Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: ABSTRACT This article examines the first three cycles of Ireland's gender pay gap (GPG) reporting regime. Drawing on a longitudinal analysis of 546 organizations, the study reveals a fundamental paradox: organizations with dramatically different statistical outcomes employ remarkably similar narrative strategies and interventions. Although aggregate data show modest improvement in gender pay gaps nationally, a detailed analysis of statistical outliers points to some statistical volatility. The study identifies six distinct statistical trajectories including gap reversals, significant reductions, and silent corrections of female‐favoring gaps. Despite their very different gender pay metrics, organizations exhibit four common narrative approaches: causal vagueness, temporal flattening, template language, and positive spin. Furthermore, both improvers and regressors report implementing nearly identical gender equality initiatives, challenging assumptions about causality in equality interventions. Drawing on Walby's conceptualization of crisis as institutional reordering and Ahmed's critique of non‐performative diversity work, the article argues that Ireland's reporting framework has generated unprecedented transparency while simultaneously enabling organizations to manage reputational concerns through standardized discursive practices disconnected from structural change. This analysis contributes to theoretical understanding of how equality governance mechanisms can be absorbed into existing organizsational routines without disrupting gendered power relations.
Source: Gender Work and Organization
DOI: 10.1111/gwao.70258
Author: Sara O'Sullivan
Institution: University College Dublin
Language: English
Subfield: Gender Studies
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $4,880
OpenAlex ID: W7212302197