Home
Blog
Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting
Disability Pay Gap Reporting

Disability Pay Gap Reporting: Why Disclosure Rates Will Make or Break Your Numbers

25 June 2026 by Mark Holt

Disability pay gap reporting in the UK — why disclosure rates matter

Mandatory disability pay gap reporting is coming to the UK. From a snapshot date expected around April 2028, employers with 250 or more staff will have to publish six pay-gap metrics comparing disabled and non-disabled employees — and, crucially, the proportion of their workforce that has disclosed a disability at all. The arithmetic is the easy part. The hard part, and the part that quietly decides whether your figures are credible, is getting enough people to tell you in the first place.

This guide explains what the new regime requires, why disability disclosure is the lowest of every protected characteristic, and how genuine anonymity turns a reluctant workforce into a reportable one. It also explains why limiting yourself to the three legally-mandated characteristics — gender, ethnicity and disability — leaves most of your pay-equity story untold.

Divrsity Disclaimer
This article describes the UK Government's confirmed direction of travel on disability pay gap reporting as at June 2026 and references how the Divrsity platform supports pay-gap analysis. The detailed regulations are still being finalised, and exact dates and definitions may change before the regime goes live. This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the final regulations and take professional advice for your own circumstances.

What the new disability pay gap reporting rules require

On 25 March 2026 the Government confirmed, in its response to the consultation on the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, that it will introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees. The model deliberately mirrors the gender pay gap regime that has been in place since 2017, so the mechanics will feel familiar to anyone who already reports.

Employers will publish the same six metrics used for gender: the mean pay gap, the median pay gap, the mean bonus gap, the median bonus gap, the proportion of each group receiving a bonus, and the distribution of each group across the four pay quartiles. Disability is reported on a binary basis — disabled versus non-disabled — using the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability. Alongside the six metrics, employers must publish a breakdown of their workforce by disability status, disclose what proportion of employees have shared their disability data, and produce an action plan setting out how they intend to close any gap.

On timing, the Government's own impact assessment says the regime should be "operational and in place by 2029", which makes the first snapshot date unlikely before April 2028. That sounds comfortably far off — but the data you report in 2028 describes the workforce as it discloses today. Employers that wait until the regulations bite will be reporting on a near-empty dataset.

Why the disability pay gap is harder to measure than gender

Gender pay gap reporting works because employers almost always know an employee's sex — it sits in the HR system from day one. Disability is completely different. It is frequently invisible, it can be acquired or fluctuate over a career, and — most importantly — disabled employees often choose not to disclose it. The Government's own consultation acknowledged the central difficulty plainly: robust data collection is the hardest part, because many employees, especially those with disabilities, are reluctant to share sensitive information.

The reasons are entirely rational from the employee's point of view. People worry that ticking the "disabled" box will see them passed over for promotion, quietly managed out, or treated as a problem to be accommodated rather than an asset. Where an employer has not earned trust, the safest answer is to say nothing — which is exactly why a disability question on a form emailed round by HR collects so little. The result is a dataset that systematically under-counts disabled employees and tells you almost nothing reliable.

The 10-person threshold, and why low disclosure breaks your report

Under the proposed rules, a pay gap comparison must be reported only where there are at least 10 employees in each group. This anonymity safeguard is sensible — it stops anyone reverse-engineering an individual's pay or disability status from a tiny sample — but it has a compounding effect when disclosure is low.

Consider a 600-person organisation. Government statistics suggest somewhere around one in five working adults is disabled, so the true figure might be 120 people. If only a third of them disclose, you have 40 — enough to publish a headline figure, but not enough to break it down by department, seniority or location, which is where the actionable insight lives. Push disclosure lower still and you risk falling below the threshold entirely, leaving you unable to report at all, or publishing a figure built on so few people that it swings wildly year to year. Low disclosure does not just make your numbers softer — it can make them unpublishable.

There is a reputational trap here too. Because you must publish the proportion of staff who disclosed, a low disclosure rate is visible to everyone — employees, candidates, journalists and competitors. An organisation reporting that only 8% of its workforce shared disability data is, in effect, publishing a measure of how little its people trust it. Getting disclosure up is therefore not a back-office data exercise; it is a statement about culture.

Anonymity is the single biggest lever on disclosure

If fear of being identified is the main reason people withhold disability data, then removing that fear is the main way to get it. And the only convincing way to remove it is to make anonymity a technical property of the survey, not a promise in an email. Employees can tell the difference between "we won't look" and "we can't look".

This is the problem Divrsity was built to solve. On our platform there are no cookies, no IP logging, and no link between an answer and an email address: each response is tied only to a random 128-bit identifier, the participant's email is purged the moment they finish, and not even Divrsity staff can see how an individual answered. A GDPR Subject Access Request would reveal nothing, because there is nothing to reveal. We are slightly obsessive about this, and we have written at length about exactly how we protect participant anonymity — because it is the foundation that makes honest disclosure possible. Every question, including disability, offers a genuine "prefer not to say", so nobody ever feels cornered.

Technology is necessary but not sufficient. Disclosure also rises when people understand why you are asking and trust that you will act on what they tell you — which is as much about communication as engineering. The behavioural science of how to frame the ask, who should send it and when, is something we draw on heavily and have set out in our guide to maximising participation with psychology. Get both halves right and disability disclosure climbs from the low single digits into the range where your report actually means something.

Don't stop at the three the law requires

Gender is mandated now; ethnicity and disability are coming. But pay disparities do not politely confine themselves to the three characteristics Parliament has chosen to legislate. They show up across every dimension of diversity — and the ones nobody is required to report are often the ones nobody has ever looked at.

Is there a "social mobility pay gap" between employees from lower and higher socio-economic backgrounds doing comparable jobs? Are neurodivergent colleagues paid less than neurotypical peers with similar roles and experience? Do LGBTQ+ employees face a measurable disadvantage? These are real, documented patterns, and they are completely invisible to a reporting regime built around three protected characteristics.

This is where Divrsity goes well beyond the statutory minimum. Our platform reports pay gaps across any demographic group you collect — not just gender, ethnicity and disability, and not just the six headline metrics — out of the box. Because we already hold demographic answers on one axis and workplace experience "Lenses" on the other, the analysis simply runs across whatever dimensions you ask about, automatically flagging where one group is paid, promoted or rated differently from another. You get the legally-required reports as a by-product, and the disparities the law will never make you look at as the real prize. We explored this holistic approach in our companion piece on ethnicity pay gap reporting, and it applies with even greater force to disability.

From a number to an action plan

The new regime does not stop at publishing a figure — it requires an action plan explaining how you will close any gap. A bare percentage tells you a gap exists; it does not tell you why. The "why" only emerges when you cross-reference the pay gap against experience: are disabled employees reporting worse access to progression, less satisfaction with reasonable adjustments, or lower scores on belonging and psychological safety? That is the analysis that turns a compliance number into a credible plan.

On the Divrsity platform that analysis is automatic. An interactive results dashboard is generated within about 10 minutes of the survey closing — filterable by team, location and demographic, with intersectional breakdowns and open-text themes already pulled out — followed by a prioritised, AI-generated action plan within 24 hours. Crucially, that analysis runs on UK-based servers and UK-built AI, so your sensitive disability data never leaves the country or gets fed to an overseas model. If you want to see how your figures compare with similar organisations, that is where regional and industry benchmarking comes in.

What to do now, before the regulations bite

The worst position to be in when the snapshot date arrives is having only just started asking. The organisations that report well in 2028 will be the ones that began building trust and disclosure in 2026. Three practical steps:

1. Start measuring disclosure now. Run an anonymous survey that includes a well-worded disability question, and treat your disclosure rate as a metric to improve year on year. 2. Make anonymity real and say so. Tell people, credibly, that their answers cannot be traced back to them — and use a platform where that is technically true. 3. Go wider than the law. Capture the full demographic picture so you can find pay and experience gaps across every group, not just the three you will eventually be forced to publish. Do those three things and the 2028 deadline becomes a formality rather than a fire drill.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is disability pay gap reporting mandatory in the UK?

Not yet, but it will be. On 25 March 2026 the UK Government confirmed it will introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees, through the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. The Government's impact assessment expects the regime to be operational by 2029, so the first snapshot date is unlikely before April 2028 — but the data collection that makes it possible needs to start now.

What does an employer have to report for the disability pay gap?

Employers will report the same six metrics already used for the gender pay gap: mean pay gap, median pay gap, mean bonus gap, median bonus gap, the proportion of each group receiving a bonus, and the distribution across pay quartiles. Reporting uses a binary comparison between disabled and non-disabled employees, using the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability. Employers must also publish a breakdown of their workforce by disability status, the proportion of staff who have disclosed, and an action plan to close any gap.

Why are disclosure rates so important for disability pay gap reporting?

A pay gap can only be calculated where at least 10 employees in a group have disclosed the relevant characteristic. Disability disclosure is the lowest of all the protected characteristics — many disabled employees never tell their employer for fear of being treated differently. If disclosure is low, smaller teams fall below the 10-person threshold and cannot be reported, the published figure becomes unreliable, and the workforce-composition data looks worse than reality. Raising the disclosure rate is therefore the single most important task, and anonymity is the biggest lever for raising it.

How do I increase disability disclosure rates at work?

The biggest barrier to disclosure is fear that the answer can be traced back to the individual. Genuine, technically-enforced anonymity removes that fear: no cookies, no IP logging, no link between an answer and an email address, and a real "prefer not to say" on every question. Disclosure also rises when employees understand why you are asking, who can see the data, and what you will do with it — so clear communication from a senior leader, and a visible commitment to act, matter as much as the technology.

Can I report pay gaps for characteristics other than gender, ethnicity and disability?

Yes. Although the law mandates only gender, and soon ethnicity and disability, pay disparities exist across every dimension of diversity — neurodiversity, sexual orientation, socio-economic background, caring responsibilities and more. Divrsity reports pay gaps across any demographic group you collect, not just the legally-required characteristics and not just the six headline metrics, out of the box. That lets you find and fix disparities the statutory reports will never surface.

How is disability defined for pay gap reporting?

Disability will be defined in line with the Equality Act 2010: a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Reporting uses a binary approach — disabled versus non-disabled — with data collected voluntarily and a "prefer not to say" option. A minimum of 10 employees in each group is required before a comparison must be reported.

Conclusion: the maths is easy, the trust is hard

Disability pay gap reporting is coming, and the calculations behind it are no harder than the gender pay gap reporting most large employers already do. What is genuinely hard — and what will separate a meaningful report from an embarrassing one — is persuading enough disabled employees to disclose in the first place. That is a problem of trust, and trust is built on anonymity you can prove and a demonstrated willingness to act.

Divrsity was built for exactly this: obsessively anonymous by design, UK-built and UK-hosted, and able to report pay gaps across every demographic you collect — not just the three the law will eventually require. Start now, raise your disclosure rate while you have time, and the 2028 deadline will look after itself.