Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance

1. This document sets out guidance on Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) for institutions developing Codes of Practice for REF 2029. It is intended to support institutions in meeting the requirement to submit an EIA as part of their Code of Practice, in line with their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and in Northern Ireland, Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It reflects the expectations of the REF team and the responsibilities of institutions in exercising their public functions.
2. In addition to this guidance, institutions are encouraged to draw on best practice from established equality bodies, including:
   • Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC):
     • Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty (England, Scotland, Wales)
     • Using the Equality Duty to Make Fair Financial Decisions
   • Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI):
     • Section 75 – A Guide for Public Authorities
     • Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessment (2010)

3. This guidance is structured to support institutions through the full Equality Impact Assessment process as it applies to REF 2029. It includes:
   • a summary of the legal and policy rationale for conducting an EIA
   • clear expectations for where and how EIAs must be applied within institutional REF processes
   • detailed guidance on four core areas: decision-making on Significant Responsibility for Research (SRR) and Research Independence (RI), allocating eligible contracts to UoAs, selecting outputs, and managing appeals processes
   • practical advice on how to assess risk, evidence due regard, and document findings in line with statutory duties
   • a reminder of key legal tests, including how indirect discrimination may arise even from neutral or consistently applied policies
4. Institutions are advised to use this guidance as a working tool throughout the development and implementation of their Code of Practice, and to integrate it with existing internal equality, HR, and governance practices.

5. An EIA is required as part of the Code of Practice. Completing and submitting an Equality Impact Assessment is a core requirement for REF 2029. It demonstrates how institutions have given due regard to their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010, and, in Northern Ireland, Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
   While the duty to give due regard lies with institutions, REF 2029 is itself a public process governed by the same legal frameworks. This guidance is issued to support institutions in meeting their obligations and to ensure that the REF process, as a national public function, demonstrates due regard to its own equality duties.
6. REF processes are public functions. Decisions related to staff classification, allocation of eligible contracts to UoAs, output selection, and appeals of SRR and RI fall within the scope of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and must therefore be assessed for their potential equality impacts.
7. The focus is on institutional process, not individual inclusion. With the decoupling of outputs from individuals, the EIA should examine whether the design and operation of institutional REF processes align with the requirements of the PSED.
8. Consistent criteria can still create unequal outcomes. Even where processes are applied uniformly, they must be assessed to ensure they do not result in unjustified disadvantage for staff with protected characteristics.
9. EIAs should assess both process design and impact. Institutions should consider how decisions are made, what criteria are used, and what effects these may have — including whether alternative approaches would reduce the risk of exclusion.
10. The EIA is a live document. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires that due regard to equality be given before and at the point of decision-making, not retrospectively. The EIA provides the documented evidence that this consideration was “conscientious, rigorous, and informed” by relevant data and context.
11. The EIA may be revisited if policies or procedures change. If institutional REF processes evolve post Code of Practice approval and during the assessment period, the EIA should be reviewed and updated to ensure continued alignment with equality duties.  This may be audited by REF 2029.

12. All UK higher education institutions participating in REF 2029 are subject to equality duties arising from either of two key legislative frameworks:
    • The Equality Act 2010 (applies in England, Scotland, and Wales), or
    • Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (applies in Northern Ireland)
13. These laws require public bodies to give due regard to the need in processes and decision-making to:
    • eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation
    • advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not
    • foster good relations between people from different backgrounds
14. This duty is known as the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). REF-related decisions, including staff classification, allocation of eligible contracts to UoAs, output selection, and the development and application of institutional Codes of Practice, are recognised as public functions. As such, they must comply with these statutory requirements.
15. The legislative frameworks do not prescribe a specific format for demonstrating compliance with the PSED. However, an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is the most commonly recognised and widely used tool for evidencing that due regard has been given, particularly in processes involving policy design and resource allocation.
16. The EIA enables institutions to:
    • demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by showing that the aims of the duty have been given due regard at the point of decision-making — particularly in the design and operation of policies and procedures related to REF
    • identify where policies, processes, or criteria may further advance equality of opportunity, or where steps could be taken to further promote fairness and good relations between people
    • assess the potential for discrimination, where neutral criteria or practices may result in disproportionate impacts on staff with protected characteristics, and consider whether less discriminatory alternatives are available
    • provide documented evidence of “conscientious, rigorous and open-minded consideration” of equality issues, in line with the standard established in Bracking v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345. This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and is therefore binding in those jurisdictions. While not binding in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the judgment is considered highly persuasive in both. Although structurally different, all four UK nations recognise anticipatory and evidence-based equality assessment as part of lawful public function to demonstrate public bodies “conscientious, rigorous and open-minded consideration” of equality matters at the point of decision-making. As such, the reasoning in Bracking remains relevant across the UK.
17. Institutions should treat the EIA as a core part of their decision-making and assurance processes. It should be completed in advance of, and reviewed alongside, key REF-related decisions and documented within the Code of Practice.
18. In line with the REF 2029 Initial Decisions, institutions are encouraged to update and adapt their Codes of Practice over time, particularly where processes evolve or new risks and mitigations emerge during the assessment period.

19. Institutions are required to complete and document an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) as part of their Code of Practice submission for REF 2029. This requirement applies to all UK higher education institutions participating in the exercise.

Scope of the EIA

20. The EIA should cover the entire Code of Practice, not just isolated processes. It must assess whether the institution has given due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in its decision-making related to REF, and whether policies and procedures:
    • are designed and implemented in a way that aligns with the three aims of the PSED
    • avoid unjustified disadvantage, particularly where less discriminatory alternatives may be available
    • reflect an anticipatory, transparent, and evidence-informed approach to equality
21. Institutions should ensure the EIA is developed at the point decisions are made, not retrospectively. This approach aligns with legal precedent (for example, Bracking), which requires that equality considerations be built into decision-making before and at the time decisions are taken, rather than after the fact.

Timing and application

22. The EIA should be completed:
    • during the development of the Code of Practice
    • concurrently with decisions on the identification of staff with Significant Responsibility for Research (SRR) and Research Independence (RI)
    • concurrently with decisions on the allocation of eligible contracts to Units of Assessment
    • during the design and implementation of output selection processes
    • in relation to appeals and review mechanisms
    • at any subsequent point where institutional REF-related policies or procedures are substantively revised
23. As outlined in the Initial Decisions document, REF 2029 encourages institutions to update and adapt their Codes of Practice over time, building on internal learning and changes to internal REF-related processes.

24. The following sections outline the core REF-related processes where institutions are required to apply an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). In each case, institutions may find the core EIA questions a useful tool in supporting their analysis of due regard under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). However, each institution is responsible for assuring itself that its processes meet its legal obligations.
25. It is important to note that in all of these areas, REF 2029 does not seek to determine or overturn institutional decisions affecting individuals (for example, employment contracts, authorship, eligibility). The focus of the EIA is on whether the institutional processes used in these areas are designed and implemented in a way that aligns with the requirements of the PSED.

Determining Significant Responsibility for Research (SRR) and Research Independence (RI)

26. The Volume Measure in REF 2029 is based on staff identified as having SRR and being Research Independent. While REF does not prescribe or assess how institutions allocate contracts, these classifications feed into a national framework and are therefore subject to equality law.
27. Institutions must include this process in their EIA. The assessment should consider whether the criteria and processes used:
    • are proportionate, evidence-based, and accessible across all relevant staff groups
    • avoid excluding or disadvantaging staff with protected characteristics
    • have been implemented with due regard to equality at the point of decision-making
28. Institutions should apply the core EIA questions to this process, particularly focusing on issues such as access across contract types, transparency of decision-making, and any emerging patterns in SRR/RI designation.
29. The EIA should include:
    • a clear description of the SRR/RI criteria and decision-making process
    • identification of risks or unequal outcomes, and mitigating steps taken
    • documentation of how the institution met its legal duty under the PSED in this context

Allocation of eligible contracts to UoA

30. HEIs will be responsible for mapping CONFTE to Units of Assessment (UoAs). Each eligible contract should be linked to the UoA to which it is principally associated. This allocation is to be done using the REFUOA2029 field in the HESA Staff record, and a reasonable rationale for these allocation decisions made may be requested at audit. 
31. The EIA must consider equality impacts of the process, and specifically consider whether the process of allocating contracts to UoAs is fair and inclusive. 
32. The EIA should include:
    • A summary of the allocation approach and decision making-process  
    • Any steps taken to ensure that the process supports fairness and inclusivity 

Selection of outputs

33. Although outputs are no longer attributed to individual staff in REF 2029, institutions are still required to select a pool of outputs for submission. This selection process is part of the public function of REF and must be assessed under the PSED.
34. The EIA must focus on whether the process used to select outputs — including any use of Research Information Management Systems (RIMS) tools, internal review, or criteria such as citations or publication venue — is fair, inclusive, and appropriately scrutinised.
35. Institutions should apply the core EIA questions to this process. Particular risks might include:
    • over-reliance on metrics that indirectly disadvantage certain research types or disciplines
    • decision-making practices that unintentionally favour outputs from certain staff groups
    • structural inequalities in access to authorship or research time that affect who has outputs to contribute
36. The EIA should include:
    • a summary of the selection process and decision criteria
    • consideration of risks or exclusions identified through data or staff feedback
    • evidence that the institution gave due regard to the PSED when designing and applying the output selection process
37. As with all areas, this is not about REF judging the value of individual outputs or authorship but ensuring the institutional process is fair, lawful, and inclusive.

Appeals and review processes

38. Institutions are required to provide a mechanism for staff to request a review of decisions made in relation to their inclusion in REF processes. These internal appeals mechanisms form part of institutional governance and must also be assessed under the PSED.
39. Institutions must include an assessment of equalities impact of their appeals processes only related to SRR and RI in the EIA. The focus should be on whether:
    • staff are aware of the review mechanism and how to access it
    • the process is transparent, impartial, and responsive to equality-related concerns
    • there are disproportionate patterns in who appeals or how appeals are resolved
    • accessibility barriers exist (for example, language, disability, caring responsibilities)
40. Institutions should apply the core EIA questions to ensure that the process does not inadvertently discourage or disadvantage particular groups from engaging with it.
41. The EIA should include:
    • a description of the appeal mechanism and how it is communicated to staff
    • analysis of any relevant data (for example, appeal rates across demographics, outcomes)
    • any steps taken to ensure that the process supports fairness, equity, and good relations
42. As with other areas, the EIA is not about REF adjudicating individual appeals. The purpose is to evaluate whether the appeals process itself is designed and implemented in a way that upholds the institution’s duties under the PSED.

43. The questions below are designed to help institutions assess whether their REF-related policies and processes demonstrate due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). These apply across all relevant areas including decisions on SRR and RI, output selection, and appeals or internal review.
44. Institutions are encouraged to consider the core EIA questions below during the development of their Code of Practice and when applying or updating REF-related processes.

Core EIA questions

45. Eliminating unlawful discrimination
    • Could this process or decision disproportionately exclude or disadvantage people with protected characteristics?
    • Are any criteria, systems, or practices indirectly discriminatory (that is to say, neutral on the surface but unequal in effect)?
    • Have reasonable adjustments been considered or applied where appropriate?
    • Are there any legacy practices or default assumptions that could disadvantage certain groups?
46. Advancing equality of opportunity
    • Have barriers to access or participation been identified and addressed?
    • Do all relevant staff groups have a fair opportunity to contribute to, benefit from, or be considered in this process?
    • Have we used disaggregated data to monitor representation, participation, or outcomes?
    • Are there opportunities to design this process in a way that proactively supports inclusion or recognises diverse contributions?
    • Have steps been taken to minimise over-reliance on metrics or conventions that may structurally exclude some groups?
47. Fostering good relations
    • Have relevant staff groups or equality networks been consulted or engaged?
    • Has the process been clearly and transparently communicated, with reasons and routes for feedback?
    • Could the approach help build confidence in fairness and trust across different groups?
    • Are staff encouraged to raise concerns or suggestions in a constructive and supported way?

48. While the REF submission itself does not require outputs in minoritised or regional languages to be treated differently, the legal context of the REF as a public function means that institutions may need to consider the equality implications of how outputs in British Sign Language (BSL), Welsh, or other languages are handled within their internal REF processes.
49. Under equality law, linguistic identity may fall under the protected characteristic of ‘race’, and in some contexts, BSL may engage duties under disability law, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments. REF 2029 does not treat BSL or Welsh-language outputs as having protected characteristics, but it is possible that institutional processes surrounding these outputs could give rise to indirect disadvantage if not considered carefully.
50. Where institutions work across jurisdictions (for example, a Scottish HEI collaborating on Welsh-language research), it may be necessary to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to:
    • avoid language-related exclusion or bias in output selection
    • ensure relevant expertise (for example, internal assessors or translation protocols) are considered
51. Institutions are therefore encouraged to reflect on linguistic inclusion as part of their equality considerations, particularly where language intersects with protected characteristics or affects the accessibility of research processes.
52. Please note, Medr is issuing its own advice on Welsh language expectations, and institutions in Wales should consult both REF guidance and Medr’s position when preparing their submissions.

53. In line with an institution’s duties under the PSED, an EIA may additionally choose to cover relevant aspects of the Code of Practice that involve policy decisions, procedural frameworks, or institutional discretion in implementing REF.
54. For example, this could include (but is not limited to):
    • the allocation and support of internal REF roles (for example, UoA leads, reading groups, decision panels)
    • workload allocation models used to support REF-related activity
    • internal communications, consultation processes, and decision-making routes
    • any local processes that affect eligibility, visibility, or research opportunity in the context of the REF
55. These areas may not directly determine REF outputs or Volume Measure data, but they can shape the PSED duties such as advancing equality of opportunity, and the inclusivity of REF processes. As such, an institution could also choose to assess these to ensure that due regard has been given to its duties under the PSED.

56. Institutions are encouraged to follow best practice, drawing on guidance from:
    • The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), particularly:
      • Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty (England, Scotland, Wales)
      • Using the Equality Duty to make fair financial decisions
    • The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI), including:
      • Section 75 – A Guide for Public Authorities
      • Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessment (2010)
57. Key principles include:
    1. Anticipatory: EIAs should be conducted before decisions are finalised, not retrospectively. They should inform planning, not merely document it.
    2. Evidence-informed: use both quantitative and qualitative data, including consultation with affected groups or staff networks, to assess impacts.
    3. Proportionate but thorough: the depth of assessment should reflect the significance of the decision. However, even seemingly technical classifications (like SSR or RI) can have significant equality implications.
    4. Inclusive of multiple characteristics: consider intersectionality. People’s experiences of inequality may arise from the interaction of multiple characteristics (for example, gender and race, or disability and contract status).
    5. Transparent and recorded: decisions and mitigations should be documented and publicly available, including explanations of where no action was taken and why.
    6. Ongoing: EIAs should not be treated as one-off exercises. Institutions are expected to review and update EIAs as processes evolve, particularly if evidence suggests differential impacts may be emerging.

58. Institutions may use either the UKRI Equality Impact Assessment template, the Equality Screening Template – Section 75 of Northern Ireland Act 1998, or institutional specific templates whichever is relevant to the institutional context.   
59. All should include:
    • identification of potential positive/negative impacts
    • description of mitigations
    • monitoring arrangements
    • consideration of protected characteristics
60. Templates should be tailored to the institutional context but remain structured and comprehensive.

61. Queries related to EIA expectations can be directed to the REF team via your institutional REF contact.