Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
This use case describes how a US-headquartered, publicly listed multinational prepared its European business for the EU Pay Transparency Directive. It shows how replacing slotting with analytical job evaluation, stress-testing the structure across countries and training the client's own team created a defensible basis for gender pay gap analysis and a prioritised journey to compliance.
The client was a US-headquartered, publicly listed multinational with several thousand employees across more than 35 countries. The business was highly acquisitive, which had contributed over time to a fragmented and inconsistent approach to grading.
Within Europe, the focus of the initial work, the organisation had some one to two thousand employees across more than 20 countries. Reward was managed through a global team based in the US, with European reward and HR leadership seeking a more locally informed approach to the requirements of the EU Pay Transparency Directive (EUPTD). There was some initial tension between the European function and the global reward team over how to proceed.
The organisation needed to prepare for the EU Pay Transparency Directive and, in doing so, address several underlying issues:
A grading approach that relied on level descriptions used to slot roles into place, without analytical evaluation, leaving role positioning open to challenge
An inconsistent grade structure that had grown through acquisition
No defensible basis for identifying work of equal value, which is central to credible gender pay gap (GPG) analysis
Uncertainty about how exposed the organisation actually was: in-house analytics based on the former grade approach had produced worrying GPG results
A need to translate readiness findings into a practical, prioritised path to compliance across multiple countries
The EU Pay Transparency Directive created a concrete external trigger. European leadership recognised that the existing grading approach would not provide a robust enough foundation for the role comparisons and pay gap reporting the Directive requires. With acquisitions adding further inconsistency, and early in-house analysis pointing to potential pay gap issues, there was a clear case for establishing a defensible grading framework before drawing conclusions or committing to remediation.
The organisation had initially relied on slotting roles into level descriptions and on in-house analytics built on the former grade approach. These produced results that were difficult to rely on. The chosen route combined an analytical job evaluation methodology (delivered through the gradar tool) with a structured EUPTD readiness assessment, giving more confidence in role positioning and, in turn, more robust pay gap analysis.
The work was delivered in two phases, beginning with Germany and extending across the European business:
Phase 1 – Readiness and diagnostics
An EU Pay Transparency readiness assessment for Germany
An initial "unadjusted" gender pay gap analysis for Germany, by legal entity and by grade
Phase 2 – Grading and reward
Grading support using gradar
Calibration of the client's core structure and alignment testing against anchor roles
Reward strategy redrafting and related implementation work on base pay and bonus (delivered by the client)
Following the initial work, the client extended job evaluation across its global operations.
The approach focused on building the client's own capability – described internally as helping them build their "engine" – rather than evaluating every role on their behalf:
Tool training and facilitation: the client was trained in the gradar tool and their initial evaluation sessions were facilitated.
Calibration to anchor roles: the client's core structure was calibrated to the methodology and alignment was tested against anchor role evaluations.
Stress-testing the alignment: all roles in Italy and Poland were evaluated to stress-test the structure. This led to up to 15% of roles changing grade, confirming the value of analytical evaluation over simple slotting.
Mapping to market levels: the resulting grade levels were aligned to an external market levelling framework, supporting later benchmarking.
Client-led rollout with QA: the client took responsibility for evaluating the remaining EU roles, with periodic quality assurance. Germany was tackled first to enable the gender pay gap analysis.
Ongoing evaluation process: a process was developed with the client for evaluating new roles and role evolutions over time.
Robust role positioning then enabled a more reliable gender pay gap analysis.
Existing grade and level descriptions
Role information for analytical evaluation in the gradar tool
Compensation data, including base pay and bonus, by legal entity and grade
Employee demographic data for the gender pay gap analysis
Whether to continue slotting roles into level descriptions or move to analytical job evaluation
How to sequence the work across countries (Germany first, to enable GPG analysis)
How much of the evaluation to deliver directly versus transferring to the client with QA
How to reconcile the European approach with the global reward team's framework
How to prioritise the journey to compliance across more than 20 European countries
Tension between European and global reward teams. The engagement began with some friction between Europe and the US-based global reward function over approach and ownership.
A grading approach that did not hold up. Slotting roles into level descriptions produced positioning that, once stress-tested, saw up to 15% of roles change grade.
Worrying preliminary pay gap results. In-house analysis on the former grades suggested significant issues; only after roles were properly evaluated did a clearer – and in fact more positive – picture emerge.
These were addressed by establishing a defensible, analytical grading foundation first, then building pay gap analysis on top of it, which gave stakeholders confidence in the results.
European HR and reward leadership initiated and sponsored the work, while the global reward team in the US was an important stakeholder to align. The client's reward team was trained to run evaluations and given responsibility for the wider rollout under periodic quality assurance, embedding the capability internally.
A detailed EU Pay Transparency readiness assessment for Germany, extrapolated across the EU into a prioritised journey to compliance
A calibrated, analytically based grading framework with greater robustness than the prior slotting approach
Anchor role evaluations and a structure stress-tested through full evaluation in Italy and Poland
A mapping of internal grades to external market levels
A detailed gender pay gap analysis for Germany covering base pay and bonus, by function and by role grouping
An ongoing job evaluation process for new and evolving roles
Greater confidence in role positioning, with grading no longer reliant on subjective slotting
A more robust and credible basis for gender pay gap analysis
A clearer, prioritised view of what compliance with the EU Pay Transparency Directive would require across the European business
Internal capability to continue evaluation independently
The client has since extended job evaluation across its global operations, evaluating over 550 roles, uploaded its pay data for use in pay analytics, and begun implementing its journey to compliance. Client feedback noted the simplicity and ease of use of the methodology relative to expectations of a formal job evaluation approach.
Several thousand employees globally, with a significant European population within scope of the readiness work
More than 35 countries of operation, with the European programme spanning 20+ countries
Up to 15% of roles changed grade once analytical evaluation replaced slotting
A gender pay gap analysis covering base pay and bonus across more than a dozen functions and role groupings in Germany
Over 550 roles evaluated as the work extended globally
Weak grading undermines any pay gap analysis built on it, so the grades need to be fixed before the gaps are measured. Analytical evaluation produces results that stakeholders can trust, although they may differ markedly from early in-house estimates. Stress-testing the structure is equally important: evaluating roles in a sample of countries quickly revealed how far the prior approach was off, with up to 15% of roles changing grade.
Global and local stakeholders should also be aligned early, since friction between regional and central reward teams can slow progress if it is not addressed at the outset. Where the analysis is most urgently needed, the work should start there. Sequencing Germany first allowed the pay gap analysis to proceed while the wider rollout continued.
Finally, the programme became scalable across global operations by training the client, transferring ownership to them, and carrying out periodic quality assurance.
Multinationals preparing for the EU Pay Transparency Directive
Acquisitive organisations with inconsistent grading inherited through M&A
Companies whose grading relies on slotting rather than analytical job evaluation
Organisations needing a defensible basis for work of equal value before conducting gender pay gap analysis
Businesses with tension between global and regional reward functions
Companies connecting job evaluation, grading and pay gap analysis into a single compliance journey
The Directive requires organisations to compare work of equal value and report on pay gaps. Analytical job evaluation provides a structured, defensible basis for establishing the relative value of roles, which underpins credible grade structures, pay gap analysis and the explanation of pay decisions.
Pay gap analysis is only as reliable as the role positioning beneath it. In this case, an early in-house analysis on the former grades produced worrying results, but once roles were evaluated analytically the picture became clearer and more positive. Stress-testing also showed up to 15% of roles changing grade.
Slotting places roles into pre-written level descriptions based on judgement. Analytical job evaluation assesses roles against defined factors, producing more consistent and defensible positioning that holds up to scrutiny – important where pay transparency and equal value comparisons are concerned.
Yes. A consistent methodology can be applied globally or regionally while still reflecting local legal and market differences. Here, a calibrated core structure was stress-tested across countries and then extended, eventually covering global operations.
HR and reward leadership, both regional and global, plus the teams who will run ongoing evaluation. Aligning central and local stakeholders early avoids friction. Legal and compliance input is valuable given the regulatory driver.
Existing grade and level information, role data for evaluation, compensation data (base and bonus) by entity and grade, and employee demographic data for pay gap analysis.
By training internal teams in the methodology, calibrating to anchor roles, transferring responsibility for ongoing evaluation under periodic quality assurance, and establishing a defined process for assessing new and evolving roles.
Job architecture insights are delivered through the gradar platform - connecting job evaluation, compensation analysis and pay transparency in one consistent framework.
Job evaluation
Compensation
Pay transparency