On the gender pay gap, companies must let their numbers do the talking

EDITOR’S COMMENT Real estate companies, by and large, excel at talking a good game. Barely a day goes by in this industry without a chief executive earnestly pledging to reduce emissions, promote social value or make their workplace a fairer place. It is a near-inescapable clamour. That is why compulsory gender pay gap reporting is important: it cuts through the noise. Every year, companies are forced to upload their numbers to one easily accessible government database. This year’s deadline was Monday and the picture, predictably, remains remarkably unequal. Take the six largest real estate agencies, for example. Last year, the average gender pay gap was 29.4% across Savills, JLL, CBRE, Knight Frank, Colliers and Cushman & Wakefield. That means that women earned an average of 71p for every £1 that men made.  And progress is stalling. Last financial year, the gender pay gap across the agencies narrowed by less than 0.1 of a percentage point. It has improved by just five percentage points in the past five years. At Savills, the gap actually widened by nearly 4p. None of this compares favourably to the UK as a whole, either, where women earn a considerably less-bad 90p per £1 for men. These agencies are among real estate’s biggest and most forward-thinking organisations. Why are they so far behind? This is the bit where I stop and point out the obvious. I report on this issue from a position of privilege: I have never had to worry about earning less than my colleagues because of my gender. I am part of the problem. But so too are those who, beyond their glacial rate of change, are downright evasive on the matter. Transparency matters At the time of writing, if you logged on to the government website you would have seen that CBRE narrowed its gender pay gap by nearly a tenth last year – a remarkable improvement. But dig into its company report and you’ll find that it did its sums differently this year, skewing the numbers. It turns out that progress in real terms was negligible. JLL, on the other hand, reports its gender pay gap separately across various legal entities. You’ll have to use a calculator to work out the company-wide figure. And Cushman & Wakefield does not include its highest earners – so-called international partners who do not earn conventional salaries – on its submission. All three gave me their actual numbers when asked and have put them on their websites. Quietly. Of course, this is not all down to the agencies themselves. Several blamed the government’s system for being too rigid, too bureaucratic, saying it did not aid transparency. Indeed, research by King’s College London and the Fawcett Society last year found the regime “has no teeth” and is focused more on reporting, less on action. Perhaps an overhaul is in order. However, this distracts from the matter at hand. If companies care so much about workplace equality, why is the gender pay gap closing so slowly? And if they are so committed to transparency, why are they not working harder at being, well, transparent? Clearly this is a long-term issue, and we will no doubt be having a very similar conversation in 2023. All we at EG ask is that chief executives, diversity heads and, indeed, male journalists, can let the numbers do the talking and deliver an honest and humble viewpoint on pay gaps. We may have to go backwards to move forwards, but let’s be transparent about it. To send feedback, e-mail alex.daniel@eg.co.uk or tweet @alexmdaniel or @EGPropertyNews