Response to consultation on draft Guidelines on the benchmarking of diversity practices including diversity policies and gender pay gap
Go back
appreciate the clearer definition of “geographical provenance” by setting a minimum timespan of three years. However, there is some uncertainty caused by the definition of a “significant institution” as national legislation might set different criteria compared to the European definition. To avoid any misunderstandings, we propose to delete the following part from the definition: “[...] or national law, based on the assessment of the institutions’ size and, internal organisations, and the nature, scope and complexity of their activities”.
sample. No. 14 states that the sample may include more than one institution or investment firm in a group. We would like to point out that this places an unnecessary burden on entities operating in a group, which we consider inappropriate. Finally, a clear explanation of the process timeline from the EBA provision of how to structure the sample to the NCAs to the request to the institutions and investment firms, would greatly assist the planning of the institutions and investment firms. It is also important to consider external audit periods and special audits by the NCAs when defining “good times”. We therefore propose to set fixed dates in Q3/Q4 of the respective year.
pension benefits and should be taken into account. We would recommend including only discretionary pension benefits that are not regular (e.g. paid only as a one-time payment) to provide more clarity. For no. 32c it is not sufficiently clear which variable remuneration is to be classified as "awarded" for the respective performance period. We recommend including definitions of the terms "award", "grant" and "payout" in the guidelines. Regarding no. 32d, we recommend including so-called "buy-outs" (compensation payments for economic disadvantages resulting from the premature termination of the previous employment relationship) as a subcategory of guaranteed variable remuneration. Furthermore, we would recommend adding information of on the treatment of share plans. In particular, we are interested in the reference date used to calculate the value. In general, we recommend excluding those categories of employees that are subject to specific retirement plans, e.g. in Germany, partial retirement ("Altersteilzeit") provides for a salary reduction during the active phase without a reduction in working hours, with the consequence that the gender pay gap reporting would be distorted.
Q1: Is the section on subject matter, scope, definitions, addressees, and implementation appropriate and sufficiently clear?
To provide the requested data in the highest quality, we believe that institutions, investments firm and NCAs would benefit from a prolonged implementation timeline. Considering the national adoption process of the EBA guidelines, and the actions, measures and technical solutions that legal entities need to undertake we propose an implementation timeline with a data collection performed in 2026, with the reference date 31 December 2025. With regard to the definitions, we would like to highlight the following two points. Weappreciate the clearer definition of “geographical provenance” by setting a minimum timespan of three years. However, there is some uncertainty caused by the definition of a “significant institution” as national legislation might set different criteria compared to the European definition. To avoid any misunderstandings, we propose to delete the following part from the definition: “[...] or national law, based on the assessment of the institutions’ size and, internal organisations, and the nature, scope and complexity of their activities”.
Q2: Is the section 1 on the sample of institutions and investment firms appropriate and sufficiently clear?
We understand that once a sample has been selected, it will remain for the next data collection and the selected institutions and investment firms will be retained. As the data collection takes place every 3 years, rules should be established for changes to the sample, e.g., in cases where institutions or investment firms merge, close down or undergo other restructuring measures that have a material impact on the management board. The guidelines should therefore contain appropriate exit and entry rules for the compilation of thesample. No. 14 states that the sample may include more than one institution or investment firm in a group. We would like to point out that this places an unnecessary burden on entities operating in a group, which we consider inappropriate. Finally, a clear explanation of the process timeline from the EBA provision of how to structure the sample to the NCAs to the request to the institutions and investment firms, would greatly assist the planning of the institutions and investment firms. It is also important to consider external audit periods and special audits by the NCAs when defining “good times”. We therefore propose to set fixed dates in Q3/Q4 of the respective year.
Q3: Are the section 2 on the procedural requirements appropriate and sufficiently clear?
With regard to no. 18 (which should also apply to no. 20), we would recommend extending the delivery period from 15 June to 15 October (with regard to no. 20 from 31 July to 30 November), as the variable remuneration for the previous performance year is paid out in the first half of the reporting year. This would also reduce the burden on institutions and investment firms during the reporting season at the beginning of the year.Q4: Are the general specifications for the data collection appropriate and sufficiently clear?
No comment.Q5: Are the specifications on the collection of data of members of the management body (read together with the definitions) appropriate and sufficiently clear?
Regarding no. 25 and 26, we understand that data for executives and employees below the level of the board of directors are not to be reported, otherwise we would like further details on how these employees are to be treated when reporting the requested data. With respect to no. 26b, we request further clarification on the term "irrespective of whether they are members of the board elected by the shareholders". As the link to the CRD VI review is stated, we recommend adjusting the proposed timeline as stated under question 2 to avoid inconsistency.Q6: Is the section on the instructions for the calculation of the gender pay gap appropriate and sufficiently clear?
In relation to no. 32a, we recommend in general that institutions and investment firms should define and report only those benefits that they have assessed to be significant or material. Alternatively, we suggest that non-monetary benefits should not be taken into account or that a monetary limit should be introduced (e.g. only non-monetary benefits exceeding an annual equivalent of a certain amount of euros should be taken into account). This would considerably reduce the administrative burden for companies without jeopardising a reliable assessment of the gender pay gap. Regarding no. 32b, it is not sufficiently clear which pension benefits are to be classified as discretionarypension benefits and should be taken into account. We would recommend including only discretionary pension benefits that are not regular (e.g. paid only as a one-time payment) to provide more clarity. For no. 32c it is not sufficiently clear which variable remuneration is to be classified as "awarded" for the respective performance period. We recommend including definitions of the terms "award", "grant" and "payout" in the guidelines. Regarding no. 32d, we recommend including so-called "buy-outs" (compensation payments for economic disadvantages resulting from the premature termination of the previous employment relationship) as a subcategory of guaranteed variable remuneration. Furthermore, we would recommend adding information of on the treatment of share plans. In particular, we are interested in the reference date used to calculate the value. In general, we recommend excluding those categories of employees that are subject to specific retirement plans, e.g. in Germany, partial retirement ("Altersteilzeit") provides for a salary reduction during the active phase without a reduction in working hours, with the consequence that the gender pay gap reporting would be distorted.