24 September 2026
Fielding at square leg during a cricket match on a slightly overcast Sunday isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it did give me an opportunity to chat about the gender pensions gap (GPeG) with the recently retired, former financial adviser standing in as umpire.
The agreement we came to, as the overs ticked away towards lunch, was that the drivers of the GPeG are less about pensions themselves and more about the unequal distribution of time away from paid work.
Promisingly, we now see periodic research and statistics about the GPeG being issued, usually coupled with fresh calls for reform. Yet despite the hard work and growing awareness, progress remains frustratingly slow.
It’s time to ask, are we looking at the GPeG the right way?
Traditionally, discussions about the GPeG have focused on saving. Women need to contribute more and employers need to encourage greater engagement, better financial education and support.
In reality, the gender pensions gap is not primarily a pensions problem. It is a time problem
I’m not dismissing any of these suggestions – they’re all true. However, they assume the problem begins with the pension saving itself. In reality, the GPeG is not primarily a pensions problem. It is a time problem.
Women are more likely to take career breaks. This, coupled with the persistent gender pay gap, results in a disproportionate number of women falling into pension poverty in later life.
The Pensions Policy Institute (PPI) issued new research in September this year, which showed that women aged 55-59 have around 54% of the pension wealth of male counterparts in the UK.
This research highlights a particularly important consideration in respect of the GPeG. Even if you solve the gender pay gap, women would still only have around 61% of the pension wealth of a man.
Pension accumulation is particularly unforgiving when valuable time is lost as you lose the vital compound growth
The reason for this is that the causes of the GPeG are systemic. Lower wages are a factor, but not to the extent that career breaks have on pension accumulation. Pension accumulation is particularly unforgiving when valuable time is lost as you lose the vital compound growth.
While the gender pay gap absolutely needs an appropriate and committed resolution, the issues that drive the GPeG need a government-led plan to resolve to include things such as mandatory reporting, AE expansion and perhaps pension credits for those taking career breaks to care for loved ones.
A contribution made in someone’s twenties or thirties may have several decades to grow. A contribution made later in life has much less time to benefit from investment returns.
As a result, the effect of a two-year career break does not disappear when someone returns to work. The immediate loss of contributions may be compounded by many years of missed growth, allowing the financial consequences to remain visible at retirement.
For that reason, the GPeG should not be viewed solely as a question of individual saving behaviour. It also reflects the structure of working lives and the unequal financial impact of having a career break.
It’s also important for households to consider pension saving as a collective as opposed to a personal asset. For example, if one person is on a career break, the other person may wish to consider third-party contributions to bridge any loss of pension growth while the former remains out of employment.
If we are serious about narrowing the GPeG, the conversation must extend beyond contribution percentages. It should include the effect of career breaks, part-time work, caring responsibilities and slower pay progression.
It should also consider practical responses, such as clearer communication before leave is taken, flexible contribution options on return to work and greater employer support for those rebuilding their pension savings.
Genuine financial equality means ensuring that women and men can look forward to retirement with comparable levels of security
The true test of financial equality is not simply whether two people receive comparable salaries at a particular point in their careers. It is whether their different working patterns still allow them to build adequate and resilient retirement savings.
Ultimately, equal pay matters, but it is not the whole picture. Genuine financial equality means ensuring that women and men can look forward to retirement with comparable levels of security.
If we continue treating it as a pension problem, the risk is intervening too late. If we recognise it as a time problem, we have a far greater chance of solving it.
Caitlin Southall is Chief Commercial Officer at WBR Group