-resourcing of enforcement bodies such as the EHRC. Recommendations for government reforms included clearer regulatory guidance, mandatory publication of disaggregated harassment data, and national safety standards. Recommendations for legal reforms included introducing new protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 to extend protections, stronger EHRC enforcement powers, and replicating international models.

Implementing the Socio-Economic Duty (SED)

Scotland and Wales statutory implementation:

Respondents described how public bodies in Scotland and Wales implemented Socio-Economic Duty (SED) through mechanisms such as strategic planning, procurement, and impact assessments. While some evidence showed improvements in service design and targeted support, others highlighted inconsistent application, limited engagement, and weak evaluation. Factors that facilitated implementation included the statutory basis of the SED, integration into existing strategic planning, backing from political leaders, access to relevant data, civil society participation, and consistency with wider anti-poverty initiatives. Barriers to implementation included inconsistent interpretation, weak enforcement, limited outcome tracking, and duplication with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). Recommendations for future implementation included ensuring legal enforceability, providing structured practical guidance on applying the SED, securing leadership buy-in, resourcing implementation adequately, and embedding the SED into combined impact assessments.

England voluntary adoption:

Respondents provided evidence that a growing number of English public bodies had voluntarily adopted the SED or incorporated socio-economic considerations into decision-making. However, evidence suggested implementation was often inconsistent or seen as symbolic, with limited evidence of evaluation, transparency, or measurable outcomes. Factors that facilitated adoption included political and organisational leadership commitment, integration into existing processes (such as Equality Impact Assessments and procurement), use of socio-economic background data, participatory approaches involving lived experience, and regional collaboration. Barriers that hindered adoption included the absence of statutory guidance and enforcement, weak monitoring mechanisms, poor data infrastructure, inconsistent definitions, and limited participation due to digital exclusion, geographic isolation, and low confidence among disadvantaged groups. Recommendations included statutory commencement of the SED in England, clearer national guidance with standardised indicators, stronger data systems, and participatory engagement. Respondents also called for co-production with affected communities and integration of socio-economic analysis into procurement, budgeting, and governance, alongside structural reforms to improve transparency, accountability, and long-term impact.

1. Introduction and methodology

1.1 Background and objectives 

This report presents the findings of the Equality Law Call for Evidence (CfE), launched on 7 April 2025 for 12 weeks by the Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO). It sought evidence and views on a number of areas of equality policy to identify barriers to opportunity and seek expert opinions on how to overcome these barriers. It invited views from individuals and organisations with a wide range of perspectives at this early stage, including academics, employers, civil society and public bodies. The CfE consisted of 15 closed questions, 31 open‑text questions and 5 demographic questions which sought evidence across 6 policy areas:

• making the right to equal pay effective and addressing pay discrimination
• improving pay transparency
• strengthening protection against combined discrimination
• ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is met by everyone exercising public functions
• creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment
• commencing the Socio‑Economic Duty (SED)

Fortia Insight, an independent research and evaluation consultancy, were commissioned by the government to analyse the responses to this CfE to produce a comprehensive summary of evidence and views submitted. The report provides an in-depth overview of key findings emerging from responses to the CfE. 

In total, the CfE received 176 responses: 101 via SmartSurvey and 75 by email. After removing duplicates and ineligible submissions, 147 responses were analysed. Over half of these (59%) were submissions from organisations, with 19% representing individuals, 14% academics or researchers, and 8% ‘other’. 

Among the organisational responses:

• 52% from civil society organisations
• 17% from employee representatives
• 12% from large public authorities
• 10% from employer representatives
• 5% from large enterprise
• 2% from small public authorities
• 2% from small and medium enterprise (SMEs)

Please be aware that all submitted evidence has been reported as it was presented, including where referenced evidence was not provided. Where available, links to supporting evidence have been included in this report. However, evidence has not been independently verified by the research team. All evidence should, therefore, be considered and used with caution.

1.2 Methodology 

1.2.1 CfE scope, structure and format

The CfE was open from 7 April 2025 until 30 June 2025, and consisted of 15 closed questions, 31 open‑text questions and 5 demographic questions. Each of the 6 policy areas included a background summary on the topic and then began with a screening question asking whether the respondent had relevant evidence. If they answered “yes” they were prompted to complete one or more open questions – otherwise, they skipped to the next section. Because questions were optional, some respondents did not answer the initial closed screening question for the section but still answered the follow up open questions to provide evidence. Respondents could choose which equality law areas to submit evidence to and did not have to submit evidence for all areas. 

Questions were broken down as such: 

• making the right to equal pay effective and addressing pay discrimination: 6 closed questions and 13 open-text questions
• improving pay transparency – 3 closed questions and 4 open-text questions
• strengthening protection against combined discrimination – 1 closed question and 6 open-text questions
• ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is met by everyone exercising public functions: 1 closed question and 1 open-text question
• creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment: 3 closed questions and 4 open-text question
• commencing the Socio‑Economic Duty (SED): 1 closed question and 3 open-text questions^{[footnote 1]}

Respondents were asked to submit ‘evidence’ which was defined as:

• a written summary by the respondent of published research or evidence
• unpublished research or data analysis within an organisation
• examples of best practice or good practice
• examples of practice that could be improved

It was made clear in the CfE scope that ‘evidence’ did not include: 

• external links to sources provided by respondents to research, evidence, or case studies, for example journal articles, statistics, academic papers, and media sources

A total of 176 responses were received, but due to the specialised nature of the CfE, the number of responses in each equality law area was smaller. See both individual sections and Annex C for a breakdown of responses by equality law area.

Respondents could complete a SmartSurvey questionnaire, submit evidence via email, or send a hard‑copy response. A full list of the CfE questions is included in Annex A. Accessible formats of the CfE were offered, including British Sign Language and easy‑read materials. Respondents could respond to all sections but were given the option to only answer the sections relevant to their expertise. They could also provide more than one response if contributing on behalf of different organisations (Equality law call for evidence - GOV.UK). A full list of the CfE questions is included in Annex A. 

1.2.2 Data processing

Responses from Smart Survey, and those sent by email and post, were merged into a single, final dataset combining all responses to the CfE. Responses received by email or post were reviewed by officials in the OEO to anonymise any personal data and then sent over to Fortia Insight for manual entry into the final dataset before analysis, alongside responses submitted through the online platform. All responses were treated equally regardless of how they were submitted. 

As a part of routine data cleaning, the research team manually reviewed all responses against inclusion criteria, and screened for duplication, coordinated campaigns, and inappropriate context. No duplicate or campaign responses were identified. Evidence was included if it:

• summarised published research or provided unpublished data, organisational learning, or in-house research
• offered examples of good or poor practice in relation to equality law
• described lived experience linked to systems, enablers, barriers or outcomes^{[footnote 2]}

Items were excluded if they:

• consisted solely of external links or attachments not quoted or summarised by the respondent
• contained tables or figures with no accompanying text (these were stored separately for reference)
• were offensive, discriminatory or wholly irrelevant to equality law
• comprised unsubstantiated political commentary or personal attacks

Since respondents had the option to respond via an email inbox, when additional documents to the question responses were attached in the response, only documents within the above scope were analysed. Where a submission contained inappropriate language but still offered relevant evidence, offensive terms were redacted and the substantive content retained. Supplementary documents attached to emails were logged separately – only the main response was coded. All exclusions were recorded in an ‘ineligible’ register with the response ID, respondent type, reason for exclusion, and any comments.

Submissions were screened for duplication and coordination. One respondent provided feedback via both SmartSurvey and email. Both submissions were retained as they differed. In 2 instances, identical files were submitted twice by email, and only one copy of each was kept. Additionally, a respondent submitted its response twice, one submission was excluded.  A Python-based text-similarity check, applying a 90% similarity threshold, was used to detect duplicate, template or campaign responses. No campaigns were identified. Linked submissions from the same respondent were flagged in the dataset.

1.2.3 Respondent type 

In total, after data cleaning, the CfE received 147 valid responses: 73 via SmartSurvey and 74 by email. The analysed responses comprised: 

59% (87) of responses identified themselves as organisations.

This included 45 civil society organisations, 15 employee representatives, 10 large public authorities, 9 employer representatives, and 8 who identified as ‘other’, including large enterprises, small public authorities, and Small or Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

19% (28) of responses identified themselves as individuals.

Only a small number of respondents provided demographic details – therefore, no meaningful analysis by sex, disability or ethnicity was possible.

• 19 respondents disclosed their sex: 17 female, 2 male.
• 10 respondents provided ethnicity details.
• all other demographic options had 2 or fewer responses.
• for question 5 (disability or long-term illness), the highest response count was 10 for any one option, with most other options recording 1 to 2 responses

14% (20) of responses identified themselves as academics or researchers.

8% (12) of responses identified themselves as ‘other’, including a mix of individuals, groups, and organisations.  

For more information on categorisation of these categories, please see section 1.2.4 below. 

1.2.4. Approach to quantitative analysis

The quantitative analysis summarised patterns in the closed questions. After cleaning the dataset, simple descriptive statistics were used to calculate the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option. Where possible, responses were grouped into organisations versus individuals, and organisational responses were further classified (civil society, employee representative, public authority, employer representative and other).  

Not all responses included structured respondent information. Submissions sent by email did not always specify the respondent type. For these, the research team assigned a respondent type based on the organisation’s name, website, or stated purpose. We used the following categories to group responses for analysis:

• civil society organisation (CSO): charities, campaigns, advocacy groups, and non-profits working on equality or social justice issues
• academic and research: universities, research institutes, or academics as individuals
• employee representative: trade unions and professional associations representing workers
• employer representative: industry bodies or associations representing employers
• large public authority (250+): local or regional public bodies with more than 250 employees (regulators, local authorities)
• small public authority (<250): smaller public sector bodies below this threshold
• other: organisations that do not fit the above categories (for example, consultancies)

The analysis of demographics was limited. Only 19 respondents disclosed their sex and very few provided disability or ethnicity information. Annex C includes tables and charts with the available response rates and demographics. 

1.2.5 Approach to qualitative analysis

The qualitative analysis used a structured thematic approach. Responses to the open-text questions were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) 6 phase model of thematic analysis combined with a hybrid deductive–inductive coding method (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2007). A deductive coding framework was developed and refined. The framework was based on the CfE questions and adjusted after an initial literature review. Each equality law area was reviewed by a lead researcher.

Microsoft 365 Copilot supported the coding process. It was used to generate draft summaries. All outputs were manually checked and corrected by the research team. Themes were added inductively where new issues emerged. Evidence from individuals and organisations were analysed separately. Findings are presented using consistent terms:  

• “a few” for fewer than 25% of those responding to a question
• “some” or “several” for between 25% and 50%
• “majority” for between 50% and 75%
• “most” for over 75%

The ranges vary by question as the distribution of themes across responses can differ substantially. For example, some questions have a smaller number of prominent themes in responses, while other questions have many different themes mentioned by respondents.

In the qualitative analysis, alongside the objective reporting of submitted evidence, the research team sought to capture both lived experience evidence and appropriately reflect the full range of emotions, views, and perceptions expressed within the CfE responses, where appropriate.

1.2.6 Limitations 

While the quantitative and qualitative analysis presented in the report aimed to capture the broad range of views and perspectives across submitted responses, there are a number of potential limitations to be considered:

Respondents often conflate pay gap reporting (including the Gender Pay Gap) with equal pay and pay transparency measures aimed at identifying pay discrimination (mainly pay audits). However, they are very different. Please see the below definitions for further clarification. 

The equal pay regime prohibits pay discrimination based on sex where this relates to contractual pay matters. It requires that women and men receive equal pay for equal work, work rated as equivalent, or work of equal value. This applies to all contractual pay and benefits, including basic pay, bonuses, overtime, and pension benefits. The right to equal pay is set out in the Equality Act 2010. 

A pay audit (a pay transparency measure) is a preventative action that the employer undertakes to establish if any employees are being paid differently for ‘equal work’ (work that equal pay law classes as the same, similar, equivalent or of equal value).

Pay gap reporting (such as gender pay gap) is where the employer provides company level average pay data disaggregated by sex (or ethnicity, or disability). In the UK, it is mandatory for companies with 250 or more employees to publish their gender pay gap annually.^{[footnote 3]}

While equal pay issues may contribute to a pay gap, having a gap is not unlawful. Instead, it often illustrates where specific groups may cluster in sectors, occupations, or seniority levels.^{[footnote 4]} 

While pay gap reporting also seems on the surface to have similarities to a pay audit, pay gap reporting provides a high-level snapshot and broad calculation of the difference in average earnings between groups, while an equal pay audit is a detailed investigation comparing the pay of individuals in comparable roles (often involving job evaluations), to ensure that individuals performing equal work receive equal pay.^{[footnote 5]} Pay gap reporting often indicates the extent to which one group is concentrated in lower-paying roles than another, while pay audits uncover direct or indirect pay discrimination in specific jobs or grades. 

Gender pay gap reporting is often used as an outcome measure to show the effectiveness of other pay transparency measures. While there are limitations to using this as an outcome measure, it provides the best evidence available to date and should be considered with caution.

In the interest of transparency, within this report, we will still report the evidence that has been submitted on pay gap reporting where relevant in both the Equal Pay and Pay Transparency sections despite this conflation. However, this evidence should be considered with caution and within the context of these definitions.  

Evidence submitted has not been validated or fact checked. Evidence should, therefore, be used with caution as it may be biased or inaccurate. Furthermore, lived experience evidence and shared views from respondents should be treated as the subjective views or experiences of respondents alone, rather than as factual information. Please be aware that the evidence submitted has been reported as it was presented, including where referenced evidence has not been provided. Where available, links to supporting evidence have been included in this report.

Self-selection bias. The respondents to the CfE were self-selecting and provided responses based on their awareness of the CfE seeking evidence. Since respondents chose to participate, the overall evidence base may over-represent those with strong views or vested interests. This means that they are unlikely to be representative of the broader population or all organisations. It also means that the submitted evidence may not encapsulate all available evidence. 

Official organisation responses. The research team could not verify whether all responses identifying as organisations were submitted in an official capacity. 

Direct responses to questions. Some responses did not directly address or relate to the questions set out in the CfE (which are the focus for this report, including the qualitative analysis sections). 

Limited demographic data. Only a small number of respondents provided information on their sex, disability or ethnicity. This limited the scope for demographic analysis. 

Geographic ambiguity. In the SED strand, some responses referred to local practice without naming a region or nation, which may have led to misclassification when distinguishing between devolved and non‑devolved contexts.

Despite these limitations, the mixed‑methods approach provided a systematic and transparent analysis of the evidence. The findings should be read as an informed summary of the views and experiences of those who responded.

1.2.7 Report structure

The report is organised by policy area. Each chapter begins with a short introduction to the relevant legal context. Evidence is then presented thematically. Section headings reflect the CfE questions and issues raised by respondents. Illustrative examples are used to support the findings. Divergent views are highlighted where relevant. Further detail is provided in the annexes, which set out:

• the full list of questions (Annex A)
• the Socio-Economic Duty framework (Annex B)
• response rates and demographics (Annex C) 
• methodological notes (Annex D)
• full list of acronyms and abbreviations (Annex E)

The following chapters provide an overview of the quantitative results to the closed-format questions, as well as key themes that emerged from the qualitative results from the open-format free-text questions. All percentages relate to the total number of valid responses per question.

Please be aware that this report is a summary of the evidence submitted by respondents. Therefore, any recommendations cited in this report are those of the respondents, not of the government.

2. Equal pay

2.1 Key findings 

2.1.1 Prevalence and patterns of pay discrimination

Pay discrimination was reported across sex, race, and disability, but most evidence related to broader inequalities which would be unlikely to be considered unlawful under the current legal framework. Respondents gave evidence that pay discrimination occurs on the basis of sex, race, and disability in England, Scotland and Wales. The majority cited published statistics and internal workforce data showing differences in pay. In a few cases, respondents submitted lived experience evidence of pay differences between similar jobs that may fall within the scope of equal pay protections under the Equality Act 2010. While these examples may indicate potentially unlawful pay discrimination, where unequal pay for equal work could be legally actionable if a valid comparator exists, lived experience examples have not been verified for illegality and should be reported under the appropriate avenues.

However, most submissions described broader disparities shaped by structural factors, such as occupational segregation, perceived value of certain roles, and lack of flexible working. These are not currently recognised as unlawful pay discrimination under the existing legal framework. Several respondents also gave evidence that disabled and ethnic minority workers appeared to face multiple disadvantages, including exclusion from performance-related pay and limited progression. A few respondents also believed that legal frameworks do not adequately capture intersectional discrimination.

Respondents described a range of factors that helped identify and address pay disparities. These included:

• the use of internal workforce data, published statistics, and union surveys
• applying socio-economic analysis in purchasing and budget-setting
• leadership commitment to transparency and honesty about pay equity

However, it is important to note that pay gap reporting (for example, gender pay gap data), while frequently cited as evidence, does not provide evidence of, or a lack of, equal pay for equal work. Pay gap reporting instead provides a high-level snapshot of average pay differences between groups and does not assess whether individuals doing equal work are paid equally. However, some respondents believe that pay gap reporting may be an indicator for potential unequal pay. Please consider pay gap related evidence with caution and see the limitations (section 1.2.6) for further information.

Respondents also identified challenges that made it harder to prevent, or respond to, pay discrimination. These included limited access to comparable data, lack of pay transparency, exclusion from job evaluation schemes, weak enforcement processes, and complicated procedures. A few respondents described emotional and financial burdens associated with bringing claims, especially for disabled and migrant workers.

Respondents called for:

• clearer guidance on equal pay and how discrimination law applies to pay
• clearer law, especially around reasonable adjustments and the legal rules about who individuals can compare themselves to in equal pay claims
• improved data collection and greater pay transparency
• stronger enforcement and changes to job evaluation schemes

These changes, they reported, could prevent disadvantages for groups at risk of pay discrimination. This includes disabled workers, ethnic minority employees, people with caring responsibilities, neurodivergent workers, and those with English as a second language. Respondents also asked for better support for claimants, including access to legal aid and simpler tribunal processes.

2.1.2 Creation of effective equal pay rights

Respondents submitted evidence that the current legal framework does not provide the same protections for race and disability pay discrimination as it does for sex pay discrimination. The majority of respondents supported extending equal pay rights to race and disability but believed that legal changes are needed first, to reduce complication and risk. Respondents described procedural barriers, lack of legal clarity, and limited awareness of rights as key challenges. Several respondents also reported that disabled workers are often penalised financially when reasonable adjustments are made, and that some employers lack clarity on how adjustments affect pay.

Respondents described existing legal tools and workplace policies that help support equal pay, such as automatic equality clauses and extended time limits for bring claims to Employment Tribunals, union involvement in supporting claims, and the ability to use statistical evidence without proving discriminatory intent. They also identified challenges that make it harder to establish effective equal pay rights. These included lack of comparable data, legal uncertainty about adjustments and pay, limited access to legal advice, and fear of retaliation. Some respondents also described emotional harm and financial burden, especially for disabled and freelance workers.

Recommendations included:

• enabling equal value comparisons for race and disability claims
• clarifying contractual terms to support adjustments  
• simplifying procedural rules
• reinstating the Statutory Discrimination Questionnaire for equal pay claims
• expanding access to legal aid
• publishing clearer guidance on reasonable adjustments and pay

Respondents also called for a phased implementation approach and sector-specific support.

2.1.3 Pay discrimination experienced by outsourced workers

Respondents gave evidence that outsourced workers are more likely to be women, ethnic minority workers, disabled people, and migrants, and they often receive worse terms than in-house staff. Several respondents described how outsourcing can lead to inequality, particularly in low-paid sectors such as cleaning, catering, and care. They believed that current legal frameworks stop outsourced workers from comparing their pay with directly employed staff, limiting access to equal pay protections.

Respondents described actions that helped highlight and address disparities. These included union led campaigns to bring outsourced workers in-house, the use of pay gap reporting to expose differences in pay, and leadership commitments to fair procurement practices, particularly in the public sector. They also identified challenges that made it harder to address pay discrimination. These included exclusion from complaint procedures, lack of comparable data, visa insecurity for migrant workers, fear of retaliation, and legal separation between employers. Respondents also described outdated legal definitions and limited enforcement processes.

Recommendations included:

• clarifying rules about who individuals can compare pay with
• enabling comparisons under the “single source” principle
• linking liability to principal employers where they control pay and conditions 
• integrating socio-economic analysis into public purchasing
• clearer definitions of outsourcing and stronger protections for outsourced workers

2.1.4 Enforcement of the equal pay scheme

Most respondents gave evidence that they viewed that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had not effectively used its enforcement powers in relation to equal pay. They cited limited strategic litigation and lack of EHRC action on ongoing pay differences. While some acknowledged the EHRC’s legal powers, most described it as under-resourced, reactive, and lacking strategic focus. Individual claimants, employee representatives, and CSOs, described tribunal processes as slow, complicated, and inaccessible.

Respondents submitted that most equal pay claims are withdrawn or settled before reaching a hearing. While settlement is common, views on its impact varied. Some respondents described settlement as a practical and cost-effective outcome, especially where claims are lengthy or complex. Others submitted that settlements can reflect the emotional, financial, or procedural burden placed on claimants. For example, individuals may drop viable claims or accept lower settlements due to stress, lack of legal advice, or fear of retaliation. A few respondents suggested that settlements could be strengthened by requiring employers to conduct pay audits or publish data. They believed this could help address wider issues and prevent recurrence.

Respondents described factors that support enforcement, such as the EHRC’s legal powers, union-led group claims, and the potential for strategic litigation to drive systemic change. They also identified challenges including limited EHRC capacity, lack of awareness of legal rights, and procedural delays that make it difficult for individuals to pursue claims. Several respondents submitted that current rules only allow individuals to bring equal pay claims. This prevents trade unions and charities from taking legal action in their own name on behalf of workers, although they can support individuals. Respondents believed this restricts the ability of organisations to take direct action to address equal pay injustices. 

Recommendations included:

• creating a dedicated Equal Pay Enforcement Unit 
• expanding standing to allow trade unions and charities to bring claims
• establishing specialist tribunal panels 
• improving access to legal support
• clearer guidance on enforcement powers and stronger accountability procedures, including mechanisms to hold employers responsible for pay disparities, ensure transparency in settlement outcomes, and enable regulators to monitor and enforce compliance effectively

2.2 Introduction

This chapter sets out evidence given in response to Questions 6 to 24 of the Call for Evidence (CfE). These questions asked how the right to equal pay is working in practice across England, Scotland and Wales. Responses included a range of evidence, such as published statistics, internal workforce data, legal analysis, and lived experience accounts. 

Definition

The right to equal pay is set out in the Equality Act 2010, which built on the Equal Pay Act 1970. It requires that women and men receive equal pay for equal work, work rated as equivalent, or work of equal value. This applies to all contractual pay and benefits, including basic pay, bonuses, overtime, and pension benefits.

The equal pay regime (as outlined above) prohibits pay discrimination based on sex where this relates to contractual pay matters. At present, if someone has suffered pay discrimination on the basis of another protected characteristic, including race or disability, they are able to bring a claim of direct or indirect discrimination against their employer. 

At present, enforcing the equal pay scheme under the Equality Act 2010 will in almost all cases require that individual employees themselves bring equal pay claims in the Employment Tribunal. Individuals can bring claims if they believe they are not receiving equal pay compared to an actual comparator of the opposite sex doing equal work. 

The EHRC can also enforce equal pay as the body responsible for enforcing the Equality Act 2010.

The government has committed to:

• making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people
• establishing an Equal Pay Regulatory and Enforcement Unit
• ensuring that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid their equal pay obligations

The chapter is structured around 4 thematic areas:

• prevalence and patterns of pay discrimination (questions 6 to 8)
• creation of effective equal pay rights (questions 9 to 14)
• pay discrimination experienced by outsourced workers (questions 15 to 20)
• enforcement of the equal pay scheme (question 21 to 24)

Each section begins with a short summary of key findings, followed by definitions and context. The evidence is organised under headings that match the CfE question numbers. 

2.3 Prevalence and patterns of pay discrimination (questions 6 to 8)

Question 6. Do you have evidence about the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of existing measures in reducing pay discrimination? [Yes, No]

Question 7. What evidence is there on the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales?

Question 8. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of existing measures in England, Scotland and Wales in reducing pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex?

Definition

Pay discrimination refers to differences in pay that arise due to unlawful treatment based on protected characteristics such as race, disability, or sex.

Unequal pay refers to differences in contractual pay between women and men doing equal work, work rated as equivalent, or work of equal value. This is prohibited under the equal pay regime in the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits pay discrimination based on sex where this relates to contractual pay matters. 

Unequal pay outcomes refer to wider patterns of disadvantage in pay that may not breach the law. These include undervaluation of roles or exclusion from job evaluation schemes. They reflect structural inequality but are not necessarily discriminatory or unlawful.

Pay gaps refer to average differences in pay between groups (for example, by sex, race, or disability). Pay gaps do not automatically indicate unequal pay or discrimination. They may be influenced by job type, working hours, progression, or other factors.

2.3.1 Evidence of ongoing disparities (questions 6 and 7) 

A total of 68 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed Question 6: “Do you have evidence about the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of existing measures in reducing pay discrimination?”. 

Not all respondents provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 68 responses:

• 60% (41) were submitted by organisations
• 15% (10) were from individuals
• 10% (7) were from academics or researchers
• 15% (10) selected the ‘other’ category

Of the 41 organisational respondents:      

• 41% (17) were civil society organisations
• 32% (13) were employee representatives    
• 11% (4) were large public authorities 
• 7% (3) were employer representatives 
• 7% (3) were large enterprises
• 2% (1) was a small public authority

Respondents submitted evidence that pay discrimination remains an issue across sex, race, and disability. A total of 44 respondents provided evidence on the overall prevalence of pay discrimination. Submissions came from a range of sectors and respondent types, including CSOs, employee representatives, public authorities, and large enterprises. While respondents frequently cited gender, ethnicity, and disability pay gap statistics as evidence of inequality, it is important to note that pay gaps do not automatically indicate unlawful pay discrimination. Pay gap reporting provides average differences in earnings between groups and is not a measure of equal pay or pay transparency. Equal pay refers specifically to differences in contractual pay for equal work, which may be challenged under the Equality Act 2010 if a valid comparator exists.

Some respondents submitted evidence of unequal pay for equal work. This included examples where pay differences were identified between people doing similar jobs, which may fall within the scope of equal pay protections under the Equality Act 2010. These submissions were based on internal workforce data, union casework, and lived experience. For example, one employee representative reported that women and ethnic minority workers were paid less than colleagues in equivalent roles, particularly in male-dominated sectors. A few respondents also described structural factors such as undervaluation of female-dominated roles and exclusion from job evaluation schemes, which they believed made it harder to challenge unequal pay.

Several respondents submitted that pay gaps are often shaped by factors such as job type, working hours, progression opportunities, and occupational segregation. A few respondents believed that where pay differences between similar jobs are identified, these may indicate unequal pay and could be challenged under the equal pay regime. 

Several respondents submitted pay gap data. Published statistics included:

• a UK-wide gender pay gap of 14.3% for all employees as reported by Office for National Statistics (ONS) (Gender pay gap in the UK, 2023)
• a 14.4% gender pay gap in the NHS, according to NHS Digital (Staff Earnings Estimates, June 2022)
• an 11.3% mean ethnicity pay gap reported by Solicitors Regulation Authority (Ethnicity Pay Gap Report, 2024)

One CSO also cited a 12.7% disability pay gap by the ONS (Disability pay gaps in the UK, 2023). These figures reflect average differences in pay between groups and may be influenced by factors such as job type, working hours, and progression opportunities.

Several employee representatives submitted evidence of ongoing pay gaps and unequal pay affecting women, ethnic minority workers, and disabled people. One trade union drew on a survey of over 9,000 of its members, reporting significant pay gaps by sex, disability, and ethnicity, particularly in male-dominated sectors like aviation, energy, and IT. Another trade union submitted organisational evidence, based on a combination of published pay gap statistics from the ONS, longitudinal analysis of ethnicity pay gaps, and union casework, that women, ethnic minority workers, and disabled people are more likely to be in low-paid roles and may face unequal pay. The respondent also believed that structural factors such as short-term, casual or zero-hour contracts, and long-hours culture contribute to the undervaluation of traditionally female-dominated roles. While the submission included both statistical data and examples of unequal pay, it did not clearly distinguish between average pay gaps (which reflect broader workforce patterns) and unequal pay for equal work (which may be legally actionable under the Equality Act 2010).

A few other respondents also submitted evidence that some unexplained pay gaps may indicate potential pay discrimination. One academic respondent named multiple studies showing that around half of the disability pay gap and a similar proportion of the gender pay gap could not be explained by factors such as education, job type, or hours worked. These unexplained gaps were reported to be especially large among higher-paid workers and in performance-related pay roles. The respondent referenced studies by Jones and others (2006), Jones (2024), and Forth and Jones (2025), which found that unexplained gaps persist across sectors and rise with earnings, particularly in the private sector. While unobserved factors such as motivation or ability may play a role, the findings were presented as consistent with wage discrimination and hiring bias against disabled candidates. This was further supported by experimental evidence showing lower callback rates for disabled applicants in correspondence studies (Armenak and others, 2024).

Other respondents submitted similar evidence on ethnicity pay gaps. One academic respondent cited substantial unexplained wage gaps disadvantaging ethnic minority groups, particularly among higher earners. This evidence was drawn from a working paper by Phan, Jones, and Latreille (2022), which used employer–employee payroll data linked with census records for England and Wales. The study found that wage disparities occur predominantly within firms and are especially pronounced at the top of the earnings distribution, suggesting that firm-level gender pay gap reporting should be expanded to include ethnicity. A large public authority also reported that a portion of the ethnicity pay gap remains unexplained even after controlling for education and occupation, especially for Black African women. This was based on analysis by the Office for National Statistics, which found that median hourly earnings for Black Caribbean and Black African women were lower than for White British women, and that these gaps could not be fully explained by education, skills, or geography (ONS, Ethnicity pay gaps, UK: 2012 to 2022).

A CSO submitted analysis from the Fawcett Society’s Equal Pay Day 2024 report, which found that 63% of the hourly gender pay gap could not be explained by standard variables and suggested that sex-based pay discrimination may be a contributing factor. Their response also highlighted the structural drivers to gender pay gaps such as different jobs for different groups, perceived value of female-dominated roles, and recruitment practices such as asking about salary history. Respondents argued that such differences in pay between people doing similar jobs, for example, where women or ethnic minority workers are paid less than colleagues in equivalent roles, may fall within the scope of equal pay law, provided comparator-based claims are possible.

2.3.2 Sectoral, structural and situational differences (question 7)

Pay discrimination was reported to vary by sector, job type, and employment status. Submissions from 37 respondents, including individuals, academics, CSOs, and trade unions, described how workplace settings and employment arrangements shape unequal pay outcomes. Respondents gave evidence that occupational segregation, performance-related pay systems, and insecure contracts contribute to inequalities in high-paying roles, freelance and casual work, and sectors with limited progression pathways. Respondents described these patterns as reflecting unequal pay outcomes, where some groups earn less overall despite having equal contractual terms.

Respondents submitted evidence that undervaluation and structural barriers contribute to unequal pay outcomes. Most respondents gave examples of how undervaluation, lack of comparators, insecure contracts, and limited progression pathways contribute to unequal pay. These issues were reported across sectors including care, retail, creative industries, non-profit organisations, and the private sector. Respondents believed these problems were most common in roles with low pay, limited flexibility, or poor transparency. The evidence included published research, union casework, and internal organisational data.

Some respondents reported that undervaluation of certain roles creates barriers to enforcing equal pay rights. Several submissions described how roles such as care, cleaning, and retail are sometimes excluded from job evaluation schemes. This means they are not formally assessed for skill, effort, or responsibility, making it harder to compare them to other jobs. Respondents also believed these roles often lack clear comparators – jobs with similar duties in the same organisation – so it is difficult to show they involve equal work or work of equal value. 

One trade union gave the example of cleaners and carers being treated as “non-comparable,” even when their duties overlap with other roles. Cleaners, for instance, may work independently, manage hygiene standards, and perform physically demanding tasks, yet are not compared to maintenance staff who do similar work. Carers may handle medication, provide emotional support, and manage complex needs, but are excluded from comparisons with healthcare assistants. Respondents submitted that this exclusion reflects how job evaluation schemes undervalue these roles, making it harder to bring equal pay claims, even when the work is equivalent.

A few respondents submitted evidence from the cultural and creative sectors, highlighting multiple barriers to equal pay. One respondent representing a large public authority submitted detailed evidence on pay inequality in the cultural and creative sectors. They cited published government data from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Economic Estimates: Earnings and Employment in DCMS Sectors, 2023), which showed a gender pay gap of 8% in the audio-visual sector and 29.6% in video games. The submission also drew on research from the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (Good Work Review, 2023), which found that ethnic minority workers fare worse on job quality measures, disabled workers report high levels of pay dissatisfaction (42%), and working-class creatives tend to earn less. The same respondent also cited evidence commissioned by Arts Council England (Making a Shift, 2017), which highlighted barriers for disabled people entering and progressing in the arts workforce, many linked to pay. 

In the non-profit sector, one CSO submitted evidence of funding disparities affecting pay. The respondent claimed that women in the non-profit sector are paid less than men, with even wider gaps for “marginalised” women, a term they used to describe women facing disadvantage due to gender, race, and social background. They linked these disparities to underfunding of women-led and survivor-led organisations, and referenced ONS data, though no specific year or source was provided.

A few respondents submitted evidence of structural barriers in high-paying roles and private sector settings. One academic referenced 4 studies in total, on the impact of gender pay gap reporting laws. They suggested these studies show that men are more likely than women to be hired into higher-paid roles, even within the same organisation. This pattern, referred to as a “hiring gap”, means that men and women may be offered different roles or pay levels at the point of recruitment, despite having similar qualifications. The respondent cited pay gap reporting laws as useful in highlighting these disparities.

One respondent submitted both published and unpublished evidence from the Greater London Authority (GLA). They cited the GLA’s unpublished internal analysis, based on ONS 2023 data, estimating that if degree-educated ethnic minority workers across Greater London were employed at comparable occupational levels, such as managerial, professional and technical roles, with similar levels of responsibility, skill and pay grade to White Londoners, their aggregate annual earnings would be £6.3 billion higher. This estimate reflects a collective comparison between all ethnic minority groups and all White groups in London, not just those employed by the GLA. The respondent attributed this wage penalty to occupational segregation, unequal progression, and what they described as “systemic barriers to fair pay”, using the term to refer to structural obstacles that prevent equitable access to higher-paid roles and recognition for work of equal value. The respondent also referenced qualitative evidence from the GLA’s 2020 report titled Voices of the Underrepresented, showing that young Black men in the digital and construction industries reported being paid less than older White colleagues for performing the same tasks.

A few trade union respondents submitted evidence that job segregation and lack of flexibility contribute to unequal pay outcomes. One trade union cited unpublished research by UNISON and the Work Foundation (2023 to 2024), showing that disabled women are 2.2 times more likely than disabled men to be in insecure work. The respondent believed that limited access to flexible working and gendered job roles restrict progression and reinforce pay disparities.

Another trade union submitted evidence based on union casework involving nearly 100,000 workers. They reported that equal pay claims were more common in the public sector. This was not supported by quantitative data but was based on casework experience. The respondent believed public sector employers are subject to greater scrutiny and legal challenge. In contrast, they believed the private sector is less examined. This was explained as a lack of published research, fewer legal cases, and limited access to pay data, not necessarily fewer problems.

2.3.3 Differences by protected characteristic (question 7)

There were 51 responses describing how pay discrimination varies by protected characteristic. A few submissions described compounded disadvantage, where multiple characteristics interact to produce more severe pay inequality. Sectoral examples are referenced where relevant, but the focus of this section is on how protected characteristics shape pay outcomes across different settings.

This section includes respondent submissions that reference pay gap statistics (for example, gender, ethnicity, disability) as indicators of inequality. While pay gaps reflect average differences in earnings between groups, they do not necessarily indicate unlawful pay discrimination or unequal pay for equal work. These submissions have been included for transparency but should be interpreted with caution and in line with the definitions set out in section 1.2.6.

Sex: 

Sex-based pay discrimination was the most frequently reported protected characteristic in this section. This refers specifically to the evidence submitted and does not necessarily reflect the general prevalence of sex-based discrimination compared to ethnicity or disability in the wider population. A total of 47 respondents (the majority) submitted evidence that jobs commonly done by women, such as administrative, care, cleaning, and retail work, are paid less than male-dominated roles with similar skill levels. These male-dominated roles included maintenance, warehouse, and refuse work. Respondents believed that despite overlapping duties, female-dominated roles are often excluded from job evaluation schemes and lack clear comparators which makes it harder to bring equal pay claims for equal work or work of equal value. This was based on academic studies, union casework, and lived experience. These female-dominated roles were also described as undervalued and difficult to compare for equal pay purposes (see 2.2.2).

A majority of respondents reported that part-time work limits career progression for women. Examples from employee representatives and individual respondents provided evidence that part-time workers, mostly women, often face reduced responsibilities or exclusion from leadership programmes. These barriers were said to contribute to long-term disadvantage.

A few respondents linked sex-based pay discrimination to unpaid care responsibilities and pension inequality. A few respondents, including CSOs and academics, submitted qualitative evidence. This included narrative accounts and thematic summaries describing how fragmented work histories, caregiving roles, and exclusion from well-paid flexible work contribute to long-term disadvantage. Respondents believed that pension inequality is a consequence of structural inequalities, such as serial low pay and interrupted employment, rather than a direct result of unequal pay for equal work. 3 submissions linked lower pension provision to gendered patterns of work, including unpaid care responsibilities, fragmented employment histories, and serial low pay. These factors were believed to reduce National Insurance contributions and limit access to private savings, resulting in long-term disadvantage for women, particularly those returning from caregiving roles or working part-time.

One individual respondent submitted lived experience of sex-based pay discrimination in the construction industry. She reported that over a 30-year career in engineering and surveying, she consistently earned less than male colleagues. She said that in some instances, the gender pay gap reached 60%, and on average ranged between 30–50%. The respondent did not specify whether this referred to her own pay relative to male colleagues or to broader company or sector-level pay gaps, and did not specify current pay gap levels or provide comparative data but attributed the disparity directly to her sex. 

Race:

A majority of respondents gave evidence that ethnic minority workers faced barriers to progression leading to pay gaps. This was supported by initial findings submitted by one large public authority from its unpublished research. The respondent reported that degree-educated Black and ethnic minority workers are underrepresented in high-paid roles and overrepresented in low-paid sectors. Their submission highlighted occupational segregation in London as a key driver of pay disparities (see 2.2.2 for further sectoral examples). An employee representative also submitted evidence, drawn from casework and member testimony from the education sector, that Black teachers are often steered into pastoral or diversity roles without compensation, limiting progression. The respondent described a pattern in which Black teachers reported being “backed” for mid-level roles, “blocked” from senior leadership, and “burned” when promised promotions failed to materialise.

A single respondent submitted internal evidence that ethnicity pay gaps vary significantly between ethnic groups. Their submission reported a 4.6% gap in favour of White staff compared to Black or Black British staff, and a 34% gap in favour of Chinese staff compared to White staff. These figures are based on median basic pay across their workforce in England. This was presented as evidence that disparities are not uniform and that disaggregated data is essential to understanding the scale and nature of pay inequality.

Disability:

Several respondents described that disabled workers were reported to face exclusion from workplace systems and pay structures. Respondents described how disabled workers are often excluded from performance-related pay and face delays in receiving reasonable adjustments. One employee representative reported that disabled teachers are blocked from progressing to the Upper Pay Range due to sickness absence and discriminatory use of Performance-Related Pay (PRP). Another respondent believed that PRP schemes often fail to account for disability-related absence or adjustments, which can result in lower performance ratings and missed pay progression. An academic respondent noted that disabled workers are underrepresented in PRP-linked roles, particularly in the public sector, which may reflect broader patterns of occupational segregation. One CSO reported that the disability employment gap has remained around 30% for the past decade with 80% of this gap attributed to workplace barriers such as inaccessible environments and poor adjustments. This was submitted as internal analysis and not linked to a published source.

One academic respondent submitted quantitative analysis of the disability pay gap (DPG) and gender pay gap (GPG), drawing on multiple named studies. They suggested that the DPG and unexplained DPG have not narrowed since 2013 and they expressed the view that few employers engage in voluntary DPG reporting, with those that do often using inconsistent measures and definitions. This was not presented as direct evidence of ineffectiveness, but as a lack of measurable progress and limited external utility of current voluntary data. The respondent did not claim that DPG and GPG are equivalent in nature but argued that the observed impact of mandatory GPG reporting supports a similar case for disability pay transparency. They cited studies showing that mandatory GPG reporting contributed to narrowing gender pay gaps, including evidence from a natural experiment during the COVID-19 suspension period, where organizations that continued reporting had a 6% lower gap a year later.

One individual respondent described experience of underemployment linked to neurodivergence. The respondent reported being placed in a temporary admin role several grades below their previous experience when seeking work in a local authority because of their neurodivergence. The respondent argued that neurodivergent employees often face barriers in recruitment and employment, including a lack of reasonable adjustments, which in their view can lead to a pay disparity between those who are neurodivergent and neurotypical.

Intersectional:

A few trade unions and academics submitted evidence on intersectional or overlapping disadvantages. One employee representative submitted evidence that disabled ethnic minority workers are more likely to be in insecure work and face higher unemployment. This was based on union casework and cited statistics, rather than original research conducted by the respondent. 4 other submissions described how tribunal cases involving multiple protected characteristics are harder to win due to procedural barriers and lack of legal clarity. A few respondents also gave evidence that the Equality Act 2010 does not provide a distinct legal route for intersectional claims, requiring individuals to bring separate claims for each characteristic.

A single CSO also discussed intersectional disadvantage as it relates to Muslim women. Drawing on ONS census data (2021) and internal helpline casework, they reported that Muslim women aged 16–64 in England and Wales had an employment rate of 38%, compared to 66% for all women. They submitted evidence that Muslim women are more likely to be in low-paid roles and face barriers linked to gender, religion, and ethnicity. These included cultural stereotyping, lack of flexible working, and workplace discrimination. The respondent believed that anti-Muslim behaviours in the workplace are often poorly understood by employers, and that this includes microaggressions such as exclusion, stereotyping, or dismissive treatment. They also reported that existing guidance is inconsistently enforced, limiting redress. While this submission sits outside the scope of the equal pay provisions under the Equality Act 2010, it is included because it highlights how intersecting characteristics, including religion, gender, and ethnicity, contribute to unequal pay outcomes. The evidence reflects lived experience of exclusion and barriers to redress and helps illustrate gaps in the current legal framework that may affect access to “fair pay” protections.

2.3.4 Effectiveness of existing measures (question 8)

A total of 48 respondents provided evidence on how well current laws and policies are working to reduce pay discrimination based on race, disability, and sex across England, Scotland and Wales. The majority believed that progress has been slow, especially for race and disability.

Several respondents submitted evidence that enforcement of equal pay rights relies heavily on individuals bringing claims. A few respondents described the EHRC as having limited capacity to take legal action, citing resource constraints and a reactive enforcement model. Employment Tribunal processes were described as slow, complicated, and expensive. A large enterprise reported that some equal pay cases extended for more than a decade, with some claimants passing away prior to resolution. This was echoed in submissions on enforcement of the equal pay scheme (See section 2.5: Enforcement of the Equal Pay Scheme, for further evidence on enforcement challenges).

Several respondents discussed pay gap reporting alongside equal pay enforcement and pay transparency measures, sometimes without distinguishing between them. However, these are distinct concepts. Pay gap reporting provides a statistical overview of average earnings differences between groups and does not assess whether individuals doing equal work are paid equally. By contrast, equal pay audits involve detailed comparisons of pay for comparable roles and are used to identify unlawful pay discrimination.

Although pay gap reporting is distinct from equal pay and pay transparency measures aimed at identifying pay discrimination, many respondents nonetheless referenced it as evidence of inequality. Mandatory gender pay gap reporting was widely viewed as a constructive step towards greater openness, even though respondents acknowledged that it does not directly address pay outcomes or enforce equal pay rights. A few respondents noted that employers are not required to take action to close gaps, and that reporting alone does not resolve underlying disparities. They also highlighted limitations in how pay gap figures are calculated, often across broad job categories, which can mask differences between roles that are not like-for-like. For example, pay gap reporting may group all full-time employees together, even if they perform very different jobs with varying levels of responsibility. 

Respondents also submitted evidence on occupational segregation (the concentration of different groups in different types of work). Women were frequently cited as being overrepresented in lower-paid sectors and undervalued roles, such as care, retail, and administration. These structural patterns were described as contributing to unequal pay outcomes, including pay discrimination for work of equal value. Respondents from civil society organisations, academia, and trade unions noted that ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting remains limited, attributing this to its voluntary nature and the lack of penalties for non-compliance (see section 2.5: Enforcement of the Equal Pay Scheme).

Several respondents linked limited progression to broader structural disadvantage. These included inflexible working arrangements, undervaluation of part-time roles, and unequal access to leadership opportunities. A few submissions also emphasised that disparities may persist even where formal pay systems appear neutral. One large enterprise argued that pay gaps for disabled and ethnic minority workers were more likely to reflect disadvantages in recruitment and promotion rather than unequal pay for equal work. This interpretation was echoed by an academic contributor and an employee representative, who pointed to occupational segregation, limited promotion pathways, and inadequate reasonable adjustments as key drivers of inequality.

2.4 Making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people (questions 9 to 14)

Question 9. Do you have evidence about actions the government could take, and those it should avoid, to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people? [Yes, No]

Question 10. What evidence is there to establish the steps that should or should not be taken to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people?

Question 11. What evidence is there of the changes needed to make expanding the equal pay scheme to claims on the basis of race and disability effective, if this approach were taken?

Question 12. What evidence is there regarding any potential barriers that individuals could face in making equal pay claims and approaches to address these barriers?

Question 13. Do you have evidence about the way the law works regarding employer and employee rights and responsibilities in relation to pay when reasonable adjustments are made? [Yes, No]

Question 14. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of the law on employer and employee rights and responsibilities in relation to pay when reasonable adjustments are made?

Definition

Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals who experience pay discrimination on the basis of race or disability must bring claims under provisions relating to direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, or failure to make reasonable adjustments. These routes differ from the equal pay provisions, which apply only to sex-based pay discrimination.

Currently, the specific legal tests for equal pay (comparing ‘like work’, ‘work rated as equivalent’, or ‘work of equal value’) apply only to sex discrimination claims. These claims are usually heard in the Employment Tribunal and follow particular procedures.

2.4.1 Legal reform and extension of equal pay rights (questions 9 to 11)

A total of 66 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed Question 9:“Do you have evidence about actions the government could take, and those it should avoid, to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people?”. 

Not all respondents provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 66 responses:

• 61% (40) were submitted by organisations
• 14% (9) were from individuals
• 11% (7) were from academics or researchers
• 15% (10) selected the ‘other’ category

Of the 40 organisational respondents:

• 35% (14) were civil society organisations
• 28% (11) were employee representatives
• 18% (7) were employer representatives
• 8% (3) were large public authorities
• 8% (3) were large enterprises
• 3% (1) was a small public authority
• 3% (1) was a small to medium enterprise (SME)

The majority of respondents supported making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people (questions 10 and 11). This included all responses from large public authorities and large enterprises. CSOs and academic respondents also broadly supported the extension. CSOs often framed the effectiveness as necessary to address structural disadvantage and called for stronger enforcement, intersectional analysis, and clearer legal guidance. Academic respondents supported the effectiveness where it was accompanied by reforms to job evaluation schemes, legal definitions, and procedural clarity. Employee representatives were similarly supportive, citing their experience supporting equal pay claims and calling for simplified procedures, reinstatement of the Statutory Discrimination Questionnaire for equal pay claims, and improved access to legal advice.

Some employer representatives also supported extending equal pay audits or protections, for example, by calling for mandatory pay gap reporting or clearer guidance on material factor defences. However, views in this group were mixed. While a few supported reforms, others raised concerns about legal complexity, tribunal burden, and the suitability of equal pay law for addressing race and disability claims.

Across all respondent types, there was broad agreement that the current legal framework needs to change first. Without reform, respondents warned that extending the scheme could increase complication, delay, and legal risk. Specific proposals for reform, including changes to comparator rules, job evaluation schemes, tribunal procedures, and legal definitions, are summarised in section 2.3.1.2. This section summarises the advantages of the current equal pay scheme, concerns about employer avoidance, recommended reforms, and actions respondents advised against.

A few respondents, including those with legal expertise and experience supporting claimants, submitted evidence that the current equal pay framework offers several benefits that could improve access to justice if extended to race and disability claims. Specifically:

• ability to compare different jobs of equal value, helping challenge occupational segregation and undervaluation
• automatic equality clauses in contracts, which build in structural change
• longer time limits for bringing claims (6 months vs. 3 months for discrimination claims)
• permanent changes to contractual pay terms following successful claims
• use of statistical evidence without needing to prove intent to discriminate

Several submissions from CSOs, employer representatives, and academics gave evidence on potential risks in how employers might respond to legal reforms. They warned that poorly designed reforms could lead employers to move workers onto insecure contracts, avoid collecting ethnicity or disability pay data, or resist adjustments that affect pay comparisons. One academic respondent cautioned that employers may resist job redesign if they believe it could complicate equal pay comparisons or affect reporting metrics.

A total of 34 respondents proposed a range of legal and procedural changes to support any reform of the equal pay scheme. Respondents included individuals, CSOs, employee representatives, large enterprises, public authorities, academics, and employer representatives. There was broad support for making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people, provided suitable changes are made to the legal framework. Specifically:

• Enable equal value comparisons for race and disability claims: 4 respondents, including an individual, an academic contributor, an employee representative, and a large enterprise, gave evidence that this would help address undervaluation of work done by marginalised groups and allow comparisons between different jobs of equal value, even where the roles are not the same.
• Introduce permanent contractual changes to pay terms to embed structural reform: 3 respondents, including a large enterprise, a public authority, and an employee representative believed that permanent contractual changes could help address unequal pay outcomes. This refers to changes that alter the terms of employment going forward, such as updating salary bands, removing discretionary pay elements, or revising job evaluation outcomes. Respondents believed this approach would create lasting improvements, rather than relying on one-off compensation or settlements. 
• Simplify procedural rules and job evaluation requirements: 4 submissions from an individual, an academic contributor, and 2 employee representatives called for clearer definitions of “equal value”, reform of job evaluation schemes to avoid penalising disabled workers, and procedural changes to make claims more accessible.
• Improve tribunal processes and guidance: 2 respondents, one being an employer representative, proposed empowering judges to assess whether jobs are of equal value without relying solely on independent experts. They said this could reduce delays and improve consistency. Respondents also proposed professionalising the pool of independent experts and updating legal guidance to reflect disability-related adjustments (See section 2.3.3: Pay and Reasonable Adjustments, for further evidence on procedural complication).
• Support step changes to equal pay for race and disability: 3 respondents, including a CSO, a large public authority, and an employer representative recommended that any reform of equal pay rights for race and disability should be introduced gradually. They proposed a phased rollout of legal and procedural reforms, supported by tailored support for employers, sector specific guidance and stronger union involvement. Respondents believed this would help employers prepare for changes and reduce the risk of confusion or non-compliance.
• Extend equal pay protections to self-employed workers: One employer representative highlighted legal gaps affecting freelance writers and called for reform to cover marginalised self-employed groups, especially in creative industries.
• Require mandatory reporting of race and disability pay gaps: One CSO reported that statutory publication of pay gap data would help highlight disparities and encourage employers to take action. They recommended that mandatory reporting should be backed by enforcement mechanisms, such as legal obligations to publish action plans or face penalties for non-compliance. This was framed as a way to strengthen employer accountability, not just enforce the reporting requirement itself. While a few respondents proposed mandatory pay gap reporting as a way to highlight disparities, it is not an equal pay or pay transparency measure. Pay gap reporting provides average pay differences at the organisational level and does not assess whether individuals doing equal work are paid equally. It may help identify structural inequalities but should not be used as a proxy for equal pay compliance.
• Address intersectional disadvantage within the equal pay framework: One CSO submitted evidence relating to the multiple and overlapping barriers faced by Muslim women in the workplace. They argued that the current equal pay framework is too narrow and does not offer a clear route to redress where multiple forms of discrimination are involved, for example, where sex, religion, and race intersect. They called for legal reform to ensure that any reform of equal pay protections includes clearer definitions and mechanisms to address combined discrimination. They also cautioned that, without such changes, existing exclusions may be repeated. Under current law, equal pay claims can only be brought on the basis of sex, while discrimination related to religion or race must be pursued under separate provisions of the Equality Act 2010. The submission reflected concern that this legal separation may prevent effective redress for intersectional disadvantage.

Alongside suggestions for change, 17 respondents also identified several actions they believed policymakers should avoid. They warned that these could weaken equal pay protections or create unintended consequences. Respondents including individuals, CSOs, employee representatives, academic contributors, and those categorised as ‘other’, suggested that policy makers should avoid the following:

• Relying solely on voluntary initiatives: 3 respondents, comprising of an individual, a CSO, and an employee representative, gave evidence that voluntary reporting and employer-led change would have limited impact without legal backing. They reported that without legal requirement or enforcement, many employers do not collect or publish pay data, and those who do, are not required to act on it. They perceived that voluntary measures may improve transparency, but not outcomes.
• Implementing vague or overly complicated legislation: 3 respondents, an individual, an academic contributor, and an employee representative warned that unclear legal definitions and procedures, such as lack of clarity around “equal value” or comparator requirements, can deter individuals from making claims and increase litigation costs (See section 2.2.4: Effectiveness of Existing Measures, for evidence on the limitations of voluntary initiatives).
• Allowing historic claims without safeguards: 2 respondents, a CSO and a respondent categorised as ‘other’, cautioned that allowing retrospective claims could lead to mass litigation and therefore financial instability for employers.
• Using one-size-fits-all approaches: 2 respondents, an employee representative and a CSO, cautioned that equal pay reforms must be tailored to sector-specific pay structures and employment models. For example, one respondent noted that freelance and casual workers in creative industries face unique barriers to comparator-based claims. While another respondent highlighted that care sector roles often involve undervalued, gendered work not captured by standard job evaluation schemes. They reported that without sector-specific guidance and implementation frameworks, changes risk being misapplied and may fail to address structural inequalities across different labour markets.

2.4.2 Barriers to bringing equal pay claims (question 12)

Respondents submitted evidence on barriers to enforcing pay-related rights, including both equal pay claims (relating to sex) and discrimination claims (relating to race, disability, or other protected characteristics). Over 40 respondents described legal, procedural, financial, and emotional barriers that affect individuals seeking redress for pay inequality. These barriers were said to disproportionately affect disabled and ethnic minority workers, especially those in insecure, low-paid, or freelance roles.

Under current law, equal pay claims can only be brought on the basis of sex. Claims involving race or disability must be pursued under separate discrimination provisions. However, respondents often drew on their experience of bringing race and disability discrimination claims to highlight challenges that may arise if equal pay protections are made effective for other protected characteristics. These included difficulty identifying comparators, lack of pay transparency, limited access to legal advice, and fear of retaliation. 

A few respondents described the equal pay claims process as slow, complicated, and emotionally exhausting. One large public authority noted that some regions list tribunal cases years in advance, and that delays can result in claimants withdrawing or passing away before resolution. While this evidence relates directly to equal pay claims, a disabled respondent also described broader systemic barriers they had faced in other contexts, such as welfare and administrative processes. These included having to repeatedly evidence their disability, attending appointments despite physical pain, and navigating inaccessible systems. The individual believed these experiences left a lasting emotional impact, describing the system as obstructive and distressing. Although not describing an equal pay claim, respondents used such examples to highlight the kinds of challenges that may also arise if equal pay protections are made effective for disabled people.

One individual respondent described the financial and procedural burden of bringing disability discrimination claims. They believed that disabled people may face higher costs, including the need to pay for support workers to assist with legal processes. While this example did not relate directly to equal pay, the respondent proposed the creation of a Discrimination and Equal Pay Enforcement Unit, suggesting that similar barriers may arise if equal pay protections are made effective for disabled people. 

A few CSOs submitted evidence that Muslim women and disabled workers face compounded disadvantages, including legal complexity, difficulty identifying comparators, lack of pay transparency, and fear of retaliation. These examples were drawn from discrimination claims but were used to highlight potential barriers to equal pay enforcement.

Employer tactics were also described as a barrier. 3 respondents cited practices such as delaying disclosure of pay data, using complex job descriptions, or challenging comparator validity, which they believed made the claims process more difficult. These tactics were described as forms of procedural wrangling, designed to deter or delay claims. One respondent noted that employers often refuse to disclose pay data, while another highlighted the use of lengthy job descriptions to obscure equal value comparisons. A trade union reported that they “regularly see members penalised financially after adjustments are made”, suggesting that employer responses to disability accommodations can also undermine pay equity. 

Similarly, one individual respondent, who was involved in the Brierley v ASDA equal value case, described how the case, lodged in 2014, involved years of procedural delays, including wrangling over lead claimants and job descriptions, multiple rounds of expert reports, and a stage 3 hearing that spanned over 2 months and generated more than 11,000 pages of documentation. The final judgment was issued in 2025, with further hearings scheduled for 2026. The respondent noted that the case had taken so long that some claimants had not lived to see its resolution and described the system as in urgent need of reform. 

Several respondents noted that many equal pay claims are resolved through settlement rather than progressing to a full tribunal hearing. One employee representative body cited internal data showing that 61% of claims are withdrawn, 19% are struck out at early stages, and 18% are settled via the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), likely through Early Conciliation, though the stage was not specified. While some respondents viewed this as a sign of procedural attrition, others interpreted it more positively. Employer representatives described ACAS settlement as a pragmatic and cost-effective outcome, particularly in cases where litigation would be lengthy or complex. They noted that settlement is often preferable even in winnable cases, due to the financial and emotional burden of pursuing a full hearing. They also highlighted that the requirement to notify ACAS when raising a formal complaint may support early resolution of equal pay claims, though its independent impact was not quantified.

Employee representatives acknowledged that most individual equal pay claims settle before or shortly after proceedings are issued, meaning that tribunals rarely reach a final decision. However, they cautioned that this pattern may reflect systemic barriers to enforcement, including procedural complexity, lack of mandatory job evaluation, and unequal access to legal representation, rather than effective redress. Some respondents argued that the current system incentivises early withdrawal or settlement not because claims lack merit, but because claimants face significant hurdles in sustaining them.

A majority of respondents including individuals, CSOs, employee representatives, and employer representatives, also submitted evidence on structural and procedural barriers that affect a wide range of claimants. These barriers related to: 

• difficulty identifying a suitable comparator (especially challenging in freelance or casual work settings) 
• limited access to legal advice (a particular issue for low-paid workers and those in rural areas)
• fear of retaliation, with freelance and insecure workers reported to say they risked being labelled “troublemakers” if they raised concerns

To address the barriers, several respondents (employee representatives, CSOs, and academic respondents) proposed legal and structural reforms, including:

• reinstatement of the Statutory Discrimination Questionnaire for equal pay claims, viewed as a way to improve access to pay data and reduce litigation
• expansion of access to legal aid and early advice services, considered essential for marginalised groups
• creation of an independent enforcement unit to reduce delays and raise awareness of rights
• introduction of a legal deadline for responding to reasonable adjustment requests, with a 2-week timeframe proposed to prevent delays

See section 2.6: Enforcement of the equal pay scheme, for further evidence on enforcement tools and proposals to expand standing.

2.4.3 Pay and reasonable adjustments (questions 13 and 14)

A total of 30 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed question 13: “Do you have evidence about the way the law works regarding employer and employee rights and responsibilities in relation to pay when reasonable adjustments are made?”. 

Not all respondents, however, provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 30 responses:

• 70% (21) were submitted by organisations
• 20% (6) were from individuals
• 3% (1) were from academics or researchers
• 7% (2) selected the ‘Other’ category

Of the 21 organisational respondents:

• 38% (8) were employee representatives
• 19% (4) were CSOs
• 19% (4) were large public authorities
• 14% (3) were employer representatives
• 5% (1) was a large enterprise
• 5% (1) was a small to medium enterprise (SME)

Several respondents, including employee representatives, CSOs, large public authorities, and academic respondents, submitted evidence that the law is unclear and inconsistently applied. There was broad agreement across these groups that a lack of clarity around reasonable adjustments and pay creates confusion and weakens compliance. Employer representatives tended to focus more on the need for clearer procedural guidance. 

An academic respondent submitted evidence that disabled doctors face systemic barriers to equal pay and reasonable adjustments. They estimated that the NHS loses £50 to £60 million annually due to preventable attrition and noted that litigation is rare but costly. This figure was based on the cost of training doctors and a conservative estimate of 200 disabled doctors leaving early due to lack of support. They called for preventative support, stronger enforcement of equal pay rights, and greater pay transparency.

An individual respondent shared their lived experience of procedural failures within a public body, including a lack of reasonable adjustments and a grievance process that, they said, failed to accommodate their neurological disability. They reported that the internal appeal process was rigid and that the investigator lacked understanding of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent believed these issues made it difficult to seek redress and described the system as especially hard to navigate for disabled people. They felt that enforcing equal pay rights was “more difficult or impossible” for disabled workers, particularly because the current equal pay scheme only applies to sex-based pay discrimination. 

3 respondents, including an academic respondent, a large public authority and an employer representative, observed that employers often lack clarity about how reasonable adjustments affect pay, especially in terms of performance-related pay, phased returns to work, or redeployment. A few respondents also noted that the term “reasonable” is vague and leads to inconsistent decisions, even within the same organisation. Specific areas of confusion included whether pay should be maintained when a disabled employee moves to a less demanding role, how long employers can delay adjustments before it becomes unlawful, and whether extended sick pay or full pay during a phased return counts as a reasonable adjustment.

A majority of respondents including employee representatives, CSOs, and large public authorities proposed a range of reforms to improve clarity and ensure disabled workers are not financially penalised when adjustments are made, including:

• publishing clearer guidance and practical examples, especially on how reasonable adjustments affect pay
• providing training for line managers on disability inclusion, reasonable adjustments, and equal pay duties
• involving trade unions in delivery to support implementation and compliance
• updating the EHRC’s statutory Code of Practice on Employment to include more case studies, specifically with clearer examples to help employers understand how equal pay and reasonable adjustments apply in practice
• introducing a legal right to reasonable adjustments including protections for phased returns, modified duties, and pay continuity
• stronger remedies for victimisation when adjustments are refused, delayed, or result in financial disadvantage
• centralised budget for reasonable adjustments, better documentation of decisions, and more accessible dispute resolution processes

While employer representatives focused on procedural clarity, other groups emphasised the need for enforceable rights and practical support.

2.5 Pay discrimination experienced by outsourced workers (questions 15 to 20)

Question 15. Do you have evidence about the prevalence and pattern of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability or sex experienced by outsourced workers in England, Scotland and Wales and/or barriers to redress? [Yes, No]

Question 16. What evidence is there on the prevalence and patterns of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex experienced by outsourced workers in England, Scotland and Wales?

Question 17. What evidence is there about barriers to redress for outsourced workers experiencing pay discrimination?

Question 18. Do you have evidence on whether outsourced workers should be able to draw comparisons between their work and pay with those working for a principal employer in an equal pay claim and/or evidence on where liability for equal pay claims by outsourced workers should lie? [Yes, No]

Question 19. What evidence is there to establish whether outsourced workers should be entitled to draw comparisons between their work and pay with those working for a principal employer in an equal pay claim?

Question 20. What evidence is there to establish where liability for equal pay claims by outsourced workers should lie?

Definition

Under the Equality Act 2010, a sex-based equal pay claim requires a real comparator employed by the same or an associated employer as opposed to a hypothetical comparator. This excludes most outsourced workers, as they are typically employed by separate organisations and cannot compare their pay with in-house staff.

The term outsourcing is not defined in UK law. In this context, it refers broadly to arrangements where there is intermediation between the worker and the organisation receiving the work. This includes subcontracting, labour providers, umbrella companies, and agency work.

Because outsourced workers are often several steps removed from the principal organisation, they are generally excluded from equal pay protections that rely on comparator-based claims.

2.5.1 Prevalence and patterns of discrimination (questions 15 and 16)

A total of 29 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed question 15: Do you have evidence about the prevalence and pattern of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability or sex experienced by outsourced workers in England, Scotland and Wales and/or barriers to redress?”. 

Not all respondents, however, provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 29 responses:

• 76% (22) were submitted by organisations
• 21% (6) were from individuals
• 0% (0) were from academics or researchers
• 3% (1) selected the ‘other’ category

Of the 22 organisational respondents:

• 35% (8) were civil society organisations
• 35% (8) were employee representatives
• 10% (2) were employer representatives
• 5% (1) was a large public authority
• 5% (1) was a large enterprise
• 5% (1) was a small public authority
• 5% (1) was a small to medium enterprise (SME).

Most respondents submitted evidence that outsourcing is associated with unequal pay outcomes for women, ethnic minority workers, disabled people, and migrants. An employee representative cited the TUC’s Still Rigged report and submitted evidence that a trade union had raised concerns about public sector outsourcing, showing that ethnic minority and disabled workers are disproportionately employed, compared to White and non-disabled workers, in outsourced roles, often on worse terms and conditions. Separately, a union cited the Barts NHS Trust case (2021), a union-led campaign, where 1,800 outsourced workers, many from ethnic minority backgrounds, were brought in-house after industrial action revealed they were paid 15% less than NHS staff.

Furthermore, a small public authority gave evidence that all workers supplied by licensed labour providers under the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) scheme are, by definition, outsourced. They reported that this creates a structural risk of unequal pay, particularly in sectors like agriculture and food processing. One employer representative additionally cautioned that the lack of a consistent legal definition of outsourcing makes it difficult to assess prevalence across sectors (See 2.5.2: Sectoral and situational).

2.5.2 Sectoral and situational differences (question 16)

A total of 13 respondents provided evidence on how outsourcing varies by sector, employer type, and job role. These included employee representatives, CSOs, SMEs, and public authorities. Several respondents submitted evidence that outsourcing is concentrated in low-paid ancillary services, particularly as follows.

Cleaning and catering: A CSO reported that outsourced workers in these sectors are often employed on worse terms than directly employed staff.  These include lower hourly pay, reduced sick pay, poorer holiday entitlements, weaker pension rights, and less secure contracts, such as zero-hours arrangements. The submission also noted that outsourcing can result in the loss of union recognition and access to job evaluation schemes, creating a 2-tier workforce.

Care services: An employee representative described how outsourcing in local authority care services leads to worse terms and conditions for low-paid, predominantly female, workers.

Facilities management and manual roles: One SME respondent stated that outsourced workers are pay banded “significantly lower” than in-house staff, with pay grades used to signal seniority.

Rail sector: An employee representative submitted evidence that outsourcing contributes to occupational segregation in the rail industry. They reported that outsourced cleaning and catering roles are often filled by ethnic minority workers.

A few respondents gave evidence that outsourced roles are marked by lower pay, reduced sick pay, weaker pensions, and limited progression opportunities. Several respondents submitted evidence that outsourcing contributes to persistent disparities in pay and progression in manual and service-based roles. Both public and private sector employers were cited as contributing to these disparities, by an individual and a large public authority respondent. 

The following section (2.5.3) summarises the evidence on how these patterns overlap with protected characteristics.

2.5.3 Differences by protected characteristic (question 16)

A total of 16 respondents, including employee representatives, CSOs, and individual respondents, submitted evidence that outsourcing intersects with protected characteristics to entrench inequality. A majority of respondents submitted evidence that outsourcing often prevents workers from comparing their pay to in-house staff, limiting access to equal pay protections. These findings build on earlier evidence that outsourcing is concentrated in low-paid sectors such as cleaning, catering, and care, where workers are disproportionately women, ethnic minority people, disabled people, and migrants.

Sex: A few respondents described that, in their experience, low-paid outsourced roles are disproportionately filled by women, especially in care services. Respondents linked this to undervaluation, insecure contracts, and reduced benefits. One employee representative reported that outsourcing in local authority care services led to lower pay and weaker terms for female staff. A CSO noted that ethnic minority women are overrepresented in outsourced roles (see 2.5.2 Sectoral and Situational Differences).

Race and ethnicity:^{[footnote 6]} A majority of respondents submitted evidence that ethnic minority workers were overrepresented in outsourced cleaning, catering, and security roles. In London, one large enterprise noted that its in-house staff were mostly White, while outsourced workers, particularly in cleaning and catering roles, were mostly Black, Asian, and migrant workers. The respondent reported that this disparity contributed to a 2-tier workforce, with outsourced staff on inferior terms and conditions. The National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers (RMT) submitted evidence from its 2025 report, How Outsourcing Embeds Systemic Racism on the Railway , which found 58% of outsourced staff in Train Operating Companies (TOC) were from ethnic minority backgrounds, compared to 25% of directly employed TOC staff. Other submissions from an employee representative and civil society linked outsourcing to occupational segregation, ongoing pay gaps, and exclusion from pay gap reporting (see 2.4.1 Prevalence and Patterns of Discrimination). Respondents often cited pay gaps to illustrate disparities between outsourced and directly employed workers. However, pay gaps reflect average differences in pay and do not necessarily indicate unequal pay for equal work. Equal pay protections under the Equality Act 2010 require comparator-based evidence and do not currently extend to most outsourced workers.

Disability: Several respondents described disabled outsourced workers facing systemic barriers, including exclusion from performance-related pay, lack of reasonable adjustments, and limited access to grievance procedures. A CSO submitted evidence that disabled cleaners in hospitals and care homes are among the lowest paid and are often excluded from voluntary disability pay gap reporting. The submission raised concerns that outsourced workers are not consistently included in employers’ reporting, which may obscure the true scale of pay disparities affecting disabled workers (see also 2.5.4: Barriers to Redress, for evidence on exclusion from internal systems). 

2.5.4 Barriers to redress (question 17)

A total of 32 respondents addressed the question of barriers to redress for outsourced workers. 

Several respondents described how outsourcing arrangements create structural barriers that limit access to redress, particularly for migrant workers and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. 2 submissions noted that outsourced workers are often excluded from grievance procedures, collective bargaining, and internal pay review processes. This limits their ability to raise concerns or seek redress. One employee representative described this exclusion as a structural feature of outsourcing, which systematically excludes outsourced staff from resources available to directly employed workers.

While migrant status is not a protected characteristic, a few respondents also gave evidence that the fear of retaliation and visa-related vulnerabilities, including the risk of deportation or loss of sponsorship, can deter migrant workers from taking legal action. A CSO, an employee representative, and one large enterprise reported that these risks are particularly acute in outsourced roles such as care and cleaning, where workers may be excluded from grievance procedures and legal protections.

Legal separation and lack of comparators were also identified as further barriers by a few respondents. One employee representative described the legal separation between employers as a “fictional overlay”, a contract-based distinction that hides who controls pay and working conditions. They reported that principal employers often set the terms but avoid legal responsibility because the worker is formally employed by someone else. They perceived that this structure makes it hard for outsourced workers to identify valid comparators for equal pay claims, even when they work alongside directly employed staff doing similar jobs, as establishing a single source of control over pay structures and decisions beyond their direct employer is often extremely challenging in practice. Respondents believed this reflects a wider problem in the legal framework, which shields principal employers from accountability.

2 respondents, an employee representative and a CSO, submitted evidence that the current legal framework prevents outsourced workers from establishing valid comparators in equal pay claims. They cited Boohene v Royal Parks Ltd (Court of Appeal, 2024) as an example, where the court confirmed that outsourced workers could not compare themselves to directly employed staff, illustrating how existing case law reinforces this barrier.

One individual respondent submitted evidence that agency workers are already covered by equal treatment provisions under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 and related frameworks and cautioned against overlapping definitions of outsourcing. These regulations entitle agency workers to comparable basic working and employment conditions after 12 weeks and include enforcement tools. The respondent cautioned against introducing overlapping definitions of outsourcing, saying that this could create confusion and compliance risks. They recommended using specific legislation aligned with HMRC guidance to define outsourced services more precisely.

2.5.5 Comparator rights and liability (questions 18 to 20)

A total of 22 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed Question 18: “Do you have evidence on whether outsourced workers should be able to draw comparisons between their work and pay with those working for a principal employer in an equal pay claim and/or evidence on where liability for equal pay claims by outsourced workers should lie?”. 

Not all respondents, however, provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 22 responses:

• 82% (18) were submitted by organisations
• 18% (4) were from individuals
• 0% (0) were from academics or researchers
• 0% (0) selected the ‘Other’ category

Of the 18 organisational respondents:

• 28% (5) were employee representatives
• 22% (4) were employer representatives
• 17% (3) were large public authorities
• 17% (3) were civil society organisations
• 11% (2) were large enterprises
• 6% (1) was a small to medium enterprise (SME)

Of the 22 submissions addressing comparator rights, most gave evidence in support of enabling outsourced workers to compare their pay with directly employed staff. Respondents included employee representatives, CSOs, public authorities, employer representatives, and individuals. Many endorsed extending comparator rights under the “single source” principle, which holds that where a single organisation controls pay and conditions, workers should be able to compare pay across legal entities.^{[footnote 7]}

An employee representative and a CSO called for clarification of comparator rules in the Equality Act 2010 and for subcontracted workers to be included in pay gap reporting. They noted that this would improve pay transparency and help address structural inequality.

A large enterprise respondent believed outsourced workers should be able to use directly employed staff as comparators, especially where the principal employer sets pay and working conditions. They described this as reflecting the practical reality of integrated workforces.

A large public authority noted that current legal frameworks are unclear and prevent outsourced workers from making fair comparisons, even when doing equivalent work under the same supervision.

An individual respondent described how outsourced workers often do identical work to directly employed colleagues but are paid less and believed the inability to compare pay blocks access to justice.

An employer representative submitted evidence that comparator restrictions create a 2-tier system and reinforce inequality. They argued that outsourced workers should be entitled to compare their pay with directly employed staff where the work is substantively equivalent and functionally integrated. They cited the 2024 Boohene v Royal Parks case as evidence that current law fails to reflect how outsourcing works in practice.

Several respondents gave evidence that the current law fails to reflect how outsourcing works in practice, and that comparator restrictions reinforce inequality (see also 2.5.4: Barriers to Redress).

Opinions varied among the 25 respondents who provided evidence on liability for equal pay claims in outsourced arrangements. Several respondents, including individuals, employee representatives, and CSOs, gave evidence that principal employers should bear responsibility where they control pay and working conditions. 

An employee representative believed liability should follow control. They submitted that if the principal sets pay and determines working conditions for outsourced staff, they should be held legally accountable for any resulting pay discrimination even if the workers are formally employed by a contractor or agency. A CSO described how the principal employer benefits from outsourced labour but can remain legally insulated from responsibility.

One CSO supported using section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 to attach liability to the principal organisation, noting that contractors often limit their liability.^{[footnote 8]}

One individual respondent believed that it would be “perverse” to hold the contractor liable when the principal employer controls the terms and specifications.

One large enterprise explained that principal employers often set pay during tendering, but legal separation means outsourced workers cannot bring equal pay claims against them. They noted this gap allows principals to benefit from lower-cost labour without accountability.

In contrast, a few employer representatives preferred liability to remain with the contractor. They cited their concerns about legal complexity, employment status, and unintended consequences. 

One respondent warned that shifting liability could lead to workers being reclassified as direct employees. This, they said, could create legal and financial risks for both parties, including changes to tax, pension, and employment rights.

A few respondents noted that outsourcing arrangements often involve multiple legal entities. Shifting liability to the principal employer could create confusion about who is responsible for pay disparities, especially where the contractor sets pay and manages employment contracts.

Several respondents described potential negative unintended outcomes:

• disincentive to outsource: employers may reduce outsourcing altogether to avoid liability, which could limit job opportunities in sectors like cleaning, catering, and security.
• increased litigation: extending liability could lead to more equal pay claims, raising costs and placing pressure on employment tribunals.
• fee inflation: contractors may increase fees to reflect the added risk, making outsourcing less viable for smaller organisations.
• limited control over pay: contractors often have little influence over the pay set by the principal employer. If held liable, they may face claims they cannot resolve.

2 other employer representatives stressed the need for clear boundaries and believed liability should follow operational control, not commercial relationships. They argued that where the contractor determines pay and working conditions independently, they should remain responsible for equal pay compliance.

Submissions in response to questions 18 to 20 gave evidence that while there was broad support for reform, the emphasis varied. While employees and CSOs prioritised fairness and legal clarity, employer representatives focused on managing risk and preserving contractual integrity.

2.6 Enforcement of the equal pay scheme (questions 21 to 24)

Question 21. Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of current enforcement of the equal pay scheme and/or evidence on who should have standing to bring an equal pay claim? [Yes, No]

Question 22. What evidence is there about the effectiveness of current enforcement of the equal pay scheme by the EHRC?

Question 23. What evidence is there about the effectiveness of individuals bringing equal pay claims?

Question 24. What evidence is there that any person or organisation other than the individual complainant or the EHRC should be able to bring equal pay claims? Who should this be?

Definition

At present, enforcing the equal pay scheme under the Equality Act 2010 will in almost all cases require that individual employees themselves bring equal pay claims in the Employment Tribunal. Individuals can bring claims if they believe they are not receiving equal pay compared to an actual comparator of the opposite sex doing equal work. Claims must usually be brought within 6 months of the end of employment.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) can also enforce equal pay as the body responsible for enforcing the Equality Act 2010. 

The EHRC has a range of litigation powers which are set out in the Equality Act 2006 These include:

• providing legal assistance (section 28)
• bringing or intervening in legal proceedings (section 30)
• conducting investigations (section 20)
• issuing unlawful act notices (section 21)
• entering into agreements or seeking injunctions (sections 23 to 24)

Equal pay claims are among the most common tribunal claims and often take longer to resolve. Most are settled or withdrawn before reaching a full hearing.

2.6.1 Effectiveness of current enforcement and the role of the EHRC (questions 21 and 22)

A total of 35 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed Question 21:“Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of current enforcement of the equal pay scheme and/or evidence on who should have standing to bring an equal pay claim?”. 

Not all respondents, however, provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 35 responses:

• 75% (26) were submitted by organisations
• 11% (4) were from individuals
• 3% (1) were from academics or researchers
• 11% (4) selected the ‘Other’ category

Of the 26 organisational respondents:

• 32% (8) were employee representatives
• 27% (7) were employer representatives
• 23% (6) were civil society organisations
• 12% (3) were large public authorities
• 8% (2) were large enterprises

Respondents gave mixed views on the EHRC. While some acknowledged its legal powers and past interventions, most gave evidence that the EHRC is under-resourced and lacking strategic focus. A large enterprise perceived the EHRC as ineffective, describing its 2020 investigation into the BBC as a rare intervention that failed to resolve long-standing unequal pay based on sex.^{[footnote 9]} This respondent noted that while the EHRC identified shortcomings in pay transparency and grievance procedures, it did not pursue enforcement action or legal proceedings, and unequal pay remained. An employee representative reported that the EHRC has not used its powers to initiate proceedings or intervene in litigation since 2014, despite having the authority to do so under section 30 of the Equality Act 2006.  

One CSO criticised the EHRC for failing to act on ethnicity pay disparities in the NHS, despite evidence from the report on Race Equality Standard (WRES) indicators for the medical workforce 2020, published in 2021. This report showed persistent underrepresentation of ethnic minority staff at higher pay bands and unequal promotion outcomes. Finally, the EHRC’s enforcement model was described as reactive, relying heavily on individual complaints rather than proactive investigations. A large public authority noted that although the EHRC holds significant legal powers, its ability to use them is constrained by limited resources and a lack of strategic focus.

Respondents submitted mixed views on how equal pay enforcement should be strengthened. 4 respondents supported expanding the EHRC’s remit and enforcement powers. These included an individual, a CSO, a large public authority, and an employee representative. 6 respondents supported creating a dedicated Equal Pay Enforcement Unit, including 3 employee representatives, one employer representative, one CSO, and one categorised as ‘other’. 

An employer representative cautioned that assigning enforcement responsibilities to the EHRC could create conflicting duties, given its current role as a strategic regulator. They noted that enforcement requires a different operational model, one focused on investigation and litigation, which may not align with the EHRC’s advisory and oversight functions.

An employee representative proposed placing the Equal Pay Unit within the Fair Work Agency. A body that, they suggested, would be better positioned to coordinate enforcement across sectors. They also recommended establishing a specialist tribunal panel with expertise in equal value claims, to improve consistency in decisions and reduce delays from complex legal processes and lack of familiarity with the law.

See 2.4.2 Barriers to bringing equal pay claims, for detailed proposals to support individual claimants, including legal aid, adjustment deadlines, and access to pay data.

2.6.2 Expanded legal standing to bring claims^{[footnote 10]} (question 24)

Standing here refers to the legal right to bring a claim to court or tribunal. Views on standing were divided. A total of 16 respondents submitted evidence on expanding standing to bring equal pay claims. 2 employer representatives opposed extending standing beyond individuals and the EHRC. They responded that the current framework already allows for litigation friends^{[footnote 11]} and group claims in appropriate cases. 

Most other respondents supported a broader approach, allowing trade unions, charities, and statutory bodies to bring claims on behalf of individuals, particularly those who may fear retaliation or be unaware of their rights. 3 employee representatives, including some who had led large claims against major retailers, gave evidence of their role in supporting claims, conducting audits, and bringing group actions. In its 2025 position paper, submitted to the CfE but not published online, the GMB union reported that most women who discovered they were being underpaid did so through trade union support, stating that “92% would not have known otherwise”. 

One employee representative cited the success of representative actions in the Brierley and others v Asda Stores Ltd case, which began in 2014 and involved thousands of supermarket workers. The case was brought as a collective equal value claim comparing predominantly female retail staff to higher-paid male warehouse workers. Another respondent described the case as extremely delayed, noting that some claimants had died before resolution. While one employee representative described equal pay claims more broadly as “slow, complex and costly,” the Asda case was presented as a key example of how group action can help overcome procedural and financial barriers.

Some respondents highlighted the role of legal charities and advocacy groups in supporting claimants who would otherwise be unable to proceed, due to financial barriers, lack of legal knowledge, or fear of employer retaliation.

3. Improving pay transparency

3.1 Key findings

3.1.1 Impact of pay transparency measures

Respondents submitted that pay transparency measures can support pay equality, but their impact varies across organisation types, sectors, pay types, and groups:

• organisations that used standardised pay bands were seen as better able to act
• trade union and academic respondents shared evidence that specific steps, such as not asking applicants about their previous pay (salary history questions), publishing pay bands, and doing pay audits, can help reduce gender pay gaps
• evidence on pay transparency in relation to race and disability was limited – over one-third of respondents reported weak or inconsistent data, and employer representatives highlighted staff may be reluctant to share personal details
• small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) highlighted that costs, capacity, and confidentiality risks were major concerns, while larger organisations reported they already had human resource (HR) systems and reporting experience
• most respondents found notable impact of mandatory pay transparency measures and cited limited impact of voluntary schemes, while a few favoured phased or hybrid implementation approaches to support employer readiness
• respondents considered clear communication of the rationale and context for pay transparency as essential – they highlighted risks of employee dissatisfaction if pay differences were revealed without clear plans to address them
• respondents highlighted difficulty in assessing pay in sectors with variable pay (for example, bonuses) such as consultancy, finance, and sales

Recommendations shared by respondents included: 

• standardising data collection protocols and linking pay reporting with workforce diversity data
• providing employers with government templates, legal guidance, technical support, and dispute resolution mechanisms 
• phased or hybrid implementation to help SMEs and start-ups build capacity before fully adopting mandatory pay transparency measures 
• accompanying transparency with action plans and reforms to address deeper inequalities in progression and workplace culture
• clearer communication strategies to explain pay structures and contextualise data for employees and external stakeholders (for example, the public)

Please note that while pay gap reporting is not an indicator of pay discrimination, respondents to this Call for Evidence (CfE) have often referenced it as one (see differences in definitions below or in limitations – section 1.2.6). Respondents and research often conflate pay gap reporting with pay audits or have used it as an outcome measure to show the effectiveness of other pay transparency measures. While this may not be the best outcome measure to show effectiveness in comparison to others, it provides the best available evidence to date, but should still be considered with caution. In this chapter, pay gap reporting will mainly be referenced in relation to outcome measures but may be conflated with pay audits when terminology used by respondents has been interchangeable. 

3.1.2 Effectiveness of Equal Pay Audit Regulations

Legal experts and civil society organisation (CSO) respondents submitted evidence that Equal Pay Audits were rarely ordered by tribunals and were often narrow in scope. They also highlighted that tribunals can be reluctant to impose audits due to cost, complexity, or the view that claims were already resolved. Respondents also submitted exemptions weakened the system, enforcement was limited, and many employers only met the minimum legal duty. Some organisations reported that conducting voluntary Equal Pay Audits was useful, but no substitute for a legal regime.

Respondents described a range of factors that contribute to enhancing effectiveness of the Equal Pay Audits. These included:

• leadership support, employee consultation, and regular monitoring to inform strategic decisions
• independent external auditors
• transparent action plans
• integration with diversity and inclusion strategies

Respondents identified high thresholds to trigger Equal Pay Audits, exemptions (for example, when an employer has recently conducted an audit or settled a claim), and poor enforcement as limitations of Equal Pay Audit regulations. They also identified challenges such as poor pay records, fragmented HR systems, leadership resistance or fear of reputational harm, and lack of internal expertise, especially in SMEs. 

Recommendations shared by respondents included:

• allowing proactive or randomised audits, not just post-tribunal orders (for example, by expanding the scope of Equal Pay Audits beyond sex discrimination to cover race and disability, examining pay systems more broadly, and standardising audit methodologies)
• requiring publication of findings
• empowering regulators or inspectors to order audits based on workforce data, risk factors, or complaints, rather than relying on individual litigation
• allowing or requiring broader reviews when patterns of inequality are likely

3.1.3 Impact of extending Equal Pay Audits to race and disability

Many CSO and employee representatives supported extending Equal Pay Audits to include cases where pay discrimination was found in relation to race and disability as part of making equal pay rights effective for ethnic minority and disabled people. But other respondents warned that without further change, the current post-tribunal model would still limit impact. Employer representatives and SMEs highlighted administrative and financial burdens from any expansion, while large enterprises and CSOs argued the costs of not addressing pay discrimination can be higher. Respondents across groups called for clearer guidance, standard methods, and regulator-led reviews.

Respondents did not submit evidence on the impact of extending Equal Pay Audits to cover race and disability on pay transparency. However, they identified a few challenges in extending Equal Pay Audits to race and disability. These included: 

• weaknesses in the current Equal Pay Audit model, with respondents claiming that audits were rare, narrow in scope, and limited to post-tribunal cases
• additional administrative and financial burdens, especially for SMEs and smaller employers with limited HR capacity
• challenges in collecting accurate race and disability data, due to self-reporting limitations and data protection concerns
• lack of in-house expertise in equal pay analysis

Recommendations shared by respondents included:

• clearer legal guidance, technical assistance, a well-defined framework, and sector-specific support to ensure consistency and compliance
• aligning audit processes with existing pay reporting systems, using publicly funded toolkits, or sample-based methodologies to reduce costs, particularly for SMEs

3.2 Introduction 

This chapter summarises evidence on pay transparency. It draws on Questions 25 to 31 of the CfE. Respondents were asked to provide evidence on pay transparency to help inform consideration about whether additional pay transparency measures would be proportionate and effective in improving pay equality.

Definition

Improving pay transparency can involve a range of activities across recruitment, retention and progression practices in the workplace.

Pay transparency measures can involve employers:

• providing salary details in job adverts or before interviews
• not asking job applicants about their previous pay
• publishing or sharing information with staff about pay ranges and pay structures
• explaining how progression and pay decisions are made
• showing employees how their pay compares to others doing the same or similar work
• identifying and addressing unjustified pay differences through equal pay audits

These steps can support fairer pay negotiations, especially for groups who may not have access to informal channels (for example, personal networks or peer conversations) where salary information is often shared, and help individuals understand what to expect and what is needed to progress.

The current legal requirement relating to pay transparency is for an equal pay audit to be carried out where there has been an equal pay breach. The government is giving careful consideration as to whether additional pay transparency measures would be proportionate and effective in improving pay equality in Great Britain.          

An Equal Pay Audit is a pay transparency measure which involves a systematic evaluation of an employer’s pay and reward systems to identify any differences in pay (including non-contractual pay) between men and women doing equal work in the same employment, provide reasons for any differences and set out an action plan for eliminating those differences, where they cannot be explained or justified otherwise than by reference to sex.

Employment Tribunals are required to order an employer who has been found to have committed an equal pay breach to carry out an audit, unless the Tribunal judges that one of the following exemptions applies:

• an audit completed in the previous 3 years meets the requirements
• it is clear without an audit whether any action is required to avoid equal pay breaches occurring or continuing
• the breach gives no reason to think that there may be other breaches
• the disadvantages of an audit outweigh the benefits

Until recently, the requirement to carry out an Equal Pay Audit also did not apply to businesses with fewer than 10 employees or that were new (meaning that they began carrying on activities within 12 months prior to the claim). Both exemptions from the regulations were for a period of 10 years from the date when the regulations came into force, expiring on 1 October 2024.

Equal pay audits should not be conflated with pay gap reporting (such as gender pay gap), where an employer provides company level average pay data disaggregated by sex (or ethnicity, or disability). In Great Britain, it has been mandatory since 2017 for companies with 250 or more employees to publish their gender pay gap annually.^{[footnote 12]}  While pay gap reporting also seems on the surface to have similarities to a pay audit, pay gap reporting provides a high-level snapshot and broad calculation of the difference in average earnings between groups, while an equal pay audit is a detailed investigation comparing the pay of individuals in comparable roles (often involving job evaluations), to ensure that individuals performing equal work receive equal pay. Pay gap reporting often indicates the extent to which one group is concentrated in lower-paying roles than another, while pay audits uncover direct or indirect pay discrimination in specific jobs or grades. 

Gender pay gap reporting is often used as an outcome measure to show the effectiveness of other pay transparency measures. While there are limitations to using this as an outcome measure, it provides the best evidence available to date and should be considered with caution.

The chapter is structured around 3 thematic areas:

• impact of pay transparency measures (questions 25 to 27) 
• effectiveness of Equal Pay Audit Regulations (questions 28 and 29)
• impact of extending Equal Pay Audits to race and disability (questions 30 and 31)

The evidence is organised under headings that match the CfE question numbers.

3.3 Impact of pay transparency measures (questions 25 to 27) 

Question 25. Do you have evidence about the possible impacts of introducing pay transparency measures on pay equality on the basis of sex, race or disability and/or on employers?

Question 26. What evidence is there about the possible impact of pay transparency measures on pay equality on the basis of sex, race or disability?

Question 27. What evidence is there on the possible implications of introducing pay transparency measures for employers?

There were 50 responses (out of a total of 147) to Question 25: “Do you have evidence about the possible impacts of introducing pay transparency measures on pay equality on the basis of sex, race or disability and/or on employers?”. 

Not all respondents provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 50 responses: 

• 70% (35) were submitted by organisations
• 12% (6) were from individuals
• 8% (4) were from academics or researchers
• 10% (5) selected the ‘Other’ category

Organisational respondents included: 

• 29% (10) were CSOs 
• 29% (10) were employee representatives 
• 17% (6) were employer representatives 
• 14% (5) were large public authorities 
• 9% (3) were large enterprises
• 2% (1) was a SME

3.3.1 Impact on pay equality (question 26)

This section presents the evidence provided by the respondents about the possible impact of pay transparency measures on pay equality on the basis of sex, race or disability. 

There is some evidence suggesting that pay transparency measures have supported pay equality. However, over half of respondents identified limitations in their implementation, indicating that the impact of these measures varied by sector and pay type. Public sector bodies with clearer job grading and set pay scales were seen as better able to achieve fairer outcomes. In contrast, sectors like finance or sales, where compensation often includes variable pay scales or discretionary bonuses, were considered more challenging to assess and equalise due to uncertainty and more subjective decision-making processes.

Trade unions and CSOs highlighted that discretionary bonuses were often not monitored, potentially disadvantaging women and ethnic minority staff. A few individual respondents described that they were not aware for years that they were underpaid or could not challenge unfairness without access to pay data. An employee representative cited evidence published by the Fawcett Society in 2020, indicating that 60% of women either lack awareness of their male colleagues’ earnings or believe they are paid less for equivalent roles. The representative also referenced data from the same source, suggesting that salary transparency is limited in most workplaces, with only 24% of employees reporting open discussions about pay.

In some organisations, transparency measures such as publishing pay banding, progression criteria, and salary ranges have led to internal pay reviews that corrected structural imbalances. A large enterprise respondent shared that most roles in their organisation are paid a single rate, enabling pay transparency. For more professional roles, they use pay banding to reflect differences in experience, skills, and qualifications while providing a level of transparency and clarity. The same respondent highlighted that published pay banding helps ensure any pay differentiation within the same role is fair and justified. 

Others warned transparency could make it harder to recruit or keep staff in competitive markets. A few employer representatives believed that publishing salary bands could increase wage costs, reduce performance incentives, and create internal tensions if current employees feel underpaid.

A minority of respondents from trade unions and academia shared evidence that transparency measures such as salary history bans, published pay bands, and equal pay audits have reduced gender pay gaps. One trade union submission drew on unpublished internal pay review data from a UK employer. It showed that publishing pay bands and making them visible to staff narrowed the gender pay gap in base pay by 3 percentage points in 2 years. A trade union submitted organisational evidence highlighting concerns about pay transparency and pay gaps in a company. The company responded by committing to address the disparities and change pay structure, allocating part of a pay increase specifically to reduce the gap between male and female employees. The trade union respondent submitted that this policy narrowed the pay gap.

Some respondents also drew lessons from other countries, including the EU Pay Transparency Directive and practices in the US. For instance, one academic respondent gave evidence from a US study (Bessen, Denk, and Meng, 2020) showing that where employers were not allowed to ask about salary history, job changers earned 5% to 6% more than people doing similar jobs, with women’s pay rising by 8% to 9%. The same academic respondent also cited a 2020 study (Hansen and McNichols, 2020) which found that California’s ban on employers asking salary history questions led to a narrowing of the gender pay gap, particularly benefiting women over 35 and mothers. 

Evidence on ethnicity and disability was limited, but showed support for expanding pay transparency measures to these areas. Some respondents supported extending mandatory pay gap reporting, banning salary history inquiries, including pay bands in job advertisements, introducing a ‘right to know’ mechanism, and prohibiting negotiation-based pay practices to reduce discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and disability. There was also evidence of progress towards more pay information for these areas, which is an early step in publishing pay gap reporting. Over one-third of respondents flagged poor data availability and inconsistent categories, which restricted meaningful analysis. One employer representative submitted that employees may be unwilling to share personal information like race and disability due to privacy and fear of discrimination, making it challenging to collect comprehensive and representative data. They further stated that in the absence of robust data, pay disparities remain hidden, and claimants are left without the necessary evidence to support their claims. 

Respondents highlighted that the collection of ethnicity and disability data must be standardised to ensure the effectiveness of transparency measures. Evidence submitted by a few respondents indicated that, where pay data exists, inconsistent disability categories across employers made comparisons unreliable. They further highlighted that without robust and disaggregated data, transparency risks overlooking or misrepresenting inequalities. An employee representative believed that salary range disclosures work well with gender discrepancies, however, tackling race and disability pay gaps requires more nuanced approaches because generating meaningful data involves understanding the complexities of disability classifications and racial distinctions. To enhance the impact of pay transparency, respondents recommended implementing standardised data collection protocols, implementing stronger HR systems, and strengthening safeguards for data use. 

A cross-cutting theme was the presence of deeper barriers that limit the effectiveness of transparency in isolation. These included different jobs for different groups, unequal access to progression, and biased performance management. Several respondents felt that transparency can reveal, but not fix, deeper inequalities. A CSO respondent submitted that women from ethnic minority backgrounds were generally concentrated in lower-paid grades, limiting the effect of transparency alone. Others believed disabled employees often faced progression barriers even when pay information was available. For example, one individual respondent gave evidence that disabled staff were more likely to be rated as needing to improve, which limited their chances for promotion and affected their future earnings. 

There was substantial support for mandatory pay transparency measures, with some voluntary approaches seen as useful to improve coverage or help during transition. Respondents commonly reported that voluntary approaches could support early recognition or sector-specific innovation. For example, a CSO respondent submitted their support for a voluntary approach for disclosing pay bands in job advertisements in the short term, but believed that mandatory disclosure is ultimately necessary to ensure full coverage. A few employee representatives highlighted that public sector employers have successfully implemented Job Evaluation Schemes (JES).^{[footnote 13]} However, they believed these have not been widely implemented in the private sector. They referenced the case of Hartley and others vs Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and others [2008], suggesting that mandatory measures would reduce the burden on courts to conduct equal value assessments during litigation and would help the UK keep pace with EU member states. A large public authority respondent suggested the government provide detailed guidance to employers and conduct regular monitoring to decide whether a mandatory approach is needed. 

While not a pay transparency measure that can demonstrate pay discrimination, some respondents reported how they felt voluntarily reporting gender pay gaps had an impact on pay. A CSO respondent shared an example where publishing gender pay gap data prompted employers to act. This narrowed the gender pay gap and increased women’s wages relative to men, as their employer took steps early to address inequality (Blundell, 2021). One CSO respondent gave evidence that some large employers, such as PwC and KPMG, adopted voluntary reporting approaches on pay gaps. They described these approaches as “achievable and replicable”.

A few concerns were raised: 

Voluntary nature of transparency approaches: Some CSO respondents and employee representatives found that voluntary measures were unlikely to achieve widespread or lasting change without legal backing due to inconsistent uptake, poor recording, limited effectiveness, and limited enforcement. One employee representative claimed that voluntary approaches did not seem to work in the private sector, partly because employers may lack the skills to follow pay transparency measures. A CSO respondent highlighted that the Solicitors Regulation Authority mandates socio-economic data collection in the legal sector, while only one-third of financial services firms voluntarily report such data via Progress Together.^{[footnote 14]} The same respondent cited Progress Together’s 2024 response to the FCA and PRA consultation, to show that standardised, mandatory reporting significantly improves employee response rates, from an initial average of 49% to between 60% and 80% in subsequent years. 

Risks that could arise from mandatory approaches to pay transparency, particularly for smaller employers: For example, a charity respondent submitted that, in their employer roundtables, some employers feared mandatory action plans could lead to copying responses or reusing old plans without fully engaging. A minority of organisational respondents were concerned that a mandatory approach to pay transparency could hold back start-ups and businesses with fewer than 10 employees before they are established. They suggested a phased or hybrid model to build capacity while widening coverage of measures. While not a pay transparency measure focused on pay discrimination, an employer representative also submitted an example of implementing a phased model for mandatory pay gap reporting. They believed that such a model would be particularly helpful for employers who may lack the immediate capacity to adopt comprehensive reporting measures.

Potential operational challenges in implementing transparency measures such as confidentiality, dissatisfaction among employees, and managing past disparities: While not a pay transparency measure focused on pay discrimination, some respondents specifically highlighted risks related to pay gap reporting. Few respondents suggested that headline figures could hide deeper inequalities in bonuses and progression, particularly where reporting lacked narrative context. An academic respondent and an employee representative warned that benchmarking against national population data rather than internal workforce composition could misrepresent progress and mask underrepresentation. Others also raised concerns about superficial compliance, where reporting becomes “box-ticking”.

Respondents also submitted evidence of risks associated with other pay transparency measures. 

A business representative body raised concerns about confidentiality, warning that in small teams, publishing salary ranges or bonus data could lead to individual salaries being identified. 

One employee representative reported that transparency measures could cause employee dissatisfaction if pay differences were exposed without clear plans to address them, such as through job evaluation and open communication. 

Some respondents expressed uncertainty about managing past disparities revealed by transparency, particularly where employers lacked formal pay structures.

To mitigate these risks, a few respondents recommended pairing transparency reforms with legal protections, clear guidance, dispute resolution mechanisms, and sector-specific advice. These measures were seen as particularly important for smaller employers or those without in-house HR expertise.

3.3.2 Implications for employers (question 27)

This section presents evidence on the possible implications of introducing pay transparency measures for employers. 

Over half of submissions reported that the size of the organisation affects the ability to implement measures and protect confidentiality. One in 3 SME respondents raised concerns about limited administrative capacity, higher costs, and the risk of identifying individuals in small teams. An individual respondent flagged that SMEs could face additional challenges to protect confidentiality when publishing pay data. In contrast, the majority of larger employers submitted that they already had HR systems and reporting experience. 

Employers may face a range of practical challenges in introducing pay transparency measures, with implications differing by sector, business model, pay practices, and workforce characteristics. Around half of respondents submitted that in sectors with standardised roles and pay scales, such as healthcare, education, or the civil service, pay transparency measures were generally seen as easier to implement and aligned with existing frameworks. For example, one large public authority claimed they could publish detailed pay data quickly because of nationally set pay bands. A few respondents from CSOs and trade unions shared examples where pay transparency measures had enabled them to identify and correct unjustified pay discrimination. One individual respondent also felt that publishing pay ranges in a small organisation improved morale and retention. Several respondents added that reforms were often driven by employee pressure, even before legal requirements were in place. 

In contrast, one individual respondent recounted challenges in managing staff expectations when informal pay arrangements were exposed through internal audits. 1 in 3 private sector representatives also highlighted challenges linked to variable pay, bonuses, or performance-based remuneration, particularly in the finance, consultancy, and technology sectors. They were concerned that standardised disclosure might limit their ability to recruit or keep staff. Additionally, around 1 in 4 CSO respondents also flagged difficulties in including casual, seasonal, and zero-hours workers in reporting, especially in the hospitality and retail sectors. An employee representative submitted that it is challenging for employers to disclose specific bonus figures, as the allocation of such rewards typically falls under the organisation’s discretionary authority. They also stated that even in cases involving non-discretionary bonuses such as sales commissions, the amounts can be difficult to quantify given the economic conditions can change rapidly. 

Respondents agreed that organisational readiness (for example, internal practices and leadership commitment) and culture strongly influenced the ease and impact of introducing pay transparency. Around 1 in 3 respondents were of the view that employers with established job evaluation processes and clear pay structures were more confident in disclosing pay information. A large public authority respondent reported that having previously completed an equal pay audit made external reporting straightforward. By contrast, a large enterprise respondent submitted that lack of internal systems to track pay by protected characteristics would require new software. Around 1 in 4 CSO respondents believed that some low-wage sectors (for example, retail, social care) will lack the resources or incentives to prioritise transparency without legal requirements. Over half of the respondents called for job evaluation tools, clear pay progression frameworks and training for line managers and HR professionals. Several submissions stressed that transparency should be preceded or accompanied by government templates, technical support, and internal reviews, to ensure accuracy and consistency. Some suggested that without clear internal accountability, transparency could lead to confusion or mistrust. Many recommended a staged approach to implementation, allowing time to address differences before mandatory reporting.

Evidence suggested that pay transparency could strengthen trust and engagement, though external audiences may misinterpret data without context. Over half of the respondents reported positive employee and stakeholder attitudes towards pay transparency when the rationale was clearly explained. They believed that transparency helped show fairness and commitment to equality, improved employee trust and engagement. An academic respondent referenced international evidence regarding U.S. employers, showing that these employers are increasingly adopting pay transparency measures to not only narrow the gender pay gap but also to foster an engaged and positive working environment that builds trust.

However, evidence suggests that reporting and communication of transparency measures must be done carefully to prevent misinterpretation. Some respondents cautioned that public-facing data could be misinterpreted if not contextualised. To address this, respondents called for clear communication strategies explaining how pay structures work and what steps employers are taking to close gaps. A few observed that external stakeholders, such as investors, clients, or regulators, increasingly viewed pay transparency as part of reporting on environmental, social, governance (ESG) issues. They submitted that this showed clear communication was essential to manage risks and maintain external confidence. 

Finally, some respondents highlighted potential strategic benefits of pay transparency for employers. A few employer representatives and large enterprise respondents submitted that pay transparency could improve recruitment, retention, and reputation. For example, a large enterprise respondent reported an increase in their job applications after publishing salary ranges in adverts. A minority of respondents cited studies suggesting that reducing pay discrimination contributes to productivity and long-term growth. Overall, many respondents agreed that, if carefully implemented, pay transparency can support both equity and organisational performance. 

3.4 Effectiveness of Equal Pay Audit Regulations (questions 28 and 29)

Question 28. Do you have evidence about the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014?

Question 29. What evidence is there about the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014? 

There were 14 responses (out of a total of 147) to Question 28: “Do you have evidence about the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014?”. 

Not all respondents provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 14 responses: 

• 93% (13) were submitted by organisations
• 7% (1) selected the ‘Other’ category

Organisational respondents included: 

• 31% (4) were CSOs
• 46% (6) were employee representatives
• 15% (2) were large enterprises
• 8% (1) was a large public authority

A few respondents highlighted the lack of published data on tribunal audit orders as a barrier to assessing the impact and effectiveness of Equal Pay Audits and suggested greater monitoring and publication to support accountability and learning.

Submitted evidence suggests that the current regulations have had limited impact. Over half of respondents highlighted that thresholds and exemptions reduce effectiveness, noting that tribunals ordered very few Equal Pay Audits. They also observed that audits were not always ordered where pay discrimination was suspected. They submitted that ordering an Equal Pay Audit once a tribunal had determined a breach, rather than when one was suspected, may not effectively prevent ongoing issues or provide timely remedy. A CSO and a large enterprise respondent highlighted that to their knowledge, many equal pay cases never reach tribunal stage. Instead, equal pay claims are often settled or withdrawn at some point during the litigation process, meaning that Equal Pay Audits are not triggered.

Similarly, some legal experts described the requirements that must be met for starting an audit as too high. They suggested tribunals may be reluctant to impose audits due to complexity, cost, or the views that issues had been resolved through the individual claim. Some respondents recommended allowing or requiring broader reviews when patterns of inequality are likely, even if a formal audit is not triggered. For example, a legal body proposed that the EHRC could lead proactive audits to reduce ambiguity and organisational burden. They also recommended piloting audits to better understand how race and disability pay discrimination manifests, even in the absence of a tribunal finding.

Respondents also raised concerns around the factors that influenced the effectiveness of the Regulations. Several employee representatives and academic respondents raised concerns about exemptions (for example, when an employer has recently conducted an audit or settled a claim). They submitted that these exemptions reduced the likelihood of widespread change via audits. One individual respondent expressed frustration about the length of the tribunal process required to obtain basic information. They felt these delayed efforts to improve transparency. Several respondents also criticised inconsistencies in audit quality and scope, pointing to minimal standardisation in their processes. For example, one respondent highlighted that in their view, Equal Pay Audits concentrated solely on the specific role or department involved in a claim, overlooking the role of the wider pay system. Respondents also submitted that employers often aimed for minimum legal compliance rather than substantive equality. Even after successful claims, broader differences were sometimes left unaddressed. Another respondent from a large enterprise submitted that pursuing an equal pay claim through to a remedy hearing demands considerable resources. They highlighted that in practice, only a small number of such tribunal cases reach a final adjudication. The vast majority are resolved through settlement either prior to or shortly after legal proceedings commence, which significantly limits the opportunity for tribunals to order a formal audit.

Respondents described enforcement as weak, when employers failed to follow audit orders, although they provided minimal evidence to support this. A minority of CSO and legal respondents reported that although the Regulations allow for further tribunal orders or fines, these were rarely applied. One CSO explained that a lack of further action by regulators contributed to the perception that Equal Pay Audits are low-risk and easily avoided. A large enterprise respondent believed that increasing the fine for non-compliance would likely be ineffective in achieving the government’s broader objectives, highlighting that the core issue lies not in employers ignoring orders, but in the scarcity of such orders being issued in the first place. A few respondents linked this to broader weaknesses in equal pay enforcement, including delayed tribunals and limited proactive oversight. A few respondents questioned whether the existing compliance model was fit for purpose without clearer guidance and accountability. 

Respondents also described internal challenges limiting the effectiveness of equal pay audits. A few respondents, including employer representatives and SME respondents, reported poorly maintained pay records, fragmented HR systems, and a lack of in-house expertise. They submitted that these barriers were common, especially for SMEs, and limited the ability to conduct meaningful analysis or develop proper remedies. A minority of CSO respondents acknowledged that in their view, leadership resistance or fear of reputational harm may deter organisations from engaging early with audits. These factors emphasised that organisational capacity and leadership can have a major impact on Equal Pay Audit quality. 

Some organisations reported that conducting voluntary Equal Pay Audits was useful, but no substitute for a legal regime. A minority of respondents submitted that voluntary audits were undertaken as part of wider equality action plans or in response to workforce concerns. They highlighted that these audits were more comprehensive when supported by leadership, employee consultation, and regular monitoring to inform strategic decisions. They provided examples they saw as effective, including use of independent external auditors, transparent action plans, and integration with diversity and inclusion strategies. However, several respondents believed voluntary approaches alone would not reach the employers most in need of reform. 

Respondents proposed a range of reforms to strengthen the Equal Pay Audits regime, with support for a proactive, standardised, and regulator-led approach. Over half of respondents from CSOs, academics, and employer representatives, submitted that the Equal Pay Audits should not be limited to post-tribunal. They called for more proactive or randomised audits. For example, by expanding the scope of audits to include claims on the basis of race and disability, examining pay systems more broadly, and standardising audit methodologies. Other proposals included requiring publication of findings and empowering regulators or inspectors to prompt audits based on risk factors, complaints, or workforce data. A minority of respondents suggested reducing reliance on individual litigation for wider reviews. 

3.5 Impact of extending Equal Pay Audits to race and disability (questions 30 and 31)

Question 30. Do you have evidence on the possible impact of requiring employers to undertake equal pay audits in cases where pay discrimination has been found in relation to race or disability?

Question 31. What evidence is there on the possible impact of requiring employers to undertake equal pay audits in cases where pay discrimination has been found in relation to race or disability?

There were 13 responses (out of a total of 147) to Question 30: “Do you have evidence on the possible impact of requiring employers to undertake equal pay audits in cases where pay discrimination has been found in relation to race or disability?”. 

Not all respondents commented on every open-text questions. Of the 13 responses: 

• 84% (11) were submitted by organisations
• 8% (1) was from an individual
• 8% (1) selected the ‘Other’ category

Organisational respondents included: 

• 45% (5) were CSOs 

• 28% (3) were employer representatives
• 9% (1) was an employee representative
• 9% (1) was a large enterprise
• 9% (1) was a SME

Submitted evidence shows there is support for extending Equal Pay Audit requirements to cover race and disability, but barriers identified in section 3.4 must be addressed. Over half of respondents, particularly CSOs, supported expanding audits to include claims on the basis of race and disability. They submitted that restricting audits to sex discrimination leaves protection gaps and overlooks overlapping inequalities. They suggested that race and disability pay differences can be as substantial as gender gaps, but received less attention from organisations due to the limited scope of existing audit regulations. A CSO respondent recommended that employers who fail to comply with legislation related to racial pay discrimination should be subject to an equal pay audit.

Others, however, argued that expanding audits without reforming the underlying model would not address inequalities. As noted in section 3.4, respondents stressed that audits were rare and too narrowly applied to drive wider change.

Respondents also submitted that expansion would create additional administrative and financial burdens for employers, especially smaller organisations. There was broad agreement that requiring additional audits would create new responsibilities for employers, but views differed on whether these would affect all organisations evenly. A few SME and employer representatives highlighted risks for smaller businesses with limited HR infrastructure. In contrast, large enterprises and CSOs emphasised that the reputational, legal, and workforce costs of not addressing pay discrimination outweighed the investment in preventative audits. To ease burdens, some respondents proposed aligning audit processes with existing gender pay gap reporting systems, using publicly funded toolkits, or sample-based methodologies. They thought these could help reduce costs during implementation. 

A few respondents were of the view that without robust data, race and disability pay discrimination are difficult to detect and address. A respondent from a professional body suggested that piloting audits focused on race and disability could help build the evidence base and improve understanding of how discrimination manifests in practice. Challenges in data collection were also acknowledged. Respondents highlighted that self-reporting limitations and concerns about privacy can affect the accuracy and completeness of race and disability data. This was seen as a barrier to effective audits, particularly in smaller organisations with limited workforce diversity.

Finally, some respondents believed that employers without in-house expertise would require external support to conduct meaningful audits. They called for a well-defined audit framework, warning that lack of clarity could discourage compliance or result in ineffective audits. They also called for clear legal guidance, technical assistance, and sector-specific support to ensure consistency and effectiveness across different organisational contexts.

4. Strengthening protections against combined discrimination

4.1 Key findings

4.1.1 Prevalence and patterns of combined discrimination in England, Wales and Scotland

Most respondents gave evidence that combined discrimination was widespread and often shaped by workplace culture, stereotypes, and structural inequalities. They described how overlapping characteristics, such as race and sex, or disability and age, created compounded disadvantages in recruitment, progression, and access to adjustments. For example, older Black women in the rail sector were reported to experience higher rates of bullying and harassment than any other group. Some respondents submitted that internal casework, mentoring programmes, and union surveys had helped surface these patterns. Several respondents believed that the lack of legal recognition and absence of intersectional data made it harder to identify and address these issues. Several respondents also highlighted the need for workplace policies and equality impact assessments to reflect intersectional realities.

Recommendations included:

• improving data collection to capture overlapping characteristics, with several respondents calling for mandatory disaggregated workforce data by race, sex, disability, and employment status
• extending data reporting beyond headline pay gap figures, with many respondents believing this should include data on recruitment, retention, progression, disciplinary action, and access to training
• embedding intersectionality in workplace policies and equality impact assessments, with a few respondents recommending participatory approaches that involve affected groups in decision-making

4.1.2 Legal protection against combined discrimination

The majority of respondents reported that courts and tribunals were limited in addressing combined discrimination. They believed that the legal framework often focused on one characteristic at a time, even when the discrimination arose from a single act. Respondents linked this perception to the absence of section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 and case law requiring proof for each characteristic individually. They viewed this as problematic because, in their experience, it fragments intersectional experiences, adds complexity and cost, and can make it harder for individuals facing overlapping forms of discrimination to access justice. 

However, under current law, a claimant can bring one claim alleging discrimination on multiple protected characteristics. They must, however, provide evidence that discrimination occurred on each ground. This is a fundamental principle of proof rather than a procedural barrier. Some respondents submitted that legal advice and casework had helped claimants navigate complex claims, and a few cited tribunal decisions that acknowledged multiple influences, though these were rare. 

Many respondents believed that procedural barriers, including the need to submit separate claims, short time limits, lack of legal aid, and the requirement to identify separate comparators, made it harder to bring claims. While the requirement to find separate comparators is not a legal necessity, it was widely perceived as such, and this perception was seen to discourage individuals from seeking redress, particularly among marginalised groups.

Recommendations included:

• commencing section 14 of the Equality Act, with many respondents believing this would provide a clear legal route for individuals to bring claims of direct discrimination based on 2 protected characteristics, simplify the complaints process, and better reflect how discrimination is experienced in practice
• developing clear, accessible guidance on how combined discrimination claims can be brought, with several respondents calling for this – while some referred to legal guidance for judges and tribunal members, most focused on practical guidance for potential claimants, advisers, and community-based organisations
• including case studies and step-by-step materials, with several respondents submitting that guidance should feature examples of successful claims and instructions on how to navigate the process 
• expanding the scope of section 14, with several respondents recommending that it include indirect discrimination and harassment
• providing training on intersectionality, with several respondents calling for this to be delivered to legal professionals, tribunal staff, and employers

4.1.3 Access to redress in cases of combined discrimination

Most respondents believed that access to redress was restricted by the need to file separate claims for each protected characteristic, even when the discrimination arose from a single act. They described how this created confusion and delay, particularly for individuals without legal representation. Low awareness of combined discrimination among the public and frontline professionals further reduced access. Several respondents submitted that internal grievance procedures and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms often did not address intersectional harms, and were experienced as procedural or dismissive. Several respondents believed that trade unions, civil society organisations (CSOs), and community-led services had played a key role in supporting individuals to bring forward claims. A few respondents also submitted that media attention and external scrutiny had helped raise awareness and encourage action in some cases.

Recommendations included:

• providing access to legal aid for discrimination cases involving multiple characteristics, with several respondents recommending funding for community legal clinics and charities that offer culturally competent support
• clarifying tribunal procedures and guidance, with several respondents calling for step-by-step materials on how to bring combined discrimination claims – this included examples of successful claims, template materials, and guidance on how to frame intersectional evidence
• raising public awareness, with a few respondents recommending legal education campaigns to improve understanding of combined discrimination and available routes to redress
• recognising caste as a standalone protected characteristic, with a few respondents calling for this change, noting that caste is currently treated as an aspect of race under the Equality Act 2010

4.1.4 Effectiveness of commencing section 14 of the Equality Act 2010

The majority of respondents supported commencing section 14, seeing it as essential to close a gap in protection and enable single claims of direct discrimination involving 2 protected characteristics, which they felt better reflected actual experiences of discrimination. Some respondents submitted that section 14 could simplify proceedings and allow more coherent claims. Support came from legal professionals, advocacy groups, and individuals with lived experience. 

However, a majority of respondents also raised concerns about the limited scope of section 14. They submitted that it only applies to direct discrimination and only allows for 2 protected characteristics to be combined. Many believed this would prevent the provision from addressing indirect discrimination, harassment, or more complex intersectional cases, and would limit its effectiveness in practice. A few respondents warned that without wider reform, section 14 may have limited impact.

Recommendations included:

• commencing section 14 with clear guidance and training, with several respondents recommending support for employers, unions, and legal professionals to ensure effective implementation
• expanding the scope of section 14, with a majority of respondents who supported commencement submitting that it should include indirect discrimination and harassment, which they described as common forms of intersectional harm
• allowing more than 2 protected characteristics to be combined in a single claim, with some respondents calling for this change to better reflect complex experiences of discrimination
• ensuring practical effectiveness, with some respondents believing that these changes were necessary to make section 14 workable in practice and inclusive of the full range of combined discrimination scenarios
• embedding intersectionality into public sector duties and tribunal procedures, with a few respondents recommending co-development of practical guidance with trade unions, employer bodies, and Acas

4.1.5 Effectiveness of other actions to protect against combined discrimination and provide redress

Respondents submitted that legislative gaps prevent people from reflecting their lived experience in legal claims. Around one-third of respondents submitted that tribunal structures were inaccessible and burdensome. Several respondents felt that data systems did not capture overlapping characteristics, making protections reactive and limiting the ability to monitor intersectional inequalities. 

A few respondents believed community-led services were better able to respond to combined discrimination, particularly where mainstream services lacked the capacity or cultural competence to do so. Some respondents described how weak enforcement mechanisms, limited skills and resources among frontline professionals, and a lack of joined-up accountability across public bodies meant that mainstream services often did not adequately recognise or respond to intersectional harms.

Recommendations included:

• strengthening the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), with several respondents recommending that public bodies set and publish specific objectives on intersectional inequalities and monitor progress annually
• improving data infrastructure, with many respondents calling for the collection and publication of disaggregated data across multiple characteristics, and the use of intersectional analysis in Equality Impact Assessments
• investing in community-led services, with some respondents recommending long-term support for organisations led by marginalised groups, and embedding intersectionality into public spending, procurement, and commissioning frameworks
• providing training for professionals, with several respondents submitting that legal advisers, tribunal staff, and service providers should receive training on intersectionality, cultural competency, and trauma-informed practice
• introducing intersectional impact assessments, with a few respondents calling for Employment Tribunals to be empowered to consider the cumulative impact of discrimination when making recommendations or awarding remedies

4.2 Introduction 

This chapter summarises evidence on combined discrimination. It covers responses to Call for Evidence (CfE) questions 32 to 38, which asked about the prevalence and nature of discrimination arising from a combination of 2 or more protected characteristics. 

Respondents gave evidence about how common this was in different settings, the effectiveness of current legal protections, and access to redress. The section also reports views on the potential impact of commencing section 14 of the Equality Act 2010. 

Definition

Combined discrimination happens when a person is treated less favourably because of a combination of 2 or more protected characteristics.

Examples include:

• a Muslim woman facing bias in recruitment because of her religion and sex
• a woman experiencing the menopause who is disadvantaged due to age and sex

Under the current law, a person in this situation can bring a claim for combined discrimination on the basis of 2 different protected characteristics using the same set of facts, and to succeed would need to establish that the discrimination was caused by each of the characteristics.

The remainder of the chapter is organised as follows:

• prevalence of combined discrimination in England, Wales and Scotland (questions 32 and 33)
• legal protection against combined discrimination (question 34)
• access to redress in cases of combined discrimination (question 35)
• effectiveness of commencing section 14 of the 2010 Act (question 36)
• effectiveness of other actions to protect against combined discrimination and provide redress (question 37)
• prevalence of certain types of combined discrimination (question 38)

The evidence is organised under headings that match the CfE question numbers.

4.3 Prevalence of combined discrimination in England, Wales and Scotland (questions 32 and 33)

This section summarises the evidence submitted on how common combined discrimination is across England, Scotland and Wales, and the types of barriers respondents reported that people face when 2 or more protected characteristics intersect.

Question 32. Do you have evidence about the prevalence of combined discrimination in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of actions that can be taken to protect individuals against combined discrimination and accessing redress? [Yes, No]

Question 33. What evidence is there on the prevalence of combined discrimination in England and Wales and Scotland?

A total of 74 submissions (out of a total of 147) responded to Question 32: “Do you have evidence about the prevalence of combined discrimination in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of actions that can be taken to protect individuals against combined discrimination and accessing redress?”. 

Of the 74 responses 

• 61% (45) were submitted by organisations
• 19% (14) were from individuals
• 11% (8) were from academics or researchers
• 9% (7) selected the ‘Other’ category, which comprised a mix of individuals, groups, and organisations

Organisational respondents included:

• 56% (25) CSOs
• 22% (10) employee representatives
• 11% (5) employer representatives 
• 7% (3) large public authorities
• 4% (2) large enterprises

Combined discrimination, where multiple protected characteristics intersect, was recognised by some respondents as a complex area of equality law. Section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 would allow direct discrimination claims based on 2 protected characteristics. It has not been commenced. Respondents to Question 33 submitted a range of views and examples. Many respondents submitted that such discrimination was difficult to evidence or challenge under current legal frameworks. The following section reflects respondents’ understanding and experiences, as opposed to legal findings or consensus on prevalence. Data gaps, procedural barriers, and the absence of intersectional metrics were frequently cited as obstacles to redress.

A few respondents reported that combined discrimination was present across sectors and regions, and described how this had created barriers throughout their career journeys. Several respondents submitted evidence and views that they often felt combined discrimination was not properly considered by law, policy, and data systems. Most respondents described it as a problem that affects systems and structures, rather than being limited to individual cases. 

A few respondents reported that combined discrimination was common in the workplace. Some respondents saw workplace culture as a key driver, often reinforcing stereotypes that disadvantage people whose identities differ from expectations. For example, one respondent shared their lived experience as a Black autistic woman. They felt they were perceived as “too assertive” and “not team-oriented”. They linked these stereotypes to the combined influence of their race, sex, and neurodivergence. They explained that these perceptions were used to justify their exclusion and poor performance ratings, despite their competence. They also reported that workplace adjustments were removed without consultation. Some respondents thought that cases involving combined discrimination rarely succeeded, because tribunals may require separate comparators and treat each characteristic separately. However, case law indicates that each characteristic only needs to be a ‘significant influence’ on the less favourable treatment, not the sole or primary cause, for a claim to succeed.

Qualitative research submitted by a CSO respondent highlighted systemic barriers linked to combined indirect discrimination. This included interviews and casework with people who had experienced discrimination based on multiple protected characteristics. The respondent reported that cultural and structural workplace norms, complicated grievance procedures, and microaggressions contributed to combined indirect discrimination at an individual and systemic level. 

Several respondents identified sector-specific patterns of combined discrimination, particularly affecting ethnic minority women. For example, some academic and CSO respondents described how women from ethnic minority backgrounds faced a range of biases in recruitment and promotion, especially within male-dominated industries. These included direct and indirect discrimination, unconscious bias, stereotyping, and exclusion from progression.

One CSO submitted evidence showing persistent combined discrimination across multiple sectors, based on race, sex, and disability. Their evidence drew on the Business in the Community (BITC) ‘Race at Work Surveys’ (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024), factsheets, toolkits, and mentoring programme insights, delivered in partnership with large employers. This body of work, documents ongoing barriers to progression and wellbeing for Black, Asian, and ethnic minority women and disabled women. This included bullying, harassment, lack of mentorship, underrepresentation in leadership, and emotional harm linked to racism and sex based discrimination. These findings were presented as sector-wide patterns across finance, law, tech, policing, and enterprise. The submission drew on the combined findings from across BITC’s research and published outputs, rather than citing a single report for all points. 

A few respondents submitted that disabled staff from ethnic minority backgrounds face compounded bias in the health sector. A few respondents felt that, in healthcare workplaces, disabled staff from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to have their skills or judgement questioned by colleagues or managers. This reportedly led to reduced trust and exclusion from decision-making. A trade union respondent submitted internal survey data suggesting that older women were more likely to face redundancy during the pandemic. Especially, when they were also disabled or had caring duties. They suggested this was due to fragmented work histories, lower earnings, and limited access to flexible working arrangements. 

An academic respondent submitted evidence from survey research commissioned by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) (Krishnan and others, 2025). The study found that health and social care staff in England commonly reported microaggressions, exclusion, unfair treatment at work, and limited access to opportunities.

Evidence presented by a few CSOs, indicated that people with protected characteristics who also had caring responsibilities which are not a protected characteristic, often faced more barriers in employment and access to support. One CSO submitted internal research and survey data describing how women caring for disabled relatives, while also facing barriers linked to age and race, often lacked fair support or effective remedies. One CSO respondent, submitted their own lived experience, describing how their health condition and caring responsibilities were cited as grounds for disciplinary action by their manager. They reported this was despite meeting work obligations and receiving positive peer feedback. The individual successfully appealed the decision and was later moved to a new role.

One CSO submitted internal research and survey data that found carers were more likely to be disabled than non-carers and reported higher rates of poverty, exclusion from workplace activities, and unfair treatment at work. While these barriers were described as common in employment and welfare contexts, no respondent explicitly stated that such barriers were more prevalent in these systems compared to others. 

Although caring responsibilities are not legally recognised as a protected characteristic, several respondents submitted qualitative evidence describing inflexible working patterns or limited adjustments for carers with disabilities. These submissions did not quantify prevalence or compare across systems, but highlighted barriers linked to age, race, and disability. Some respondents interpreted these examples as indicative of structural rather than individual issues, with the same groups facing barriers across different settings.

4.4 Legal protection against combined discrimination (question 34)

Question 34. What evidence is there as to whether there is currently sufficient legal protection against discrimination based on a combination of protected characteristics?

This section summarises the evidence submitted on whether current legal protections are sufficient for people who experience discrimination based on a combination of protected characteristics. A total of 36 respondents submitted evidence to this question. Many of those respondents did not think that the Equality Act 2010 offered sufficient protection for people facing discrimination, based on a combination of protected characteristics. Many respondents, including CSOs and employee representatives, also submitted evidence suggesting that the current legal framework could be improved. Section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 has not yet commenced. However, these submissions often highlighted its absence or limited scope as a barrier to redress. 

4.4.1 Courts and tribunals 

The majority of respondents referenced legal precedents to indicate that courts and tribunals may be limited in addressing combined discrimination. They felt that tribunal procedures often did not reflect the reality of combined discrimination. One academic respondent submitted the case of Bahl v Law Society (Royal Courts of Justice, 2004) as an example of how the current legal framework reinforced a single-characteristic approach to discrimination claims. They stated that in this and other cases, such as Ms R Dahir v Wimbledon Mosque (Employment Tribunal, 2024), tribunals usually required each type of discrimination to be considered separately. They submitted internal analysis showing disability status was challenged in 65.1% of multi-ground claims, compared to 54.8% of single-ground claims. This was interpreted by the respondent as indicating that the legal framework may be less likely to recognise disability when it is presented alongside other protected characteristics.

Several respondents gave evidence that tribunals often required claimants to provide separate evidence for each protected characteristic, even when the unfair treatment arose from a single event. Although separate evidence is not always required, it can be depending on the facts of the case and the nature of the evidence. This included evidence from academics and researchers, employee representatives, and CSO respondents. They submitted that it was difficult to know how common combined discrimination was due to legal and procedural constraints. These included claims being split by characteristic, time limits for making a claim, lack of legal aid, and the requirement to find a separate comparator for each characteristic. While the law does not automatically require separate comparators for each characteristic, a few respondents described procedural practices where this was expected, particularly in cases involving multiple protected characteristics. One employee representative described how, in their experience, tribunals tended to examine each characteristic separately, even when the facts indicated overlapping discrimination. They argued that this approach may fail to reflect the experience of people who face exclusion based on race, religion and sex all at once. A few respondents believed that this could result in the harm not being fully recognised. They felt this could put people off pursuing claims, particularly people who were already marginalised.

Several respondents identified the procedural challenges associated with handling multiple claims. These include longer timelines, higher legal costs, and the emotional strain of bringing lived experiences into legal categories. Several respondents emphasised that these burdens disproportionately affect people already marginalised by race, sex, disability or class. One CSO submitted evidence suggesting that individuals facing discrimination on multiple grounds, such as Muslim women, must bring separate claims for each characteristic. They argued that this created barriers to redress, including increased legal complexity, emotional and financial strain, and a greater burden of proof, particularly for those with limited access to legal advice or who face language and cultural barriers.

Several respondents suggested that, in certain cases, the system could struggle to accommodate complex claims that fall outside established legal categories. A few CSOs and a public authority suggested that, in its current form, the system was better equipped to process cases that align closely with established legal categories. They believed it may struggle to accommodate more complex experiences that do not fit these templates. Nonetheless respondents described these cases as equally important. This was evidenced by internal case data from CSOs. One CSO described a case where a claimant brought disability, sex, and age discrimination claims related to menopause symptoms and performance criticisms. The tribunal only upheld the disability claim, analysing each characteristic separately. Although the symptoms were inherently linked to sex and age, the tribunal did not find discrimination on those grounds. The CSO submitted that claimants are often advised to pursue one or two claims based on where the evidence is strongest, which can obscure the full extent of combined discrimination and limit redress.  Other groups submitted anonymised case summaries suggesting that overlapping discrimination could go unaddressed when practitioners focus on a single characteristic.

4.4.2 Employer practice, policy, and data gaps

Many respondents submitted that employers often do not adequately address combined discrimination in internal policies. They described Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) frameworks as “tick-box exercises” focused on issues separately.  Submissions from both a large public authority and a CSO, recommended stronger PSED and greater accountability mechanisms to ensure intersectionality is reflected in practice. One individual respondent shared their own experience of raising a formal grievance related to disability discrimination. They reported that despite submitting detailed evidence and identifying witnesses, their concerns were not investigated. They also reported that they struggled to meet appeal requirements due to health-related barriers. They ultimately resigned from a role they had previously valued, citing lack of support and deterioration in their health.

Several respondents viewed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as internal grievance procedures or mediation, as inadequate for combined discrimination. Several respondents, including individuals and employee representatives, submitted that ADR tends to simplify complicated cases and push for informal settlements that ignore key elements of the claim. One individual respondent shared their lived experience of pursuing redress through internal and external channels. They reported that internal grievance procedures failed to address their concerns, and external regulators only became involved after sustained personal effort. Despite this, they felt no meaningful action was taken. The respondent also described being pressured to sign a compromise of a tribunal (COT3) agreement after withdrawing from an Employment Tribunal. The Information Commissioner’s Office later deemed this unlawful due to the way it attempted to restrict their statutory rights. A COT3 agreement is a legally binding settlement to resolve a dispute between employer and employee, such as unfair dismissal or discrimination. It is facilitated by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) and avoids the need for an Employment Tribunal hearing. 

Finally, for several respondents, data collection was also described as a concern. Equality monitoring systems in workplaces and public bodies were reported to rarely capture more than one characteristic per record. These respondents viewed this as potentially: 

• limiting the understanding of combined discrimination
• weakening the evidence base for policy or legal change
• making it harder for employers to act

One academic respondent submitted that many studies look at race or sex separately, ignoring the greater exclusion faced when both apply. In addition, a few respondents reported that regional and sector comparisons were rarely possible due to the lack of cross-tabulated data. A CSO respondent cautioned that without targeted data collection to support intersectional analysis, the experience of combined discrimination would remain invisible. People may avoid seeking help due to cultural stigma and risk becoming further isolated.

4.5 Access to redress in cases of combined discrimination (question 35)

Question 35. What evidence is there on access to redress in cases of combined discrimination?

This section summarises the evidence submitted on how accessible redress is for people who experience discrimination based on a combination of protected characteristics. Of the 21 respondents who addressed this question, most submitted that access to redress was limited by procedural complexity, low awareness, and the need to file separate claims for each characteristic. The evidence discusses barriers to justice and effective redress for those experiencing intersectional harms.  Most respondents identified the absence of an enforceable legal route for combined discrimination as a major barrier, noting that section 14 of the Equality Act 2010, although drafted to address dual discrimination, has never been brought into force. They argued that this omission prevents individuals from bringing a single claim that reflects the combined impact of multiple protected characteristics, and that commencing section 14, potentially with an expanded scope, could help address this gap. 

As noted in section 4.3, several CSOs and employee representatives submitted that claimants must file individual claims for each characteristic, even when discrimination arose from the same action. A CSO submitted that claimants must file separate claims if they want the tribunal to consider more than one characteristic. They described this as more complex and costly. An employee representative explained that while judges may accept that each protected characteristic played a role in the alleged discrimination, it is common in practice for only one ground to succeed. They felt this approach can limit the extent to which the law recognises the full nature of combined discrimination. In addition, a CSO and an employee representative submitted that lawyers and judges sometimes encouraged claimants to focus on one ground, not due to a legal requirement, but to simplify proceedings and align with procedural norms. They argued that this can obscure the full extent of combined discrimination and fail to reflect the lived experience of claimants. However, some respondents believed that neither focusing on one ground nor filing multiple claims fully captured the way they experienced combined discrimination. 

Several respondents submitted that separating claims by characteristic can be confusing and may reduce access to justice. One CSO respondent felt that the need to “prove” each characteristic separately reduced access to justice. Others added, however, that proving how different types of discrimination overlap is also difficult. For instance, a CSO respondent reported that Black disabled professionals in social work often face complex and layered bias affecting their pay or career progression. They felt formal routes may not capture such subtle and pervasive discrimination. An academic respondent cited research by Estacio and Saidy-Khan (2014), which found that over half of participants had experienced microaggressions. These were described as cumulative experiences that contributed to broader patterns of exclusion, rather than isolated incidents. The research also found that 62% of those who experienced race-related inequalities and 61% of those who experienced sex-related inequalities reported microaggressions. The respondent submitted that the subtle and pervasive nature of these incidents can make them difficult to prove, and may leave individuals uncertain about how to interpret or respond to them.

Several respondents submitted that claimants were unaware that combined discrimination claims are not currently permitted under the Equality Act. Several respondents, including CSOs, individual respondents and employee representatives, submitted evidence that claimants were unaware that section 14 of the Equality Act 2010, which would allow a single claim for combined discrimination (for example, based on both race and sex), has not been brought into force. This included examples where litigants in person attempted to bring combined claims reflecting their lived experience, without realising that the law requires separate claims for each protected characteristic. Some respondents believed claimants had brought single-axis claims to cover what they experienced as a single act of discrimination. Others appeared unaware that section 14 exists at all and only engaged with the issue when prompted by the questions in the CfE. Respondents suggested this confusion reflects both the complexity of the law and the absence of clear guidance. Some also felt that employers fail to understand how different types of discrimination overlap, or how policies affect people with multiple protected characteristics. A few respondents submitted that the absence of sufficient data made it difficult to build a clear picture, as described in section 4.3.

Finally, a few submissions highlighted that caste discrimination was particularly under-recognised. Some respondents called for caste to be recognised as a standalone protected characteristic. While caste is currently treated as an aspect of race under the Equality Act 2010, a small number of submissions argued that this did not provide sufficient clarity or protection. To address these challenges many respondents called for procedural reform to bring about structural change. Proposals included commencing section 14, revising tribunal rules, improving access to legal aid, and embedding intersectionality into public sector duties. One CSO called for the introduction of an intersectional impact assessment in public policy to ensure that redress mechanisms were inclusive from the outset. A few academic respondents recommended improved public legal education and investment in monitoring systems to capture overlapping forms of disadvantage. A large public authority respondent stressed the need to make sure employers and service providers (for example, Citizens Advice) have up-to-date and accurate advice and guidance to provide effective support. 

4.6 Effectiveness of commencing section 14 of the 2010 Act (question 36)

Question 36. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of commencing section 14 of the 2010 Act in protecting against combined discrimination and providing redress for those who have experienced it?

This section summarises the evidence on whether section 14 would help protect against combined discrimination and improve access to redress. The majority of the 26 respondents who answered this question, expressed support for commencement. However, they also believed that it would need to be accompanied by wider legal and procedural reform to be effective. As the provision has not yet come into force, respondent views on its effectiveness were necessarily speculative. Some respondents also set out specific technical reasons why section 14 would help legally, including simplifying litigation, enabling a single cause of action, and improving legal recognition of intersectional harms. These are explored in the remainder of this section.

Support came from a broad mix of respondents including trade unions, legal specialists and individuals with real-life experiences. The majority of respondents viewed commencement as overdue, and necessary to bring the law more in line with people’s experience. A legal clinic stated that the commencement could simplify proceedings and allow more coherent claims to be made. They, along with a few other respondents, believed that section 14 would enable a single cause of action for combined discrimination, reducing the need to isolate experiences into separate claims. However, several respondents also highlighted caveats, including the provision’s limited scope, covering only 2 protected characteristics and direct discrimination, and the need for clear tribunal guidance to avoid inconsistent outcomes.

Section 14 of the Act was repeatedly described by several respondents, as a tool to address the gap in protection in combined discrimination. Legal professionals submitted that section 14 was designed to reflect real-life experience by allowing a single claim for combined discrimination. However, under the current legal framework, claimants must submit separate claims for each protected characteristic. Some respondents also cautioned that even if section 14 were commenced, claimants might still choose to submit separate claims to maximise their chances of success, depending on how tribunals interpret and apply the provision. They felt this process increases complexity and does not fully capture intersectional harm. Several organisations submitted that, if commenced, section 14 could help the law recognise the “particular combination” of characteristics. They believed that this was especially important in cases involving multiple stereotypes or cumulative bias. A CSO submitted evidence that current legal protections make it difficult to address discrimination that arises from both race and religion. They explained that individuals experiencing Islamophobia or antisemitism often have to bring separate claims under each ground, even when the harm stems from the intersection of both. They argued that implementing section 14 would allow for a more coherent approach to addressing this type of combined discrimination.

Several respondents called for section 14 to be put into effect as they believe this will enable the law to cover discrimination occurring for more than one reason at once. They suggested making tribunal procedures more flexible, offering better legal guidance, and asking the public for ideas on how the law could deal with intersectional discrimination. Some also recommended treating intersectional discrimination as its own category under the law.

Although most respondents viewed commencement of section 14 as overdue, they also stressed that this alone would not guarantee fair outcomes. Several organisations emphasised it should be a starting point rather than a solution. They believed that without wider changes in legal culture, claimants may continue to face structural disadvantage. One academic respondent submitted that UK courts have historically adopted a restrictive approach to equality legislation, particularly intersectional claims. They felt this created a risk that claimants could still be required to prove discrimination against each characteristic separately, limiting the benefit of the change. 

A majority of respondents including legal professionals and advocacy groups pointed to section 14’s limitations: it applies only to direct discrimination and where 2 protected characteristics are involved. A CSO submitted that while section 14 might make some claims clearer, it will not fix other barriers such as complicated procedures or the high evidential thresholds. A legal charity added that most real-world cases involve a mix of direct and indirect discrimination, plus structural or cultural factors. This was seen as especially relevant for people facing assumptions based on sex or ethnicity linked to pregnancy, maternity, or marital status. Some recommended future reforms beyond section 14 to create a more flexible and inclusive framework.  

Several CSOs and academic respondents stressed that legal reform alone will not address deeper structural causes of inequality. For example, one academic respondent highlighted the role of economic inequality, cultural exclusion, and institutional norms in shaping combined discrimination, particularly for stigmatised groups such as Muslim families and Black single mothers. These respondents recommended supplementing section 14 with wider reforms, including improved data collection on overlapping inequalities and stronger requirements for organisations to take responsibility for addressing structural disadvantage. One CSO respondent submitted evidence that current datasets often fail to disaggregate by multiple protected characteristics at once, such as race and age, or sex and disability. They submitted that this limits effective analysis and policy development. They argued that better disaggregated data and case studies would strengthen the evidence base for policy and legislative change. Several respondents also emphasised that while section 14 is seen as a valuable step, it would not be sufficient on its own to tackle the wider social frameworks that sustain disadvantage.

Several respondents also submitted that resourcing, guidance, and support to both the legal system and individuals are as important as the legal change itself. A few CSOs emphasised the need for procedural updates, awareness campaigns, and stronger advice services so that affected people could make effective use of the provision. They also felt that legal professionals and tribunal staff would need clear guidance and training to apply the provision in practice. One CSO respondent submitted evidence that courts already faced challenges in managing discrimination cases based on a single protected characteristic and felt that these difficulties would likely increase in cases involving combined discrimination. They also highlighted that reductions in legal aid have made it difficult for many disabled people to access free legal advice, particularly those with limited time, money, or capacity to pursue a claim. A few respondents warned that without investment in guidance and support, section 14 may remain underused.

4.7 Effectiveness of other actions to protect against combined discrimination and provide redress (question 37)

Question 37. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of any other actions to protect against combined discrimination and provide redress for those who have experienced it?

This section summarises the evidence submitted on other actions, beyond legal reform, which could help protect against combined discrimination and improve access to redress. Most of the 23 respondents who addressed this question, submitted that non-legal measures such as better data collection, stronger organisational policies, improved access to justice, and community support were important, but limited in effectiveness without broader systemic change.

A few respondents believed that gaps in the Equality Act, particularly the absence of provisions for combined discrimination, limited the effectiveness of current legal protections and other measures intended to provide redress. They argued that without a clear legal route to address discrimination based on multiple protected characteristics, claimants are often forced to isolate their experiences into separate claims, which fails to reflect the reality of intersectional harm. A few CSOs added that addressing combined discrimination requires changes to provisions on indirect discrimination and victimisation. One CSO respondent submitted evidence that section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 only allows for direct discrimination to be raised and recommended that it be expanded to include indirect discrimination. They argued that this limitation prevents the Equality Act from adequately addressing situations where disadvantages arise from overlapping factors. To illustrate this, they cited survey data showing that age discrimination is widespread. This survey found that 1 in 3 people over 50 believed they had been turned down for a job because of their age, and 1 in 5 employers acknowledged age discrimination in their organisations. The respondent noted that, despite this evidence, very few age discrimination cases were brought under the Equality Act, and even fewer succeeded. On this basis, they argued that current legal provisions did not capture what they described as “compound disadvantage” (for example, where age intersects with protected characteristics such as sex or race) particularly in sections such as education and health. Therefore, they called for comprehensive reform beyond the commencement of section 14 to ensure that indirect and intersecting forms of discrimination are properly recognised and addressed.

Several submissions identified weak enforcement mechanisms as another barrier. Several respondents believed that tribunal structures required separate claims for each characteristic, making them inaccessible and burdensome. One equality advisory service submitted that this often led to claims being dropped or settled early. Another legal advice organisation also described that cases failed at early stages because the legal threshold could not be met under existing single-ground provisions. A few respondents felt that these thresholds were too high and did not reflect the complexity of combined discrimination. They recommended clearer guidance and revised standards of proof to help tribunals assess intersectional harms more effectively. Several respondents felt that this evidence suggested the need for clearer guidance and practical support to make the justice system more responsive to combined harms.

As noted in section 4.4, several respondents repeatedly raised the lack of disaggregated or cross-cutting data. They argued that without stronger data infrastructure, particularly across race, disability, sex, and religion, protections could remain reactive. They added that current statutory monitoring frameworks, such as the PSED reporting, did not encourage the collection or analysis of intersectional data. 

Echoing section 4.6, several respondents submitted that organisations and frontline professionals lacked skills to address combined discrimination. This included employee representatives and CSO respondents. They added that specialist services were often excluded from mainstream equality initiatives. Without sustained investment in training and resourcing, they warned that institutions may lack the resources or training to detect or challenge combined discrimination. One CSO respondent argued that the law should provide a clearer basis for employer policy and practice that more accurately reflects the nature of disadvantage. They felt that looking at how different protected characteristics combine to shape people’s experiences could help improve workplace adjustments, drive cultural change, and strengthen leadership accountability. They recommended this be supported by guidance and training to encourage good practice. They emphasised the importance of employers taking a more nuanced and informed approach to diversity and inclusion.

Finally, community-led action was seen to be an effective way to address combined discrimination. A few submissions praised specialist support services, particularly those led by and for ethnic minority women, disabled people, and LGBT+ communities for recognising and responding to overlapping discrimination. They believed that these groups were well positioned to understand and respond to complex and intersecting experiences of discrimination. However, one individual respondent submitted evidence that engagement with these campaigns may be limited. They gave examples of initiatives such as World Afro Day, Project Embrace, The Halo Code and Rise 365, which they felt had helped raise awareness about hair discrimination in schools, workplaces, the media and the public. At the same time, they cautioned that such campaigns may only reach individuals and organisations already open to inclusion, rather than those most likely to discriminate or breach equality law. Based on this evidence, the respondent recommended embedding community expertise in policy development and providing long-term support for advocacy infrastructure.

4.8 Prevalence of certain types of combined discrimination (question 38)

This section presents evidence on 4 types of combined discrimination: indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and discrimination involving pregnancy, maternity, marriage and civil partnership. 

Question 38. What evidence is there on the prevalence of the following types of discrimination on the basis of a combination of protected characteristics in England, Scotland and Wales?

• indirect discrimination
• harassment
• victimisation
• discrimination on the basis of a combination of protected characteristics that includes pregnancy and maternity and/or marriage and civil partnership

There were 27 responses to this question. The majority of respondents submitted that these types of discrimination often occurred together but were not recognised due to legal gaps and lack of detailed data, making them hard to detect, prove, and address.

4.8.1 Indirect discrimination

Several respondents raised concerns about indirect combined discrimination, but evidence was limited. They felt the impacts of indirect discrimination were often invisible within data systems, making patterns of indirect harm harder to detect or challenge. Several individuals, CSO respondents and employee representatives shared examples of workplace dress codes disproportionately disadvantaging ethnic minority women, especially Muslim women wearing head coverings. 

The impact was described by a few respondents as greater when combined with barriers linked to migration status. Several individual and CSO respondents submitted that migrant communities had less access to affordable childcare and higher paying jobs. A CSO respondent added that students working on migrant visas were often paid lower salaries across all sectors. 

A few respondents submitted that socio-economic status could interact with other characteristics to create indirect discrimination.  One CSO respondent submitted evidence that people with urban or rural accents often faced career barriers due to how they were perceived in professional settings. They cited research from the Sutton Trust showing that 29% of senior professionals from working-class backgrounds had been mocked for their accent at work, ‘Speaking Up: Accents and Social Mobility’ (2022). The respondent reported this had a direct impact on how employees were treated and whether they were able to progress in their careers. While socio-economic status is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, several respondents felt its interaction with other characteristics, such as race, sex or disability, may magnify inequality and warrants policy attention.

These forms of indirect discrimination often intersect with direct discrimination based on race, sex or disability.

4.8.2 Harassment

Several submissions indicated that harassment involving combined protected characteristics was common but often under-reported and insufficiently addressed. Several respondents described the racial harassment. For instance, one individual respondent cited an Equality and Human Rights Commission ‘Tackling Racial Harassment: Universities Challenged’ (2020) research report showing Black, Asian, and ethnic minority women faced harassment combining race and gender bias more frequently. An academic respondent submitted that this was particularly true for older Black women in the rail sector, who reported more bullying and harassment than any other equality group. 

A CSO respondent submitted that often no government action was taken, even when repeated evidence of racial bullying and harassment was demonstrated. Another CSO felt that harassment was often under-reported because people lacked trust in systems for redress. 

4.8.3 Victimisation

Evidence related to victimisation was limited, but a few respondents reported concerns about patterns of retaliation against those raising complaints involving multiple protected characteristics. An individual respondent reported being penalised professionally after raising concerns about intersectional discrimination, particularly involving race and disability. Another cited evidence that disabled employees requesting adjustments and LGBT+ individuals reporting discrimination were more likely to face victimisation (Disability Rights UK, 2018). This was reported to occur more commonly in sectors with less visibility or inclusivity, with the examples of construction and hospitality given. A CSO submitted that claimants challenging intersectional discrimination were often disbelieved or labelled as “troublemakers”, especially where structural inequalities such as class or migrant status were involved.

4.8.4 Discrimination involving pregnancy and maternity and/ or marriage and civil partnership

A few respondents submitted evidence on combined discrimination involving pregnancy, maternity, marriage and civil partnership. Less than a tenth of submissions addressed this type of combined discrimination. Those that did report that pregnancy and maternity discrimination was common but often treated it in the context of other protected characteristics such as sex. One statutory, non-departmental public body claimed that because of this it was difficult to know how many cases involve these characteristics in combination with others. They reported that they carried out a keyword search across their case data and the total number of cases returned was low. They submitted that this method may not have captured all relevant cases. 

A CSO respondent submitted that women in Scotland faced compounded bias about reliability, availability and commitment linked to pregnancy and maternity. These assumptions were sometimes linked to both sex and race and reinforced by caring responsibilities compounding existing structural biases. They cited research ‘Pregnant Then Screwed’ (2025) showing over 400,000 women lose jobs or face discrimination each year due to pregnancy or motherhood, but fewer than 1% take legal action against their employers. The research also found that working mothers were often paid 33% less than male colleagues in equivalent roles by the time their child was 12. 

In another example, an employment support organisation submitted that marriage and civil partnership protections were often not applied consistently for LGBT+ individuals of colour. Assumptions were often made about their family structures that did not account for cultural differences or legal recognition of same-sex relationships. 

5. Ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty is met by all parties exercising public functions

5.1 Key findings 

5.1.1 Overall compliance

Respondents reported inconsistent Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) compliance among non-public bodies (NPBs) due to low awareness, limited accountability, and unclear legal requirements. Several civil society organisations submitted that charities and housing associations often overlooked their PSED obligations, resulting in superficial adherence (“tick-box exercise”) and little impact on equality outcomes. Respondents gave examples of harm resulting from weak compliance, which sometimes led to exclusion from services and inadequate inclusion of LGBT+ individuals. However, a few examples showed that embedding PSED in contracts improved service accessibility and inclusivity.

5.1.2 Barriers to compliance by NPBs

Respondents cited several barriers to effective compliance by non-public bodies, including low awareness of requirements (especially among small or voluntary organisations), legal ambiguities, gaps in statutory frameworks such as the absence of mandatory Equality Impact Assessments in England, and limited enforcement, potentially due to reduced Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) funding. Respondents also described the existing guidance vague and difficult to apply, and noted many organisations lack sufficient resources to embed equality.

5.1.3 Enablers of compliance

Respondents most often identified clear contracts and active monitoring as key enablers, with public authorities noting that integrating equality requirements into procurement and metrics led to better results. Targeted training, especially on the PSED and Human Rights Act, was also valued. The Welsh statutory framework was praised for its legal duties around Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) and stakeholder engagement, which fostered compliance. Additional enablers included strong commissioner-provider relationships, release of disaggregated data, and internal roles such as equality leads.

5.1.4 Effectiveness of enforcement

Respondents largely described enforcement mechanisms as weak and inconsistent. Breaches of duty were seldom challenged, oversight of Non Public Body (NPB) compliance was minimal, and judicial review was often inaccessible due to cost and complexity. EHRC enforcement powers were considered underused, while outsourcing created unclear accountability between public and private bodies. Some noted that quasi-public bodies used public funds to resist equality claims, discouraging whistleblowing and legal challenges.

5.1.5 Suggested steps to facilitate compliance

Respondents made a series of recommendations aimed at improving compliance. These included:

• clarifying the legal boundaries of the duty, updating sector-specific guidance
• enhancing enforcement mechanisms with legal options for redress
• integrating PSED into procurement through mandatory EIAs and contract clauses
• providing improved training, awareness, and support for small and voluntary providers

Other suggestions involved increasing data transparency, such as workforce reporting and setting annual PSED objectives, and considering reforms to move the duty towards an outcomes-based approach. Further steps included aligning with international human rights standards, focusing compliance efforts on vulnerable sectors, and implementing financial controls to promote accountability and value for money in publicly funded services.

5.2 Introduction

This chapter summarises evidence about how non-public bodies (NPBs) comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) when exercising public functions. It draws on responses to CfE questions 39 and 40.

Question 39. Do you have evidence about the compliance of non-public bodies with PSED when exercising public functions? [Yes, No]

Question 40. What evidence is there about the compliance of non-public bodies with PSED when exercising public functions?

Definition

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 applies to public authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. It requires public authorities, and non-public bodies exercising public functions, to have due regard to the need to: 

1. eliminate discrimination

2. advance equality of opportunity 

3. foster good relations between different people.

This applies to their day-to-day work, including in shaping policy, in delivering services and in relation to their own employees. It ensures that equality issues are proactively considered to remove or minimise disadvantage, and encourage greater participation in public life by those with different protected characteristics. 

PSED is commonly enforced and cited in judicial review claims. Claims can be made by a person or group with standing or sufficient interest in the matter where they feel PSED is not being complied with.  

PSED can also be enforced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which can:

• assess an organisation’s compliance with the duty
• require an organisation to remedy the failure to comply within 28 days
• apply for a court order if they still fail to comply

Respondents were asked to provide evidence on how well NPBs comply with the PSED when performing public functions. Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) sought to understand barriers to compliance, the role of commissioning and contract management, and whether further guidance or regulatory changes may be needed. 

A total of 34 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed these questions. Of these,

• 67% (23) were submitted by organisations 
• 18% (6) were from individuals 
• 6% (2) were from academics or researchers
• 9% (3) selected the ‘Other’ category, which comprised a mix of individuals, groups, and organisations

Organisational respondents included:

• 52% (12) civil society organisations
• 22% (5) employee representatives (mainly Trade Unions)
• 13% (3) large public authorities
• 13% (3) employer representatives

While the Call for Evidence (CfE) focused on NPBs, nearly one-third of respondents expressed wider concerns about how public authorities themselves comply with the PSED. As a result, this chapter differentiates between findings that pertain specifically to NPB compliance and those insights that focus on public bodies. 

This chapter is, therefore, structured thematically, as follows:

• overall compliance by NPBs
• barriers to compliance
• enablers of compliance
• effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms
• steps to support compliance
• PSED for public bodies – perceived compliance concerns and shortcomings of the PSED framework

5.3 Overall compliance by NPBs when exercising public functions

Respondents reported that compliance with the PSED by NPBs is often inconsistent. Of the 29 submissions on this theme, the majority described low awareness of the duty, weak accountability, or little visible action by non-public providers delivering public services.

5 CSOs believed that, in their experience, many NPBs that they have engaged with were unaware that they are subject to the PSED or meet only the minimum threshold of “due regard”. Respondents believed this led to superficial compliance and did not improve equality outcomes. One Civil Society Organisation (CSO) raised concerns specifically about religious organisations they engaged with delivering contracted public services while relying on lawful exemptions in equality law. They stated that schedule 23, paragraph 2 of the PSED allows religion or belief organisations to restrict access to their services, membership, activities, and premises based on religion or belief and sexual orientation. A 2007 report Quality and Equality was cited to show how this can undermine inclusive service delivery. However, the same CSO also viewed that if delivering services on behalf of a public authority under contract, these organisations cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (paragraph 2(10)).

Despite this limitation, the CSO highlights 2 ongoing concerns they have with PSED compliance:

• even when delivering public services, religious organisations may lawfully select staff based on religion or belief
• PSED applies to public authorities, but the definition of public function [Part 3, paragraph 31(4)] linked to the Human Rights Act 1998 is interpreted narrowly by courts – this creates uncertainty about whether contracted religious organisations are bound by the PSED when delivering public functions

Several CSOs submitted that some charities, housing associations, and commissioned providers were unaware of their PSED obligations. For example, one charity administering public funds had “no idea” it had any equality duties. A national body responsible for equality and non-discrimination also noted, through engagement with public bodies, that many such bodies show less focus on PSED compliance in commissioned services compared to directly delivered ones. 

A national employer representative body on disability inclusion reported that organisations often believe they are compliant when they are not. It reported that many lack clarity on what the PSED requires, especially when assessing the impact on disabled people. Similarly, a CSO believed the duty was often treated as a “tick-box exercise” which limited compliance. A trade union submitted evidence showing that 67% of their workplace representatives reported a private company delivering public services had not fulfilled its PSED obligations. 

A legal charity and a trade union believed ambiguity about accountability and the scope of the law contributed to poor compliance. They noted that while section 149(2) of the Equality Act 2010 extends the PSED to non-public bodies exercising public functions, there is no explicit statutory requirement to embed it in procurement and outsourcing, which makes compliance discretionary in practice. The same legal charity cited the EHRC’s 2016 and 2022 reports on PSED compliance and health and social care, which found that hybrid public-private partnerships in delivery blurred responsibility. The legal charity believed that this can create a “blame game”, whereby both public and private bodies believe that the other is responsible for certain legal duties, and neither take responsibility for compliance – or failure – in practice. 2 large public authorities also commented on variability. One authority in Southeast England reported clear NPB compliance where contracts set out expectations and were monitored. Another in the Northwest believed that some NPBs were open to adopt equality principles, but compliance varied. Both authorities submitted providers sometimes saw the duty as a burden, especially when oversight by the commissioning body was weak.

The majority of respondents indicated that weak or inconsistent PSED compliance by NPBs led to exclusion, unequal treatment, and missed opportunities for fair outcomes. Some also believed robust compliance improved service quality. The majority of respondents among CSOs and public authorities gave specific examples of harm to marginalised groups. A women’s rights charity responded that women were denied access to domestic violence refuges or refused Domestic Violence Protection Orders due to providers that had not met their PSED obligations. The charity cited parliamentary evidence given in 2025 in which Women’s Aid reported that over 26,000 survivors referred to safe accommodation were turned away in 2023–24.Respondents described this as a failure to apply the PSED: councils continued to commission domestic abuse services through short-term, transactional contracts that treat refuge provision as generic housing support and often exclude specialist providers, resulting in services that lack trauma-informed, gender-specific support. They further added that even when survivors are legally eligible, women are refused access because the commissioned services are not equipped to meet their needs. Another CSO cited 2 cases involving a local authority awarding a counselling contract to a religious provider, raising concerns about LGBT+ inclusion, and a media investigation into alleged homophobia and untrained staff at a subcontracted service. Respondents believed these cases showed that equality and inclusion are not always considered in contracting or oversight of services delivered by NPBs.

A few respondents noted that the use or non-use of EIAs is an important factor influencing outcomes. A trade union reported that weak or missing EIAs contributed to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on equality groups in England. They noted that although the PSED and Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, enable due regard in commissioning, the lack of a specific legal duty to carry out EIAs limits the duty’s effectiveness. In contrast, respondents pointed to the Welsh PSED framework, which requires stakeholder engagement and publication of equality objectives. They believed this contributed to stronger compliance and a “culture shift” in practice (see section 5.5: Enablers of Compliance).

Respondents gave examples of evidence showing that engagement with the PSED improves decision-making. A legal charity cited government-commissioned research which found that early and serious engagement with the duty made positive equality outcomes more likely. The charity also referenced a study by McColgan (2015), which found a 40% success rate in judicial reviews of cuts and expenditure decisions. The study concluded that engagement with the PSED improved transparency and fairness, even when outcomes were not equal. A human rights charity presented 2 examples to illustrate the impact of awareness of human rights alongside PSED considerations. In one case, a housing association changed blanket visitor bans after considering residents’ rights. In another, a lack of training in a mental health hospital led to degrading and preventable treatment of an autistic child.

A few respondents believed that equality considerations are applied inconsistently in digital service delivery or in the use of artificial intelligence (AI). They believed the PSED was rarely considered in automated decision-making, even though these tools may disproportionately affect people with protected characteristics. One CSO pointed to the absence of regulation or guidance on AI-specific risks. 4 respondents (3 CSOs and a charity worker) warned that poorly designed digital systems could exclude older people, disabled people, and others from accessing services. They cited a lack of consultation, loss of human interaction, and risks to data confidentiality. A national body for equality and non-discrimination supported this view, reporting that Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and providers such as community pharmacies and dental practices failed to consider equality in their commissioning decisions generally. 

Finally, one large public authority gave examples of both positive and negative outcomes. They found that where PSED was embedded in contract delivery, such as in housing and retrofitting programmes they were delivering, services became more accessible – for example, increased digital inclusion for older or disabled residents. When PSED was not applied, outcomes were “biased” and did not address disadvantages that specific groups face. 

5.4 Barriers to compliance among non-public bodies

Some respondents believed awareness and understanding of the PSED was low among NPBs, especially in small and voluntary organisations. A CSO believed staff were unfamiliar with the legal duties associated with the functions they perform. Several employee representatives believed the duty is often not seen as relevant or impactful. One noting minimal engagement and accountability across the organisations they work with. A large public authority noted that subcontractors often lacked awareness and expertise, while another reported that providers saw the PSED as “abstract” or “secondary”. A campaign group added that understanding was further limited when affected individuals were not involved in service design or impact assessment.

Respondents believed that even when awareness existed, organisations often did not recognise when the duty applied to them. This was reported particularly in complex supply chains or where services were contracted out. One CSO observed that “hybrid bodies” (private or voluntary organisations delivering publicly funded services)^{[footnote 15]} often assumed the duty did not apply. A trade union believed some academy schools argue their employment practices were private despite delivering public education functions. A legal charity believed the lack of a clear legal definition allowed organisations to misunderstand or dispute their obligations under the duty. A CSO explained that more clarity is needed to define when non-public bodies carrying out public functions must be compliant with the PSED. They gave an example of large private sector organisations that deliver essential services integral to society and private and academy schools. In this case, it is not clear to what extent they would be bound by the PSED and through discussion with CSO’s affiliates. In their view, this lack of clarity allows organisations to argue they are not covered by the PSED.

Some respondents provided evidence on the statutory clarity of what constitutes a “public function”. They reported inconsistent court decisions, and complex delivery created confusion. One respondent described tripartite employment structures in schools (for example, governing bodies, local authorities, and staff) as creating legal uncertainty. Some respondents believed this ambiguity arose because legislation and guidance do not provide a clear or consistently applied definition of “public function”. 

Instead, the determination is often made through case law or on a contractual basis. Respondents referenced relevant legal interpretations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, noting that these create confusion in practice. For example, a CSO pointed to case law such as YL v Birmingham City Council and Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd, where courts applied narrow readings of “public function”.^{[footnote 16]}

Some respondents believed gaps in statutory frameworks were a major barrier. A trade union stressed that, unlike in Scotland and Wales, England lacks specific duties requiring EIAs, weakening the duty’s effectiveness. Several respondents also raised concerns about the EHRC’s funding and capacity, saying this limits enforcement and strategic litigation (this is explored further in section 5.6 Effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms). Respondents also observed that there are no specific duties in England requiring public procurement processes to embed equality, unlike in Scotland and Wales. They believed this gap made it harder for commissioners to require compliance from private and voluntary sector providers delivering public services.

Some respondents believed that existing PSED guidance was vague, overly technical, and difficult to apply in practice. One employer representative felt that inconsistent government messaging and poor-quality guidance have created confusion and uneven practices across sectors, leading to “freedom to use [organisations own] judgment”. Another CSO reported that small providers were often afraid of non-compliance, but lacked the tools or support needed to improve. Several respondents believed that clearer, sector-specific guidance would help build confidence and understanding, particularly for small and voluntary organisations delivering public services.

Another common theme was that NPBs, particularly small enterprises and charities, often lack the resources, staffing, or systems to embed equality effectively. Some CSOs highlighted issues such as no designated equality lead, poor data collection systems, and limited staff time for training or monitoring. One respondent also stressed that many equality analyses are “superficial or misunderstood,” in part due to these capacity issues. 2 local authorities, in turn, reported that monitoring and supporting compliance across complex supply chains requires significant time and expertise, which many do not have internally.

5.5 Enablers of compliance

8 submissions identified practical and legal mechanisms that supported stronger PSED compliance among NPBs. Respondents believed compliance was more likely when legal expectations were clearly defined, supported by guidance, embedded in contracts, and reinforced through oversight.

Clear contractual expectations and ongoing monitoring were the most frequently cited enablers (mentioned by 4 respondents). Local authorities and commissioning bodies emphasised the importance of setting detailed equality requirements within procurement contracts, followed by active contract management. This included monitoring of supplier performance and requiring reports on equality metrics, such as workforce diversity and pay gaps. 2 public authorities noted that integrating PSED expectations into wider procurement objectives, for example the Social Value Model or through accreditations like the Mayor’s Good Work Standard, could make compliance more consistent.

Capacity-building and legal education were also identified as important enablers. One CSO reported evidence that staff who received training on equality and human rights frameworks (as the PSED and Human Rights Act) are better able to make inclusive decisions and design services that safeguard users’ rights. The CSO explained that training was described as a way to make the duty feel concrete rather than abstract.

Some respondents believed practical tools and guidance were needed to support implementation, especially for smaller organisations. They suggested sector-specific templates, good practice examples, and advice tailored to emerging issues such as artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making.

A trade union pointed to the Welsh model as a stronger compliance enabler: As discussed previously, Welsh public authorities are subject to specific duties, including producing Strategic Equality Plans, conducting EIAs, and engaging with representative groups. These are legally mandated under the Equality Act 2010 (Wales) Regulations 2011. The union submitted its research and monitoring showed that stronger oversight has also been achieved through non-legal enforcement mechanisms, such as monitoring exercises, formal warnings, and sector-wide guidance. They reported that these interventions resulted in 100% compliance among Further Education colleges and recurrent engagement on equality duties across the Welsh public sector.

Other enablers mentioned (by one or two respondents each) included:

• publication of disaggregated equality data by public bodies, enabling suppliers to benchmark
• long-term relationships and collaboration between commissioners and providers
• internal infrastructure such as designated equality leads or EDI strategies

5.6 Effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms

Most respondents described enforcement of the PSED in relation to NPBs as weak, inconsistent, or ineffective. CSOs, public authorities, trade unions, and individual respondents believed that breaches of the duty were rarely challenged, with limited transparency and few consequences.

About 1 in 3 respondents believed that there was little or no routine oversight of NPB compliance. They reported that enforcement often relied on organisational culture or informal methods such as supplier charters and contract management, rather than legal accountability. One local authority noted performance charters and supplier monitoring supported compliance but are “not sufficient” without regulatory powers.

7 organisations provided evidence that enforcement via the EHRC or judicial review was rare. A trade union and a CSO both thought that major cuts to EHRC’s funding – from £70 million in 2007 to £17 million in 2024 – limited its capacity for strategic litigation or systemic oversight. Respondents also believed judicial review was inaccessible due to time limits, legal complexity, and lack of legal aid. One CSO commented that they thought women were being negatively impacted, particularly by the lack of legal redress routes when their rights were infringed by third-party providers. They highlighted that blurred lines between public and private accountability allow government to delegate power without responsibility, leaving women without effective legal redress.  They also felt that the judicial review process was expensive and inaccessible for most women, particularly those affected by multiple inequalities.

6 respondents reported that enforcement mechanisms lack effective consequences or incentives. One public authority stated that compliance was more likely when contract terms between public authorities and private organisations included clear expectations and penalties, but such clauses are not consistently used. Others noted that the EHRC rarely exercised its power to issue compliance notices to NPBs. One CSO believed the PSED has limited impact without a credible threat of enforcement.

5 respondents raised concerns about how outsourcing reduces accountability. One CSO cited the Ali v Serco case ([2019] CSIH 54) to show how responsibility formally remained with the public authority, however in practice NPBs often lack awareness of their duties and act without scrutiny.^{[footnote 17]} This concern was echoed in other responses referring to failures in equality oversight in outsourced contracts and service delivery chains.

Finally, 2 submissions (one CSO and one individual) gave evidence on weak enforcement against ‘quasi-public bodies’, that is publicly funded companies delivering public functions but operating as private legal entities. One individual respondent described a power imbalance in which such an organisation can “behave with the legal aggression of private corporations”, using public funds for extensive legal defence to oppose whistleblower and discrimination claims while individuals lack access to support.

5.7 Steps to support compliance

Respondents proposed several steps to improve compliance with the PSED by NPBs. While suggestions varied, several themes emerged consistently. Recommendations below are presented by frequency and relevance.

Recommendation 1. Clarify the legal scope of the duty and when it applies: 12 respondents (including CSOs, local authorities, employer reps, and unions) called for clearer national guidance on when the PSED applies to NPBs. 

Key suggestions included:

• a consistent definition of “public function”
• clarity around the duty’s application in commissioning and outsourcing
• updated guidance for specific sectors (for example, education, care, AI services)
• guidance tailored to small and voluntary providers

Recommendation 2. Strengthen PSED enforcement mechanisms: 10 respondents (including CSOs, unions, and one individual) recommended stronger enforcement powers and more accessible routes for redress. Proposals included:

• expanding EHRC powers to audit and sanction NPBs (public investigations or binding notices)
• establishing an independent enforcement body, especially for equal pay or intersectional issues
• enabling low-cost legal routes for NGOs and affected individuals to challenge non-compliance

Recommendation 3. Embed PSED in procurement processes: 10 respondents (including local authorities, CSOs, and employer/employee reps) stressed the need to fully integrate PSED in procurement and contract management. Common suggestions were:

• mandatory EIAs in all contracts
• contract clauses requiring data sharing, consultation, and staff training
• use of procurement scoring models (for example, the Social Value Model) to weight PSED delivery
• active contract monitoring linked to equality outcomes

Recommendation 4. Improve training, awareness and support: 9 respondents (mainly CSOs and employer/employee reps) called for sector-specific training and capacity-building, including:

• PSED and EIA training for staff in contracted organisations
• guidance and templates to support compliance (especially for SMEs) 
• self-assessment tools and good practice benchmarks
• formal recognition and statutory rights for union equality representatives (for example, paid time off and access to relevant training) to help embed the PSED and promote workplace equality

Recommendation 5. Increase data transparency and accountability: 7 respondents (including unions, CSOs, and employer reps) recommended stronger data requirements for public authorities and NPBs delivering public services to enable benchmarking and accountability. Suggestions included:

• requiring public sector employers and contractors to publish workforce and progression data
• removing the current 150-employee threshold for reporting
• annual reporting against PSED objectives

Recommendation 6. Reform the duty’s legal structure: 6 respondents (mostly CSOs and unions) advocated structural reform of the PSED itself. Suggestions included:

• shifting from a “due regard” duty to an outcomes-based obligation
• mandating EIAs across all public services, not just public bodies
• legislating for mandatory algorithmic impact assessments (AIAs) where AI is used in service delivery
• co-production requirements, involving people with protected characteristics in equality planning

Recommendation 7. Align with international standards and vulnerable sectors: 5 respondents, including 3 CSOs and 2 academics, recommended alignment with UN human rights treaties such as, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). 3 others recommended prioritising compliance efforts in sectors where people have low choice and high vulnerability, including care homes, prisons, and special schools.

Recommendation 8. Apply financial controls to ensure value for money: 2 respondents noted concerns about disproportionate legal spending by publicly funded NPBs to defend against equality claims. They proposed:

• limits on public funds used for litigation where wrongdoing is evident
• provision of legal support to individuals pursuing valid discrimination or whistleblowing claims
• executive accountability for misuse of public funds

Recommendation 9. Isolated but noteworthy proposals: Several two or single-respondent proposals are worth noting. 2 respondents (one CSO, one individual) raised concerns about how public funds are used to resist equality claims. They proposed:

• capping legal spending by NPBs where the outcome is likely to be that the NPB is in the wrong
• publicly funded legal support for individuals pursuing valid claims
• executive accountability for misuse of public funds

3 other proposals, each raised by a single respondent included:

• introduction of feminist and intersectional training for third-sector organisations
• making it a statutory duty for regulators to inspect PSED compliance
• greater use of public-facing equality information (for example, posters, multilingual resources)

Overall, the evidence base reflects strong support for clearer guidance, stronger enforcement, embedded procurement processes, and capacity-building, with consensus that these are key to improving compliance while ensuring public funds are spent fairly and effectively.

5.8 PSED for public bodies – perceived compliance concerns and shortcomings of the PSED framework 

5 respondents argued that public bodies often treat the PSED as a procedural formality rather than a tool for advancing equality. They reported that EIAs were late-stage and limited in quality, often lacking intersectional analysis or engagement with people with lived experience. Respondents described these as “tick-box” or “tokenistic,” with compliance often delegated to junior staff with little authority. One organisation noted that many public bodies aim for “minimal due regard”, rather than substantive change. A CSO called for domestic abuse support to be treated as a core PSED function, highlighting the need for trauma-informed, intersectional approaches in policy and service design.

5 organisations gave examples where they believed the duty had not been adequately considered during major policy reforms. This included the design and implementation of Universal Credit, policing strategies, NHS reforms, and benefit changes such as the 2-child cap. In one case, a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) EIA was cited by a CSO as an example of not considering PSED by suggesting most of those affected by a new work requirement policy “might be married”, which they felt overlooked the disproportionate impact on single mothers – particularly those on low incomes. Others pointed to perceived failures in the Windrush scandal,^{[footnote 18]} where there was no apparent equality analysis of immigration enforcement practices. One CSO also shared anecdotal evidence of systemic discrimination and data suppression by central government departments in cases involving sexual violence, which they believed breached the PSED.

4 CSOs representing women and ethnic minority groups believed they were excluded from consultation processes by public bodies. They viewed this lack of engagement as a major obstacle to the duty’s effective compliance. One of them described the persistent exclusion of women’s organisations from policy design, even in areas directly affecting them, such as domestic violence services or the gendered impact of public spending decisions. 

The NHS featured prominently in the evidence submitted. Around 1 in 5 respondents shared evidence of persistent race inequality in recruitment, progression, and treatment. One trade union cited limited progress since the 2008 Race Equality Review, supported by evidence from successive Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) reports. Respondents also expressed concern that regulators such as the EHRC and the CQC were not using their statutory powers to hold NHS trusts to account.. 7 respondents described enforcement and accountability as weak, saying that breaches of the duty are rarely challenged, monitoring is ineffective, and regulators are under-resourced or unwilling to act. One employee representative reported that they felt the NHS has persistently struggled to meet its obligations under the duty.. Relatedly, an academic reported failures to implement reasonable adjustments for disabled doctors and called for stronger PSED enforcement, transparency, and accountability in public healthcare.

One individual shared a detailed account of their experience with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). They reported being denied a medically evidenced reasonable adjustment, despite the FOS acknowledging their vulnerability. They described the process as discriminatory and coercive.

Finally, one organisation stated that they felt excluding public body compliance from the CfE was a “serious omission” and urged the government to commission a separate review focused specifically on this issue, particularly within the NHS and other core public services.

6. Creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment

6.1 Key findings

6.1.1 Steps for employers to prevent or reduce workplace sexual harassment

Respondents submitted evidence on a range of actions employers can take to prevent or reduce sexual harassment in the workplace. These included formal policies, risk-based approaches, reporting systems, staff training, leadership actions, and monitoring. Respondents also gave evidence on how best practice may vary by employer size, sector, and working conditions.

Respondents identified best practices that employers can consider when preventing or reducing sexual harassment in the workplace. These included:

• accessible and confidential reporting systems, including independent channels and survivor-centred support
• clear, standalone sexual harassment policies with defined reporting routes and disciplinary consequences, co-designed with unions where possible
• regular, role-specific, and trauma-informed training, with emphasis on bystander intervention and leadership development
• leadership accountability and cultural change, with visible commitment to zero tolerance and inclusive values
• risk-based approaches and assessment of risk by role, location, or context (for example, lone working, social events)

Respondents also highlighted several challenges in implementing employer-led actions aimed at preventing or reducing workplace sexual harassment. These included:

• the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)
• a lack of legal requirements for risk assessments
• under-reporting training being too general
• workplace cultures that normalise inappropriate behaviour
• limited leadership accountability
• underuse of monitoring tools

Respondents also pointed to a lack of evidence around the long-term effectiveness of prevention interventions such as training, policies, and reporting systems.

Respondents submitted specific challenges in preventing workplace sexual harassment in high-risk sectors such as hospitality, healthcare, and transport. They raised concerns about managing third-party harassment and the heightened vulnerability of workers in public-facing roles. Concerns included employers feeling like they have limited control over customer behaviour, high staff turnover, and insecure employment contracts.

Respondents recommended key factors to consider when implementing the best practices. Their recommendations included:

• legally mandating sexual harassment policies
• independent reporting routes for large employers
• leadership accountability beyond legal compliance
• improved data collection and transparency

Respondents also called for tailored guidance and scalable frameworks to support employers of different sizes and sectors.

6.1.2 Scope of protections against sexual harassment for volunteers

Respondents submitted evidence on whether and how workplace protections under the Equality Act 2010 should be extended to volunteers. Opinion differed on whether protections should apply to all volunteers or only specific categories. While the majority of submissions supported extending protections to all volunteers, some respondents advocated for a more targeted approach, specifically focusing on roles with formal agreements or contractual obligations.

Respondents identified existing protections to protect volunteers. These included: existing internal policies and codes of conduct by some organisations, safeguarding measures, and sector-led initiatives. Respondents also cited other legal protections. Examples included the Health and Safety at Work Act, whistleblower protections, and oversight by Charity Commission and funders.

Respondents also identified current challenges in extending protection against sexual harassment for volunteers. These included: lack of a clear legal definition of volunteers, increased administrative burden, legal liability, and risk of over-regulation. Respondents submitted that smaller organisations and sectors heavily reliant on volunteers may face greater challenges. Concerns were raised about blurring the line between volunteering and employment if the experience closely resembled a formal employment relationship, potentially reducing volunteer engagement and satisfaction.

In addition to recommendations to create a new part of the Equality Act 2010 specifically for volunteer protections, recommendations provided by respondents for extending protections to volunteers included:

• developing clear guidance and training for organisations that work with volunteers
• ensuring proportionate regulatory measures
• flexible implementation of protections
• conducting consultation with small organisations 
• adapting Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance to include volunteers
• updating previous inquiries into volunteer rights

6.1.3 Other steps to prevent workplace sexual harassment

Respondents submitted evidence on additional interventions the government could consider reducing or prevent workplace sexual harassment. These included mechanisms to improve public accountability, support services that cater to diverse populations, and stronger involvement of trade unions in enforcing employer accountability and promoting safer workplace cultures. Respondents also gave evidence on gaps in the current legislation, including limited coverage for freelancers and third-party harassment. International models and legislative reforms were suggested as potential approaches to strengthen protections and enforcement.

Respondents identified several other measures to prevent workplace sexual harassment. These included: public reporting of harassment cases, supporting anti-harassment programmes with an understanding of cultural backgrounds, trauma-informed legal processes, union-led campaigns and support, and flexible guidance tailored to organisational contexts. Respondents also cited Australia’s positive duty to tackle sexual harassment and France’s company turnover-based financial penalties.

Respondents also highlighted several issues when preventing or reducing workplace sexual harassment. These included lack of visible consequences for employers, retraumatising tribunal processes, exclusion of freelancers from protections, unclear definitions of ‘reasonable steps’, and under-resourcing of enforcement bodies such as EHRC. Respondents also highlighted gaps in current legislation, including limited coverage or exclusions of key harms such as stalking, coercive control, and domestic abuse.

Respondents recommended reforms that government can consider when preventing sexual harassment. These included:

• clearer regulatory guidance with flexible definitions to suit diverse organisational contexts
• mandatory publishing of data on harassment complaints disaggregated by protected characteristics
• national standards for online and physical safety
• legal reforms to extend protections to freelancers and introducing new protected characteristics
• clearer enforcement powers for the EHRC
• replacing the ‘reasonable steps’ defence with proactive obligations and financial penalties

6.2 Introduction

This chapter summarises evidence submitted in response to Call for Evidence Questions 41 to 47, which focused on sexual harassment in workplaces. The chapter is organised around 3 main research questions relating to:  

• evidence submitted on effective steps that can be taken by employers to prevent or reduce workplace sexual harassment (questions 41 and 42)
• evidence submitted on the scope of protections against sexual harassment for volunteers (questions 43 to 45)
• evidence submitted on other steps to prevent workplace sexual harassment (questions 46 and 47)

Existing legislative framework

Harassment in the workplace is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010. Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 defines 3 types of harassment. 

As set out in section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010, harassment applies to all the protected characteristics apart from pregnancy and maternity and marriage and civil partnership. The first type involves unwanted conduct which is related to a relevant characteristic and which has the purpose or effect of violating the victim’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the victim.

The second type of harassment, set out in section 26(2) of the Equality Act 2010, is sexual harassment, which is defined as unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the victim. 

The third type, set out in section 26(3) of the Equality Act 2010, is treating someone less favourably because they have either submitted, or failed to submit, to harassment of a sexual nature or harassment that is related to sex or gender reassignment, and that harassment has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the victim.

A new preventative duty came into force on 26 October 2024, which is set out in section 40A(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It requires employers to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. This places a positive and proactive legal obligation on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers. It is therefore an anticipatory duty, that requires employers to anticipate when sexual harassment may occur in the course of employment and take steps to prevent it. 

Harassment by third parties (whether related to sex or any other protected characteristic) is not currently prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.

6.3 Employer actions to prevent or reduce workplace sexual harassment (questions 41 and 42)

This section summarises the evidence respondents submitted on the steps they thought employers could take to help prevent or reduce sexual harassment in the workplace.

Question 41. Do you have evidence on effective steps that can be taken by employers to reduce/prevent sexual harassment in the workplace?

Question 42. What evidence is there on effective steps or specific issues that employers should take into account when trying to reduce/prevent sexual harassment in the workplace? 

Respondents were invited to share evidence on practical steps and considerations for employers seeking to address workplace sexual harassment. Respondents were also asked to identify any gaps in the existing evidence base.

A total of 53 submissions (out of 148 overall) responded to these questions. Of these:

• 66% (35) were submitted by organisations
• 10% (5) were from individuals
• 11% (6) were from academics or researchers
• 13% (7) selected the ‘Other’ category, which comprised a mix of individuals, groups and organisations.

Of the 35 organisational respondents:

• 34% (12) were civil society organisations (CSO)
• 23% (8) were employee representatives (mainly trade unions)
• 17% (6) were employer representatives
• 17% (6) were large public authorities
• 6% (2) were large enterprises
• 3% (1) were SME

6.3.1 Steps employers can take to reduce or prevent sexual harassment in the workplace

Most respondents submitted several actions employers could take to help prevent or reduce sexual harassment in the workplace. These actions relate to sexual harassment policies, reporting systems, staff training, leadership and organisational culture, and the monitoring and investigation of complaints.

Formal sexual harassment policies:

A recurring theme across majority of the submissions was the importance of formal sexual harassment policies and procedures that prevent and discourage harassment. These submissions gave evidence on the value of having standalone sexual harassment policies, distinct from general bullying, misconduct, or dignity-at-work policies. Fawcett Society’s 2020 research was cited by a few organisational respondents, who submitted literature reviews to demonstrate that having clear, detailed, and evidence-based sexual harassment policies was a fundamental step in tackling workplace sexual harassment. The majority of respondents provided examples of good practices for standalone sexual harassment policies. They recommended that such policies should: 

• include clear definitions and examples of sexual harassment
• outline reporting routes, legal responsibilities, and disciplinary consequences
• be regularly reviewed and updated

A few employee representative bodies submitted that harassment policies should be co-designed and negotiated with trade unions and reviewed regularly. Submissions from a few CSOs and employee representatives called for these policies to be legally required, especially in high risk/low awareness sectors such as transport, hospitality, and retail. 

A few respondents criticised the use of NDAs in harassment cases, and believed NDAs silence victims and undermine trust.^{[footnote 19]} An employee representative referred to in-house survey data showing that 22% of employers used NDAs in harassment cases, with higher prevalence in the private sector. Of these, several respondents recommended restricting or banning NDAs altogether. These respondents expressed that NDAs should only be used in exceptional cases to protect anonymity, not to conceal wrongdoing.

Risk-based approaches:

Just under half of the respondents called for risk-based approaches for tackling workplace sexual harassment. They explained that such approaches allowed employers to proactively identify and mitigate sexual harassment risks specific to their organisational context. Submissions from these set of respondents suggested several risk-based approaches, which they considered to be good practice, when tackling workplace sexual harassment. They recommended: assessing risks by role, location, or context (for example, lone working, social events, customer-facing roles), and using findings from risk assessments to tailor training, policies, and support.

Some respondents recommended risk assessments be legally required, particularly in high-risk sectors like hospitality, healthcare, and transport. An organisational respondent proposed government outsourcing contracts to mandate that suppliers have sexual harassment policies and reporting systems in place.

Creating safe and accessible reporting systems for workplace sexual harassment:

The majority of respondents indicated that clear, accessible, and confidential reporting systems were essential for building trust and encouraging disclosures. These respondents suggested several features they associated with well-functioning reporting systems. Of these:

• the majority of respondents recommended clear and transparent procedures for handling complaints
• several respondents suggested multiple reporting routes, including anonymous and third-party options
• several respondents highlighted independent complaint handling
• some respondents submitted survivor-centred support services for complainants (for example, counselling, employee assistance programmes)
• some respondents suggested follow-up after resolution of enquiry or investigation, including exit interviews and anonymous surveys to monitor effectiveness

An individual respondent referred to a Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) survey, showing that organisations with clear reporting procedures and access to multiple reporting channels for staff were more likely to receive reports of harassment, as employees felt secure in coming forward. However, some respondents submitted that in some sectors, particularly film and hospitality, workers employed via third parties often did not know who to report incidents of workplace sexual harassment to. A CSO respondent shared organisational lived experience indicating that women reported unclear reporting routes as a factor contributing to perceptions that they should remain silent or “just get on” with their work. Additionally, a few organisational respondents recommended sharing incident data and case studies with staff as part of the reporting system, to build trust and awareness. 

Several respondents recommended that larger employers be required to provide independent reporting routes. A few CSOs suggested specific independent reporting routes that employers could incorporate, such as the EHRC or a National Sexual Violence Support Line, and believed that employer policies should include contact details for these services. 

Staff training:

Staff training was mentioned by the majority of respondents. These submissions described good training as regular, role-specific, interactive, and trauma-informed.  Of these, several responses criticised generic online modules or judgemental training approaches (for example, training that generalises blame across demographic groups) as ineffective, expressing that this could backfire if it makes staff feel judged or blamed. An individual respondent expressed the view that individuals who feel unjustly judged, despite having done nothing wrong, may become more likely to engage in harmful behaviours.

Some CSOs and academic respondents mentioned the value of face-to-face and bystander training. They submitted that training should be ongoing and revisited after incidents. An individual submission referenced EHRC evidence that workplaces with comprehensive and mandatory training programmes experienced a notable reduction in harassment complaints. However, the respondent did not provide the specific report or an external link to substantiate this claim. The same respondent also referred to a TUC report from 2024, which stated that bystander intervention training had led to an increase in employees reporting inappropriate behaviour.

Evidence from a few CSOs and an academic respondent highlighted the need for sustained training and practical guidance to build line manager competence and confidence. Of these, a CSO respondent referred to in-house research based on employee survey data from organisations undergoing workplace safety accreditation. This showed that 70% of managers lacked confidence in responding to disclosures of sexual harassment.

A few respondents highlighted the importance of trauma-informed approaches in training. They suggested that understanding the psychological impact of harassment was essential to creating safe and effective systems for prevention and redress. These submissions recommended mandatory trauma-informed training for staff involved in handling complaints. One respondent referenced TUC research showing that 68% of Muslim women report being subjected to one or more incidents of unwanted sexual attention at work, with managers often mishandling or dismissing complaints. However, the respondent did not provide the specific report or an external link to substantiate this claim. 

Of these, the majority of respondents suggested that there should be government-mandated training and leadership training. They also suggested inclusion of modules on harassment that consider intersectionality – such as the impacts of overlapping demographic intersections of gender, race, or disability. An individual respondent also stated that studies from Nordic countries demonstrated a 40% improvement in appropriate handling of sexual harassment complaints when managers received such training. However, the respondent did not cite a specific study to substantiate this claim. An academic respondent pointed to Scotland’s Equally Safe Strategy and its whole-school, trauma-informed approach, though noted limited workplace application.

A few respondents submitted that trauma-informed training can improve understanding of complainants’ experiences and reduce bias in decision-making. Of these, a CSO respondent highlighted that training for investigators and investigation panel members can help employers understand the impact of trauma, which they believe leads to fairer, safer, and more respectful processes.

Organisational culture and leadership:

The majority of respondents gave evidence on the importance of organisational culture. They stated that policies and training alone are insufficient in preventing workplace sexual harassment without cultural change. 

Several respondents raised concerns about everyday behaviours in the workplace, such as inappropriate “banter”,^{[footnote 20]} the attitudes of leaders and managers, and structural power imbalances. These factors were seen by some respondents as shaping workplace environments in ways that either enable or challenge sexual harassment. A few of these submissions highlighted that harassment often begins with more subtle forms of disrespectful behaviour such as being talked over in meetings, inappropriate comments, or being excluded from opportunities. These few respondents also submitted that such behaviours could escalate into more serious forms of harassment over time, particularly when left unchallenged or embedded in workplace culture. An academic respondent cited BBC-commissioned survey of 6,206 British adults from 2017, indicating that 43% of the women aged 18 to 34 years who responded to the survey experienced sexual harassment at work. A few CSOs and employee representatives submitted that these behaviours were often normalised, particularly in male-dominated sectors or high-pressure environments, such as construction and transport. 

The majority of respondents recommended steps leaders should consider when trying to reduce or prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. These included:

• visible commitment to zero tolerance
• respectful behaviour
• promotion of inclusive values
• anti-harassment and inclusion messaging such as posters
• regular reviews of workplace culture through surveys and feedback loops

Additionally, a few respondents suggested that visible leadership and board-level accountability are essential for signalling the seriousness of tackling workplace sexual harassment and driving cultural change. An individual respondent cited research from the Harvard Business Review, which showed that when organisational leadership visibly commits to addressing harassment and fostering respect, the incidence of harassment was notably reduced. 

A CSO cited in-house research from a 2022 survey of 1,768 employees working in the night-time economy, showing higher harassment rates among women workers compared to men. They recommended that leadership adopt an intersectional approach, recognising that preventive measures should account for overlapping protected characteristics. Additionally, they highlighted the importance of leadership in fostering inclusive practices, ensuring that preventive measures remain both visible and accessible to all employees.

An employee representative added that, in their view, workplaces without collective bargaining mechanisms often failed to implement genuine zero-tolerance cultures. They called for a duty on employers to negotiate anti-harassment policies with unions.

Some respondents highlighted that accountability should extend beyond legal compliance to include leadership and cultural responsibilities.^{[footnote 21]} While the responses did not consistently outline the existing legal requirements placed on employers, they generally implied that meeting minimum statutory obligations was insufficient. Specifically: 

• the majority of these respondents suggested appointing designated leads and senior leaders as equality champions for implementation and oversight
• some respondents suggested ensuring transparent investigations and independent complaint handling
• a few respondents recommended treating sexual harassment as a governance and risk issue at board level
• a few respondents proposed holding managers accountable for inaction
• a few respondents recommended undertaking an audit of the workplace culture to understand employee experiences and monitor the prevalence of sexual harassment

Monitoring and transparency:

Respondents believed monitoring and transparency were underused by employers, but are essential tools that could be used to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Some submissions called for regular reviews of policies and reporting systems. They also recommended monitoring of harassment incidents through channels such as anonymous staff surveys and exit interviews. A few respondents submitted that most public data on harassment was published by unions and third-sector research rather than employers. They suggested better data collection, alongside publishing data and case studies to promote transparency and accountability. 

6.3.2 Potential differences in best practice by employer size, sector, or other factors

Several respondents provided evidence on how best practices in preventing workplace sexual harassment may differ by organisational context. These included individual respondents, CSOs, employer and employee representatives, academic researchers, and public authorities. Respondents highlighted that best practices vary significantly depending on organisational size, sector, and nature of job roles.

Size specific contributing factors:

Most respondents discussed how employer size shapes the implementation of preventative measures. Of these respondents, some felt that smaller employers, including SMEs and volunteer-led groups, often lack the capacity to provide tailored policies or training. However, respondents submitted that smaller organisations may benefit from more informal cultures and the ability to engage with staff more easily, which could help foster trust and early resolution of complaints. A CSO highlighted that same requirements for all businesses, may overburden SMEs, and suggested they need clearer expectations and targeted support. In contrast, a few respondents felt that large organisations were better resourced to implement structured policies, training, and risk assessments, but may struggle with consistent application across departments or locations.

Sector specific contributing factors:

Several respondents submitted evidence on sector-specific risks and challenges that increased the likelihood or complexity of workplace sexual harassment.

Most respondents identified customer-facing sectors, such as hospitality and retail, as high-risk environments. They pointed to factors such as high staff turnover, shift work, third-party interactions, insecure contracts, and power imbalances. These respondents submitted that training is harder to deliver in these sectors due to irregular hours and limited access to digital tools. As an example, an individual respondent cited TUC research, which found that workplaces with higher turnover rates, such as retail or hospitality, often struggled to implement effective harassment prevention strategies due to the temporary nature of the workforce.

A few respondents highlighted that healthcare and education sectors are at higher risk of sexual harassment due to hierarchical structures and exposure to vulnerable populations. They also stated that these sectors often lacked clear reporting mechanisms or independent complaint handling which would discourage reporting.

A few other respondents described the transport and construction sectors as having long-standing norms that may contribute to a tolerance of harassment. They submitted that male-dominated environments, lone working, and social events involving alcohol were high-risk contexts and may be conducive to the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment.

Another respondent discussed challenges and gaps in protections in the creative industries, particularly for freelancers. They submitted that the sector often lacks consistent standards and formal mechanisms for addressing sexual harassment in freelance and project-based work. They recommended adopting sectoral codes of conduct from independent standards bodies (for example, Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority, CIISA), which provided a framework for a single, unified vision of professional standards of behaviour within the creative industries.

A CSO respondent provided evidence for the night-time economy, highlighting risks linked to commuting (for example, unsafe travel after late shifts), alcohol, and customer interactions. 

Some respondents submitted that the nature of the job itself (for example specific job roles or working conditions) could influence risks related to harassment. These submissions highlighted that workers on zero-hours contracts or in freelance roles or those who travel frequently, attend social events, or have blurred work and leisure boundaries are particularly vulnerable. A few respondents also raised concerns about digital harassment and reduced oversight in remote and hybrid working conditions. For example, a CSO respondent submitted that remote and hybrid work settings can complicate risk assessments and reporting.

Several respondents advocated for the development of tailored guidance and scalable frameworks for employers to implement. They were of the opinion that this would help ensure that preventative measures were proportionate and practical across varying organisational contexts. However, a few respondents provided detailed recommendations. Specifically:

• a few respondents recommended the establishment of universal minimum standards, supported by government-issued policy templates and sector-specific frameworks to give smaller employers the tools they need to deliver meaningful change
• an arm’s length body cited the CIISA standards as an example of a scalable model, adaptable to organisations, productions, and projects of different sizes
• a charity respondent discussed intersectionality, calling for interventions that reflected overlapping identities such as race, gender, and disability.

6.3.3 Third-party harassment 

While the current law is clear that employers can be held vicariously liable for harassment carried out by their employees, it is not the same when it comes to harassment of staff by third parties. The government is introducing an obligation on employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties under the Equality Act 2010.

Third-party harassment refers to instances where perpetrators are not direct employees but external individuals such as customers, clients, contractors, or other non-staff parties. Submissions from several respondents raised concerns about prevalence of third-party harassment. This issue was prominent in submissions from CSOs, employee representatives, who provided evidence for high-risk and customer-facing sectors such as hospitality, retail, healthcare, and transport.

Several respondents described the distinct challenges associated with managing third-party harassment, particularly in hospitality, retail, and aviation sectors due to close interactions with the public. These included limited control over customer behaviour, high staff turnover, insecure employment contracts, and inadequate tools for addressing incidents. An academic respondent cited a 2016 TUC poll of 1,533 adult women. This showed that, among leisure and hospitality workers who had experienced sexual harassment, 17% reported the perpetrator was a third-party.

There were some respondents who submitted that women, young people, and ethnic minorities in customer-facing roles were particularly at risk of third-party harassment. These respondents described a pattern of normalised sexual harassment, where inappropriate behaviour by clients or customers is tolerated or overlooked. An employee representative cited their in-house 2023 research, which found that half of women who experienced workplace harassment reported that the perpetrator was a third-party. A few respondents also provided examples of reported experiences, such as being required to wear sexualised uniforms and experiencing retaliation after reporting incidents involving clients or customers. An academic respondent submitted a case of organisational lived experience in which a nightclub employee was routinely subjected to sexual harassment by customers, including assault and inappropriate remarks. The respondent also submitted that the frequency of such incidents led management to not take it seriously, and the employee often felt unable to report the behaviour.

A few respondents raised their concerns about the current legal framework. They submitted that the Equality Act 2010 does not adequately address third-party harassment. They called for the reinstatement of employer liability for third-party misconduct, which was previously removed from the Equality Act 2010. A CSO proposed that framing sexual harassment as a workplace health and safety issue could provide a clearer legal basis for addressing third-party behaviour.

Of the respondents that discussed third-party harassment in their submission, some respondents recommended that employers conduct risk assessments to explicitly account for third-party interactions. Suggested steps included:

• requiring the third party to take reasonable steps to co-operate with any investigation by the employer into the alleged harassment
• signage and conditional attendance agreements to reinforce behavioural expectations in public or client-facing spaces
• tribunal powers to name third parties in judgments where appropriate
• anonymous and secure reporting mechanisms for workers to report harassment by external parties

While there was broad support for addressing third-party harassment, a few respondents cautioned that implementing such provisions could be complex. Specific concerns included:

• evidentiary challenges, particularly where third parties refused to cooperate, leaving employers without sufficient information to defend or substantiate claims
• legal risks, such as tribunals naming third parties who may be unaware of or uninvolved in the incident
• investigative limits where employers lacked access to witnesses or records, leading to inconclusive outcomes

6.3.4 Potential gaps in the evidence base

The majority of respondents pointed out that there are still gaps in what we know about how to prevent sexual harassment at work. These gaps include both areas where more research is needed and practical issues with implementing policies. Overall, these findings broadly align with the government’s 2021 review of research on workplace sexual harassment.

A theme in the majority of submissions was the lack of evidence on which employer actions were effective in preventing workplace sexual harassment. Respondents highlighted there was little long-term research assessing the sustained impact of interventions such as training, policies, and reporting systems. A few respondents suggested piloting and evaluating interventions over time, supported by improved data collection and analysis. An academic respondent urged the development of structured frameworks to monitor and assess employer-led actions.

For example, despite being widely recommended (see section 6.3.1.4), some respondents raised concerns about the lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness of training as a preventative measure. They highlighted:

• absence of follow-up assessments to determine whether behavioural change was sustained over time
• training that was poorly designed, accusatory or tokenistic, and reinforcing resistance
• lack of evidence that training alone had a lasting impact without cultural change

In addition to concerns about lack of evidence on effectiveness of interventions, some respondents identified gaps in sources of available data on workplace sexual harassment. Submissions from a few CSOs and employee representatives highlighted that much of the available evidence on workplace sexual harassment came from trade unions, third-sector organisations, or ad hoc surveys, rather than from systematic employer-led reporting of data on sexual harassment incidents. They viewed this as a limitation in understanding the prevalence, patterns, and impact of sexual harassment and related interventions.

Submissions from several respondents identified a broader gap in access to workplace sexual harassment data, including a lack of disaggregated analysis by sector. These respondents submitted that certain sectors such as construction, hospitality, healthcare, transport, and the creative industries faced unique risks (sector specific risks were discussed in section 6.3.2). However, they highlighted that there was limited evidence on the prevalence of harassment, the effectiveness of interventions, and experiences of affected workers in these sectors.

A few respondents further highlighted a lack of research on how harassment affects individuals in insecure employment or with intersecting protected characteristics. Respondents called for more focus on:

• addressing race-based sexual harassment
• the experiences of freelancers and agency workers
• understanding the cumulative effects of stress, power imbalances, and cultural norms on workplace incivility and prevalence of sexual harassment

A CSO drew on its organisational experience to highlight that employers were not legally required to report incidents to regulatory bodies such as the EHRC. When combined with limited government data, they believed this made it difficult to assess prevalence or evaluate the effectiveness of preventative measures.

Another theme, identified in the majority of submissions, was the underreporting of sexual harassment. A trade union’s in-house research from 2023 found that about 80% of employees who experienced workplace sexual harassment did not report it. Some respondents provided sector-specific evidence to support this. An employee representative cited a 2023 survey by The Working Party on Sexual Misconduct Surgery of 1,434 participants, which found high rates of sexual misconduct by colleagues but low formal reporting rates – only 16% of affected individuals submitted formal complaints. Additionally, an arm’s length body cited a Film and TV Charity survey conducted in 2024, involving 4,376 industry workers. The survey showed that 41% of respondents in the film, TV, and cinema industry had experienced bullying, harassment, or discrimination in the past year, while 27% of those receiving disclosures felt unprepared to respond.

These respondents also identified several contributing factors to underreporting. Fear of retaliation or inaction was cited by several respondents as a common contributing factor among employees. A CSO cited analysis conducted on Sexual Misconduct in Surgery in 2023 using a survey of 1,434 participants. This research showed that nearly two-thirds of women surgeons that responded to the survey had been the target of sexual harassment in the past 5 years, with many saying they feared reporting incidents would damage their careers.

Lack of trust in, or accessibility and effectiveness of, internal systems was another factor that a few respondents identified as contributing to the underreporting of workplace sexual harassment. An organisational respondent cited an in-house survey of 2,458 doctors conducted in 2021, which showed that 66% of women and 43% of men that responded to the survey did not report instances of sexual harassment due to lack of faith in outcomes. An employee representative submitted that the reasons for not reporting are largely consistent across their in-house research: concerns about not being believed or taken seriously by the employer, lack of confidence in the reporting process and complaint handling, fear of further victimisation, worries about damaging relationships with colleagues, and worries about negative impacts on career progression.

Cultural norms that discourage speaking out and lack of anonymity were each cited by a single respondent. A submission from a non-departmental public body cautioned that low reporting rates may reflect distrust in systems, rather than a lack of incidents. They submitted that increased reporting after interventions could signal improved confidence.

6.4 Scope of extending protections against sexual harassment for volunteers (questions 43 to 45)

This section summarises the evidence on whether and how the workplace protections under the Equality Act 2010 could be extended to volunteers, and alternative approaches to safeguarding volunteers from sexual harassment.

Question 43. Do you have evidence regarding expanding the Equality Act 2010’s workplace protections to volunteers and/or evidence on other approaches that could be taken to protect these volunteers from experiencing sexual harassment?

Question 44. What evidence is there regarding expanding the Equality Act 2010’s workplace protections to volunteers? 

Question 45. What evidence is there about other approaches or steps that could be taken to protecting volunteers from experiencing sexual harassment while volunteering?

OEO particularly sought to understand:

• the effect of expanding workplace protections on different types of volunteers
• whether protections should be extended to all or only particular categories of volunteers
• potential challenges or unintended consequences for organisations of expanding protections to different groups of volunteers
• whether some types of organisations may be more likely to be adversely affected by the expansion than others
• steps that could be taken to mitigate potential risks and challenges

A total of 18 respondents (out of 147 overall) answered Question 43. Not all respondents, however, provided comments on all open-text questions. Of the 18 responses:

• 72% (13) were submitted by organisations
• 11% (2) were from individuals
• 17% (3) selected the ‘Other’ category, which comprised a mix of individuals, groups, and organisations

Of the 13 organisational respondents:

• 31% (4) were employee representatives
• 23% (3) were CSOs
• 23% (3) were employer representatives
• 23% (3) were large public authorities

6.4.1 Effect on different types of volunteers

Several respondents submitted evidence on how extending workplace protections to volunteers might affect different types of volunteering arrangements. They highlighted the wide range of volunteer roles such as casual, ad hoc, activism-based, and formal roles including charity shop volunteers and mentors. These respondents stressed that this diversity must be considered when assessing the potential impact of legal protections. 

Of these, half of the respondents also submitted that there was no clear legal definition of ‘volunteer’. They felt this created uncertainty over which rights should be extended to volunteers and which obligations should be placed on organisations. However, a CSO warned against conflating volunteers with employees. The same CSO cited findings from NCVO’s ‘Time Well Spent’ survey of over 10,000 volunteers, showing that some individuals were discouraged from volunteering when the experience closely resembled a formal employment relationship. They highlighted that volunteers value autonomy and flexibility.

Formal volunteers were described as particularly vulnerable to discrimination or harassment due to regular contact with staff and service users. A CSO respondent and an employee representative submitted in their responses that protections would be especially important for disabled and ethnic minority volunteers, who may be at greater risk of exclusion or mistreatment. Another CSO cited a case involving a Muslim woman volunteer who was sexually harassed by staff and peers, with no action taken because the community organisation was unregistered. 

6.4.2 Extending protections to all or only particular categories of volunteers

The majority of respondents gave evidence on whether the protections should be extended to all or only particular categories of volunteers. As noted above, most respondents agreed that volunteers needed more protection. However, there was disagreement on whether it should cover all volunteers or just certain roles. Several respondents warned that stronger protections could make it more difficult to take on volunteers, particularly for smaller organisations. They generally supported targeted approaches, with stronger protections prioritised for formal or long-term volunteers and those in high-risk groups. Overall, these findings broadly align with the response to the 2019 consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace.

The majority of respondents explicitly supported extending protections to all volunteers, regardless of role type. An individual respondent submitted that universal protections, or extending full Equality Act 2010 protections, would promote inclusivity and safeguard all volunteers, though they acknowledged practical challenges for casual roles. An arm’s length body supported extending protections to all types of volunteers. An employee representative also recommended implementing universal protections to avoid potential confusion caused by there being no legal definition of a volunteer as discussed earlier (section 6.4.1). A few CSOs advocated for full Equality Act 2010 protections for all volunteer workers and submitted that this could close a gap in equality law. In addition, a large public authority also supported universal protections but stressed the importance of providing accompanying guidance and training.

In contrast, some respondents favoured targeted protections for specific categories of volunteers. A CSO supported protections only for ‘voluntary workers’ as defined under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.^{[footnote 22]} Additionally, an employer representative suggested protections should apply to volunteers with contractual obligations. 

6.4.3 Challenges or unintended consequences of expanding protections to different groups of volunteers

Submissions from half of the respondents identified risks and unintended consequences that could arise from extending protections to volunteers. A common concern was the potential increase in administrative complexity and legal liability. Specifically:

• the majority of respondents warned that additional protections could lead to more formal complaints of sexual harassment by volunteers and disrupt the informal nature of many volunteer settings
• a few respondents highlighted that while absence of pay may reduce financial liability, there were still other risks – they provided anecdotal examples, such as legal claims for emotional distress (or injury to feelings) or the growing number of individuals representing themselves in legal disputes (or litigants in person) could lead to higher costs and create legal uncertainty

While these risks were acknowledged, a few respondents submitted that protections remain feasible and are outweighed by the importance of protecting volunteers.

In contrast, a few respondents expressed concern that expanding legal protections to all volunteers could lead to over-regulation, reducing volunteer engagement and satisfaction. As discussed in section 6.4.1, the respondents highlighted that this could blur the distinction between employment and volunteering. A CSO respondent also highlighted that the data from NCVO’s ‘Time Well Spent’ survey of over 10,000 volunteers showed high levels of volunteer satisfaction (96%) among respondents, with a few reporting feeling unsafe (under 2%).

A CSO and an employer representative both expressed concern that legal reform could shift focus away from maintaining ethos of volunteering and toward compliance, potentially undermining the spirit of volunteering.

6.4.4 Adverse effects on some types of organisations from expansion of protections

Several respondents submitted evidence on the types of organisations that might face greater burden if protections were expanded to volunteers. There was broad agreement that smaller and less formal organisations would be most affected, though no submissions suggested that this should prevent reform altogether.

The majority of these respondents submitted that small and micro-organisations would face the greatest challenges due to limited HR capacity and existing regulatory pressures. These included local charities, community groups, and parent-led organisations. The respondents felt that expanding protections could lead to increased regulatory burdens and financial strain, potentially deterring such organisations from engaging with volunteers at all. An employer representative suggested that applying a uniform regulatory model across all employer types may be impractical, as smaller businesses often lack the infrastructure to manage complex legal obligations. An individual respondent submitted that if a volunteer at a small organisation were to sue, it could, in many cases, lead to that organisation shutting down.

According to submissions from a few respondents, sectors heavily reliant on volunteers may experience more challenges if protections were extended. Of these, an individual respondent believed that independent cinemas and festival venues may find compliance difficult due to the temporary and large-scale nature of their operations. Another respondent observed that charity retailers could be significantly affected by expanded protections due to their greater reliance on volunteers compared to mainstream retailers.

6.4.5 Steps to mitigate potential risks and challenges

Submissions from half of the respondents included suggestions to help mitigate the risks and challenges associated with expanding protections to volunteers. These included clear guidance and training, proportionate regulation, targeted approaches, and accountability without organisational harm.

Provision of clear guidance, training, and implementation toolkits to help organisations apply any new legal obligations was recommended by the majority of respondents. Suggested content included:

• guidance on complaints procedures
• clarity on when exemptions might apply, for example, for low-risk roles
• detailed implementation plans

Responses from a CSO and an employer representative emphasised the importance of involving small organisations in consultation to ensure that guidance was practical and proportionate.

The need for flexibility in applying protections was also highlighted by a few respondents. They recommended considering how smaller organisations could accommodate expanded protections, suggesting proportionate and practical implementation. An employer representative suggested relying more on Tribunal discretion, than inflexible regulation.

Finally, a CSO respondent proposed a targeted legislative approach, such as creating a new part of the Equality Act 2010 specifically for volunteers, similar to Part 7 (protection for members of clubs and other bodies). They also recommended updating the Volunteer Rights Inquiry 2011^{[footnote 23]} to explore structures more appropriate for volunteer protection than reliance on employment law.

6.4.6 Current approaches, policies, or initiatives to protect volunteers

A few respondents provided evidence on current approaches, policies, or initiatives to protect volunteers against harassment.

A submission from a CSO described existing legal and regulatory protections relevant to volunteers, including:

• Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• whistleblowing provisions (in relation to employment law)
• Charity Commission oversight
• requirements set by funders

This CSO submitted that, beyond regulatory requirements, charities have a self-interest in fostering positive, supportive, and welcoming environments for volunteers, as volunteer satisfaction is essential to their operations.

An individual submitted that many organisations already operate internal policies and initiatives such as codes of conduct, anti-discrimination training, and grievance procedures. They submitted that this included public bodies, charities, and non-profits. However, they also cautioned that not all organisations have robust policies, and many smaller or informal volunteer-led groups may lack the resources to implement adequate safeguards.

Another individual submitted that targeted training and zero-tolerance policies, introduced by the health and education sectors, to reduce or prevent sexual harassment of volunteers. Examples provided by the individual respondent included integrating training on respecting personal boundaries and fostering safe environments in healthcare volunteer programmes. They described that such initiatives work well within large, well-resourced organisations – however, no supporting evidence or research was provided to substantiate this claim. They also submitted that such initiatives are applied inconsistently across smaller or less formal settings.

6.4.7 Other approaches or steps to protect volunteers from experiencing sexual harassment

Evidence submitted by a few respondents included additional actions to protect volunteers from experiencing sexual harassment.

An employee representative proposed adapting existing EHRC guidance on workplace sexual harassment to explicitly include volunteers. They did not cite evidence to support this, but mentioned there was no reason to believe it would be ineffective. Another employee representative highlighted the need for inclusivity, recommending that guidance reflect the diversity of volunteer identities and clearly explain reporting routes.

A CSO used real life experience from within their organisation to propose a package of safeguarding measures. They believed these would be suitable for all organisations engaging volunteers, including informal groups. Suggested measures included: designated safeguarding officers, bystander training, anonymous reporting routes, and independent investigations. The same CSO warned that without regulatory measures, voluntary roles or community-based working could be exploited by perpetrators.

6.5 Other steps to prevent workplace sexual harassment (questions 46 and 47)

This section summarises evidence on other key steps that could be considered or taken by the government to address the problem of workplace sexual harassment.

Question 46. Do you have evidence on other effective interventions that the government should consider to address the problem of workplace sexual harassment? 

Question 47. What evidence is there of other effective interventions the government should consider to address the problem of workplace sexual harassment?

Respondents were invited to share evidence on any other steps they felt should also be considered to prevent workplace sexual harassment.

A total of 23 submissions (out of 147 overall) responded to Question 46. Of these:

• 69% (16) were submitted by organisations
• 13% (3) were from individuals
• 9% (2) were from academics or researchers
• 9% (2) selected the ‘Other’ category, which comprised a mix of individuals, groups, and organisations

Of the 16 organisational respondents:

• 8 (50%) were CSOs
• 6 (38%) were employee representatives (mainly trade unions)
• 1 (6%) were employer representative
• 1 (6%) were SME

6.5.1 ‘Reasonable steps’ and employer guidance 

Most respondents raised concerns about the balance between regulation and guidance, particularly regarding the new preventative duty under the Equality Act 2010. The duty currently requires employers to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, however the government are strengthening the duty to ‘all reasonable steps’. A recurring issue was the legal ambiguity of what constitutes ‘reasonable steps’, cited by several respondents as a barrier to consistent enforcement. 

A few employee representatives and CSOs highlighted the implications of low threshold for ‘reasonable steps’ and legal ambiguity for public accountability. They submitted that this could allow employers to adopt a minimal compliance approach, undermining accountability and deterring reporting. These respondents proposed mechanisms to make employer actions more transparent. A SME respondent focused on individual-level consequences for perpetrators and recommended a one-strike policy for sexual harassment, involving dismissal and mandatory disclosure to future employers via public databases. A CSO suggested systemic transparency, proposing that the number of sexual harassment allegations should be reflected on Companies House or similar regulatory platforms to inform public and investor decisions. Lastly, another CSO proposed annual public reporting of harassment cases, with unresolved complaints treated as organisational failures.

A CSO criticised the widespread reliance on generic behavioural policies, describing them as ineffective “box-ticking”. They called for enforceable standards backed by the EHRC and professional bodies. A few respondents submitted evidence highlighting that defining ‘reasonable steps’ is essential for compliance, but that employers who disregard the duty must face consequences.

Employer representatives, on the other hand, expressed mixed views. An employer representative submitted that vague and ambiguous legal language risks inconsistent implementation. Another supported flexible definitions to suit diverse organisational contexts, suggesting instead that regulatory clarity should evolve through Employment Tribunal precedents. A few other respondents highlighted the lack of detailed guidance for employers on how to operationalise the preventative duty. 

Some respondents from employer representatives and large enterprise, favoured flexible, evolving guidance rather than a regulation, particularly for SMEs and multi-site organisations.

An employee representative proposed a hybrid approach combining: 

• regulatory standards for structural elements such as policies, risk assessments, and reporting systems
• non-binding guidance for cultural aspects such as inclusive values and generational awareness

6.5.2 Culturally competent support services and programmes

Culturally competent support includes services and initiatives that are designed and/or delivered with an understanding of, and sensitivity to, the cultural backgrounds, inclusive values, and needs of diverse communities – based on race, gender, religion, and other protected characteristics. 

Some CSO respondents, employee representatives, and individuals provided evidence or recommendations for culturally competent support initiatives.^{[footnote 24]} They submitted that without culturally competent approaches, existing systems risk excluding or retraumatising marginalised groups.

The importance of culturally competent support services was highlighted by most of these respondents. They recommended provision of government funding to support inclusive programmes. An employee representative cited the ‘Get Me Home Safely’ campaign which advocated for safe transport for late-shift workers (particularly women), compulsory training for transport staff, and national standards for taxi or private hire safety. An individual respondent gave anecdotal evidence for the Step Up, Speak Out programme in Manchester. They submitted that this programme used culturally-specific approaches and achieved 75% higher engagement among ethnic minority women. However, the respondent did not provide external research or link to substantiate this claim. 

A few employee representatives stated that tribunal processes were often retraumatising and complex, and highlighted the need for trauma-informed reform of legal and tribunal systems. Of these, a respondent recommended greater involvement from trauma-informed specialists to make the justice system more supportive for victims and survivors and to help rebuild trust. However, they did not provide any evidence or research to support this recommendation.

The intersection of race, religion, and gender in shaping experiences of harassment and access to support was also highlighted by a few respondents. A CSO submitted that the combined effects of racism, disability, unequal pay, and chronic workplace stress can lead to severe mental and physical health consequences, creating a cascading effect on individuals and their families.

Submissions from a few CSOs linked culturally competent support to broader structural reforms, recommending that:

• anti-racism strategies be embedded in workplace policies and support systems (a CSO suggested that these strategies could incorporate support for Black, Asian, and Mixed heritage staff)
• employers be legally required to publish annual data on harassment complaints, disaggregated by protected characteristics, to ensure accountability and responsiveness

6.5.3 Online and remote work-related harassment

A few respondents provided evidence of harassment and stalking occurring in digital or remote work settings, including virtual meetings, messaging platforms, and social media. These respondents highlighted that online harassment must be recognised as a legitimate and serious form of workplace harassment. A CSO cited European Women’s Lobby research showing that women were 27 times more likely to be harassed online than men. They also presented evidence from an in-house pilot study on the prevalence of online abuse, finding that a third of participants experienced online abuse at work, particularly in remote settings. 

Separately, an employee representative supported stronger laws on online abuse. They supported the creation of a register for serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators, and advocated for tracking perpetrators rather than victims.

These respondents proposed specific interventions to address online harassment, including:

• employer-led training and policies specifically targeting online harassment, especially in remote work settings
• development of national standards for safety in digital and physical environments, including compulsory training for transport staff and safe commuting initiatives

6.5.4 Role of trade unions in harassment prevention efforts

Several respondents submitted evidence for how trade unions can or do contribute to preventing harassment, supporting victims, and advocating for stronger protections. Respondents focused on the role of trade unions in supporting workers, enforcing employer accountability, and promoting safer workplace cultures. 

Most respondents highlighted the importance of union involvement in ensuring that employers meet their anti-harassment commitments. Of these, the majority of employee representatives expressed concern that employers often failed to follow their own policies. They cited poor investigations and deliberate suppression. They submitted that union involvement through consultations on prevention strategies, and negotiation (for example, collective bargaining) of anti-harassment policies was essential for accountability. 

A CSO respondent also highlighted the trade unions’ role in organising collectively and in challenging workplace sexual harassment. They felt that the role of unions had been overlooked in previous government reviews. Evidence from Bacon and Hoque (2012) and Mamode (2019) was cited by an academic submission, showing that the majority of trade union representatives report having had a positive impact in strengthening employer policies on sexual harassment. This was done by encouraging employees to report incidents and by offering support throughout the investigation process.

Some respondents highlighted how union support empowers workers to speak out and demand safer conditions. An individual cited their own professional experience where support from a union was critical in challenging employer inaction. An academic respondent cited the ‘Sheffield Needs a Pay Rise’ campaign, which collaborated with trade unions to empower hospitality workers to demand safer conditions, such as locks on changing room doors, through collective action. However, the respondent did not provide the external research or link to substantiate this claim. 

Proposed legal reforms were recommended by a few employee representatives to strengthen union roles. They recommended restoring union organising rights, especially in small workplaces. They also proposed penalties for employers failing their preventative duty, with funds directed to specialist services.

6.5.5 Gaps in the current legislation and proposed reforms

Most of the respondents addressed perceived shortcomings in current legislation, enforcement, and redress mechanisms. They proposed reforms to strengthen protections for those affected by workplace sexual harassment.

Barriers and gaps in current legislation:

Of these, the majority of respondents, primarily from CSOs and employee representatives, pointed to barriers and gaps in legal frameworks. They expressed concerns about the effectiveness of existing enforcement mechanisms. An organisational respondent cited recent high-profile cases as evidence that voluntary systems have failed to prevent repeated incidents.

A few respondents submitted that the current legislation excludes key forms of harm. A CSO submitted that the current legislation did not cover stalking, coercive control, and domestic abuse, and called for a broader approach to workplace safety to include all forms of violence against women and girls.

Proposed reforms to strengthen protections against sexual harassment:

The majority of respondents proposed legal, procedural, and structural reforms to strengthen protections against sexual harassment. A few of these respondents highlighted that under-resourcing of the EHRC was perceived as limiting their ability to monitor compliance or take action at scale. Recommendations highlighted in these submissions included:

• expanding and increasing resourcing for the EHRC
• reinstating Employment Tribunal powers to issue recommendations promoting cultural change
• introducing criminal liability and financial penalty for employers who fail to act on workplace harassment reports

A large public authority referenced Australia’s positive duty on sexual harassment as evidence on actions to reduce and prevent sexual harassment. They also cited a 2024 report on the effectiveness of the positive duty in Australia, showing that 99% of employers surveyed had policies in place. However, the report also showed that only 72% were monitoring prevalence. 

The government is extending Employment Tribunal claims under the Equality Act 2010 from 3 to 6 months. An individual recommended extending the time limit for harassment claims to 12 months, beyond the proposed 6 months. They cited cultural and religious barriers to early reporting. A CSO also called for removing the 3-month time limit for complaints to allow trauma-informed reporting. An employee representative proposed extending the tribunal claim window to 6 months, with flexibility, reinstating tribunal powers to make recommendations, and reintroducing the questionnaire procedure to encourage early resolution.

A few employee representatives proposed replacing the ‘reasonable steps’ defence with proactive obligations and financial penalties, citing France’s example of implementing penalties of up to 1% of turnover. They stated that this French model had shown measurable reductions in workplace sexual harassment incidents. However, no data or research was provided to support this claim. 

A few CSO and trade union respondents suggested reframing sexual harassment prevention within the health and safety legislation rather than solely under Equality Act 2010. Recommendations included adopting ILO Convention C190 to introduce a new duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to prevent all gender-based violence. These respondents also proposed involving the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in overseeing risk assessments and reporting, and applying existing health and safety frameworks, such as the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR), to sexual harassment incidents.

A few employee representatives raised concerns about the lack of protections for freelancers. They submitted that freelancers may face barriers to reporting due to fear of reputational damage, loss of future work, and unclear route for redress. Of these, most respondents recommended amending the current and upcoming protections under Equality Act 2010 to explicitly include freelancers. An employee representative proposed introducing a Statutory Code of Practice that clearly outlines employer responsibilities for preventing sexual harassment, and covers freelancers. 

A few respondents called for amendments to the Equality Act 2010 to introduce new protected characteristics so that workplace protections can be extended to these groups, this includes single parents, and individuals experiencing caste- or race-based harassment. An academic respondent also submitted anecdotal evidence from their experience of helping victims of caste discrimination and sexual harassment. They highlighted that the absence of caste as a protected characteristic added pain to the process of reporting instances of harassment and employer understanding of caste-based abuse. Notably, single parents and caste-based groups were each mentioned by one submission. These respondents also advocated for a legal duty on employers to provide reasonable adjustments to safeguard these groups from workplace harassment.

7. Implementing the Socio-Economic Duty 

7.1 Key findings 

7.1.1 Scotland and Wales statutory implementation

Respondents submitted that public bodies in Scotland and Wales used a range of processes to implement the Socio-Economic Duty (SED), including strategic planning, procurement, and impact assessments. Some described positive outcomes such as improved service design and targeted support, while others reported inconsistent application, limited engagement, and weak evaluation. 

One large public authority submitted evidence that it provided tools and training to support implementation of the SED in Scotland and Wales. A Civil Society Organisation (CSO) reported that support mechanisms were available, such as regional peer learning, guidance from the Improvement Service, and tools such as the More Equal Wales mapping guide. However, they noted that access was uneven due to unclear timelines, limited capacity, and inconsistent awareness among public bodies. A civil society organisation also submitted that support mechanisms were in place, but they felt that access to these was uneven. Both respondents reported that definitions of key terms, such as “due regard” and “strategic decision”, remained unclear, which they believed affected how consistently the SED was applied. 

Factors that facilitated implementation included the statutory basis of the SED, its integration into strategic planning, backing from political leaders, access to relevant information, participation by civil society, and consistency with wider anti-poverty initiatives. 

Some public bodies were also reported to treat the SED as a procedural formality, with limited outcome tracking and weak enforcement. Respondents also noted duplication with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), and felt that the SED was sometimes reduced to a “tick-box” exercise. 

Recommendations shared by respondents based on the implementation of the SED in Scotland and Wales included: 

• the importance of legal enforceability, structured guidance on how to apply the SED in practice
• leadership buy-in
• adequate resourcing
• embedding the SED into combined impact assessments

Respondents also called for participatory approaches that involve people with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage. They recommended engagement with regulators to support accountability, peer learning, inclusive communications, and the use of intersectional data. A few respondents also emphasised the need for a balanced approach to ensure socio-economic goals do not override other equality considerations.

7.1.2 England voluntary adoption

Respondents provided evidence that a growing number of English public bodies have voluntarily adopted the SED or considered socio-economic disadvantage in decision-making. Examples of voluntary uptake included: 

• Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), which embedded socio-economic analysis into both strategic planning (for example, fare policy and the Bee Network design) and operational delivery (for example, concessions and Equality Impact Assessments) 
• Hackney Council, which used the SED to inform pandemic response and targeted support through its Community Partnerships Network 
• Wigan Council, which integrated socio-economic disadvantage into workforce planning and service design
• Merseyside Fire and Rescue, which removed a driving licence requirement and introduced bursaries to improve recruitment from deprived areas

However, evidence from CSOs, local authorities, and individual respondents suggested that implementation was often inconsistent and, in some cases, symbolic. Several respondents described gaps between stated commitments and practical delivery, limited evaluation, and a lack of transparency in how socio-economic disadvantage was considered. Some public bodies did not publish socio-economic impact assessments or explain how decisions were shaped. Others distinguished between formal adoption and meaningful action, highlighting gaps in outcome tracking and public accountability. 

Factors that facilitated adoption included both political and organisational leadership commitment, integration into existing processes (for example, Equality Impact Assessments and procurement), use of socio-economic background (SEB) data, participatory approaches involving people with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage (for example, lived experience panels, community builders), and regional collaboration (for example, Greater Manchester Strategy).

Factors that hindered adoption included lack of statutory guidance and enforceability, meaning that public bodies in England were not legally required to apply the SED, and there were no formal mechanisms to monitor compliance or hold organisations accountable. Respondents also noted limited data infrastructure, weak evaluation mechanisms, inconsistent definitions, and exclusion of socio-economic disadvantage from legal frameworks. Additional barriers to participation included digital exclusion, geographic isolation, and low confidence, which made it harder for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with public bodies or influence decisions.

Recommendations included:

• statutory commencement of the SED in England
• clearer national guidance, standardised indicators (for example, NS-SEC)
• stronger data systems
• participatory engagement  

Respondents also called for co-production with affected communities, and integration of socio-economic analysis into procurement, budget-setting, and governance.  Some respondents also called for structural reforms to ensure transparency, accountability, and long-term impact.

7.2 Introduction 

This chapter analyses statutory implementation of SED in Scotland and Wales, and voluntary adoption in England. The government sought evidence on its effectiveness in Scotland and Wales, its voluntary adoption in England, and the feasibility of commencing the SED in England. 

Definition

The SED requires specified public authorities, when making strategic decisions about how to exercise their functions, to give “due regard” (consideration) to how their decisions might help to reduce the inequalities of outcome associated with socio-economic disadvantage. 

Being socio-economically disadvantaged can mean living in less favourable social and economic circumstances than others in the same society. This can include having a low income or living in a deprived area.

The decisions that public authorities could make, may be, for example, in education, health, or housing. It will be for public authorities, subject to the SED, to have due regard as to whether they might be able to reduce any socio-economic inequalities through their decision making.

The SED was legislatively commenced in Scotland in 2018 and in Wales in 2021. While the SED has never been legislatively commenced in England, a number of public authorities in England have voluntarily adopted the SED, either in full or in part.

This chapter frequently uses the term equity to refer to fairness in outcomes. It recognises that individuals and groups may face different barriers and starting points, and that achieving fair outcomes may require proportionate and tailored action. This is distinct from equality, which treats everyone the same regardless of need or circumstance.

In the Call for Evidence (CfE), respondents were asked 4 questions relating to the SED.

Question 48. Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of the socio-economic duty in Scotland and Wales and/or its voluntary adoption by some public authorities? 

Question 49. What evidence is there on the effectiveness of the duty in Scotland and Wales and its voluntary adoption by some public authorities in England?

Question 50. Other than commencing the provision, are there any proportionate steps that could be taken to ensure the duty is as effective as possible in leading public authorities to give active, high-quality and informed consideration to reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage?

Question 51. What evidence is there about effective approaches public authorities can take to giving proactive, high-quality and informed consideration to reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage?

Alongside the questions posed to CfE respondents, the analysis also considered a separate set of questions developed by the Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) (see Annex 2 for the full list). 

The chapter is structured around 5 thematic areas:

• statutory implementation of the SED in Scotland and Wales
• voluntary implementation of the SED in England
• enablers of effective implementation
• barriers to effective implementation
• lessons and recommendations

Please note that sections on statutory implementation in Scotland and Wales and voluntary adoption in England follow a parallel structure to allow for as much comparison as possible between implementation approaches.

7.2.1 Respondents profile 

A total of 50 responses (out of 148 overall) directly addressed these CfE questions. Of these:

• 86% (43) were submitted by organisations
• 6% (3) were from individuals
• 6% (3) were from academics or researchers
• 2% (1) selected the ‘Other’ category

Organisational respondents included:

• 51% (22) civil society organisations (CSOs)
• 19% (8) large public authorities
• 12% (5) employee representatives
• 10% (4) employer representatives
• 4% (2) small to medium enterprise (SME) (under 250 employees)
• 2% (1) small public authority
• 2% (1) large enterprise (250 employees and above)

Of these, 1 represented public bodies who had adopted the SED in Scotland and Wales, 1 represented the EHRC and 7 represented public bodies who had voluntarily adopted the SED in England.

7.2.2 Clarifying key terms and scope 

Respondents used a range of terms to describe the issues targeted by the SED, but these terms differ in legal and policy contexts. Respondents used terms like poverty, inequality, and disadvantage interchangeably. However, these have distinct meanings. Poverty means lack of financial resources. Inequality refers to group disparities. Disadvantage includes many barriers, not all socio-economic.

7.3 Implementation of the SED in Scotland and Wales

This section presents evidence from devolved contexts and is structured thematically. It includes subsections on strategic integration, participation, data use, transparency, evaluation, and cost. This allows for a detailed examination of statutory implementation. This section draws on evidence from 19 respondents.

7.3.1 Understanding and framing the SED

Respondents described different ways of understanding and applying the SED. Evidence from Scotland and Wales showed that public authorities and CSOs understand and describe the SED in different ways. In this section, 2 submissions are particularly relevant: one from a Scottish public authority that applies the SED in practice, and one from a CSO that comments on its early implementation across Scotland and Wales.

One Scottish public authority described the SED as a usable framework for reducing inequalities caused by socio-economic disadvantage. The respondent stated in their evidence that they meet the requirements of the Fairer Scotland Duty and publish a written statement outlining their compliance with the framework. The Fairer Scotland Duty is the name given to the statutory implementation of the SED in Scotland, which came into force in 2018. They reported setting up a high-level committee addressing poverty, inequality, and housing, with activities directed toward improving outcomes for individuals experiencing deprivation, low income, and low wealth. 

The submission listed areas they applied the SED to including skills and attainment, job quality and security, crime reduction, health outcomes, and community dignity. It also outlined the steps it takes to apply the SED, including using demographic data, working with partners and communities to understand deprivation, and identifying which decisions are strategic. It does not, however, specify whether this demographic data is publicly available or internally sourced. Additionally, it did not provide specific examples of impact but stated that the framework had supported the adoption of the Scottish Local Government Living Wage.

One CSO welcomed the SED but raised concerns about its legal wording and practical impact. The respondent referenced evidence gathered from the early implementation stages in Scotland, Wales and some local authorities in England, but did not specify which public bodies it had engaged with. The submission also raised concerns about the legal wording of the SED, particularly the requirement to “determine” whether public bodies can reduce socio-economic inequalities, rather than requiring them to act. This interpretation was based on the organisation’s own analysis and was not attributed to statutory guidance from Scotland or Wales. The CSO stated that the lack of a requirement for further action allows public bodies to meet the SED on paper, without making tangible changes.

Some respondents described systemic factors that shape how the SED is understood and applied.

Beyond individual interpretations, several respondents, including one large public authority drawing on its own research with duty bearers in Scotland and Wales, reported inconsistent interpretation of key terms such as “strategic decision” and “due regard.” These respondents submitted that despite statutory guidance, public bodies varied in how they understood and applied the SED, particularly when decisions with significant socio-economic impacts were not formally recognised. The large public authority also felt that some duty bearers felt the SED placed too much emphasis on process and faced challenges in engaging people experiencing socio-economic disadvantage due to limited skills, resources, or relationships. These findings suggest that variation in interpretation is not only a matter of organisational perspective but also reflects broader structural and capacity-related constraints.

Some respondents felt that overlap between the SED and the PSED affects how the SED is understood and applied. Though both duties require public bodies to consider equality issues, the SED focuses on socio-economic disadvantage, while the PSED covers the 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Respondents raised concerns that the 2 duties are not always applied in a complementary way, which may lead to socio-economic disadvantage being overlooked or prioritised at the expense of other equality considerations. This was seen as contributing to uncertainty about the SED’s scope and purpose.

Taken together, these submissions suggest that organisational type, resources, and policy context shape how the SED is understood and used. Respondents indicated that whether the respondent was a local authority, CSO, or government body influenced their approach to implementation. Available resources and the broader policy environment also affected how the SED was interpreted and applied in practice.

7.3.2 Strategic and operational integration

Respondents described different ways of integrating the SED into strategic and operational decision-making. While no formal impact evaluations were submitted, several respondents provided examples of how the SED had been embedded into existing processes. These included Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs), procurement frameworks, and strategic planning tools. An employer representative and a CSO provided evidence based on published case studies and practitioner engagement, describing how the SED was embedded into existing processes rather than treated as a standalone requirement.

Examples from Scotland showed how socio-economic assessments were embedded into core policies. One employer representative reported that public authorities such as Glasgow City Council and Stirling Council had embedded socio-economic assessments into strategic decisions. In Glasgow, these were integrated into pay and redundancy policies through an intersectional approach that linked socio-economic disadvantage to other protected characteristics and included worker voice mechanisms. In Stirling procurement requirements were used to promote local hiring and training, which resulted in internal analysis showing an increase in workforce qualifications from 22% to 80%.

Separately, a CSO described how Falkirk Council incorporated the socio-economic duty into existing EIAs. These combined assessments included socio-economic, equality, and sustainability impacts, and were used to avoid cuts to early learning and childcare services. The respondent believed that this approach helped protect low-income families and avoided duplication by embedding the SED within existing processes.     

Examples from Wales highlighted integration into programme design and service delivery. One CSO submitted 3 examples of how the SED had been used in Wales. First, they described the Welsh Government applying the SED through an integrated impact assessment to support the development of the Statutory Sick Pay Enhancement Scheme for social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. They submitted that the intervention, a financial support scheme, was developed through internal consultation and implemented through an Integrated Impact Assessment. The organisation cited this scheme as a case study, alongside a broader set of examples, in their submission, reporting that it provided full sick pay to low-paid workers, predominantly women, who were required to self-isolate. The organisation assessed that this consideration helped prevent financial hardship and laid the groundwork for longer-term improvements in employment conditions.

Second, they gave the example of a housing association using the SED to assess the impact of rent increases on tenants in poverty, leading to the introduction of financial support schemes and tenancy sustainment services.  

Lastly, the respondent described a Welsh local authority using the SED to guide a transport strategy aimed at improving access for low-income communities.^{[footnote 25]} The submission described how the transport strategy was informed by community engagement and data analysis, helping to identify barriers and improve connectivity for disadvantaged groups.

However, a few respondents viewed integration as inconsistent and lacking impact. The respondents, including CSOs and a large public authority, asserted that the SED was sometimes treated as a “tick-box” exercise. Respondents described issues affecting multiple areas, including Scotland and Wales and framed them as cross-sectoral. This is further explored in detail in section 7.3.3 on barriers to outcome-focused implementation. One CSO mentioned that implementation was inconsistent across sectors, with limited clarity on how socio-economic assessments were being applied in practice. 

A large public authority echoed these concerns. In its submission, the large public authority reported findings from its own research, noting that while many public bodies had developed templates, frameworks, or reporting mechanisms to support implementation, these tools were not always used consistently or effectively to guide decisions. This finding was based on survey responses and interviews with duty bearers in both nations. The respondent also highlighted that the lack of statutory reporting requirements made it difficult to assess compliance, particularly due to the absence of formal public reporting mechanisms comparable to those required under the PSED.

A CSO identified several factors that undermined effective integration. They described how duplication with other duties, particularly the PSED, unclear timelines, and lack of guidance led some public bodies to treat the SED as a procedural formality rather than an effective mechanism. For example, assessments were sometimes completed without influencing decisions or conducted too late to shape outcomes. The respondent emphasised that socio-economic disadvantage should be incorporated into existing EIAs in a way that complements, rather than detracts from, the PSED. 

7.3.3 Participation of disadvantaged groups

Respondents described varied approaches to engaging people experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. A large public authority submitted evidence based on its own research with duty bearers in Scotland and Wales. They reported that some public bodies in Scotland had created dedicated forums and safe spaces to enable people experiencing socio-economic disadvantage to share their experiences and influence decisions. These approaches were supported by dedicated teams, joint work with communities to design services and partnerships with third sector organisations. 

Some respondents submitted that without meaningful engagement, the SED risks being applied superficially. One CSO emphasised that identifying disadvantage without acting on it undermines the SED’s purpose. They believed that embedding socio-economic considerations into strategic decisions requires lived experience, data, and visible leadership.

Another CSO highlighted gaps between strategic intent and frontline practice. The CSO reported that frontline personnel in public bodies, especially those engaging with families, frequently demonstrated insufficient awareness of the SED and did not consistently implement a support-first approach. As a result, the CSO reported that on occasion these staff failed to prioritise providing assistance or making adjustments to address socio-economic disadvantage before resorting to enforcement or restrictive measures. They shared that in their experience, gaps between strategic decision-making and frontline practice could have serious consequences, and that advocacy groups often played a vital role in bridging these gaps, since many people facing socio-economic disadvantage were unaware of their rights or the policies that could help them. 

For example, they described a case in Scotland where a mother was at risk of having her children removed by social services because she could not afford suitable housing. In their view, this was an example of socio-economic disadvantage not being properly considered in strategic decision-making. The situation was only resolved when an advocate, familiar with poverty-related rights and entitlements, successfully pushed the local authority to provide appropriate social housing. Once housing was secured, the concerns raised by social services were resolved, and the family remained together. Their submission emphasised that advocacy was often the only route through which disadvantaged individuals could access their rights and called for greater investment in advocacy services. 

Despite these examples, a large public body submitted that engagement remains inconsistent across the public sector. Their submission drawn from their own research indicated that lived experience engagement was not yet embedded consistently across the public sector. Barriers included limited staff capacity, lack of existing relationships with disadvantaged communities, and the challenges of discussing sensitive issues such as poverty. Some public bodies lacked clear guidance on how to engage meaningfully, and there is currently no statutory requirement under the SED to involve people with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage. These factors, alongside time and resource constraints, were cited as reasons why engagement remains patchy.

Respondents believed that these gaps contribute to a disconnect between policy commitments and lived experience. They called for improved enforcement, clearer guidance, and greater stakeholder engagement to help the SED achieve its intended outcomes.

7.3.4 Transparency and accountability 

Some respondents described transparency as essential to effective implementation of the SED. Several public bodies submitted in their evidence that they had issued written statements explaining how they met the SED, often as part of broader transparency efforts. These statements were typically published alongside strategic policies or impact assessments and were intended to demonstrate compliance with the Fairer Scotland Duty or equivalent frameworks in Wales.

However, a few respondents, including the EHRC and one CSOs, submitted evidence that the content and quality of these statements varied. Some public bodies provided clear explanations of how socio-economic disadvantage had been considered in decision-making. Others were reported to have submitted more formulaic statements, which respondents perceived as fulfilling procedural requirements without demonstrating clear engagement with the SED’s aims.

A few respondents also highlighted gaps in reporting and evaluation. Evidence was provided by respondents that some public bodies had developed templates, frameworks, or reporting mechanisms to support implementation, but a few respondents perceived there to be little consistency in standard or statutory requirements to evaluate or publish outcomes. One large public authority submitted that, based on its own research, the lack of formal reporting requirements in Scotland and Wales made it difficult to monitor compliance or assess impact. Without stronger central coordination and clearer expectations, respondents felt that implementation risked becoming a “tick-box” exercise (see section 7.3.3).

Some respondents described how the SED had been used to hold decision-makers accountable. Trade unions and CSOs submitted evidence showing that the SED had informed external engagement. For example, one employee representative referenced the SED in communications with Senedd Cymru members and cited Trade Union Congress (TUC) Cymru policy to challenge funding decisions that disproportionately affected disadvantaged communities. These submissions show how the SED has informed the use of evidence in external engagement, enabling stakeholders to frame socio-economic disadvantage as a legitimate basis for scrutiny. 

A few respondents submitted that the effectiveness of such efforts depends on public authorities’ willingness to engage. These respondents felt that external accountability relies on public bodies responding to evidence and concerns raised by stakeholders. Without this engagement, the SED’s potential to support transparency and challenge inequality may be limited.

7.3.5 Evaluation and outcomes

This subsection summarises respondent evidence on internal evaluation mechanisms and strategic frameworks used to implement the SED.

Evaluation mechanisms and strategic farming:

No formal published impact evaluations were submitted regarding the implementation of the SED in different settings. However, several respondents described internal evaluation mechanisms or provided examples of tracked impacts. These included outcome monitoring, strategic-level reviews, and revisions to decisions based on assessment findings (see section 7.3.2 for examples of tracked impacts in Glasgow, Stirling, Falkirk, and Wales).

A few large public authorities described strategic frameworks guiding implementation of the SED. They gave examples of structured models for considering socio-economic disadvantage in decision-making. These included a joined-up equity model used by the Greater London Authority, the Bee Network and Greater Manchester Strategy cited by Transport for Greater Manchester, and a whole-system poverty framework described by Plymouth City Council.^{[footnote 26]} These frameworks positioned equity, understood here as a focus on fair outcomes rather than equal treatment, as a cross-cutting principle embedded across strategic planning, service design, and evaluation. However, none of these submissions described a formal theory of change or evaluation process. Most other respondents did not reference strategic frameworks, suggesting that joined-up approaches are still emerging across public bodies.

Respondents emphasised the need for stronger evaluation mechanisms and clearer strategic framing. A few respondents highlighted the absence of formal theories of change, baseline indicators, and time-bound success criteria. These gaps were seen as barriers to assessing whether the SED is delivering meaningful outcomes.

Tracked outcomes and service impacts:

Some respondents reported tangible changes in organisational practice and service delivery (see section 7.3.2 for examples of targeted service delivery following consideration of the SED).

A few submissions described tracking of how outcomes varied between different groups. Respondents submitted evidence that where implementation was more advanced, public bodies tracked differential outcomes by income, postcode, ethnicity, and disability. However, detailed examples specific to Scotland or Wales were limited, and most submissions did not describe systems for tracking outcomes or specify timeframes for expected impacts.

Procedural focus and limited accountability:

Despite some examples of tracked outcomes, several respondents raised concerns that the SED is treated as a procedural requirement rather than a tool for driving change. These respondents, including CSOs, large public authorities, an individual, and one employee representative, reported that they viewed that public bodies often focus on producing reports or demonstrating that discussions have taken place, rather than delivering measurable change. These respondents described a pattern in which equality duties, including the SED, were implemented through templates, frameworks, or written statements, but lacked mechanisms to assess whether socio-economic disadvantage had been reduced.

One CSO described the current system as process-driven and lacking accountability. In its submission the organisation observed that while cyclical reporting requirements under the SED provide a framework for holding public bodies to account, the current system remains largely focused on procedural compliance. The respondent stated that local authorities often treat equality duties as a box-ticking exercise, which they felt undermines the SED’s original intention to drive progress on equality outcomes, particularly for ethnic minority groups. They called for a shift in emphasis from procedural compliance to tangible, accountable outcomes, and stressed that reporting mechanisms should be a means to sustained, systemic change.

A trade union submission reported that most union representatives in Scotland and Wales were unaware of the SED, and that even where it applies, it is not actively considered in workplace decision-making. A survey of union reps found that 75% believed public authorities paid no regard to the SED in efforts to reduce local inequality. 

Engagement with related frameworks:

Some stakeholders supported the principles of the SED but did not engage with its statutory framework. One CSO submitted evidence focused on the PSED, describing poverty as a structural issue linked to patriarchal systems and referencing anti-poverty measures such as the Scottish Child Payment. Their submission focused on the PSED and did not mention the SED. While the response aligned with the aims of the SED, it did not make a link between the 2 duties or suggest that the SED could support these outcomes. This suggests that while some organisations engage with the principles behind the SED through other equality frameworks, they may not connect these to the SED’s legal or operational role.

A few submissions, including those from CSOs, employee representatives, and employer representatives, observed that while awareness of the SED may be increasing, inconsistent outcome tracking and weak enforcement continue to limit its long-term impact. See sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.4 for examples of tracked impacts and data-informed interventions that, while promising, were described by respondents as isolated or lacking consistent follow-up.

7.3.6 Costs of implementation

This subsection summarises the evidence submitted on the financial and resource implications of implementing the SED, including costs to governments and public bodies, and the availability and accessibility of support mechanisms.

Costs to governments and public bodies:

Respondents submitted limited evidence on the costs of implementing the SED. One employer representative described voluntary implementation in the financial services sector as cost-effective, citing reduced attrition and financial risk. A large public authority in Scotland reported that the requirement to pay the real living wage had reduced low pay from 18–20% to 9% between 2012 and 2023, including among subcontractors. However, this submission did not specify whether these changes were directly attributed to the SED. 

Some respondents felt that preventative approaches informed by the SED offered better value for money than reactive services. However, most submissions did not provide detailed cost breakdowns. Where costs were mentioned, they typically referred to staff time, data collection, or engagement activities, but these were not quantified.

Availability and accessibility of support mechanisms:

Some respondents described the types of support provided by governments in Wales and Scotland. Both nations have now commenced the SED on a statutory basis, but as the evidence previously suggests, differences in statutory guidance, institutional support, and implementation infrastructure may have influenced how clearly the SED was understood and applied.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government issued dedicated guidance and worked with the Improvement Service to provide practical support. The Improvement Service, which works with local government to drive improvement, helped public bodies interpret and apply the SED by facilitating regional meetings, refining guidance over time, and supporting alignment between socio-economic, human rights, and equality duties. One CSO described this partnership as instrumental in enabling knowledge sharing and contextualised application of the SED.

In Wales, the EHRC contributed to the development of tools such as the More Equal Wales mapping guide. Respondents described this guide as valuable because it helped public bodies align the SED with other statutory obligations, such as the PSED under the Equality Act 2010 and duties under the Human Rights Act. It also provided frameworks for evaluating the impact of decisions on socio-economic disadvantage, supporting more consistent and accountable implementation.

Training and communication were also described as central to supporting implementation. The EHRC and devolved governments were reported to have engaged duty bearers through correspondence and meetings to clarify responsibilities training and guidance were also provided in both Scotland and Wales, with the EHRC contributing to non-statutory tools and resources. However, submissions did not describe the content of shared materials in detail, and it was unclear whether communications included definitions of key terms or practical examples. As a result, it was not possible to assess the usefulness of the materials or their impact on consistent application of the SED.

A few submissions believed that this support was not uniformly distributed or equally accessible. One CSO observed that the Improvement Service organised regional meetings and peer learning opportunities, but factors such as unclear timelines, overlapping responsibilities, and limited statutory clarity presented challenges to implementation. Similarly, a large public authority reported that barriers including limited training, ambiguous definitions, and resource constraints affected the ability of public bodies to fulfil their duties effectively. Submissions highlighted that the EHRC provided guidance and facilitated discussions, but some respondents described similar barriers, particularly in relation to evaluation and compliance processes.

7.4 Voluntary implementation of the SED in England

This section examines how the SED has been voluntarily adopted by public bodies in England. It follows the same thematic structure as section 7.3, which focuses on statutory implementation in Scotland and Wales. This section draws on evidence from 39 respondents.

7.4.1 Strategic and operational integration

This subsection highlights where and how English public bodies have adopted the SED, how it’s been built into decision-making, and the risks of overlooking socio-economic factors.

Voluntary adoption and geographic patterns:

Voluntary adoption of the SED is growing across England, particularly in areas with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage. Respondents submitted evidence that a growing number of English public bodies have voluntarily adopted the SED or integrated socio-economic considerations into their decision-making frameworks. While the SED is not legally mandated in England, submissions described a range of local authorities, combined authorities, and public services that have taken steps to consider socio-economic disadvantage.

Research conducted by a CSO, reported that 47 councils in England had voluntarily adopted the SED. This figure represented 22% of respondent councils to their October 2024 research. Adoption was particularly concentrated in the Northwest, where 54% of respondent councils had adopted the SED. Within Greater Manchester, uptake was even higher, with 80% of councils reported to have adopted the SED, alongside Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and NHS Greater Manchester. Their research reported that councils in areas with more concentrated rates of child poverty were more likely to have adopted the SED. This analysis formed part of a broader effort to understand patterns of voluntary adoption across England.

Hackney Council was cited by 2 CSOs as an early adopter. Other named authorities included Salford, Harborough, Wigan, Manchester, Newcastle, Oldham, Bristol, York, Islington, Westminster, Haringey, Middlesbrough, Preston, Derby, Gloucestershire, and Shropshire. Combined authorities and services such as the North of Tyne Combined Authority and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service were also referenced.

Integration into decision-making frameworks:

Some public bodies have embedded socio-economic disadvantage into existing equality frameworks, but concerns remain about consistency and legal risk. A few respondents submitted evidence that integrating consideration of socio-economic disadvantage with the 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 was a recurring concern. This was particularly relevant in relation to legal duties and risk. Some public bodies reported treating socio-economic status as a locally recognised priority, ensuring it was considered alongside protected characteristics in EIAs and workforce planning. 

One large public body, an English local council submitted evidence that it has formally embedded socio-economic disadvantage into its decision-making frameworks. This approach is embedded into Equality Impact Assessments for all Cabinet reports and informs strategic planning, workforce design, and community engagement. The respondent described a specific example where the SED shaped the redesign of sexual health services, using consultation, needs assessments, and lived experience evidence to improve access for low-income groups. The Council reported that this integration has helped foster a broader culture of co-production and inclusive service design. 

Many respondents believed that English public bodies have adapted existing processes to incorporate socio-economic considerations, rather than creating entirely new systems. This approach was described as practical and scalable, particularly when supported by leadership and a commitment to equity.

Legal risks and lived experience:

Respondents perceived that a failure to consider socio-economic context can lead to discriminatory outcomes and legal risk. A few submissions illustrated how socio-economic disadvantage intersects with other forms of discrimination. One CSO described a lived experience case in which a Black mother was fleeing domestic violence and moved frequently across the UK to avoid being found by her abuser. Social Services judged her to be an unfit parent and claimed she had made the family intentionally homeless, proposing to place her children in foster care. A support worker trained in human rights law challenged the decision, arguing that it failed to uphold the family’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Social Services reconsidered, allowed the family to remain together, and agreed to help cover housing costs. While the submission did not explicitly attribute the decision to racial or socio-economic discrimination, it highlighted how poverty-related circumstances and lack of trauma-informed understanding can lead to punitive outcomes. The organisation used this case to demonstrate the importance of frontline awareness of human rights duties and the need for tailored training to support equitable decision-making.

The same organisation submitted other legal cases as evidence of the risks associated with failing to consider socio-economic context. They reported that in SH v Norfolk County Council^{[footnote 27]}, the High Court found that changes to the cost of care charging policies disproportionately affected a disabled woman on a low income, breaching her rights under Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, they reported that in Cameron v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions^{[footnote 28]}, the Supreme Court ruled that suspending Disability Living Allowance during hospitalisation unlawfully penalised a socio-economically disadvantaged family, prompting legislative reform.

Additional evidence from individual respondents echoed these concerns. One individual respondent, an employment solicitor with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage, described how major decisions, such as redundancies and school exclusions, were often made without structured socio-economic analysis. She cited a specific case, where no socio-economic impact assessment had been conducted, which resulted in a redundancy process disproportionately affecting part-time staff, many of whom were working-class women from ethnic minority backgrounds. Based on this experience, the respondent recommended that the SED be made legally enforceable in England and embedded into existing decision-making frameworks. This included EIAs and strategic planning processes.

Examples from local authorities and services show how the SED has been embedded into strategic and operational decision-making. Respondents provided evidence that some English public bodies have embedded socio-economic disadvantage. However, the depth and consistency of this integration varied.

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) was cited by a few respondents as an example of dual-level integration. TfGM applied socio-economic analysis to both the strategic design and operational delivery of the Bee Network, including fare policy, concessions, and EIAs.

Wigan Council reported using the SED to inform strategic decisions such as budget setting, workforce planning, and service design.

The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority submitted evidence that it considered socio-economic disadvantage in recruitment, service access, and community engagement strategies.

A CSO described how Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service removed a driving licence requirement and introduced bursaries for applicants from deprived areas. According to the respondent, these targeted adjustments led to increased applications from underrepresented groups and were presented as an example of how practical changes can support more equitable recruitment outcomes.

Hackney Council and TfGM were also cited as examples of public bodies that modified recruitment and engagement practices to better reflect socio-economic realities. Islington Council and Transport for London (TfL) embedded targeted employment initiatives into their procurement processes. Arts Council England applied the SED through Equality Analyses, which informed changes to data collection and funding criteria.

One CSO asserted that while these examples illustrate promising practice, integration remains uneven. They described variation in practice, noting that while some public bodies appeared to apply socio-economic analysis systematically, others used it more tactically or inconsistently. Leadership commitment, data infrastructure, and internal capacity were cited as key enablers of effective integration.

7.4.2 Participation of disadvantaged groups

English public bodies used a range of participation models to engage disadvantaged communities, though quality and consistency varied. Some public bodies invested in sustained engagement models that enabled disadvantaged communities to shape decisions.

Examples of inclusive engagement included co-production, lived experience panels, and community builders embedded in local areas. For example, Plymouth City Council and Devon Integrated Care Board embedded community builders in local areas to support co-design, co-delivery, and co-evaluation of services. TfGM and Hackney Council engaged lived experience panels and community networks to inform key decisions, including TfGM’s customer charter and Hackney’s pandemic response. Poverty Truth Commissions and community-based engagement were used by councils such as Trafford and York to influence wage policy and service design.

Despite these examples, many submissions highlighted persistent barriers to meaningful participation. One SME conducted a focus group with socio-economically disadvantaged young people. Participants described geographic isolation and financial constraints as major obstacles to civic engagement. They submitted that policymaking roles were often concentrated in London and inaccessible without financial support. The SME recommended partnering with schools, youth clubs, and community spaces to create sustained, inclusive mechanisms for engagement, moving beyond one-off consultations that rely on prior awareness or confidence.

Digital exclusion, language barriers, and lack of trauma-informed approaches were also cited as obstacles to inclusive engagement. The same focus group highlighted intersectional exclusion. Female participants described being overlooked in professional and educational settings. They submitted that the differences in accent and vocabulary made them feel less confident and more self-conscious. One young adult explained that when applying to university, they lacked support and resources. In lectures and seminars, they noticed that students from higher socio-economic backgrounds spoke more confidently and seemed to know more. This made them afraid to speak up, even when they understood the topic.

Respondents emphasised the need for structural reforms to support inclusive engagement.
A few submissions, including those from CSOs and individual respondents, identified digital exclusion, language barriers, and literacy challenges as further obstacles. One individual respondent observed that people with limited English are rarely consulted on decisions that directly affect their lives. Several organisations called for participatory approaches to be trauma-informed, accessible, and adequately resourced, with co-production recommended as standard practice. While some respondents described inclusive participation models, others felt that public bodies still rely on ad hoc or inaccessible formats.

7.4.3 Use of data and evidence

Respondents widely recognised data collection and analysis as critical enablers of effective implementation, though practices varied in sophistication and inclusivity. 2 large public authorities, and a large enterprise, collected socio-economic background data using standardised parental occupation questions aligned with the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC). This data informed internal pay gap reporting, performance tracking, and funding decisions.^{[footnote 29]}

One large public authority revised its data collection tools to improve inclusivity and accuracy. They submitted evidence that individuals with disrupted family circumstances, such as those who had been in care, were estranged from parents, or had experienced homelessness, faced difficulties answering the parental occupation questions. In response, the organisation revised its data collection tools to improve inclusivity and accuracy. This was presented as evidence that lived experience can inform technical improvements and enhance the representativeness of socio-economic monitoring frameworks.

Public bodies also used proxy indicators and multi-dimensional frameworks to capture socio-economic disadvantage. TfGM described using a multi-dimensional approach to data. This included drawing on sources such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Acorn consumer classification, Greater Manchester Accessibility Levels (GMAL), and the Transport Related Social Exclusion (TRSE) framework. These datasets were used alongside qualitative research and scorecard-style reporting to monitor equity-sensitive indicators.

Liverpool City Council submitted evidence that it had embedded the SED into its EIAs and conducted cumulative impact assessments on both local budget decisions and national policy changes, such as the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Other councils reported using proxy indicators such as housing tenure, ward-level deprivation, and eligibility for free school meals to capture socio-economic disadvantage in the absence of direct SEB data.

Despite these efforts, one respondent described gaps in analytical capacity and infrastructure. One individual respondent with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage, observed that many public bodies lacked the analytical capacity or infrastructure to use socio-economic data systematically. 2 CSOs echoed this concern, calling for improved data-sharing practices, investment in local data infrastructure, and clearer guidance on how to integrate socio-economic indicators into decision-making frameworks.

7.4.4 Transparency and accountability

Transparency practices among English public bodies varied significantly. Some respondents described clear commitments to publishing socio-economic data and outcomes. 3 large public authorities and one large enterprise reported public-facing practices such as publishing EIAs, socio-economic background metrics, and recruitment outcomes linked to deprivation. In these cases, transparency related not only to data publication but also to showing how socio-economic disadvantage was considered in decision-making and, in some instances, acted upon.

Other respondents reported limited transparency and weak public-facing reporting. 2 CSOs and one large public authority submitted that many public bodies lacked accessible reporting mechanisms or failed to publish Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (SEIAs), making it difficult to assess whether socio-economic disadvantage was considered or addressed. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority acknowledged that while governance structures such as equality panels and scrutiny boards were in place, public-facing reporting and open data access remained limited.

Some respondents provided examples of published data and impact assessments. One council reported publishing an annual PSED report that includes reference to socio-economic disadvantage. A large enterprise committed to publishing SEB data completion rates from 2026, complementing its internal quarterly metrics. One CSO submitted evidence that 48% of new applicants to Merseyside Fire and Rescue in 2022 came from the 10% most deprived areas in the region. This outcome was linked to targeted recruitment measures and cited as an example of transparent practice.

Respondents called for clearer expectations around transparency. A few submissions recommended routine publication of SEIAs, disaggregated outcome data, and evidence of how lived experience has informed decisions. These transparency gaps were often linked to broader weaknesses in evaluation and feedback mechanisms, raising concerns about accountability and the ability to assess progress over time.

One CSO proposed broader reforms to embed transparency and accountability into organisational culture and digital systems. The submission called for public authorities to eliminate the root causes of socio-economic disadvantage and plan proactively for equality of outcomes. Specific proposals included prioritising human-centred approaches over cost-cutting, enhancing transparency in the use of artificial intelligence (AI), and ensuring individuals are informed when automated systems are used in service delivery. Drawing on internally run focus group evidence, the organisation reported that opaque decision-making processes, particularly those involving AI, can compound disadvantages for individuals based on protected characteristics and socio-economic background. Participants called for empathetic, human-centred approaches, informed consent, and stronger safeguards against data misuse. While not described as current SED practices, these reforms were framed as structural conditions necessary to ensure the Duty is implemented in ways that are inclusive, accountable, and responsive to digital exclusion.

7.4.5 Evaluation and outcomes

This section explores how English public bodies evaluated the impact of socio-economic considerations in decision-making, including reported outcomes, gaps, and recommendations for improvement.

Evaluation practices:

Evaluation practices varied significantly across English public bodies. A few submissions, from 4 large public authorities and one large enterprise, described structured approaches to assessing the impact of socio-economic considerations. These included scorecards, key performance indicators (KPIs), cumulative impact assessments, and equality analyses. For example, one large public authority applied cumulative impact assessments to evaluate policy and budget decisions, while another committed to building a baseline dataset to track progress across its national portfolio. These examples build on tracked impacts discussed earlier in sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.3.

Strategic frameworks were rare but emerging. 3 large public authorities described using strategic models to embed socio-economic analysis across planning and evaluation. These included a joined-up, people-centred model, the Greater Manchester Strategy, and the Bee Network. However, none of these submissions referenced a formal theory of change or evaluation process, echoing findings in section 7.3.6 that strategic coherence is still developing.

A few respondents felt that most public bodies lacked the infrastructure to evaluate outcomes systematically. 3 respondents, 2 CSOs and one individual, reported that many public bodies had no evaluation mechanisms in place. Several others described reliance on fragmented datasets, limited analytical capacity, and the absence of baseline indicators or time-bound success criteria. These limitations are consistent with concerns raised in section 7.3.4 and section 7.4.4.

One individual respondent reported that feedback loops and post-implementation reviews were consistently missing. Even where assessments were conducted, another respondent, a CSO, believed that they were often process-driven and lacked mechanisms to revisit or revise decisions. This aligns with earlier concerns in section 7.3.6 that the SED is sometimes treated as a procedural formality rather than a tool for driving change.

Reported outcomes:

A few respondents reported positive outcomes from targeted interventions. 5 submissions, from 2 employer representatives, 2 large public authorities, and one employee representative, described unintended outcomes, including increased engagement and recruitment from disadvantaged groups. For example, Merseyside Fire and Rescue was reported by a CSO to have tracked the impact of removing driving licence requirements and offering bursaries to applicants from deprived areas. These examples complement those in section 7.4.1 and section 7.4.2.

However, negative consequences were also reported, particularly in healthcare. One employee representative raised concerns about the introduction of virtual wards in England. Drawing on NHS England’s own annual analysis, NHS England’s virtual wards, the submission highlighted that patients from ethnic minority backgrounds were significantly underrepresented in virtual ward cohorts. This was attributed to systemic barriers, including poor ethnicity data capture, language and cultural obstacles, and a mismatch between referral patterns and the geographic distribution of ethnic minority communities. The respondent argued that these structural issues disproportionately affect groups that are also more likely to experience socio-economic disadvantage, meaning that virtual wards, while intended to reduce hospital admissions, risk deepening inequalities in access to care. They concluded that unless these systemic issues are addressed, the implementation of the socio-economic duty could be undermined, as decisions fail to consider how service design impacts disadvantaged communities.

One CSO respondent also highlighted less commonly recognised forms of socio-economic discrimination focusing on weight-based stigma. Drawing on a French study , Paraponaris and others (2005), they noted that higher body weight is associated with reduced employment prospects and lower income, which can limit socio-economic mobility over the life course. While the study is international, the respondent also cited UK-based evidence showing that weight stigma intersects with gender, race, and socio-economic status (Morris, 2006, Sargent and Blanchflower, 1994), showing weight-based disadvantage in employment and earnings. They argued that weight-based discrimination contributes to entrenched disadvantage, particularly among those already at risk of poor health and low income. This was presented by the respondent as a factor limiting socio-economic mobility and underscored the need for inclusive approaches that reflect the full spectrum of disadvantage.

Recommendations focused on strengthening evaluation systems and accountability. 2 CSOs proposed improvements including the development of baseline indicators, participatory evaluation methods, and clearer success criteria. These recommendations aimed to shift implementation from procedural compliance to outcome-focused practice, reinforcing calls made in section 7.3.6 and section 7.4.4.

7.4.6 Cost of implementation 

Respondents submitted limited evidence on the costs associated with implementing the SED. While monetary figures were rarely provided, a few respondents, including large public authorities, a large enterprise, and an individual respondent, described the types of resources required to implement the SED. These included staff time, investment in data systems, engagement infrastructure, and targeted support measures. A few respondents used Merseyside Fire and Rescue as an example of resource-intensive implementation, particularly in relation to recruitment and outreach (see section 7.4.1). While no financial breakdown was provided, respondents submitted that these initiatives required administrative coordination and internal capacity. 

Other examples included internal monitoring and evaluation investments. One large enterprise referenced the cost of quarterly SEB data monitoring and reporting, while a large local authority described investment in cumulative impact assessments to evaluate national and local policy decisions. These examples are also discussed in section 7.4.3.

A few respondents argued that preventative approaches offer better value for money than reactive services. 3 respondents, 2 CSOs and one individual, argued that preventative approaches informed by socio-economic analysis offer better value for money than reactive services. An individual respondent submitted that failing to consider socio-economic disadvantage at the point of decision-making often leads to downstream costs in crisis services, legal challenges, and reputational harm. This was illustrated in legal cases such as SH v Norfolk County Council and Cameron v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, where the absence of socio-economic consideration resulted in discriminatory outcomes and financial liabilities for public authorities (see section 7.4.1).

Despite these examples, most public bodies did not report formal mechanisms for tracking the costs of implementation. This absence of cost data was itself identified as a limitation, making it difficult to assess the resource implications of the SED or to compare approaches across organisations. CSOs called for clearer guidance on how to account for implementation costs and recommended that future statutory guidance include expectations around cost tracking, value-for-money assessments, and resource planning.

7.5 Enablers of effective implementation

This section is divided into 2 parts: one focusing on Scotland and Wales, and the other on England. It synthesises factors that supported implementation, drawing on examples from both statutory and voluntary contexts. This section draws on evidence from 21 respondents, who submitted evidence on both enablers and barriers to effective implementation.

7.5.1 Scotland and Wales 

Respondents described 2 distinct types of enablers: those that supported public bodies through engagement with governments in Scotland and Wales, and those experienced directly by public bodies when implementing the SED in practice.

Several respondents submitted that statutory status and political leadership were reported as key enablers. Several submissions, including CSOs and large public authorities, believed that legal enforceability and political leadership helped public bodies embed the SED into strategic planning. Some respondents submitted that the statutory nature of the SED in Scotland and Wales provided a clear legal basis for embedding socio-economic considerations into decision-making. Political leadership was also seen as important, with some respondents noting that visible support from senior figures helped drive implementation. These points are explored further in section 7.3.1, which looks at how public bodies understood and framed the SED.

A few respondents reported that structured support and peer networks helped clarify responsibilities. 2 respondents described the role of the Improvement Service in Scotland as instrumental. It facilitated regional meetings, supported peer learning, and helped public bodies interpret the SED in context. In Wales, the EHRC contributed to tools such as the More Equal Wales mapping guide, which respondents said helped align the SED with other statutory obligations. These examples are discussed further in section 7.3.7, which focuses on government support and implementation infrastructure.

A few respondents believed that embedding the SED into existing processes supported consistent implementation. Rather than creating new systems, public bodies were cited as examples of adapting existing ones. One employee representative submitted evidence that Glasgow City Council embedded socio-economic assessments into pay and redundancy policies, while Stirling Council used procurement to promote local hiring and training. Another respondent, categorised as ‘other’, described how Falkirk Council combined equality and poverty impact assessments to protect early years services. These examples suggest that integrating the SED into existing frameworks helped avoid duplication and supported more consistent application.

Several respondents felt that internal leadership commitment helped embed the SED into decision-making. Several submissions, including large public authorities, CSOs, and one respondent categorised as ‘other’, described endorsement from senior leaders within public bodies as a key factor in supporting implementation. However, one submission warned that leadership alone didn’t guarantee change. They described a tendency for organisations to stick with familiar processes, even when new duties were introduced. This idea of ‘institutional inertia’ is also discussed in section 7.3.2, which looks at how organisational culture affects implementation.

Use of data and lived experience informed strategic decisions. A few respondents described how public bodies used demographic data and community engagement to guide decisions. One CSO gave 3 examples from Wales: a statutory sick pay scheme for social care workers, a rent impact assessment by a housing association, and a transport strategy developed with input from low-income communities. These examples are explored in section 7.3.3, which focuses on participation and the role of lived experience in decision-making.

7.5.2 England 

Respondents described a range of practical and strategic enablers that supported the consideration of socio-economic disadvantage in decision-making by English public bodies.

Integrating socio-economic analysis into existing processes was seen as essential. A few organisational respondents felt that the SED was most effective when embedded into existing equality frameworks, rather than treated as a separate or optional add-on. One large public authority described how it had built socio-economic analysis into its Equality Impact Assessments and governance structures. This included developing scorecards and key performance indicators to monitor equity outcomes by geography and demographic group. These examples are discussed in the England section (7.4.3) and reflect similar integration approaches seen in Scotland and Wales.

Strategic models helped embed equity across decision-making. Another large public authority reported using a joined-up, people-centred model that positioned equity as a guiding principle throughout procurement, service design, and community engagement. This approach was underpinned by a theory of change that treated socio-economic disadvantage as a cross-cutting concern. This approach, discussed in section 7.4.1, was seen as a way to move beyond procedural compliance and ensure the SED shaped outcomes. A few respondents in Scotland and Wales also highlighted the value of strategic frameworks, suggesting alignment in how equity is being embedded across regions.

Organisational culture and external support played a role. One respondent believed that internal communications, staff networks, and external guidance helped build understanding and consistency. They cited support from organisations such as Resolve Poverty and the Co-operative Councils Innovation Network as particularly useful. These examples, covered in section 7.4.1, show how both internal and external mechanisms can support implementation, a theme also reflected in Scotland and Wales, where peer learning and regional coordination were identified as key enablers.

Peer learning and practical tools helped build confidence. A few CSOs emphasised the importance of political leadership, shared learning, and access to practical tools such as templates and case studies. A few respondents believed that practical examples helped reduce uncertainty and gave public bodies the tools to apply the SED in different service areas. This is explored in section 7.4.2, and echoes similar findings from Scotland and Wales, where peer networks and shared resources supported implementation.

7.6 Barriers to effective implementation

Also split by geography, this section outlines practical and structural challenges reported by respondents, using the same thematic framing as the enablers section to support comparison. This section draws on evidence from 21 respondents, who submitted evidence on both enablers and barriers to effective implementation.

7.6.1 Scotland and Wales 

Respondents described 2 types of barriers: those affecting government support for implementation, and those experienced directly by public bodies.

A few respondents submitted that government support was uneven or unclear. While tools and guidance were available in both Scotland and Wales, a few submissions felt that definitions of key terms, such as “due regard” and “strategic decision”, remained ambiguous. This made it harder for public bodies to apply the SED consistently. One large public authority reported that duty bearers struggled to interpret their responsibilities, especially when guidance overlapped with other legal duties. A few respondents felt that regional support, such as peer learning and training, was helpful but not always accessible or well-timed. These concerns are discussed in section 7.3.7, which explores how governments supported implementation.

Respondents also submitted that public bodies faced practical barriers when applying the SED. A few submissions, including CSOs and one large public authority, described cases where the SED was treated as a procedural formality. In these examples, assessments were completed after decisions had already been made or used to justify existing plans. A few respondents felt that this undermined the SED’s potential to shape outcomes. These issues are explored in section 7.3.2, which looks at how the SED was integrated into decision-making.

Engaging with disadvantaged communities was described as challenging. While some public bodies created spaces for lived experience, others lacked the capacity or relationships to engage meaningfully. Some respondents believed that without robust engagement, the SED risked identifying disadvantage without acting on it. These concerns are discussed in section 7.3.3, which focuses on participation and the role of lived experience.

Weak evaluation and limited data made it difficult to assess impact. Several respondents felt that public bodies lacked the tools to track whether the SED was making a difference. Some described assessments as process-driven, with no feedback loops or outcome tracking. A few respondents submitted that success criteria were unclear or missing altogether. These concerns are discussed in sections 7.3.4 and 7.3.6, which examine how data and evaluation were used, or not used, to monitor progress.

Overlap with other duties created confusion. A few respondents believed that the SED was sometimes duplicated or sidelined due to overlap with the PSED. They highlighted that socio-economic disadvantage is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, which made it harder to integrate the SED into existing equality frameworks. This issue is raised in section 7.3.1, where respondents discussed how the SED fits alongside other legal obligations.

7.6.2 England 

While respondents described examples of good practice, they also identified persistent barriers that limited the SED’s impact in England. These challenges were not unique to England. Respondents in Scotland and Wales reported similar difficulties, suggesting shared barriers across England and devolved nations.

Limited infrastructure made it difficult to track outcomes or assess impact. Several respondents believed that many English public bodies lacked the systems needed to monitor the effects of socio-economic considerations. One individual respondent described this as a major gap, noting that without proper data and evaluation mechanisms, it was hard to know whether interventions were working or to identify unintended consequences. These concerns are discussed in section 7.4.3. Similar issues were raised in Scotland and Wales, where respondents described assessments as process-driven and lacking feedback loops (see sections 7.3.4 and 7.3.6).

Lack of statutory guidance and legal enforceability weakened implementation. 2 respondents, a CSO and an employee representative, asserted that the absence of formal guidance and enforcement mechanisms made it harder for public bodies to apply the SED consistently. One individual respondent described the current legal position as creating an “illusion of protection,” warning that voluntary efforts may lack rigour without a legal requirement to act. This echoes findings in section 7.4.1. In Scotland and Wales, respondents similarly described “institutional inertia” a tendency to stick with familiar processes even when new duties were introduced (see section 7.3.2).

A few respondents reported that leadership was inconsistent across organisations. While some public bodies showed strong leadership, others were described as lacking clear direction or commitment. One CSO submitted that without senior buy-in, the SED was often treated as a procedural exercise rather than a tool for structural change. This echoes Scottish and Welsh findings  in section 7.4.1, where respondents described “institutional inertia” and highlighted that leadership alone was not always enough to drive change. 

Voluntary adoption did not always lead to meaningful action. An individual respondent, an employment solicitor with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage, argued that no English public bodies were applying the SED in a robust or consistent way. They felt that voluntary adoption alone was not enough to ensure meaningful implementation and called for legal enforceability to drive real change. These concerns mirror those raised in Scotland and Wales, where some public bodies appeared to treat the SED as a “tick-box” exercise, completing assessments without influencing decisions (see sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.6).

7.7 Lessons and recommendations 

This final section draws together insights from across the chapter. It is organised into 2 parts: lessons for England informed by its statutory implementation in Scotland and Wales, and proposed improvements submitted by respondents. This section draws on evidence from 41 respondents.

7.7.1 Lessons for England 

Respondents suggested that legal enforceability is essential for consistent and accountable implementation of the SED. This lesson was supported by several respondents, including large public authorities, employer representatives, and an individual who submitted that statutory status helps clarify responsibilities and embed the SED into strategic planning. This lesson draws directly from evidence in section 7.3.2 and 7.5.1, where respondents described how legal enforceability in Scotland and Wales supported more consistent practice and enabled targeted interventions.

Respondents also emphasised that integration into existing decision-making frameworks is more effective than standalone approaches. This lesson was supported by a few respondents, including CSOs, large public authorities, employer representatives, SMEs, and individuals. A CSO submitted case studies from Wales and England showing how the SED was embedded into strategic planning, supported by leadership, informed by local data, and co-produced with communities. In Wales, statutory implementation enabled targeted support for low-paid care workers during the pandemic (see 7.3.2). In England, Hackney Council and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service removed structural barriers (for example, driver’s licence requirements), used combined impact assessments, and engaged with people with lived experience (see 7.4.1 and 7.4.2).

Several respondents submitted that legal status strengthens the inclusion of socio-economic goals in procurement but must be balanced with other equality duties. A submission from one academic respondent, based on the 2023 Buying Social Justice through Procurement project, found that statutory implementation led to stronger inclusion of socio-economic goals, such as Living Wage and community benefit clauses. However, it also submitted that this sometimes came at the expense of protected characteristic considerations. This tension is explored in section 7.3.3, where respondents called for clearer alignment between the SED and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

A few respondents emphasised that embedding the SED into combined impact assessments and participatory approaches improves implementation quality. They submitted that integration into existing equality frameworks helped streamline processes and avoid duplication. One respondent cited a Scottish council as an example of effective integration. These points are supported by evidence in sections 7.3.2 and 7.4.3, which describe how public bodies used participatory models and adapted existing processes to improve service design and delivery.

Respondents also highlighted that peer learning, inclusive communications, and intersectional data use are key enablers of effective practice. A few respondents highlighted that access to templates, case studies, and shared learning networks helped build confidence and consistency. These enablers are discussed in section 7.5.2, where respondents described how internal communications and external support contributed to more robust implementation.

Finally, several respondents submitted that, successful implementation depends on statutory clarity, leadership, collaborative infrastructure, and adequate resourcing. This lesson was supported by CSOs, large public authorities, and an individual. While devolved governments and some public bodies have made progress, several respondents believed that enforcement, training, and conceptual clarity remain barriers to the SED’s transformative potential. These limitations are explored in sections 7.3.6 and 7.6.2, which detail gaps in evaluation, data infrastructure, and strategic coherence.

7.7.2 Proposed improvements

Several respondents proposed statutory commencement of the SED in England to ensure consistency and accountability. This recommendation came from CSOs, large public authorities, employer representatives, SMEs, and individuals. They believed legal enforceability would help move beyond symbolic adoption and embed the SED into strategic decision-making. This proposal builds on evidence in section 7.4.1, which outlines how voluntary uptake has led to fragmented practice, and section 7.6.2, which highlights the limitations of non-statutory implementation.

Respondents also suggested that clearer national guidance is essential to support consistent interpretation and practical delivery. Several respondents supported this recommendation including, CSOs, large public authorities, SMEs, employer representatives, individuals.  Some respondents asked for updated definitions of key terms like “due regard” and “strategic decision,” alongside practical tools such as templates, worked examples, and sector-specific case studies. These suggestions respond to concerns raised in section 7.3.1, where ambiguity in terminology was shown to affect implementation, and section 7.3.7, which discusses uneven access to support materials.

Improving data infrastructure was widely recommended by respondents to support evidence-led decision-making. Several respondents supported this recommendation including, CSOs, large public authorities, employer representatives, academic or research bodies. Several respondents called for standardised indicators (such as NS-SEC), inclusive data collection tools, and better local analytical capacity. These proposals reflect gaps identified in section 7.3.4, which explores how data is used to inform decisions, and section 7.4.3, which shows how some public bodies are adapting their data systems to capture socio-economic disadvantage more effectively.

Several respondents emphasised the need to embed participatory approaches as standard practice. Suggestions from, CSOs, large public authorities, SMEs, employer representatives, individuals, included trauma-informed engagement, co-production with affected communities, and sustained funding for lived experience panels. These recommendations build on examples in section 7.3.3 and 7.4.2, where inclusive models were shown to improve service design but were not consistently applied.

To support practical implementation, several respondents proposed integrating socio-economic analysis into existing governance processes. Submissions came from CSOs, large public authorities, SMEs, employer and employee representatives. This included embedding the SED into Equality Impact Assessments, procurement frameworks, and budget-setting. These ideas build on section 7.3.2 and 7.4.1, which show how public bodies have adapted existing systems to include socio-economic considerations.

Transparency was another area where several respondents saw room for improvement. Proposals included routine publication of socio-economic impact assessments, disaggregated outcome data, and evidence of how lived experience shaped decisions. Submissions came from CSOs, large public authorities, SMEs, employer and employee representatives, and individuals. These suggestions respond to concerns in section 7.4.4, where inconsistent reporting was seen to limit public scrutiny and accountability.

Several respondents also called for stronger evaluation frameworks. Recommendations from, CSOs, large public authorities, SMEs, employer representatives, individuals, included developing baseline indicators, participatory evaluation methods, and feedback loops to assess whether the SED is delivering meaningful change. These proposals address issues raised in section 7.3.6 and 7.4.5, where evaluation was often described as process-driven and lacking outcome tracking.

Several respondents highlighted the need to track implementation costs. Respondents including, CSOs, large public authorities, employer representatives, individuals, suggested clearer expectations around how public bodies should account for resources, including staff time, training, and data systems. This reflects gaps discussed in section 7.3.7 and 7.4.6, where most public bodies did not report formal mechanisms for cost tracking.

Finally, one employer representative proposed a voluntary code of practice for private sector partners. Rather than extending the SED statutorily to suppliers, they recommended a non-legislative approach supported by guidance and investment in inclusive workplace practices. This proposal is discussed in section 7.4.6, which explores how procurement can support socio-economic outcomes.

A few respondents framed many of their proposed improvements as responses to persistent challenges identified throughout the evidence. These included concerns about inconsistent interpretation of statutory terms, limited data infrastructure, weak evaluation mechanisms, and barriers to meaningful engagement with disadvantaged communities. A few respondents described these issues not as abstract risks, but as practical constraints that shaped how the SED was understood and applied. The improvements outlined above, such as clearer guidance, stronger data systems, and statutory commencement, were submitted as proportionate steps to address these constraints and support more consistent, accountable implementation.

Annex A. Full list of questions

Available at: Call for Evidence – Equality Law

Question 1. Please tell us in what capacity you are primarily responding.

[If answering ‘As an individual’, skip to question 3 to 5

If answering ‘As an academic’, skip to next section

Otherwise question 2]

Question 2. If you are responding on behalf of an employer or another organisation, what is its name?

[Skip to next section]

Question 3. What is your sex?

• Female
• Male
• Prefer not to say

Question 4. What is your ethnic group?

Question 5a. Which of the following descriptions do you identify with? (Tick all boxes that apply)

Question 5b. Do you identify as having conditions or illnesses that affect you in any of the following areas? (Tick all boxes that apply)): Mobility (for example walking short distances or climbing stairs)

1. Equal Pay

Question 6. Do you have evidence about the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of existing measures in reducing pay discrimination? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 7. If no, skip to question 9]

Question 7. What evidence is there on the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales? We are particularly interested in evidence relating to:

• the overall prevalence
• how levels and patterns of pay discrimination may differ across different situations, sectors, employer types or types of work
• how these levels and patterns of pay discrimination may differ where the discrimination is based on sex, race or disability

Question 8. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of existing measures in England, Scotland and Wales in reducing pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex?

Question 9. Do you have evidence about actions the government could take, and those it should avoid, to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 10. If no, skip to question 13]

Question 10. What evidence is there to establish the steps that should or should not be taken to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people?

Question 11. What evidence is there of the changes needed to make expanding the equal pay scheme to claims on the basis of race and disability effective, if this approach were taken?

We would be particularly interested in:

• advantages that the equal pay scheme may offer claimants that are not available to those currently bringing claims for race or disability pay discrimination, and how they could be extended
• disadvantages that claimants may face under the equal pay scheme that are not currently faced by those bringing claims for race or disability pay discrimination, and how they could be removed
• any unintended consequences that could arise from such an approach, and any steps which could reduce the risk of these
• any changes that may be needed to the procedure for equal pay claims to ensure it is fair and effective
• any changes that may be needed to job

Question 12. What evidence is there regarding any potential barriers that individuals could face in making equal pay claims and approaches to address these barriers?

Question 13. Do you have evidence about the way the law works regarding employer and employee rights and responsibilities in relation to pay when reasonable adjustments are made? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 14. If no, skip to question 15]

Question 14. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of the law on employer and employee rights and responsibilities in relation to pay when reasonable adjustments are made?

We would be particularly interested in:

• areas of the law that may not be clear to employers or employees
• scenarios relating to reasonable adjustments and pay in which employees or employers may not feel clear as to what the law requires
• any potential steps that could be taken to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the law in this area

Question 15. Do you have evidence about the prevalence and pattern of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability or sex experienced by outsourced workers in England, Scotland and Wales and/or barriers to redress?

This would include where outsourcing leads to outsourced workers of a particular race, disability or sex being paid less than those employed directly by the principal company for equal work. [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 16. If no, skip to question 18]

Question 16. What evidence is there on the prevalence and patterns of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex experienced by outsourced workers in England, Scotland and Wales?

We are particularly interested in evidence relating to:

• the overall prevalence
• how levels and patterns of pay discrimination may differ across different situations, sectors, employer types or types of work
• how these levels and patterns of pay discrimination may differ where the discrimination is based on sex, race or disability

Question 17. What evidence is there about barriers to redress for outsourced workers experiencing pay discrimination?

Question 18. Do you have evidence on whether outsourced workers should be able to draw comparisons between their work and pay with those working for a principal employer in an equal pay claim and/or evidence on where liability for equal pay claims by outsourced workers should lie? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 19. If no, skip to question 21]

Question 19. What evidence is there to establish whether outsourced workers should be entitled to draw comparisons between their work and pay with those working for a principal employer in an equal pay claim?

Question 20. What evidence is there to establish where liability for equal pay claims by outsourced workers should lie?

Question 21. Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of current enforcement of the equal pay scheme and/or evidence on who should have standing to bring an equal pay claim? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 22. If no, skip to question 25]

Question 22. What evidence is there about the effectiveness of current enforcement of the equal pay scheme by the EHRC ?

We are particularly interested in evidence relating to:

• the effectiveness of the EHRC’s existing powers and their use of them
• whether there are any particular challenges associated with the enforcement of equal pay, as opposed to the Equality Act 2010 more broadly
• whether any changes to the EHRC’s powers or functions, or the creation of additional powers or functions, are needed to support effective enforcement of equal pay

Question 23. What evidence is there about the effectiveness of individuals bringing equal pay claims?

We are particularly interested in:

• the enablers and barriers for those who have experienced pay discrimination in seeking redress
• what can be done to remove barriers to redress
• whether any other changes are needed to ensure equal pay claims brought by individuals can be adjudicated effectively and fairly for all parties

Question 24. What evidence is there that any person or organisation other than the individual complainant or the EHRC should be able to bring equal pay claims? Who should this be?

2. Improving pay transparency

Question 25. Do you have evidence about the possible impacts of introducing pay transparency measures on pay equality on the basis of sex, race or disability and/or on employers? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 26. If no, skip to question 28]

Question 26. What evidence is there about the possible impact of pay transparency measures on pay equality on the basis of sex, race or disability?

We are particularly interested in:

• the impact on pay equality across different sectors, types of work, or types of pay, such as bonuses
• whether certain pay transparency measures are more effective in addressing discrimination on the basis of one characteristic than another (for example sex rather than race or disability)
• whether a voluntary, mandatory or combined approach to pay transparency for employers may be more effective at improving pay equality
• whether there are any risks associated with introducing pay transparency and if so, how these could be mitigated

Question 27. What evidence is there on the possible implications of introducing pay transparency measures for employers?

We are particularly interested in:

• the implications for employers of different sizes
• the implications for employers in different sectors, for types of work or for types of pay, such as bonuses

Question 28. Do you have evidence about the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 29. If no, skip to question 30]

Question 29. What evidence is there about the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014?

We are particularly interested in:

• the effectiveness of the regulations’ requirements as to when an equal pay audit must be carried out, and the exemptions to these
• the frequency with which Employment Tribunals are ordering equal pay audits to be carried out
• the effectiveness of the consequences set out in the regulations for employers who fail to comply with an order to carry out an equal pay audit

Question 30. Do you have evidence on the possible impact of requiring employers to undertake equal pay audits in cases where pay discrimination has been found in relation to race or disability? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 31. If no, skip to question 32]

Question 31. What evidence is there on the possible impact of requiring employers to undertake equal pay audits in cases where pay discrimination has been found in relation to race or disability?

We are particularly interested in:

• the impact on pay equality on the basis of race and disability
• potential risks associated with an expansion, and where these exist, how risks could be mitigated

3. Strengthening protections against combined discrimination

Question 32. Do you have evidence about the prevalence of combined discrimination in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of actions that can be taken to protect individuals against combined discrimination and accessing redress? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 33. If no, skip to question 39]

Question 33. What evidence is there on the prevalence of combined discrimination in England and Wales and Scotland?

We are particularly interested in:

• the overall prevalence of combined discrimination
• how levels and patterns of combined discrimination may differ across different situations, sectors or regions

Question 34. What evidence is there as to whether there is currently sufficient legal protection against discrimination based on a combination of protected characteristics?

Question 35. What evidence is there on access to redress in cases of combined discrimination?

Question 36. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of commencing section 14 of the 2010 Act in protecting against combined discrimination and providing redress for those who have experienced it? 

We are particularly interested in evidence relating to how the provision might be interpreted in courts and tribunals once commenced.

Question 37. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of any other actions to protect against combined discrimination and provide redress for those who have experienced it?

Question 38. What evidence is there on the prevalence of the following types of discrimination on the basis of a combination of protected characteristics in England, Scotland and Wales?

• indirect discrimination
• harassment
• victimisation
• discrimination on the basis of a combination of protected characteristics that includes pregnancy and maternity and/or marriage and civil partnership

4. Ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty is met by all parties exercising public functions

Question 39. Do you have evidence about the compliance of non-public bodies with P S E D when exercising public functions? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 40. If no, skip to question 41]

Question 40. What evidence is there about the compliance of non-public bodies with P S E D when exercising public functions?

We are particularly interested in:

• overall compliance by non-public bodies when exercising public functions
• evidence as to how compliance or noncompliance has had an effect on outcomes
• the barriers and enablers for non-public bodies in complying with P S E D
• the level of clarity as to when a non-public body is or is not exercising a public function, and so when PSED does or does not apply
• the effectiveness of enforcement of PSED in relation to non-public bodies when exercising public functions
• additional proportionate steps which could better enable compliance by non-public bodies while promoting value for money

5. Creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment

Question 41. Do you have evidence on effective steps that can be taken by employers to reduce/prevent sexual harassment in the workplace? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 42. If no, skip to question 43]

Question 42. What evidence is there on effective steps or specific issues that employers should take into account when trying to reduce/prevent sexual harassment in the workplace?

We are particularly interested in:

• effective steps that employers can take in relation to company culture, staff training, how policies are enforced, reporting systems and procedures, and recording and investigating complaints
• how best practice may potentially differ according to employer size, sector, or other factors
• where there may be gaps in the evidence base, noting those identified by the literature review

Question 43. Do you have evidence regarding expanding the Equality Act 2010’s workplace protections to volunteers and/or evidence on other approaches that could be taken to protect these volunteers from experiencing sexual harassment? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 44. If no, skip to question 46]

Question 44. What evidence is there regarding expanding the Equality Act 2010’s workplace protections to volunteers?

We are particularly interested in:

• the effect on different types of volunteers
• whether protections should be extended to all or only particular categories of volunteers
• the potential challenges or unintended consequences for organisations of expanding protections to different groups of volunteers
• whether some types of organisations may be more likely to be adversely affected by the expansion than others
• steps that could be taken to mitigate potential risks and challenges

Question 45. What evidence is there about other approaches or steps that could be taken to protecting volunteers from experiencing sexual harassment while volunteering?

Question 46. Do you have evidence on other effective interventions that the government should consider to address the problem of workplace sexual harassment? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 47. If no, skip to question 48]

Question 47. What evidence is there of other effective interventions the government should consider to address the problem of workplace sexual harassment?

6. Implementing the socio-economic duty

Question 48. Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of the socio-economic duty in Scotland and Wales and/or its voluntary adoption by some public authorities? [Yes, No]

[If yes, question 49. If no, survey ends]

Question 49. What evidence is there on the effectiveness of the duty in Scotland and Wales and its voluntary adoption by some public authorities in England?

We are particularly interested in evidence relating to:

• how effective the duty has been in improving the consideration of how decisions might reduce the inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage
• reasons why implementation of the duty has or has not been effective in reducing socio-economic disadvantage
• how effective the duty has been across different public authorities, populations, or other categories
• how effective the duty has been in capturing the decisions that are most relevant to and impactful in reducing socio-economic inequality
• whether any outcomes occurred which were not originally intended and, if so, what and how significant they were
• what the enablers and barriers for effective implementation have been
• the effectiveness of the enforcement regime
• whether the steps taken by public authorities to meet the duty have been proportionate and promoted value for money

Question 50. Other than commencing the provision, are there any proportionate steps that could be taken to ensure the duty is as effective as possible in leading public authorities to give active, high-quality and informed consideration to reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage?

Question 51. What evidence is there about effective approaches public authorities can take to giving proactive, high-quality and informed consideration to reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage?

We are particularly interested in:

• use of data and evidence
• the participation of socio-economically disadvantaged groups in decision making
• monitoring and evaluation of the impact of decisions
• transparency and accountability mechanisms and procedures

Annex B. Socio-Economic Duty questions

Note: These were provided by OEO to Fortia Insight via email, not directly asked to respondents.

Section 1: Scotland and Wales 

Question 1: How was the SED implemented by public bodies in Wales and Scotland?  

How did public bodies implement the SED?  For example:  

• how did they interpret the SED’s key concepts (for example,  the ‘due regard’ requirement and strategic decisions)? To what extent has government guidance influenced how public bodies understood these terms? 
• did they use existing processes, modify existing processes, or introduce new processes to consider socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making? What are those processes? 
• how did they balance socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making with disadvantage from the protected characteristics? 
• did the SED public bodies increase the participation of socio-economically disadvantaged people in strategic decision making? If so, how and with what results? 
• did public bodies improve their (a) collection, (b) analysis, (c)  publication or (d) use -  of data and evidence related to socio-economic disadvantage? If so, how and with what results? 
• did the SED lead to (a) greater transparency or (b) greater accountability to national governments and/or the EHRC about how the SED was implemented. If so, how and with what results?  
• Did public bodies evaluate the implementation of the socio-economic duty  in making strategic decisions? If so, what did they find out?   
• What costs did public bodies incur as a result of implementing the SED?   

What was the cost of the implementation of the SED to public bodies?  

What did that cost consist of (for example, staff time at new meetings, new data collections, new focus groups). 

Question 2: How did governments in Wales and Scotland support public bodies to implement the SED?  

How did national governments support the implementation of the SED? 

• did governments provide tools and resources to public bodies to support them to implement the SED? For example: guidance, training packages. 
• If so, what did the tools and resources contain? (for example what topics were covered in training or guidance) 
• did governments communicate with public bodies to support them to implement the SED? For example: awareness raising, supporting guidance, FAQs. 
• If so, what did any communication contain? (for example did it define terms, provide examples of when to implement the duty, or provide best practice of how to implement the duty?) 
• What else did governments do to support the implementation of the SED by public bodies? 
• what was the cost of the implementation of the SED to governments? What did that cost consist of (for example, staff time to develop guidance or communication) 
• Were any concerns raised that the SED had not been implemented by public bodies?  If so, how many cases were raised?  What did the cases relate to? What was the outcome of the cases? 
• What processes were in place to ensure that public bodies fulfilled their duties under the SED when any concern was raised?  
• did they use existing processes, modify existing processes, or introduce new processes to manage any concern? 
• What was the cost of enforcing the SED? What did that cost consist of? 

Question 3: What are the intended outcomes of implementing the SED in Wales and Scotland and to what extent have they been realised?

• Was there a theory of change, or similar, that underpinned the implementation of the SED? 
• What systems are there for tracking outcomes?  
• Over what time-frame did, or would you expect, any outcome from implementing the SED? 
• Does that tracking indicate any effect of the duty’s implementation including any unintended (positive or negative) outcomes? 

Question 4: What worked well, and what could be improved, in implementing the SED in Wales and Scotland?  

• What were the enablers and barriers to effective implementation of the SED experienced by governments in Wales and Scotland? 
• What were the enablers and barriers to effective implementation of the SED experienced by public bodies in Wales and Scotland? 
• What lessons are there for England from how the SED was implemented in Wales and Scotland?  

Section 2: England 

Question 1: Which English public bodies consider socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making? 

Which public bodies consider socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making? 

Question 2: How do English public bodies consider socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making? 

For those public authorities that do consider socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making:

• do they consider socio-economic disadvantage when making strategic decisions, operational decisions or both? 
• did they use existing processes, modify existing processes, or introduce new processes to consider socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making? What are those processes? 
• how did they balance socio-economic disadvantage in their decision making with disadvantage from the protected characteristics? 
• did they increase the participation of socially disadvantaged people in decision making? If so, how and with what results? 
• did they improve their (a) collection, (b) analysis, (c)  publication or (d) use of data and evidence related to socio-economic disadvantage? If so, how and with what results? 
• did the consideration of socio-economic disadvantage include transparency.  If so, how and with what results?  
• Did public bodies evaluate how they are considering socio-economic disadvantage in making decisions? If so, what did they find out?   
• What costs did public bodies incur as a result of considering socio-economic disadvantage in making decisions?   
• what was the cost of considering socio-economic disadvantage in decision making?  
• what did that cost consist of (for example, staff time at new meetings, new data collections, new focus groups) 

Question 3: What are the intended outcomes from considering socio-economic background in decision making?   

• Was there a theory of change, or similar, that underpinned public bodies’ consideration of socio-economic disadvantage? 
• Are there systems for tracking outcomes?  
• Over what time-frame did, or would you expect, any outcome from socio-economic disadvantage? 
• Does that tracking indicate any effect from considering socio-economic disadvantage in decision making including any unintended (positive or negative) outcomes? 

Question 4: What worked well, and what could be improved, in considering socio-economic background in decision making?   

• What were the enablers and barriers to effective consideration of socio-economic disadvantage in decision making? 
• What lessons are there for the implementation of the socio-economic duty in England?

Annex C. Response rates and demographics

Table 1: Responses received for each closed question in the Call for Evidence (% of total 147)

Call for Evidence Question	Number of responses	Percentage of total (147)
Equal Pay
Question 6. Do you have evidence about the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of existing measures in reducing pay discrimination?	68	46%
Question 9. Do you have evidence about actions the government could take, and those it should avoid, to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people?	66	45%
Question 13. Do you have evidence about the way the law works regarding employer and employee rights and responsibilities in relation to pay when reasonable adjustments are made?	30	20%
Question 15. Do you have evidence about the prevalence and pattern of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability or sex experienced by outsourced workers in England, Scotland and Wales and/or barriers to redress?	29	20%
Question 18. Do you have evidence on whether outsourced workers should be able to draw comparisons between their work and pay with those working for a principal employer in an equal pay claim and/or evidence on where liability for equal pay claims by outsourced workers should lie?	22	15%
Question 21. Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of current enforcement of the equal pay scheme and/or evidence on who should have standing to bring an equal pay claim?	35	24%
Improving pay transparency
Question 25. Do you have evidence about the possible impacts of introducing pay transparency measures on pay equality on the basis of sex, race or disability and/or on employers?	50	34%
Question 28. Do you have evidence about the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014?	14	10%
Question 30. Do you have evidence on the possible impact of requiring employers to undertake equal pay audits in cases where pay discrimination has been found in relation to race or disability?	13	9%
Strengthening protections against combined discrimination
Question 32. Do you have evidence about the prevalence of combined discrimination in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of actions that can be taken to protect individuals against combined discrimination and accessing redress?	74	50%
Ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty is met by all parties exercising public functions
Question 39. Do you have evidence about the compliance of non-public bodies with PSED when exercising public functions?	33	22%
Creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment
Question 41. Do you have evidence on effective steps that can be taken by employers to reduce/prevent sexual harassment in the workplace?	53	36%
Question 43. Do you have evidence regarding expanding the Equality Act 2010’s workplace protections to volunteers and/or evidence on other approaches that could be taken to protect these volunteers from experiencing sexual harassment?	18	12%
Question 46. Do you have evidence on other effective interventions that the government should consider to address the problem of workplace sexual harassment?	23	16%
Implementing the socio-economic duty
Question 48. Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of the socio-economic duty in Scotland and Wales and/or its voluntary adoption by some public authorities?	50	34%

Table 2: Call for Evidence responses analysed per type of respondent

CfE Question	Organisation	Individual	Academic / Research	Other	Total
Equal Pay
Question 6	42	10	7	9	68
Question 9	41	9	7	9	66
Question 13	20	6	1	3	30
Question 15	22	6	0	1	29
Question 18	17	4	0	1	22
Question 21	25	4	1	5	35
Improving pay transparency
Question 25	35	6	4	5	50
Question 28	13	0	0	1	14
Question 30	11	1	0	1	13
Strengthening protections against combined discrimination
Question 32	45	14	8	7	74
Ensuring the Public Sector Equality Duty is met by all parties exercising public functions
Question 39	23	5	2	3	33
Creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from harassment
Question 41	35	5	6	7	53
Question 43	13	2	0	3	18
Question 46	16	3	2	2	23
Implementing the socio-economic duty
Question 48	43	3	3	1	50

Annex D. Methodological notes

This appendix provides a detailed account of the methods used to clean, integrate and analyse responses to the CfE. It supplements the summary in Chapter 1: Introduction and methodology.

D.1 Data integration and structuring

D.1.1 Combining SmartSurvey and email data

SmartSurvey responses were downloaded into Excel. Email responses, which were often unstructured, were manually transcribed into the same question‑by‑question format. An ‘other’ column was added for each policy area and for the CfE overall. Information that did not directly answer a specific question but was relevant to a policy area was placed in the relevant ‘other’ column. Content relevant to the CfE overall but not tied to a particular section was placed in the overall ‘other’ column. Material judged irrelevant to the call was placed in an ‘excluded text’ column and not analysed. Tables or attachments that could not be integrated into the master dataset were stored in a separate folder (“Supplementary materials – not coded”) and flagged in the dataset.

D.1.2 Cleaning open questions

An automated Python script using the spaCy library was employed to clean open‑text responses. The script converted corrected punctuation, standardised common abbreviations, and used stemming and lemmatisation to consolidate word forms. It also removed external references and flagged potential hate speech using the transformers library. Outputs were reviewed manually to ensure that relevant evidence was not lost and that exclusion criteria were applied consistently. A log file recorded all edits made by the script and researchers. Responses that were wholly irrelevant or offensive were removed and logged in the exclusion log file.

D.1.3 Cleaning closed questions

Because questions in the survey were optional, we found in our initial review of the dataset before data cleaning that some respondents answered open questions without ticking the related closed question. To enable accurate counts, we recoded closed questions based on open‑question responses. If a respondent provided any open‑text evidence for a policy area, they were recorded as having answered ‘yes’ to the corresponding closed question. If they answered no open questions in that area, or if all their answers were excluded, they were recorded as having answered ‘no’.

D.2 Quantitative analysis

Quantitative analysis was undertaken using Python, with Microsoft Excel used for visualisation. After cleaning, the dataset comprised 147 valid responses. Python was used to generate frequencies and percentages for each closed question, with results broken down by respondent type (individual, organisation) and by organisation sub-type (CSO, academic or research, employee representative, employer representative, large public authority (250+), small public authority (<250), and other). Because very few respondents disclosed demographic information, further disaggregation by sex or disability was not meaningful. The small sample size means that percentages should be interpreted cautiously.

D.3 Qualitative analysis

D.3.1 Coding framework

Thematic analysis combined the structured coding framework outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) with the staged, mixed-method approach recommended by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2007). A deductive coding frame was derived from the CfE questions and refined through a short desk review. Each legal area was assigned to a lead researcher. A hybrid deductive–inductive approach was used: responses were first coded to the question‑based framework and then examined for emerging themes. Codes were organised in an Excel coding matrix. 

Microsoft 365 Copilot was used to assist in summarising responses and assigning them to codes. All inductive themes identified by Copilot will be manually checked and refined. A minimum of 70% of Copilot-generated summaries and deductive code assignments were cross-checked manually by a second team member. Where inconsistencies arose or content is ambiguous, manual checking was implemented. Divergent themes were discussed within the team and added to the framework where appropriate. To ensure consistency across the 3 researchers coding the 6 legal areas, we held regular analysis meetings and a second team member quality-assured themes, reducing interpretive variation while recognising that some judgement is inherent in qualitative research and analysis.

Annex E. List of acronyms and abbreviations

Acronym	Definition
ACAS	Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
ADR	Alternative Dispute Resolution
AI	Artificial Intelligence
AIA	Algorithmic impact assessments
BITC	Business in the Community
BMA	British Medical Association
BME	Black and Minority Ethnic
CEDAW	Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
CERD	International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
CfE	Call for Evidence
CIPD	Chartered Institute of Personnel Development
COT3	Compromise of Tribunal
CQC	Care Quality Commission
CRPD	Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
CSO	Civil Society Organisation
DCMS	Department for Culture, Media and Sport
DPG	Disability pay gap
DWP	Department for Work and Pensions
EDI	Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
EHRC	Equality and Human Rights Commission
EIA	Equality Impact Assessment
EPIAs	Equality and Poverty Impact Assessments
ESG	Environmental, Social, and Governance
EU	European Union
FCA	Financial Conduct Authority
FOS	Financial Ombudsman Service
GLA	Greater London Authority
GMAL	Greater Manchester Accessibility Levels
GPG	Gender Pay Gap
HR	Human Resources
HRA	Human Rights Act
HSE	Health and Safety Executive
ICBs	Integrated Care Boards
ICO	Information Commissioner’s Office
IMD	Index of Multiple Deprivation
KPIs	Key performance indicators
NDAs	Non-disclosure agreements
NPB	Non-Public Body
NS-SEC	National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification
OEO	Office for Equality and Opportunity
ONS	Office for National Statistics
PRA	Prudential Regulation Authority
PSED	Public Sector Equality Duty
RIDDOR	Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations
RMT	National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
SEB	Socio-Economic Background
SED	Socio-Economic Duty
Senedd	Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament)
SEIAs	Socio-economic impact assessments
SME	Small and Medium Enterprise
TfGM	Transport for Greater Manchester

1. Note that the SED chapter follows a different structure due to regional comparative Analysis. As a result, the revised thematic headings do not align directly with either the original CfE questions or the internal research questions, they were developed specifically to support comparative implementation analysis. ↩

2. Enablers are factors or conditions that support, facilitate, or make something possible to happen. In contrast to barriers are factors that hinder, prevent, or create obstacles to something happening.  ↩

3. For more information, please see the EHRC guidance on pay gap reporting. ↩

4. For more information on the differences between gender pay gap and equal pay please see the EHRC guidance. ↩

5. For more information on equal pay audits, please see the ACAS guidance on checking for equal pay issues and the EHRC guidance. ↩

6. The term “race and ethnicity” is used here to reflect how respondents grouped these characteristics in their submissions. While distinct in legal and statistical contexts, they were often discussed together in the evidence submitted to this CfE. ↩

7. See Case C-624/19, K and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2021:429. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that workers may compare pay across different establishments if a single source determines the relevant pay and conditions and has the power to rectify inequalities. ↩

8. Section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the rights of contract workers (such as outsourced staff) to be protected from discrimination by the organisation they work for, even if they are not directly employed by it. However, current case law has confirmed that this section does not allow outsourced workers to bring equal pay claims against the principal employer, even when they do equivalent work. ↩

9. In 2020, the EHRC investigated equal pay at the BBC. It found no unlawful discrimination but identified poor record-keeping, weak grievance procedures, and lack of transparency. The EHRC issued recommendations to rebuild trust and improve pay practices. ↩

10. Standing here refers to the legal right to bring a claim to court or tribunal. ↩

11. A litigation friend is a person appointed to act on behalf of someone who lacks capacity to conduct legal proceedings, under Rule 11 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. ↩

12. For more information, please see the EHRC guidance on pay gap reporting. ↩

13. Job evaluation is a systematic procedure used to ascertain the monetary worth of a role by comparing responsibilities, skills, and requirements. ↩

14. Progress Together is a UK membership organisation focused on promoting socio-economic diversity within the financial services sector. ↩

15. It was noted that the Human Rights Act refers to “hybrid public bodies” – private organisations or charities delivering services of a public nature (for example, healthcare, education). These bodies are only bound by the duty in relation to their public functions, not their private ones. ↩

16. The cases YL v Birmingham City Council UKHL 27 and Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd EWHC 2265 (KB) both deal with the issue of whether private entities providing publicly funded care services are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). YL v Birmingham City Council established that a private care home, even when publicly funded, is not necessarily performing “functions of a public nature” under the HRA, meaning they aren’t automatically bound by its human rights provisions. Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd revisited this issue, specifically concerning a private care home where a patient died, and the court ultimately found that the care home was not a public authority for the purposes of the HRA.  ↩

17. The “Ali v Serco” case concerned whether Serco, a private contractor for the Home Office, was acting as a public authority when evicting asylum seekers. The court found Serco’s actions lawful, despite claims they breached human rights protections under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). ↩

18. The Windrush Scandal was caused by a failure to recognise that changes in immigration and citizenship law in Britain since 1948 had affected black people in the UK differently than they had other racial and ethnic groups. As a result, the experiences of Britain’s black communities of the Home Office, of the law, and of life in the UK have been fundamentally different from those of white communities.  ↩

19. It should be noted that NDAs are governed by employment law, and are not part of the Equality Act 2010. ↩

20. Banter refers to light-hearted, playful, and often witty exchange of remarks between individuals. ↩

21. Cultural responsibilities, as described by respondents, refer to the moral and organisational duty to foster respectful, inclusive environments. ↩

22. The definition of a ‘voluntary worker’ under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 can be found here.  ↩

23. Volunteer Rights Inquiry (2009 to 2011) was a review, led by Volunteering England, that aimed to understand issues faced by volunteers and identify remedies. ↩

24. Culturally competent support refers to services and initiatives that are designed and/or delivered with an understanding of, and sensitivity to, the cultural backgrounds, inclusive values, and needs of diverse communities — based on race, gender, religion, and other protected characteristics. ↩

25. In this context, “access” refers to ensuring that low-income communities can use public transport that is affordable, reliable, and reaches the places they need to go – such as work, education, healthcare, and other essential services. ↩

26. Equity refers to fairness in outcomes, recognising that individuals and groups may face different barriers and starting points. Unlike equality, which treats everyone the same, equity involves taking proportionate and tailored action to remove disadvantage and ensure that everyone has access to the same opportunities. ↩

27. SH v Norfolk County Council [2020] EWHC 3436. The High Court found that Norfolk’s adult social care charging policy unlawfully discriminated against disabled people under Article 14 ECHR. ↩

28. Cameron v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 47. The Supreme Court ruled that suspending Disability Living Allowance during hospital stays breached Article 14 ECHR and was discriminatory. ↩

29. The National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) is a UK system used to measure socio-economic background. It is based on parental occupation and is commonly used in surveys and data collection to understand patterns of inequality, especially in education, employment, and progression. ↩