Introduction

BI WORLDWIDE employs 226 people in our offices in Newport Pagnell, in disciplines as diverse as IT and Event Management. Our workforce is predominantly female and predominantly full time. We employ a significant number of EU nationals and pride ourselves on recruitment and remuneration policies which are blind to age, gender, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin.

Summary

• Our data confirms that gender is not a determinant in calculating pay. Female Associates make up 64% of the workforce as a whole, 63% of the 30 highest paid Associates, and 60% of the 30 lowest paid Associates. Gender is not, therefore, an issue in determining whether an Associate can aspire to the higher paid roles in the organisation. That said, 71% of the 100 lowest paid Associates are female, which suggests that females are slightly more likely to plateau, in earnings terms, in mid-range roles.

• At organisation level, excluding the directors and leadership team, male Associates are paid, on average, 5.89% more than female Associates. This compares well to the national average, and we have a good understanding on what is driving this difference.
• At departmental level, we have two departments with a gender pay gap in favour of female Associates, and three departments with a pay gap in favour of male Associates. Only two of these departments have a gap which we consider to be material, one in favour of female Associates and one in favour of male Associates. In neither case do we believe this to be the result of any bias.

Like Pay for Like Work

Where Associates are performing the same, or similar, duties, we are satisfied that gender does not influence pay. For example:

• We have a population of 17 Associates working as executives in client services roles. There is a difference by gender of just 3.85% in the average rate of pay for this role, with female Associates earning marginally more, on average, than males.
• We have a population of 22 Associates working as managers in client services roles. There is a difference by gender of just 7.15% in the average rate of pay for this role, with male Associates earning marginally more, on average, than females.

This pattern is repeated across the organisation, with small differences in average pay reflecting factors such as experience and length of service but not gender.

Material Gender Pay Gaps in Specific Disciplines

As mentioned in the summary above, we have two departments in which we have a gender pay gap which we consider to be material.

• Our technology department has a pay gap which favours male Associates. This is the only area of the business in which the male population is bigger than the female population, with males making up 70% of the workforce. Males also fill all the senior development roles and all the network services roles. There are no gender pay issues when rates are compared for like roles, but it is a fact that most of the highly paid roles in the department are filled by males. We are keeping this situation under review.
• Our Finance department has a pay gap which favours female Associates. Female Associates make up 60% of the department’s total population, and the majority of the department’s highest paid roles are occupied by females. There are no gender pay issues when rates are compared for like roles, but we are keeping this situation under review.

Mandatory Reporting

While we are confident that gender is not a determinant in calculating pay, the measures for the company as a whole are shaped by the fact that three individuals (2 male and 1 female) enjoy remuneration packages that reflect their status as company directors. These earning figures distort the company averages.

The metrics that we are required to report are as follows:

• The average gross hourly rate of pay at BIW is 13.93 % lower for female Associates than for male Associates.
• The median gross hourly rate of pay at BIW is 24.83 % lower for female Associates than for male Associates.
• In the last year, bonus payments were made to 90.12% of male Associates and to 82.75% of female Associates.
• The mean bonus paid to female Associates was 54.19% lower than the mean bonus paid to male Associates.
• The median bonus paid to female Associates was 14.2% lower than the mean bonus paid to male Associates.
• The breakdown of male and female Associates in each pay quartile is as below: