For many candidates, applying for a new job involves making decisions without having all the information they need. They are expected to research the organisation, prepare an application, attend interviews and potentially complete several stages of assessment, often without knowing what the role actually pays.
Employers, however, already know what they have budgeted for the position.
That imbalance is at the centre of the UK government's recent announcement that it plans to introduce legislation requiring employers to publish salary information in job adverts. The proposed changes aim to give jobseekers greater clarity before applying and help address pay inequalities that can disadvantage women.
The legislation is still being developed, with further details about its scope, implementation and enforcement to follow. However, employers have an opportunity to review their recruitment practices now.
At Communicate Inclusively, we believe transparency is an important part of building fairer workplaces. The way organisations advertise opportunities, determine starting salaries and negotiate offers can influence who accesses opportunities and how people are valued from the beginning of their employment.
Understanding these practices is essential if organisations want their commitment to inclusion to translate into meaningful change.
The problem with keeping salaries hidden
When a job advert describes the salary as 'competitive', candidates are left to make assumptions about what the employer might be prepared to offer.
Some will have access to industry benchmarks, professional networks or previous experience that helps them establish their market value. Others may have less information to draw on, particularly those entering a new industry, returning to work or applying for their first professional role.
This can create an uneven negotiating position before the recruitment process has properly begun.
Candidates who are less familiar with salary expectations may undersell their experience, rule themselves out of opportunities they assume are beyond their financial expectations or feel uncomfortable asking questions about pay.
There is also a wider issue around who benefits from the opportunity to negotiate.
When employers leave salaries open to individual negotiation without clear criteria, starting pay can become influenced by confidence, familiarity with recruitment processes and an individual's willingness to challenge an offer.
These factors do not necessarily reflect someone's experience, qualifications or ability to perform the role.
The result can be significant differences in what people earn for comparable positions, with limited transparency around how those decisions were reached.
Previous earnings should not determine future opportunities
One recruitment practice that deserves particular scrutiny is asking candidates about their salary history.
At first glance, asking what someone earned previously might seem like a straightforward way to establish their salary expectations. However, it can create a cycle in which existing pay inequalities follow people from one organisation to another.
Consider two candidates applying for the same position. Both have the skills and experience required, but one previously earned £30,000 while the other earned £38,000.
If an employer bases its offers on a 10% increase on previous earnings, the candidates would receive £33,000 and £41,800 respectively.
The difference is £8,800, despite both candidates being equally suitable for the role.
The employer has effectively carried an existing pay difference into its own organisation without establishing whether there is any justification for it.
This is particularly concerning for people whose previous earnings may have been affected by discrimination, limited progression opportunities, career breaks or working in environments where their contributions were undervalued.
Research by the Fawcett Society found that 61% of women who had been asked about their salary history said it damaged their confidence to negotiate better pay.
Previous salary is not a reliable measure of someone's professional value. Employers should assess what a position is worth and what a candidate brings to it, rather than allowing historical pay decisions to determine future earnings.
Pay inequalities cannot be addressed without understanding who is affected
Salary transparency is particularly important when considered alongside the wider inequalities that exist across the UK workforce.
Pay gaps reflect differences in earnings across groups and can highlight structural barriers affecting access to higher-paid roles, career progression and financial security.
Recent statistics demonstrate why employers need to pay attention:
Gender: According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the median gender pay gap across all UK employees was 12.3% in April 2026. For full-time employees, it was 6.8%.
Disability: ONS data found a 12.7% median hourly pay gap between disabled and non-disabled employees in 2023.
Race and gender: McKinsey's research into the UK workplace found that Black women aged 26–35 earned 36% less per hour, on average, than White British men in the same age group.
These figures measure differences in earnings across groups rather than differences in pay between individuals doing identical work. However, they highlight the wider inequalities that organisations need to understand when reviewing their employment practices.
It is also important to recognise that these experiences do not always sit within separate categories. Race, gender, disability and other factors can intersect to influence someone's access to employment, progression and earning potential.
For example, looking at gender pay differences without considering ethnicity can leave the experiences of Black women and other women from underrepresented backgrounds less visible.
Organisations need to examine their own workforce data to understand where differences exist, who is most affected and what might be contributing to those outcomes.
Publishing salaries can help candidates make more informed decisions, but employers also need to understand what happens once someone enters the organisation.
Recruitment technology needs the same level of scrutiny
As organisations increasingly introduce technology into recruitment, there is another area where transparency and accountability matter.
Applicant tracking systems and AI-supported recruitment tools can influence how applications are screened, how candidates are assessed and who progresses to the next stage.
These technologies can improve efficiency, particularly when organisations receive large volumes of applications. However, they also introduce risks when the data, criteria or processes behind them are not properly examined.
A recruitment system trained on historical hiring decisions may reproduce patterns from a workforce shaped by unequal access to opportunities. If those patterns are not identified and addressed, technology can reinforce existing barriers.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has been examining the use of automated decision-making in recruitment, engaging with more than 30 employers. Its March 2026 findings highlighted the need for greater transparency, consistent human involvement and stronger monitoring for bias.
For employers, this means looking beyond whether recruitment technology saves time or reduces administrative work.
They need to understand how these tools make or support decisions, whether candidates are being assessed fairly and what safeguards are in place when an automated decision could disadvantage someone.
Pay transparency and recruitment technology may appear to be separate issues, but both raise an important question: do candidates have a fair opportunity to access employment and understand the decisions affecting them?
What employers should be doing now
The government's proposed legislation is a timely opportunity for organisations to review their approach to recruitment and pay. However, meaningful progress requires more than updating job advert templates.
HR professionals, recruitment teams and business leaders should consider the following five areas:
1. Make salary information part of every job advert
Publish a clear salary or realistic pay range rather than relying on phrases such as 'competitive salary'. Include relevant information about working hours, location, benefits and any variable pay so candidates can assess the opportunity accurately.
2. Remove salary-history questions from recruitment
Previous earnings should not determine someone's future salary. Instead, establish the value of the position and assess candidates against consistent criteria based on relevant skills, experience and responsibilities.
3. Introduce clear starting-salary frameworks
Make sure there is a transparent process for determining where candidates sit within an advertised salary range. Document decisions, establish when exceptions are appropriate and regularly review whether negotiation is creating unjustified differences between employees.
4. Examine existing pay structures
Review salary differences across departments, roles and demographic groups. Consider how starting salaries, pay reviews, promotions and progression opportunities contribute to differences in earnings. Where unjustified disparities emerge, establish clear actions to address them.
5. Monitor recruitment decisions and outcomes
Look at who applies, who progresses through each stage and who receives an offer. Review whether particular groups experience barriers and assess the impact of recruitment technology, assessment criteria and interview practices. Make sure candidates have accessible ways to participate and challenge decisions.
These actions should be supported by regular monitoring, meaningful employee insight and accountability from senior leaders. Without that oversight, even well-intentioned policies can fail to change the experiences of the people they are supposed to support.
Transparency needs to become part of how organisations operate
The government's announcement is an important step towards making pay information more accessible to jobseekers. But employers should not view salary transparency simply as another compliance requirement to prepare for.
It is an opportunity to examine how decisions about pay are made, whether existing processes are fair and how historical inequalities might be influencing the opportunities available to people today.
Publishing a salary range does not automatically guarantee equal pay. Nor does it resolve the wider barriers that influence who gets hired, who progresses and who reaches positions of leadership.
However, it gives candidates more information, reduces unnecessary uncertainty and creates an opportunity for employers to demonstrate greater accountability in their recruitment practices.
Organisations that are serious about inclusion need to be willing to examine these everyday decisions, including the ones that have become so familiar they are rarely questioned.
Fairness should be evident in the way people access opportunities, how their contributions are valued and what they are paid. Salary transparency is an important place to start.
At Communicate Inclusively, we support organisations to identify barriers, strengthen workplace practices and turn EDI commitments into meaningful action.
Whether you are reviewing your EDI strategy and people policies, strengthening recruitment practices, delivering employee training or seeking greater insight into employee experiences, we can help you understand where change is needed and how to make it happen.
If your organisation is ready to take a closer look at its approach to inclusion, get in touch at hello@communicateinclusively.com.