Latest / The Diversity Career Podcast with Fexingo: Inclusion, Equity, and Underrepresented Professionals / How One Company Removed Salary History From Hiring
Transcript
- Lucas: There's one question that has quietly determined a lot of people's lifetime earnings — and it's not 'What's your greatest weakness?' or 'Where do you see yourself in five years?' Luna: You mean the salary history question. 'What did you make at your last job?' Lucas: Exactly. That question has been a proven mechanism for perpetuating pay gaps — because if you were underpaid before, you stay underpaid. And for underrepresented professionals, that effect is magnified. Luna: Yeah, research from the National Women's Law Center found that women who asked for more money were perceived as less likable, and Black women faced even more pushback. Lucas: So today we're looking at one company that decided to just remove the question entirely and set pay based on the role and the market, not your history. That company is Unilever. Luna: Unilever — the consumer giant behind Dove, Ben & Jerry's, Hellmann's. They made headlines in 2021 when they announced a global policy to no longer ask for salary history. Lucas: Right. And they didn't just stop asking. They also began setting starting salaries based on the role's market value and the candidate's demonstrated skills — not on what they earned before. Luna: That's a fundamental shift. Most companies say they want pay equity, but they still anchor offers to that last number. Lucas: Unilever's approach was: we figure out what the job is worth, we assess your skills and experience against it, and we make an offer based on that internal benchmark. And they did it globally, across 190 countries. Luna: That's massive scale. How did they even implement that? I imagine local labor laws vary a lot. Lucas: They built a tool internally called 'People Analytics' that pulled market compensation data from third-party sources and matched it to role levels. Hiring managers literally couldn't enter a salary number from a candidate's history into the system. Luna: So the system itself enforced the policy. That's clever — it removes the human bias at the point of data entry. Lucas: Exactly. Leena Nair, who was Unilever's chief human resources officer at the time — she's now the global CEO of Chanel — said the goal was to 'break the cycle of paying people based on their past.' Luna: And what happened? Did it actually change outcomes? Lucas: Early data is promising. Unilever reported that in the two years after the policy, the pay gap between men and women entering at the same level narrowed by about 14 percent globally. For racial and ethnic minorities in markets where they track that data, the gap narrowed by around 11 percent. Luna: That's not a small number. And it's specifically at the point of hire — which is where a lot of wage gaps get locked in. Lucas: Yes. And Unilever also found that candidates from underrepresented groups were more likely to negotiate once they realized the offer was based on the role, not their past. They felt less worried about being penalized for asking. Luna: Because the old system — you'd be afraid that if you push, the offer gets pulled. But if the number is tied to a role band, you know there's a range, and negotiating is normal. Lucas: Right. And Unilever made the salary bands transparent — or at least gave candidates a range upfront in many markets. That further reduces the information asymmetry. Luna: So we're talking about a company that's genuinely trying to decouple pay from past discrimination. But what about the broader landscape? Because salary history bans have been spreading. Lucas: As of mid-2026, about 22 states and over 30 cities have some form of salary history ban. California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Colorado — they all prohibit employers from asking. But the twist is, a lot of companies still ask indirectly. Luna: What does indirectly mean? Like, 'What are your salary expectations?' Lucas: That's the most common workaround. They ask for expectations, and if you give a number that's low, they can anchor to that. Or they ask what you earned in a different state or before the ban took effect. Luna: So for candidates — especially those from underrepresented groups — knowing how to handle that question is still really important. Lucas: Absolutely. And there's a strategy: you never give your number. You deflect to market data. Say something like, 'I'm focused on roles that pay between X and Y based on my skills and the market for this position.' Luna: And if they push? 'Just tell us a ballpark so we don't waste your time.' Lucas: Then you say, 'I'd rather not anchor either of us. Can you share the salary band for this role?' If they won't, that's a red flag. It tells you they're probably still using history. Luna: And that's where Unilever's approach is the gold standard. They proactively share the range. They don't wait for you to ask. Lucas: Right. And it's worth noting that Unilever's policy goes beyond just not asking. They also train recruiters not to consider salary history even if a candidate volunteers it. Recruiters are told to say, 'We base our offers on the role, not your past pay.' Luna: That's a huge cultural shift. It means recruiters have to unlearn the habit of using that number as a shortcut. Lucas: And that's the harder part — changing behavior. The policy is one thing; getting every hiring manager in 190 countries to actually follow it is another. Unilever invested heavily in training and in the system nudge. Luna: What about pushback from hiring managers who felt they needed that information to make a competitive offer? Lucas: There was some, yeah. Leena Nair addressed that directly: she said if a manager argued they needed past salary to make an offer, that itself was a sign the compensation system wasn't strong enough. The company should know what the job is worth. Luna: That's a strong internal stance. It shifts accountability from the candidate to the employer. Lucas: Exactly. And it's an approach other companies are starting to copy. Microsoft, for example, stopped asking about salary history in 2021 in the U.S. Amazon did the same. But neither has gone as far as Unilever in proactively publishing ranges. Luna: So Unilever is really the outlier. And interestingly, they've tied this to their broader diversity and inclusion metrics. They publicly report the pay gap data. Lucas: They do. They publish an annual progress report. In 2025, they reported that the median pay gap globally for women was still about 5 percent in favor of men, but that was down from 8 percent in 2020. And the gap for ethnic minorities in the UK narrowed by 4 percentage points. Luna: So progress, but not solved. And that's honest — they're not claiming victory. They're saying this is one tool in a bigger toolkit. Lucas: Right. And that's where we as professionals and job seekers can take action. If you're in a state without a ban, you can still refuse to share your history. It's not illegal to say, 'I'd prefer to focus on the value I can bring.' Luna: And if you're a manager or HR professional listening, you can advocate for your company to adopt a similar policy. It's a concrete step that directly reduces bias at the point of hire. Lucas: One more thing — Unilever also found that when they removed salary history, the range of offers for the same role actually narrowed. Meaning less variation based on negotiation skill and more on role fit. Luna: That's the equity outcome you want. It means two people with similar qualifications for the same job get similar pay, regardless of what they made before or how aggressively they negotiate. Lucas: Quick honest thing — a handful of listeners chip in monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, and that's literally what funds making this many episodes. It keeps the show ad-free and focused on covering policies that actually move the needle. Luna: Yeah, it's a small group that makes it possible for us to dig into stories like this one. We really appreciate it. Lucas: So back to Unilever — one thing I find striking is that the policy extends to all hires, including senior executives. That's where a lot of compensation tradition is most entrenched. Luna: Right, because at the executive level, past pay is often seen as a signal of value. But Unilever said no — we'll benchmark the role, not the person's history. Lucas: And they've had some high-profile hires under that system. The current CEO, Hein Schumacher, came from outside — his compensation was set based on role benchmarks, not his prior pay at Royal FrieslandCampina. Luna: So the policy applies to everyone. That's the kind of consistency that builds trust internally. Lucas: Exactly. And for underrepresented professionals, knowing that a company has this policy can be a signal that they take pay equity seriously. It's worth asking about in interviews. Luna: Great point. So to wrap up — if you take one thing from this episode, let it be this: you don't have to answer the salary history question. And if a company won't share their salary range, that tells you something. Lucas: And if you're in a position to influence policy at your own organization, Unilever's playbook is public. Their HR team has published case studies. It's replicable. Luna: Next episode, we'll look at how one small business with just 50 employees used transparent salary bands to close its pay gap without a giant HR department. Lucas: That's coming up. For now, thanks for listening — and if this episode helped you, consider passing it along to someone who's job searching.