The Mediating Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Relationship Between Pay Transparency and Talent Retention

The Mediating Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Relationship Between Pay Transparency and Talent Retention | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Mediating Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Relationship Between Pay Transparency and Talent Retention Calvin Mabaso This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9238083/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Pay transparency has gained prominence as a strategic human resource practice aimed at addressing pay inequities and wage disparities; however, the mechanisms through which transparency influences employee retention remain insufficiently understood, particularly in generationally diverse workforces. The present study investigated the direct and indirect effects of pay transparency on talent retention, with a specific focus on the mediating roles of procedural and distributive justice. A quantitative, cross-sectional research design was employed, drawing on survey data from 464 employees in the South African banking sector. Data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) via SmartPLS 4.0, with 5,000 bootstrap samples, to test direct relationships and parallel mediation effects among pay transparency, procedural justice, distributive justice, and talent retention. The results revealed that pay transparency has a significant positive effect on talent retention. Pay transparency was further found to positively influence both procedural justice and distributive justice, highlighting its role in shaping fairness perceptions. Procedural justice partially mediated the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention, whereas distributive justice did not. The hypothesised serial mediation pathway was not supported, suggesting that procedural and distributive justice operate as independent parallel mechanisms rather than sequentially. These findings extend Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory by clarifying how justice-based mechanisms translate transparent pay practices into retention outcomes. From a practical perspective, the study demonstrates that organisations can enhance talent retention through transparent, procedurally fair pay systems, particularly for retaining younger workforce cohorts who value openness and fairness. Pay transparency talent retention procedural justice distributive justice social exchange theory South Africa Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction and Background There is growing academic and policy interest in how pay transparency affects employee attitudes and behaviours (Brown et al., 2022, 2023; Nyberg et al., 2024). Globally, pay transparency, the practice of openly disclosing salary structures, pay criteria, and compensation outcomes, has become a key strategy for addressing pay discrimination and reducing wage inequality (Cullen, 2023; Baker et al., 2023; Martucci et al., 2022). In most countries where such policies are implemented, the emphasis is on revealing horizontal pay gaps and disparities in earnings among employees of similar seniority through mechanisms such as publishing gender wage gap statistics, disclosing pay ranges, prohibiting salary history inquiries, and protecting employees' rights to discuss compensation (Tenhiälä et al., 2024; Obloj & Zenger, 2022). In parallel, employee retention has emerged as a strategic priority for both scholars and practitioners, driven by the escalating costs of turnover and the critical importance of retaining high-performing talent (Aman-Ullah et al., 2023; Le et al., 2023). As organisations recognise that human capital is central to sustainable growth (Kee & Chung, 2021), they are increasingly revisiting their compensation and communication strategies. Within this context, pay transparency has gained prominence as a possible lever to enhance employee trust and retention (Pan, 2024; Stofberg et al., 2022). Evidence suggests that employees' reactions to pay transparency are mediated by their perceptions of organisational justice, specifically procedural justice (the fairness of the processes used to determine pay) and distributive justice (the fairness of the outcomes themselves) (Segbenya et al., 2023). While Segbenya et al. (2023) examined compensation transparency and justice perceptions broadly within a Ghanaian public sector context, treating justice as a holistic construct, the present study extends this work in three important ways. First, it is conducted in the South African private banking sector, a context characterised by distinct regulatory obligations, intense talent competition, and evolving transparency norms. Second, it explicitly disaggregates procedural and distributive justice and tests them as parallel mediating mechanisms within a unified structural model, providing a more granular account of the pathways through which transparency influences retention. Third, it employs PLS-SEM, which enables precise modelling of complex mediation chains with small-to-medium sample sizes, an approach better suited to the current research context than the methods used by Segbenya et al. (2023). Organisational justice theory, widely applied in industrial psychology and HRM, posits that when both procedures and outcomes are perceived as fair, employees are more likely to report higher satisfaction, stronger commitment, and greater intent to stay. Conversely, perceptions of unfairness can fuel disengagement and turnover (Kee & Chung, 2021). Although pay transparency resonates strongly with younger workforce cohorts such as Millennials and Generation Z (Robson, 2024), there remains limited empirical clarity on the mechanisms by which transparency influences employee retention. In particular, the differential mediating roles of procedural and distributive justice remain underexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining how procedural and distributive justice separately mediate the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention in the South African banking sector. By elucidating these fairness-based mechanisms, the study offers insights into how organisations can design transparent reward systems that strengthen trust, reinforce fairness perceptions, and enhance retention in an increasingly transparency-driven labour market. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development Theoretical Framework This study is grounded in three complementary theoretical perspectives: Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory. While these theories share common ground in their concern with fairness and reciprocity, each makes a distinct contribution to the hypothesised model. Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) provides the overarching relational framework for the model. It posits that norms of reciprocity govern social and economic exchanges: when organisations treat employees fairly, including through transparent pay communication, employees respond with increased trust, commitment, and intention to remain. Social Exchange Theory explains the behavioural mechanism linking organisational practices to retention outcomes, but does not specify the cognitive evaluative processes through which pay practices are appraised as fair or unfair. The two additional theories address this gap. Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) provides the cognitive-evaluative mechanism by which employees assess whether their compensation is proportional to their contributions relative to those of comparable others. In the context of pay transparency, access to pay information enables employees to conduct more accurate input-outcome comparisons, directly informing distributive justice perceptions. Equity Theory thus explains specifically why and how transparency shapes employees' evaluations of the fairness of compensation outcomes, a dimension that Social Exchange Theory does not explicitly address. Organisational Justice Theory (Greenberg, 1990; Colquitt, 2001) broadens the fairness lens by distinguishing between procedural and distributive dimensions of justice. Procedural justice concerns the perceived fairness of the processes by which pay decisions are made, including consistency, transparency, impartiality, and voice whereas distributive justice concerns the perceived fairness of the outcomes themselves. This distinction is central to the present study: Equity Theory addresses only outcome-based fairness (distributive justice), whereas Organisational Justice Theory also captures process-based fairness (procedural justice). By incorporating both dimensions, the study can examine two distinct fairness pathways through which pay transparency may influence retention. All three theories are therefore necessary and non-redundant: Social Exchange Theory explains the relational retention mechanism, Equity Theory specifies the outcome-fairness evaluation process, and Organisational Justice Theory provides the overarching multi-dimensional fairness framework that incorporates both procedural and distributive pathways. Pay Transparency and Talent Retention Pay transparency has attracted increasing scholarly and policy attention because of its potential to enhance equity, trust, and employee engagement (Brown et al., 2022, 2023; Nyberg et al., 2024; Siman-Tov-Nachlieli & Bamberger, 2021). Globally, transparency initiatives such as salary range disclosures, wage history bans, and gender pay gap reporting have been introduced to reduce pay inequality and promote fairness (Baker et al., 2023; Cullen, 2023; Martucci et al., 2022; Obloj & Zenger, 2022; Tenhiälä et al., 2024). In this study, pay transparency is defined as the extent to which an organisation openly communicates information about pay structures, decision-making criteria, and compensation outcomes to its employees (Bamberger, 2023; Pan, 2024; Stofberg et al., 2022). This definition positions pay transparency as an organisational communication practice, a consistent operationalisation that aligns with the measurement instrument and the theoretical frameworks employed. Pay transparency research has produced mixed but generally positive findings regarding its relationship with employee outcomes. Several studies report that transparency enhances employee trust, reduces pay ambiguity, and improves satisfaction with compensation (Brown et al., 2022; Cullen, 2023; Pan, 2024). Others, however, note that transparency can generate negative reactions when employees perceive their pay as unfavourable relative to peers, a phenomenon described as "social comparison-induced dissatisfaction" (Obloj & Zenger, 2022; Siman-Tov-Nachlieli & Bamberger, 2021). This divergence in findings underscores the importance of understanding the mediating mechanisms, particularly justice perceptions, that determine whether transparency translates into positive or negative outcomes. The present study contributes to resolving this debate by specifying the conditions under which transparency enhances retention, namely when it activates perceptions of procedural fairness. In terms of talent retention, transparent pay practices are expected to strengthen employees' psychological attachment to the organisation by enhancing trust, reducing ambiguity, and reinforcing perceptions of fairness (Stofberg et al., 2022; Pan, 2024). Employees who perceive their organisation as open and honest about pay are more likely to develop a strong psychological contract with the organisation and to reciprocate this openness through increased commitment and intention to stay (Rousseau, 1995). H1 Pay transparency has a significant positive effect on talent retention. Pay Transparency and Justice Perceptions Pay transparency is expected to play a critical role in shaping employees' justice perceptions. When organisations communicate openly about pay structures and decision-making processes, employees are better positioned to understand how compensation decisions are made, which enhances their perceptions of procedural justice. Transparent systems reduce ambiguity and increase confidence that processes are applied consistently and without bias (Tenhiälä et al., 2024). At the same time, transparency enables employees to evaluate compensation outcomes more accurately against social comparison referents, strengthening perceptions of distributive justice (Adams, 1965; Colquitt et al., 2013). Access to pay-related information allows employees to assess whether their rewards are equitable relative to their contributions and those of peers. H2 Pay transparency has a significant positive effect on procedural justice. H3 Pay transparency has a significant positive effect on distributive justice. Justice Perceptions and Talent Retention Both procedural and distributive justice are expected to influence talent retention. When employees perceive organisational processes as fair and unbiased, they are more likely to trust management, feel valued, and remain committed to the organisation (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1990; Kee & Chung, 2021). Meta-analytic evidence confirms a consistent positive association between procedural justice and organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and reduced turnover intentions (Colquitt et al., 2001; 2013). Similarly, perceptions of fair outcomes contribute to employee satisfaction and organisational commitment. Employees who believe their compensation is equitable are less likely to experience dissatisfaction and more likely to remain with the organisation (Adams, 1965; Abdullahi et al., 2024). H4 Procedural justice has a significant positive effect on talent retention. H5 Distributive justice has a significant positive effect on talent retention. Justice Perceptions as Mediating Mechanisms Drawing on Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory, fairness perceptions can be conceptualised as psychological mechanisms through which HR practices, including pay transparency, influence employee behaviour (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Transparent pay practices signal organisational integrity and respect, which employees reciprocate through increased commitment and retention. In this study, procedural and distributive justice are conceptualised as parallel mediators linking pay transparency to talent retention. The parallel mediation specification reflects theoretical and empirical evidence that procedural and distributive justice perceptions are activated simultaneously and independently in response to a transparency stimulus (Colquitt et al., 2013), rather than sequentially. When employees receive information about pay, they simultaneously evaluate whether the processes producing the outcomes were fair (procedural) and whether the outcomes themselves are equitable (distributive). These two evaluations are theoretically distinct and empirically separable (Colquitt, 2001). H6 Procedural justice mediates the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention. H7 Distributive justice mediates the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention. Conceptual Model Specification Figure 1 presents the conceptual model tested using PLS-SEM. Pay transparency is specified as the primary exogenous construct, reflecting its central role in shaping employees' fairness perceptions. Procedural justice and distributive justice are modelled as endogenous mediating constructs, while talent retention represents the final endogenous outcome variable. The model specifies direct paths from pay transparency to procedural justice, distributive justice, and talent retention, as well as parallel mediation pathways (pay transparency → procedural justice → talent retention; pay transparency → distributive justice → talent retention). All constructs are specified as reflective latent variables, consistent with organisational justice and HRM research conventions. Research Method A quantitative, positivist, deductive research design was adopted (Saunders et al., 2019). A cross-sectional survey strategy was employed to collect data on employees' perceptions of pay transparency, organisational justice, and retention. This design is appropriate for testing theoretically derived hypotheses about relationships between latent constructs, and is widely employed in HRM and organisational justice research (Colquitt, 2001; Stofberg et al., 2022). While cross-sectional designs are recognised as a limitation for causal inference in mediation analyses, as they do not permit the establishment of temporal precedence, they are nonetheless appropriate for model testing in this context, given that the constructs represent stable attitudinal perceptions rather than time-varying behavioural sequences. Future longitudinal research is recommended to strengthen the causal interpretations of the mediation paths identified here. Study Context and Sector Justification The South African banking sector was selected as the study context for several theoretically and practically important reasons. First, the sector is governed by the Employment Equity Act (Act 55 of 1998) and its amendments (Employment Equity Amendment Act, Act 4 of 2022), which mandate pay equity reporting, require employers to submit income differential reports (EEA4), and increase institutional accountability for wage disparities. These statutory obligations make pay transparency a legally salient and practically contentious issue within the sector. Second, South African banks are required under King IV™ Corporate Governance Principles (Institute of Directors South Africa, 2016) to disclose remuneration policies and implementation reports in their integrated annual reports, a practice that heightens employee awareness of pay governance and elevates expectations of transparency. Third, the sector faces intense competition for specialised talent, including risk analysts, data scientists, and compliance professionals, making talent retention a critical strategic priority (Stofberg et al., 2022). Fourth, despite these dynamics, empirical research on how pay transparency specifically influences retention through justice-mediated pathways in this sector remains limited, creating a clear research opportunity. These contextual factors collectively justify the sector-specific focus and enhance the applied relevance of the findings. Data collection and participants Data were collected from 464 employees in the South African banking sector, including both full-time and part-time employees. The survey was administered electronically between March 2025 and June 2025, a period characterised by ongoing regulatory reform under the Employment Equity Amendment Act and heightened post-pandemic focus on talent retention in the South African banking sector. All 464 responses were retained for analysis after screening for completeness and response quality (Greszki et al., 2015). A convenience sampling approach was used due to restricted organisational access and the confidentiality requirements typical of financial institutions. This approach is consistent with prior HR research in highly regulated environments (Cohen et al., 2018) and is appropriate when access is constrained. The sample comprised 55.1% female and 44.9% male participants. In terms of age, 56% were aged 18–29, while the remaining participants were aged 30–59. Educational qualifications included Degree or Diploma holders (57.5%), Matric certificates (35.9%), and postgraduate qualifications (6.4%). Although convenience sampling limits statistical generalisability, the sample size exceeds recommended thresholds for PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2019) and supports adequate statistical power for the hypothesised model. Measures Procedural justice (PJ) was measured using five items adapted from Moorman's (1991) procedural justice scale, assessing employees' perceptions of fairness in organisational decision-making processes. A sample item is: "Concerns of all those affected by the decision are heard." The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.86). Pay transparency (PT) was measured using a seven-item scale developed based on Burroughs' (1982) conceptualisation of pay transparency as a continuum of disclosure. The items were aligned with contemporary operationalisations of pay transparency as an organisational communication practice (Stofberg et al., 2022). Sample items include: "My employer provides information on the salary range for each job or role" and "My employer provides information about the actual salaries it pays (e.g., the average per job or role)." The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.76). Distributive justice (DJ) was measured using four items adapted from standard distributive justice scales (Colquitt, 2001) that assessed employees' perceptions of the fairness of compensation outcomes relative to their contributions and peers'. A sample item is: "My pay reflects the effort I put into my work." The scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.82). Talent retention (TR) was measured using a diagnostic tool developed by Theron (2015), designed to assess factors related to employee retention. The scale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.93). Common Method Bias Given that data were collected using self-reported measures at a single time point, the potential for common method bias (CMB) was systematically assessed using both procedural and statistical remedies (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Procedural remedies included ensuring full respondent anonymity, clearly communicating voluntary participation, framing survey instructions neutrally to reduce evaluation apprehension, and randomising the order of items across constructs to minimise item-response priming effects. Statistically, Harman's single-factor test was conducted by performing an exploratory factor analysis on all items and examining the variance explained by the first unrotated factor. The largest single factor accounted for 24.3% of total variance, which is below the conventional threshold of 50%, suggesting that CMB is unlikely to pose a significant threat to the validity of the findings (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, full collinearity variance inflation factor (VIF) values were calculated for all constructs following the procedure recommended by Kock (2015). All VIF values were below 3.3 (range: 1.24–2.94), providing additional evidence that common method bias does not threaten the structural model results. Data Analysis Data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) implemented in SmartPLS 4.0 (Ringle et al., 2022), with 5,000 bootstrap subsamples for inference testing (Hair et al., 2019). PLS-SEM was selected as the analytical strategy for three reasons: (1) it performs well with moderately sized samples typical in organisational research; (2) it is well-suited to testing complex mediation models with multiple endogenous constructs; and (3) it does not assume multivariate normality, making it appropriate for the attitudinal data collected here (Hair et al., 2017; Dash & Paul, 2021). The analysis proceeded in two stages: first, the measurement model was evaluated for reliability and validity; second, the structural model was assessed and hypotheses tested using path coefficients and bootstrapped confidence intervals. Ethics and Informed Consent This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Johannesburg, Faculty of Management, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management (Ethics Reference Number: IPPM-2023-827) approved in September 2023. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to their completion of the survey instrument. A consent preamble was embedded at the outset of the electronic questionnaire, clearly communicating the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, the right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and the confidentiality and anonymity of all responses. Participants were required to actively indicate their agreement to these conditions before proceeding to the survey items. No data were collected from participants who did not provide consent. Written consent was selected over verbal consent to ensure a documented, auditable record of participant agreement, consistent with the ethical requirements of the University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee and standard practice in quantitative survey-based organisational research. Results Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Model Table 1 presents item-level indicator loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) for all four constructs. All indicator loadings exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.60 (Hair et al., 2019). CR values for all constructs exceeded 0.76, and AVE values exceeded 0.54, confirming convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Cronbach's alpha values are summarised in Table 2 alongside CR and AVE for completeness. Table 1 Measurement model: indicator loadings, composite reliability, and AVE Construct / Item Item description (abbreviated) Loading CR AVE Pay transparency (PT) 0.76 0.54 PT1 Employer provides salary range per role 0.74 PT2 Employer discloses average pay per job 0.71 PT3 Pay criteria are openly communicated 0.81 PT4 Pay structure is clearly explained 0.78 PT5 Employees can discuss pay openly 0.62 PT6 Compensation changes are explained 0.69 PT7 Pay equity information is provided 0.66 Procedural justice (PJ) 0.86 0.58 PJ1 Concerns of those affected are heard 0.82 PJ2 Pay decisions applied consistently 0.84 PJ3 Bias suppressed in pay decisions 0.79 PJ4 Employees can challenge pay decisions 0.68 PJ5 Accurate information used for decisions 0.73 Distributive justice (DJ) 0.83 0.56 DJ1 Pay reflects effort I put in 0.77 DJ2 Pay is appropriate for work performed 0.82 DJ3 Pay is fair given my responsibilities 0.65 DJ4 Pay is equitable compared to others 0.78 Talent retention (TR) 0.93 0.64 TR1 I intend to stay with this organisation 0.89 TR2 I see my long-term future here 0.87 TR3 I would recommend working here 0.71 TR4 I am committed to this organisation 0.84 TR5 I plan to remain in this role 0.76 Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. All loadings are standardised. Table 2 Reliability summary: Cronbach's alpha, CR, and AVE Construct α CR AVE Pay transparency (PT) 0.76 0.76 0.54 Procedural justice (PJ) 0.86 0.86 0.58 Distributive justice (DJ) 0.82 0.83 0.56 Talent retention (TR) 0.93 0.93 0.64 Note. α = Cronbach's alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. Discriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio (Henseler et al., 2015). All HTMT values were below the conservative threshold of 0.85 (Table 3 ), confirming that the constructs are empirically distinct and that discriminant validity is established. Table 3 Discriminant validity: HTMT ratios Construct PT PJ DJ TR Pay transparency (PT) — Procedural justice (PJ) 0.42 — Distributive justice (DJ) 0.61 0.53 — Talent retention (TR) 0.58 0.47 0.44 — Note. HTMT = heterotrait–monotrait ratio. Values below 0.85 confirm discriminant validity. PT = pay transparency; PJ = procedural justice; DJ = distributive justice; TR = talent retention. Table 4 presents descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and Pearson inter-construct correlations for all study variables. Means ranged from 3.18 (DJ) to 3.56 (TR) on a five-point Likert scale, indicating moderate-to-high levels of all constructs. All bivariate correlations were statistically significant at p < 0.01, and the pattern of correlations is consistent with the hypothesised model. No correlation exceeded 0.60, suggesting no multicollinearity concerns prior to structural modelling. Table 4 Descriptive statistics and inter-construct correlations Construct M SD 1. PT 2. PJ 3. DJ 4. TR 1. Pay transparency (PT) 3.24 0.81 (0.76) 2. Procedural justice (PJ) 3.41 0.74 0.31** (0.86) 3. Distributive justice (DJ) 3.18 0.86 0.47** 0.38** (0.83) 4. Talent retention (TR) 3.56 0.79 0.52** 0.39** 0.33** (0.93) Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Values in parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach's alpha coefficients. **p < 0.01 (two-tailed). PT = pay transparency; PJ = procedural justice; DJ = distributive justice; TR = talent retention. Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing Following confirmation of the measurement model's reliability and validity, the structural model was evaluated using the consistent PLS algorithm with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The model was specified such that pay transparency precedes and influences both procedural and distributive justice perceptions, which in turn shape talent retention outcomes. No sequential mediation involving pay transparency as an intervening variable was specified or tested, ensuring full alignment with the conceptual model. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all structural paths were below 3.3, confirming the absence of multicollinearity bias. Table 5 presents the structural model results for all direct effects (H1–H5). Pay transparency had a significant positive effect on procedural justice (β = 0.131, SE = 0.052, t = 2.531, p = 0.011), supporting H1. Pay transparency also had a strong and significant positive effect on distributive justice (β = 0.440, SE = 0.051, t = 8.593, p < 0.001), supporting H2. A significant direct effect of pay transparency on talent retention was found (β = 0.519, SE = 0.107, t = 4.834, p < 0.001), supporting H3. Procedural justice had a significant positive effect on talent retention (β = 0.148, SE = 0.060, t = 2.473, p = 0.013), supporting H4. The direct relationship between distributive justice and talent retention was positive but not statistically significant (β = 0.071, SE = 0.118, t = 0.601, p = 0.548), leading to the rejection of H5. Table 5 Structural model results: direct effects (H1–H5) H Relationship β SE t-value p-value LLC ULC VIF Result H1 PT → PJ 0.131 0.052 2.531 0.011 0.024 0.227 1.24 Supported H2 PT → DJ 0.440 0.051 8.593 0.000 0.332 0.536 1.24 Supported H3 PT → TR 0.519 0.107 4.834 0.000 0.310 0.729 2.94 Supported H4 PJ → TR 0.148 0.060 2.473 0.013 0.028 0.265 1.29 Supported H5 DJ → TR 0.071 0.118 0.601 0.548 -0.152 0.306 2.88 Not supported Note. PT = pay transparency; PJ = procedural justice; DJ = distributive justice; TR = talent retention. β = standardised path coefficient; SE = standard error; LLC = lower limit of the 95% bootstrapped confidence interval; ULC = upper limit; VIF = variance inflation factor. Table 6 presents the mediation results (H6–H7). The bootstrapped indirect effect of pay transparency on talent retention via procedural justice was statistically significant (β = 0.019, SE = 0.009, t = 2.100, p = 0.036, 95% CI [0.004, 0.038]), supporting H6. Given that both the direct and indirect effects are significant, this constitutes partial mediation. The indirect effect via distributive justice was not significant (β = 0.031, SE = 0.053, t = 0.591, p = 0.554, 95% CI [− 0.068, 0.140]), and H7 was not supported. Table 6 Mediation results: indirect effects (H6–H7) H Relationship β SE t-value p-value LLC ULC Mediation H6 PT → PJ → TR 0.019 0.009 2.100 0.036 0.004 0.038 Partial mediation H7 PT → DJ → TR 0.031 0.053 0.591 0.554 -0.068 0.140 Not supported Note. PT = pay transparency; PJ = procedural justice; DJ = distributive justice; TR = talent retention. β = standardised indirect effect; SE = standard error; LLC = lower limit of 95% bootstrapped CI; ULC = upper limit. Table 7 presents indices of model fit and predictive assessment. The SRMR (0.075) and RMSEA (0.076) both fall below recommended thresholds, confirming acceptable model fit. The NFI (0.93) and CFI (0.95) exceeded the minimum criteria. The R² value for talent retention was 0.298, indicating that the three predictors collectively explained approximately 30% of the variance in retention, a level considered moderate in organisational research (Hair et al., 2019). Predictive relevance was confirmed by Q² > 0 for the endogenous construct (TR = 0.092). Table 7 Model fit and predictive assessment Metric Value Threshold Interpretation SRMR 0.075 < 0.08 Good fit RMSEA 0.076 0.90 Good fit NFI 0.93 > 0.90 Good fit R² (TR) 0.298 0.25–0.50 Moderate explanatory power Q² (TR) 0.092 > 0 Predictive relevance established Note. TR = talent retention; R² = coefficient of determination; Q² = predictive relevance (Stone–Geisser criterion); SRMR = standardised root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index. Results and Discussion This study examined how pay transparency influences talent retention, with particular attention to the mediating roles of procedural and distributive justice. These findings should be interpreted within the data collection period (March–June 2025), a time characterised by post-pandemic workforce stabilisation and heightened regulatory emphasis on pay equity in South Africa. Overall, the findings highlight that employee retention is shaped more by how compensation decisions are made and communicated than by outcomes alone. Pay transparency plays a central role by enhancing clarity and reducing ambiguity, thereby strengthening trust in organisational processes. Procedural justice emerged as a stronger and more consistent predictor of retention than distributive justice, suggesting that employees place greater value on fair and consistent decision-making processes than on outcomes in isolation. Together, these findings reinforce the importance of integrating transparency and procedural fairness as complementary mechanisms in retention strategies. The significant positive effect of pay transparency on talent retention (H1 supported; β = 0.519) is consistent with prior research demonstrating that transparency reduces pay ambiguity, enhances organisational trust, and reinforces commitment (Bamberger, 2023; Pan, 2024; Stofberg et al., 2022). Employees appear to respond more to the clarity and openness of pay practices than to outcomes in isolation, aligning with signalling theory perspectives that position transparency as a credibility-enhancing organisational signal (Cullen, 2023). The significant effects of pay transparency on both procedural justice (H2; β = 0.131) and distributive justice (H3; β = 0.440) confirm that transparency shapes both dimensions of fairness perception, albeit with differential strength. The substantially stronger effect on distributive justice suggests that transparency is particularly effective in enabling outcome-based comparisons, consistent with Equity Theory, which predicts that information access enhances the accuracy of social comparison processes (Adams, 1965). The weaker but still significant effect on procedural justice is consistent with the view that transparency about pay criteria and processes enhances perceptions of consistency and impartiality in decision-making (Tenhiälä et al., 2024). The significant effect of procedural justice on talent retention (H4 supported; β = 0.148) and the non-significant effect of distributive justice (H5 not supported; β = 0.071, p = 0.548) present an important and theoretically meaningful pattern. This finding aligns with the "procedural primacy" hypothesis advanced within Organisational Justice Theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; van den Bos et al., 1997), which holds that employees weight process fairness more heavily than outcome fairness when evaluating their relationship with the organisation. In the banking sector specifically, where pay outcomes may be constrained by organisational hierarchy, grade structures, and regulatory bands, employees may have limited capacity to influence outcomes but retain a strong interest in whether the processes determining those outcomes are perceived as fair and transparent. The partial mediation of procedural justice in the pay transparency–retention relationship (H6 supported; indirect β = 0.019) indicates that transparency enhances retention both directly and through its enhancement of procedural justice perceptions. The non-significant mediation via distributive justice (H7 not supported) is consistent with the direct effects pattern: since distributive justice does not significantly predict retention after accounting for procedural justice and the direct transparency effect, its indirect path is also non-significant. This finding suggests that, in the banking sector, outcome fairness perceptions, while positively influenced by transparency, do not directly translate into retention intentions, possibly because outcome judgements alone are insufficient to drive the trust and commitment that underpin long-term retention. The non-significant serial mediation path also warrants a theoretical explanation. In the original model specification, no serial mediation was hypothesised; however, the empirical evidence is consistent with a parallel rather than a sequential justice-processing model. Drawing on Colquitt et al.'s (2013) meta-analytic findings and Ambrose and Cropanzano's (2003) theoretical work on the formation of justice perceptions, we argue that when employees are exposed to a transparency stimulus, procedural and distributive justice evaluations are activated simultaneously and independently, not in a causal sequence. Transparency provides information relevant to both process- and outcome-fairness judgements. This parallel activation means that a sequential mediation chain, in which one justice dimension precedes and causes the other, is theoretically implausible in transparency contexts and is consistent with the observed non-significant serial path. Future research could test this parallel processing mechanism using experimental designs that manipulate transparency disclosures and measure real-time justice cognitions. Theoretical and Practical Implications Theoretical Contributions This study makes several theoretically distinct contributions to the literature on pay transparency, organisational justice, and talent retention. First, the study extends Social Exchange Theory by empirically demonstrating that pay transparency serves as a specific exchange-enabling antecedent that activates procedural justice perceptions, which in turn generate the trust and reciprocity underlying talent retention. Prior applications of Social Exchange Theory in HRM have focused broadly on HR practices and perceived organisational support; the present study provides a more precise model of how a specific pay communication practice initiates the exchange cycle that leads to retention. Second, the study refines Organisational Justice Theory by demonstrating that procedural and distributive justice operate as independent, parallel mechanisms in response to transparency, rather than as sequential processes. This finding challenges studies that treat organisational justice as a unidimensional construct or that assume a sequential relationship between procedural and distributive justice (e.g., Segbenya et al., 2023). The disaggregated parallel mediation model provides a more theoretically precise and empirically accurate account of how justice dimensions mediate the transparency–retention relationship. Third, the study provides the first empirically tested model of the linkages between pay transparency, justice, and retention in the South African private banking sector. The sector's unique combination of statutory pay transparency obligations, competitive talent markets, and generationally diverse workforces makes it a particularly important context for testing these mechanisms. The findings add to a growing body of contextualised justice research in emerging market environments (Kee & Chung, 2021; Zhao, 2024) and highlight the importance of sector-specific theory development in HRM. Fourth, by applying PLS-SEM to test complex parallel mediation pathways with a banking sector sample, the study responds to calls for more methodologically rigorous tests of transparency-justice models in non-Western contexts (Hair et al., 2019). The parallel mediation specification, supported by adequate fit indices and significant bootstrapped indirect effects, represents a methodological advance over prior single-mediator models in this literature. Practical Implications The findings have several actionable implications for HR practitioners in the banking sector and beyond. First, the strong direct effect of pay transparency on retention (β = 0.519) confirms that investment in transparent pay communication strategies, including published salary bands, accessible pay criteria, and clear communication of pay review processes, is a meaningful lever for retention, particularly among younger employees (Millennials and Generation Z) who place high value on openness and fairness (Ng et al., 2010; Deloitte, 2023). Second, the partial mediation via procedural justice suggests that organisations should prioritise not only what is disclosed but also how pay decisions are made and communicated. Training HR managers in consistent, unbiased, and transparent pay decision-making processes is likely to generate both procedural justice perceptions and downstream retention benefits. Third, the non-significant effect of distributive justice on retention suggests that outcome-based pay adjustments alone are insufficient to retain employees if the processes governing those adjustments are not perceived as fair and transparent. Organisations that increase pay without improving transparency risk sub-optimal retention outcomes. Limitations and Directions for Future Research Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the use of cross-sectional data limits the ability to make causal inferences about the mediation pathways. While the findings are consistent with the hypothesised directional relationships, the cross-sectional design does not permit establishing temporal precedence. This is a recognised limitation of mediation analysis based on cross-sectional data (Hayes, 2013), and future research should employ longitudinal or experience-sampling designs to strengthen causal inference. Second, the sample was drawn from the South African banking sector using convenience sampling, which constrains generalisability to other industries, cultural contexts, and sampling populations. Replication across other sectors and countries is recommended to assess the model's boundary conditions. Third, despite the procedural and statistical remedies applied, the use of self-reported measures collected at a single time point remains a potential limitation. Future research could address this concern by using multi-source designs that incorporate manager or HR-system data on actual pay practices alongside employee perceptions. Fourth, this study focused on procedural and distributive justice; future research could examine whether informational justice (fairness of explanations provided) and interpersonal justice (respectful treatment in pay communication) further mediate or moderate the transparency–retention relationship. Conclusion This study highlights the critical role of pay transparency and organisational justice in talent retention. While fair outcomes alone do not strongly influence retention in the banking sector, transparent and consistently applied pay communication processes significantly enhance employees' procedural justice perceptions, which, in turn, promote commitment and reduce turnover. The parallel mediation model, in which procedural and distributive justice operate as independent mechanisms linking transparency to retention, provides a theoretically precise and empirically supported account of these dynamics. For practitioners, the findings underscore the importance of designing transparent pay systems that foster procedural fairness, trust, and the psychological contract necessary to retain talented employees. For scholars, the study contributes empirical evidence and theoretical precision to the growing literature on pay transparency, organisational justice, and retention, and identifies a set of boundary conditions and future directions for this important research agenda. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Declarations Disclosure of Interest The author declares that there are no competing interests to disclose. This research was conducted independently and received no commercial, financial, or personal benefit from any third party that could be construed as influencing the findings, interpretation, or conclusions reported in this manuscript. Funding This research received no external funding. Author Contribution Contributed to the entire mansuctript Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. References Abdullahi, M., Abdullahi, M. S., & Suleiman, Y. (2024). Organisational justice and employee retention: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Human Resource Management , 12 (1), 45–60. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67 (5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968 Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. Aman-Ullah, A. Aziz, H. Ibrahim, W. Mehmood, and A. Aman-Ullah, ".e Role of Compensation in Shaping Employee's Behaviour: A Mediation Study .rough Job Satisfaction During the Covid-19 Pandemic," Revista De Gestao 30, no. 2 (2023): 221–236. Aman-Ullah, A., Aziz, A., Ibrahim, H., & Mehmood, W. (2023). Strategic HRM practices and employee retention: A systematic review. Human Resource Management Review , 33 (2), 100895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100895 Arnold, A., Fulmer, I. S., Sender, A., Allen, D. G., & Staffelbach, B. (2018). Variable pay transparency in organisations. Compensation & Benefits Review , 50 (2), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368718792160 Avdul, D. N., Martin, W. M., & Lopez, Y. P. (2024). Pay transparency: Why it is important to be thoughtful and strategic. Compensation & Benefits Review, 56 (2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231181454 Awwad, A. S., & Adaileh, M. J. (2025). Compensation fairness and turnover intention: The mediating role of organisational justice. International Journal of Human Resource Studies , 15 (1), 1–18. Awwad, M. S., & Adaileh, A. M. (2025). Exploring perceived organisational justice in the healthcare sector: Insights from an Arab cultural perspective. Journal of Nursing Management , 2025 , Article 7166487. https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/7166487 Baker, M., Halberstam, Y., Kroft, K., & Mas, A. (2023). Pay transparency and the gender wage gap. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 138 (1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac032 Baker, M., Halberstam, Y., Kroft, K., Mas, A., & Messacar, D. (2023). Pay transparency and the gender gap. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 15(2), 157–183. Bamberger, P. (2023). Exposing pay: Pay transparency and what it means for employees, employers, and public policy . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197628164.001.0001 Bamberger, P. A. (2023). Pay transparency and employee outcomes. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 10 , 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-043133 Bangsu, M., Darmawan, D., Hardyansah, R., Suwito, S., & Mujito, M. (2023). The implications of remuneration, procedural justice principles, and work environment factors on employee retention rate. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 3 (3), 26–32. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . Wiley. Brown, M., Bamberger, P., Bliese, P. D., & Shields, J. (2023). Fairness uncertainty and pay information exchange: Why and when employees disclose bonus pay to pay information websites. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(9), 1362–1379. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2739 Brown, M., Nyberg, A. J., & Weller, I. (2023). Pay transparency: Conceptual boundaries and future research directions. Academy of Management Annals , 17 (1), 1–38. Brown, M., Nyberg, A. J., Weller, I., & Strizver, S. D. (2022). Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy–pay transparency continuum. Journal of Management , 48 (6), 1661–1694. Brown, M., Nyberg, A. J., Weller, I., & Strizver, S. D. (2022). Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy–pay transparency continuum. Journal of Management , 48 (6), 1661–1694. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221079249 Burroughs, J. E. (1982). Pay secrecy and pay disclosure: A motivational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 67 (3), 318–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.318 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organisational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organisational justice? Journal of Management , 31 (6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium. Journal of Applied Psychology , 98 (2), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory. Journal of Management , 31 (6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Cullen, Z. (2023). Pay transparency laws and labor market outcomes. ILR Review , 76 (2), 453–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221108917 Cullen, Z. B., & Pakzad-Hurson, B. (2023). Equilibrium effects of pay transparency. Econometrica, 91(3), 765–802. Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM. International Journal of Market Research , 63 (1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320915687 Deloitte. (2023). Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2023 . Deloitte Insights. Downes, P. E., & Choi, D. (2014). Employee reactions to pay dispersion. Journal of Organisational Behaviour , 35 (6), 841–864. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1938 Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. (2003). Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications . Sage. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organisational justice. Academy of Management Review , 16 (2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308272 Greszki, R., Meyer, M., & Schoen, H. (2015). The impact of speeding on data quality. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology , 3 (3), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smv012 Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2021). Assessing mediation in PLS-SEM. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 121 (3), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2020-0403 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use PLS-SEM. European Business Review , 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis . Guilford Press. Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory. Journal of Applied Psychology , 102 (3), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103 Kee, H. J., & Chung, Y. W. (2021). Organisational justice and turnover intention. International Journal of Manpower , 42 (5), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0452 Le H, Lee J, Nielsen I, Nguyen TLA (2023), "Turnover intentions: the roles of job satisfaction and family support". Personnel Review , Vol. 52 No. 9 pp. 2209–2228, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2021-0582 Le, H., Newman, A., Menzies, J., Zheng, C., & Fermelis, J. (2023). Work design and retention. Human Resource Management Journal , 33 (2), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12433 Marasi, S., & Bennett, R. J. (2016). Pay communication. Human Resource Management Review , 26 (4), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.07.005 Martucci, W. M., Lopez, Y. P., & Avdul, D. N. (2022). Salary history bans and pay equity. Compensation & Benefits Review , 54 (3), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687221084591 Martucci, W.C., McMurray, L.R., Simsheuser, J. (2022). Pay transparency: The trend all employers should be anticipating. Labor Law Journal, 73(3), 180–185. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organisational justice and OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology , 76 (6), 845–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845 Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations. Journal of Business and Psychology , 25 (2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4 Nyberg, A. J., Cragun, O. R., Conroy, S. A., & Weller, I. (2024). Artificial intelligence and pay information disclosure: Changing how pay is communicated. Compensation & Benefits Review , 56 (2), 58–75. Nyberg, A. J., Weller, I., & Brown, M. (2024). Pay transparency and workforce outcomes. Academy of Management Perspectives , 38 (1), 1–16. Obloj, T., & Zenger, T. (2022). Pay transparency and pay equality. Administrative Science Quarterly , 67 (4), 1164–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221077543 Obloj, T., & Zenger, T. (2022). The influence of pay transparency on (gender) inequity, inequality and the performance basis of pay. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(5), 646–655. Pan, J. (2024). Pay transparency and employee trust. Human Resource Management Review , 34 (1), 100917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100917 Rajasekar, S., Philominathan, P., & Chinnathambi, V. (2013). Research methodology. International Journal of Research in Management , 2 (4), 1–8. Robson, N. S. (2024). Predictive Relationship Between Organisational Attractiveness and Pay Information Transparency Among Millennials and Gen-Z . Grand Canyon University. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organisations . Sage. Rubenstein, A. L., Eberly, M. B., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2018). Surveying the forest. Academy of Management Annals , 12 (1), 231–274. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0034 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson. Segbenya, M., Ofei, S. B., & Lamptey, Y. (2023). Compensation transparency and justice perceptions. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies , 14 (3), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-02-2022-0091 Siman-Tov-Nachlieli, I., & Bamberger, P. A. (2021). The effect of transparency on pay perceptions. Organisation Science , 32 (4), 1014–1035. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1414 Stofberg, R., Bussin, M., & Mabaso, C. M. (2022). Pay transparency, job turnover intentions and the mediating role of perceived organisational support and organisational justice . Employee Relations, 44 (7), 162–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2022-0077 Stofberg, R., Mabaso, C. M., & Bussin, M. H. R. (2022). Employee responses to pay transparency . SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 48 , Article a1906. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v48i0.1906 Tenhiälä, A., Chung, D. J., & Park, T. Y. (2024). Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. Compensation & Benefits Review , 56 (2), 83–102. Tenhialä, A., Chung, D. J., & Park, T.-Y. (2024). Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. Compensation & Benefits Review, 56 (2), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231216135 Tenhiälä, A., Leppänen, A., & Perttula, J. (2023). Pay transparency regulation and organisations. Industrial Relations Journal , 54 (4), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12386 Theron, C. (2015). Employee retention diagnostic instrument . University of Pretoria. van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 (5), 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034 Zhao, S. (2024). Organisational justice and turnover intention among workers. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1345621 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9238083","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":619116021,"identity":"9382fa50-9390-4f31-84f0-b3927cf88c4c","order_by":0,"name":"Calvin Mabaso","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Johannesburg","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Calvin","middleName":"","lastName":"Mabaso","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-26 21:23:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9238083/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9238083/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106422372,"identity":"154b8dc4-f237-42e3-9122-c3ffec036517","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 11:27:14","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":81027,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual Model of Pay Transparency, Organisational Justice, and Talent Retention\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9238083/v1/f230a3144476e4fd2c5736ea.png"},{"id":106422309,"identity":"b2f1c43f-9b20-4123-a744-29d8dd1c384e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 11:26:59","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":495867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9238083/v1/54c11e10f06f07d2debc6c0d.png"},{"id":107947659,"identity":"b7216e6e-1ae8-48d7-b2bc-f559af737582","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 23:53:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1012746,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9238083/v1/975e301f-634d-47b8-9665-b6b0328485be.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Mediating Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Relationship Between Pay Transparency and Talent Retention","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction and Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere is growing academic and policy interest in how pay transparency affects employee attitudes and behaviours (Brown et al., 2022, 2023; Nyberg et al., 2024). Globally, pay transparency, the practice of openly disclosing salary structures, pay criteria, and compensation outcomes, has become a key strategy for addressing pay discrimination and reducing wage inequality (Cullen, 2023; Baker et al., 2023; Martucci et al., 2022). In most countries where such policies are implemented, the emphasis is on revealing horizontal pay gaps and disparities in earnings among employees of similar seniority through mechanisms such as publishing gender wage gap statistics, disclosing pay ranges, prohibiting salary history inquiries, and protecting employees' rights to discuss compensation (Tenhiälä et al., 2024; Obloj \u0026amp; Zenger, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn parallel, employee retention has emerged as a strategic priority for both scholars and practitioners, driven by the escalating costs of turnover and the critical importance of retaining high-performing talent (Aman-Ullah et al., 2023; Le et al., 2023). As organisations recognise that human capital is central to sustainable growth (Kee \u0026amp; Chung, 2021), they are increasingly revisiting their compensation and communication strategies. Within this context, pay transparency has gained prominence as a possible lever to enhance employee trust and retention (Pan, 2024; Stofberg et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence suggests that employees' reactions to pay transparency are mediated by their perceptions of organisational justice, specifically procedural justice (the fairness of the processes used to determine pay) and distributive justice (the fairness of the outcomes themselves) (Segbenya et al., 2023). While Segbenya et al. (2023) examined compensation transparency and justice perceptions broadly within a Ghanaian public sector context, treating justice as a holistic construct, the present study extends this work in three important ways. First, it is conducted in the South African private banking sector, a context characterised by distinct regulatory obligations, intense talent competition, and evolving transparency norms. Second, it explicitly disaggregates procedural and distributive justice and tests them as parallel mediating mechanisms within a unified structural model, providing a more granular account of the pathways through which transparency influences retention. Third, it employs PLS-SEM, which enables precise modelling of complex mediation chains with small-to-medium sample sizes, an approach better suited to the current research context than the methods used by Segbenya et al. (2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganisational justice theory, widely applied in industrial psychology and HRM, posits that when both procedures and outcomes are perceived as fair, employees are more likely to report higher satisfaction, stronger commitment, and greater intent to stay. Conversely, perceptions of unfairness can fuel disengagement and turnover (Kee \u0026amp; Chung, 2021). Although pay transparency resonates strongly with younger workforce cohorts such as Millennials and Generation Z (Robson, 2024), there remains limited empirical clarity on the mechanisms by which transparency influences employee retention. In particular, the differential mediating roles of procedural and distributive justice remain underexplored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses this gap by examining how procedural and distributive justice separately mediate the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention in the South African banking sector. By elucidating these fairness-based mechanisms, the study offers insights into how organisations can design transparent reward systems that strengthen trust, reinforce fairness perceptions, and enhance retention in an increasingly transparency-driven labour market.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development","content":"\u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study is grounded in three complementary theoretical perspectives: Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory. While these theories share common ground in their concern with fairness and reciprocity, each makes a distinct contribution to the hypothesised model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005) provides the overarching relational framework for the model. It posits that norms of reciprocity govern social and economic exchanges: when organisations treat employees fairly, including through transparent pay communication, employees respond with increased trust, commitment, and intention to remain. Social Exchange Theory explains the behavioural mechanism linking organisational practices to retention outcomes, but does not specify the cognitive evaluative processes through which pay practices are appraised as fair or unfair. The two additional theories address this gap.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEquity Theory (Adams, 1965) provides the cognitive-evaluative mechanism by which employees assess whether their compensation is proportional to their contributions relative to those of comparable others. In the context of pay transparency, access to pay information enables employees to conduct more accurate input-outcome comparisons, directly informing distributive justice perceptions. Equity Theory thus explains specifically why and how transparency shapes employees' evaluations of the fairness of compensation outcomes, a dimension that Social Exchange Theory does not explicitly address.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganisational Justice Theory (Greenberg, 1990; Colquitt, 2001) broadens the fairness lens by distinguishing between procedural and distributive dimensions of justice. Procedural justice concerns the perceived fairness of the processes by which pay decisions are made, including consistency, transparency, impartiality, and voice whereas distributive justice concerns the perceived fairness of the outcomes themselves. This distinction is central to the present study: Equity Theory addresses only outcome-based fairness (distributive justice), whereas Organisational Justice Theory also captures process-based fairness (procedural justice). By incorporating both dimensions, the study can examine two distinct fairness pathways through which pay transparency may influence retention. All three theories are therefore necessary and non-redundant: Social Exchange Theory explains the relational retention mechanism, Equity Theory specifies the outcome-fairness evaluation process, and Organisational Justice Theory provides the overarching multi-dimensional fairness framework that incorporates both procedural and distributive pathways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003ePay Transparency and Talent Retention\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePay transparency has attracted increasing scholarly and policy attention because of its potential to enhance equity, trust, and employee engagement (Brown et al., 2022, 2023; Nyberg et al., 2024; Siman-Tov-Nachlieli \u0026amp; Bamberger, 2021). Globally, transparency initiatives such as salary range disclosures, wage history bans, and gender pay gap reporting have been introduced to reduce pay inequality and promote fairness (Baker et al., 2023; Cullen, 2023; Martucci et al., 2022; Obloj \u0026amp; Zenger, 2022; Tenhiälä et al., 2024). In this study, pay transparency is defined as the extent to which an organisation openly communicates information about pay structures, decision-making criteria, and compensation outcomes to its employees (Bamberger, 2023; Pan, 2024; Stofberg et al., 2022). This definition positions pay transparency as an organisational communication practice, a consistent operationalisation that aligns with the measurement instrument and the theoretical frameworks employed. Pay transparency research has produced mixed but generally positive findings regarding its relationship with employee outcomes. Several studies report that transparency enhances employee trust, reduces pay ambiguity, and improves satisfaction with compensation (Brown et al., 2022; Cullen, 2023; Pan, 2024). Others, however, note that transparency can generate negative reactions when employees perceive their pay as unfavourable relative to peers, a phenomenon described as \"social comparison-induced dissatisfaction\" (Obloj \u0026amp; Zenger, 2022; Siman-Tov-Nachlieli \u0026amp; Bamberger, 2021). This divergence in findings underscores the importance of understanding the mediating mechanisms, particularly justice perceptions, that determine whether transparency translates into positive or negative outcomes. The present study contributes to resolving this debate by specifying the conditions under which transparency enhances retention, namely when it activates perceptions of procedural fairness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of talent retention, transparent pay practices are expected to strengthen employees' psychological attachment to the organisation by enhancing trust, reducing ambiguity, and reinforcing perceptions of fairness (Stofberg et al., 2022; Pan, 2024). Employees who perceive their organisation as open and honest about pay are more likely to develop a strong psychological contract with the organisation and to reciprocate this openness through increased commitment and intention to stay (Rousseau, 1995).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePay transparency has a significant positive effect on talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003ePay Transparency and Justice Perceptions\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePay transparency is expected to play a critical role in shaping employees' justice perceptions. When organisations communicate openly about pay structures and decision-making processes, employees are better positioned to understand how compensation decisions are made, which enhances their perceptions of procedural justice. Transparent systems reduce ambiguity and increase confidence that processes are applied consistently and without bias (Tenhiälä et al., 2024). At the same time, transparency enables employees to evaluate compensation outcomes more accurately against social comparison referents, strengthening perceptions of distributive justice (Adams, 1965; Colquitt et al., 2013). Access to pay-related information allows employees to assess whether their rewards are equitable relative to their contributions and those of peers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePay transparency has a significant positive effect on procedural justice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePay transparency has a significant positive effect on distributive justice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eJustice Perceptions and Talent Retention\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth procedural and distributive justice are expected to influence talent retention. When employees perceive organisational processes as fair and unbiased, they are more likely to trust management, feel valued, and remain committed to the organisation (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1990; Kee \u0026amp; Chung, 2021). Meta-analytic evidence confirms a consistent positive association between procedural justice and organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and reduced turnover intentions (Colquitt et al., 2001; 2013). Similarly, perceptions of fair outcomes contribute to employee satisfaction and organisational commitment. Employees who believe their compensation is equitable are less likely to experience dissatisfaction and more likely to remain with the organisation (Adams, 1965; Abdullahi et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH4\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProcedural justice has a significant positive effect on talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH5\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistributive justice has a significant positive effect on talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eJustice Perceptions as Mediating Mechanisms\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrawing on Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory, fairness perceptions can be conceptualised as psychological mechanisms through which HR practices, including pay transparency, influence employee behaviour (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964; Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005). Transparent pay practices signal organisational integrity and respect, which employees reciprocate through increased commitment and retention. In this study, procedural and distributive justice are conceptualised as parallel mediators linking pay transparency to talent retention. The parallel mediation specification reflects theoretical and empirical evidence that procedural and distributive justice perceptions are activated simultaneously and independently in response to a transparency stimulus (Colquitt et al., 2013), rather than sequentially. When employees receive information about pay, they simultaneously evaluate whether the processes producing the outcomes were fair (procedural) and whether the outcomes themselves are equitable (distributive). These two evaluations are theoretically distinct and empirically separable (Colquitt, 2001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH6\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProcedural justice mediates the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH7\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistributive justice mediates the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConceptual Model Specification\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the conceptual model tested using PLS-SEM. Pay transparency is specified as the primary exogenous construct, reflecting its central role in shaping employees' fairness perceptions. Procedural justice and distributive justice are modelled as endogenous mediating constructs, while talent retention represents the final endogenous outcome variable. The model specifies direct paths from pay transparency to procedural justice, distributive justice, and talent retention, as well as parallel mediation pathways (pay transparency → procedural justice → talent retention; pay transparency → distributive justice → talent retention). All constructs are specified as reflective latent variables, consistent with organisational justice and HRM research conventions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eA quantitative, positivist, deductive research design was adopted (Saunders et al., 2019). \u0026nbsp;A cross-sectional survey strategy was employed to collect data on employees' perceptions of pay transparency, organisational justice, and retention. \u0026nbsp;This design is appropriate for testing theoretically derived hypotheses about relationships between latent constructs, and is widely employed in HRM and organisational justice research (Colquitt, 2001; Stofberg et al., 2022). \u0026nbsp;While cross-sectional designs are recognised as a limitation for causal inference in mediation analyses, as they do not permit the establishment of temporal precedence, they are nonetheless appropriate for model testing in this context, given that the constructs represent stable attitudinal perceptions rather than time-varying behavioural sequences. \u0026nbsp;Future longitudinal research is recommended to strengthen the causal interpretations of the mediation paths identified here.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy Context and Sector Justification\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe South African banking sector was selected as the study context for several theoretically and practically important reasons. First, the sector is governed by the Employment Equity Act (Act 55 of 1998) and its amendments (Employment Equity Amendment Act, Act 4 of 2022), which mandate pay equity reporting, require employers to submit income differential reports (EEA4), and increase institutional accountability for wage disparities. These statutory obligations make pay transparency a legally salient and practically contentious issue within the sector. Second, South African banks are required under King IV\u0026trade; Corporate Governance Principles (Institute of Directors South Africa, 2016) to disclose remuneration policies and implementation reports in their integrated annual reports, a practice that heightens employee awareness of pay governance and elevates expectations of transparency. Third, the sector faces intense competition for specialised talent, including risk analysts, data scientists, and compliance professionals, making talent retention a critical strategic priority (Stofberg et al., 2022). Fourth, despite these dynamics, empirical research on how pay transparency specifically influences retention through justice-mediated pathways in this sector remains limited, creating a clear research opportunity. These contextual factors collectively justify the sector-specific focus and enhance the applied relevance of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData collection and participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected from 464 employees in the South African banking sector, including both full-time and part-time employees. The survey was administered electronically between March 2025 and June 2025, a period characterised by ongoing regulatory reform under the Employment Equity Amendment Act and heightened post-pandemic focus on talent retention in the South African banking sector. All 464 responses were retained for analysis after screening for completeness and response quality (Greszki et al., 2015). A convenience sampling approach was used due to restricted organisational access and the confidentiality requirements typical of financial institutions. This approach is consistent with prior HR research in highly regulated environments (Cohen et al., 2018) and is appropriate when access is constrained. The sample comprised 55.1% female and 44.9% male participants. In terms of age, 56% were aged 18\u0026ndash;29, while the remaining participants were aged 30\u0026ndash;59. Educational qualifications included Degree or Diploma holders (57.5%), Matric certificates (35.9%), and postgraduate qualifications (6.4%). Although convenience sampling limits statistical generalisability, the sample size exceeds recommended thresholds for PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2019) and supports adequate statistical power for the hypothesised model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural justice (PJ) was measured using five items adapted from Moorman's (1991) procedural justice scale, assessing employees' perceptions of fairness in organisational decision-making processes. A sample item is: \"Concerns of all those affected by the decision are heard.\" The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay transparency (PT) was measured using a seven-item scale developed based on Burroughs' (1982) conceptualisation of pay transparency as a continuum of disclosure. The items were aligned with contemporary operationalisations of pay transparency as an organisational communication practice (Stofberg et al., 2022). Sample items include: \"My employer provides information on the salary range for each job or role\" and \"My employer provides information about the actual salaries it pays (e.g., the average per job or role).\" The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.76).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice (DJ) was measured using four items adapted from standard distributive justice scales (Colquitt, 2001) that assessed employees' perceptions of the fairness of compensation outcomes relative to their contributions and peers'. A sample item is: \"My pay reflects the effort I put into my work.\" The scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.82).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTalent retention (TR) was measured using a diagnostic tool developed by Theron (2015), designed to assess factors related to employee retention. The scale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.93).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommon Method Bias\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that data were collected using self-reported measures at a single time point, the potential for common method bias (CMB) was systematically assessed using both procedural and statistical remedies (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Procedural remedies included ensuring full respondent anonymity, clearly communicating voluntary participation, framing survey instructions neutrally to reduce evaluation apprehension, and randomising the order of items across constructs to minimise item-response priming effects. Statistically, Harman's single-factor test was conducted by performing an exploratory factor analysis on all items and examining the variance explained by the first unrotated factor. The largest single factor accounted for 24.3% of total variance, which is below the conventional threshold of 50%, suggesting that CMB is unlikely to pose a significant threat to the validity of the findings (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, full collinearity variance inflation factor (VIF) values were calculated for all constructs following the procedure recommended by Kock (2015). All VIF values were below 3.3 (range: 1.24\u0026ndash;2.94), providing additional evidence that common method bias does not threaten the structural model results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) implemented in SmartPLS 4.0 (Ringle et al., 2022), with 5,000 bootstrap subsamples for inference testing (Hair et al., 2019). PLS-SEM was selected as the analytical strategy for three reasons: (1) it performs well with moderately sized samples typical in organisational research; (2) it is well-suited to testing complex mediation models with multiple endogenous constructs; and (3) it does not assume multivariate normality, making it appropriate for the attitudinal data collected here (Hair et al., 2017; Dash \u0026amp; Paul, 2021). The analysis proceeded in two stages: first, the measurement model was evaluated for reliability and validity; second, the structural model was assessed and hypotheses tested using path coefficients and bootstrapped confidence intervals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthics and Informed Consent\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Johannesburg, Faculty of Management, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management (Ethics Reference Number: IPPM-2023-827) approved in September 2023. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to their completion of the survey instrument. A consent preamble was embedded at the outset of the electronic questionnaire, clearly communicating the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, the right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and the confidentiality and anonymity of all responses. Participants were required to actively indicate their agreement to these conditions before proceeding to the survey items. No data were collected from participants who did not provide consent. Written consent was selected over verbal consent to ensure a documented, auditable record of participant agreement, consistent with the ethical requirements of the University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee and standard practice in quantitative survey-based organisational research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReliability and Validity of the Measurement Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents item-level indicator loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) for all four constructs. All indicator loadings exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.60 (Hair et al., 2019). CR values for all constructs exceeded 0.76, and AVE values exceeded 0.54, confirming convergent validity (Fornell \u0026amp; Larcker, 1981). Cronbach's alpha values are summarised in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e alongside CR and AVE for completeness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasurement model: indicator loadings, composite reliability, and AVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct / Item\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem description (abbreviated)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePay transparency (PT)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployer provides salary range per role\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployer discloses average pay per job\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay criteria are openly communicated\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay structure is clearly explained\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployees can discuss pay openly\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompensation changes are explained\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay equity information is provided\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcedural justice (PJ)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerns of those affected are heard\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay decisions applied consistently\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBias suppressed in pay decisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployees can challenge pay decisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccurate information used for decisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDistributive justice (DJ)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDJ1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay reflects effort I put in\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDJ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay is appropriate for work performed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDJ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay is fair given my responsibilities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDJ4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay is equitable compared to others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTalent retention (TR)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTR1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI intend to stay with this organisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTR2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI see my long-term future here\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTR3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI would recommend working here\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTR4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am committed to this organisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTR5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI plan to remain in this role\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;composite reliability; AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;average variance extracted. All loadings are standardised.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability summary: Cronbach's alpha, CR, and AVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eα\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay transparency (PT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural justice (PJ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice (DJ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTalent retention (TR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Cronbach's alpha; CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;composite reliability; AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;average variance extracted.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait\u0026ndash;monotrait (HTMT) ratio (Henseler et al., 2015). All HTMT values were below the conservative threshold of 0.85 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), confirming that the constructs are empirically distinct and that discriminant validity is established.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity: HTMT ratios\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDJ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay transparency (PT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural justice (PJ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice (DJ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTalent retention (TR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. HTMT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;heterotrait\u0026ndash;monotrait ratio. Values below 0.85 confirm discriminant validity. PT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;pay transparency; PJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;procedural justice; DJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;distributive justice; TR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;talent retention.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and Pearson inter-construct correlations for all study variables. Means ranged from 3.18 (DJ) to 3.56 (TR) on a five-point Likert scale, indicating moderate-to-high levels of all constructs. All bivariate correlations were statistically significant at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, and the pattern of correlations is consistent with the hypothesised model. No correlation exceeded 0.60, suggesting no multicollinearity concerns prior to structural modelling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and inter-construct correlations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. PT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. PJ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. DJ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Pay transparency (PT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.76)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Procedural justice (PJ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.86)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Distributive justice (DJ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Talent retention (TR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.52**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.39**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.33**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;mean; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standard deviation. Values in parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach's alpha coefficients. **p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01 (two-tailed). PT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;pay transparency; PJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;procedural justice; DJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;distributive justice; TR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;talent retention.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStructural Model and Hypothesis Testing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing confirmation of the measurement model's reliability and validity, the structural model was evaluated using the consistent PLS algorithm with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The model was specified such that pay transparency precedes and influences both procedural and distributive justice perceptions, which in turn shape talent retention outcomes. No sequential mediation involving pay transparency as an intervening variable was specified or tested, ensuring full alignment with the conceptual model. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all structural paths were below 3.3, confirming the absence of multicollinearity bias. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e presents the structural model results for all direct effects (H1\u0026ndash;H5). Pay transparency had a significant positive effect on procedural justice (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.131, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.052, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.531, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.011), supporting H1. Pay transparency also had a strong and significant positive effect on distributive justice (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.440, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.051, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.593, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), supporting H2. A significant direct effect of pay transparency on talent retention was found (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.519, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.107, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.834, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), supporting H3. Procedural justice had a significant positive effect on talent retention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.148, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.060, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.473, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013), supporting H4. The direct relationship between distributive justice and talent retention was positive but not statistically significant (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.071, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.118, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.601, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.548), leading to the rejection of H5.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural model results: direct effects (H1\u0026ndash;H5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLLC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eULC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVIF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT \u0026rarr; PJ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.131\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.531\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.227\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT \u0026rarr; DJ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.440\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.051\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.593\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.332\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.519\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.310\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.729\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.148\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.473\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.265\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDJ \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.118\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.601\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.548\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.306\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot supported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. PT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;pay transparency; PJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;procedural justice; DJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;distributive justice; TR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;talent retention. β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standardised path coefficient; SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standard error; LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;lower limit of the 95% bootstrapped confidence interval; ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;upper limit; VIF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;variance inflation factor.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e presents the mediation results (H6\u0026ndash;H7). The bootstrapped indirect effect of pay transparency on talent retention via procedural justice was statistically significant (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.019, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.009, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.100, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.036, 95% CI [0.004, 0.038]), supporting H6. Given that both the direct and indirect effects are significant, this constitutes partial mediation. The indirect effect via distributive justice was not significant (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.031, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.053, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.591, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.554, 95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.068, 0.140]), and H7 was not supported.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediation results: indirect effects (H6\u0026ndash;H7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLLC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eULC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT \u0026rarr; PJ \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePT \u0026rarr; DJ \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.591\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.554\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.068\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot supported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. PT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;pay transparency; PJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;procedural justice; DJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;distributive justice; TR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;talent retention. β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standardised indirect effect; SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standard error; LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;lower limit of 95% bootstrapped CI; ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;upper limit.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e presents indices of model fit and predictive assessment. The SRMR (0.075) and RMSEA (0.076) both fall below recommended thresholds, confirming acceptable model fit. The NFI (0.93) and CFI (0.95) exceeded the minimum criteria. The R\u0026sup2; value for talent retention was 0.298, indicating that the three predictors collectively explained approximately 30% of the variance in retention, a level considered moderate in organisational research (Hair et al., 2019). Predictive relevance was confirmed by Q\u0026sup2; \u0026gt; 0 for the endogenous construct (TR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.092).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel fit and predictive assessment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMetric\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThreshold\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood fit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcceptable fit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood fit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood fit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2; (TR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.298\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u0026ndash;0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate explanatory power\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2; (TR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive relevance established\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. TR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;talent retention; R\u0026sup2; = coefficient of determination; Q\u0026sup2; = predictive relevance (Stone\u0026ndash;Geisser criterion); SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standardised root mean square residual; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;root mean square error of approximation; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;comparative fit index; NFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;normed fit index.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examined how pay transparency influences talent retention, with particular attention to the mediating roles of procedural and distributive justice. These findings should be interpreted within the data collection period (March\u0026ndash;June 2025), a time characterised by post-pandemic workforce stabilisation and heightened regulatory emphasis on pay equity in South Africa. Overall, the findings highlight that employee retention is shaped more by how compensation decisions are made and communicated than by outcomes alone. Pay transparency plays a central role by enhancing clarity and reducing ambiguity, thereby strengthening trust in organisational processes. Procedural justice emerged as a stronger and more consistent predictor of retention than distributive justice, suggesting that employees place greater value on fair and consistent decision-making processes than on outcomes in isolation. Together, these findings reinforce the importance of integrating transparency and procedural fairness as complementary mechanisms in retention strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant positive effect of pay transparency on talent retention (H1 supported; β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.519) is consistent with prior research demonstrating that transparency reduces pay ambiguity, enhances organisational trust, and reinforces commitment (Bamberger, 2023; Pan, 2024; Stofberg et al., 2022). Employees appear to respond more to the clarity and openness of pay practices than to outcomes in isolation, aligning with signalling theory perspectives that position transparency as a credibility-enhancing organisational signal (Cullen, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant effects of pay transparency on both procedural justice (H2; β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.131) and distributive justice (H3; β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.440) confirm that transparency shapes both dimensions of fairness perception, albeit with differential strength. The substantially stronger effect on distributive justice suggests that transparency is particularly effective in enabling outcome-based comparisons, consistent with Equity Theory, which predicts that information access enhances the accuracy of social comparison processes (Adams, 1965). The weaker but still significant effect on procedural justice is consistent with the view that transparency about pay criteria and processes enhances perceptions of consistency and impartiality in decision-making (Tenhi\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant effect of procedural justice on talent retention (H4 supported; β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.148) and the non-significant effect of distributive justice (H5 not supported; β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.071, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.548) present an important and theoretically meaningful pattern. This finding aligns with the \"procedural primacy\" hypothesis advanced within Organisational Justice Theory (Lind \u0026amp; Tyler, 1988; van den Bos et al., 1997), which holds that employees weight process fairness more heavily than outcome fairness when evaluating their relationship with the organisation. In the banking sector specifically, where pay outcomes may be constrained by organisational hierarchy, grade structures, and regulatory bands, employees may have limited capacity to influence outcomes but retain a strong interest in whether the processes determining those outcomes are perceived as fair and transparent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe partial mediation of procedural justice in the pay transparency\u0026ndash;retention relationship (H6 supported; indirect β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.019) indicates that transparency enhances retention both directly and through its enhancement of procedural justice perceptions. The non-significant mediation via distributive justice (H7 not supported) is consistent with the direct effects pattern: since distributive justice does not significantly predict retention after accounting for procedural justice and the direct transparency effect, its indirect path is also non-significant. This finding suggests that, in the banking sector, outcome fairness perceptions, while positively influenced by transparency, do not directly translate into retention intentions, possibly because outcome judgements alone are insufficient to drive the trust and commitment that underpin long-term retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe non-significant serial mediation path also warrants a theoretical explanation. In the original model specification, no serial mediation was hypothesised; however, the empirical evidence is consistent with a parallel rather than a sequential justice-processing model. Drawing on Colquitt et al.'s (2013) meta-analytic findings and Ambrose and Cropanzano's (2003) theoretical work on the formation of justice perceptions, we argue that when employees are exposed to a transparency stimulus, procedural and distributive justice evaluations are activated simultaneously and independently, not in a causal sequence. Transparency provides information relevant to both process- and outcome-fairness judgements. This parallel activation means that a sequential mediation chain, in which one justice dimension precedes and causes the other, is theoretically implausible in transparency contexts and is consistent with the observed non-significant serial path. Future research could test this parallel processing mechanism using experimental designs that manipulate transparency disclosures and measure real-time justice cognitions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical and Practical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study makes several theoretically distinct contributions to the literature on pay transparency, organisational justice, and talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the study extends Social Exchange Theory by empirically demonstrating that pay transparency serves as a specific exchange-enabling antecedent that activates procedural justice perceptions, which in turn generate the trust and reciprocity underlying talent retention. Prior applications of Social Exchange Theory in HRM have focused broadly on HR practices and perceived organisational support; the present study provides a more precise model of how a specific pay communication practice initiates the exchange cycle that leads to retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the study refines Organisational Justice Theory by demonstrating that procedural and distributive justice operate as independent, parallel mechanisms in response to transparency, rather than as sequential processes. This finding challenges studies that treat organisational justice as a unidimensional construct or that assume a sequential relationship between procedural and distributive justice (e.g., Segbenya et al., 2023). The disaggregated parallel mediation model provides a more theoretically precise and empirically accurate account of how justice dimensions mediate the transparency\u0026ndash;retention relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the study provides the first empirically tested model of the linkages between pay transparency, justice, and retention in the South African private banking sector. The sector's unique combination of statutory pay transparency obligations, competitive talent markets, and generationally diverse workforces makes it a particularly important context for testing these mechanisms. The findings add to a growing body of contextualised justice research in emerging market environments (Kee \u0026amp; Chung, 2021; Zhao, 2024) and highlight the importance of sector-specific theory development in HRM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth, by applying PLS-SEM to test complex parallel mediation pathways with a banking sector sample, the study responds to calls for more methodologically rigorous tests of transparency-justice models in non-Western contexts (Hair et al., 2019). The parallel mediation specification, supported by adequate fit indices and significant bootstrapped indirect effects, represents a methodological advance over prior single-mediator models in this literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings have several actionable implications for HR practitioners in the banking sector and beyond. First, the strong direct effect of pay transparency on retention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.519) confirms that investment in transparent pay communication strategies, including published salary bands, accessible pay criteria, and clear communication of pay review processes, is a meaningful lever for retention, particularly among younger employees (Millennials and Generation Z) who place high value on openness and fairness (Ng et al., 2010; Deloitte, 2023). Second, the partial mediation via procedural justice suggests that organisations should prioritise not only what is disclosed but also how pay decisions are made and communicated. Training HR managers in consistent, unbiased, and transparent pay decision-making processes is likely to generate both procedural justice perceptions and downstream retention benefits. Third, the non-significant effect of distributive justice on retention suggests that outcome-based pay adjustments alone are insufficient to retain employees if the processes governing those adjustments are not perceived as fair and transparent. Organisations that increase pay without improving transparency risk sub-optimal retention outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Directions for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the use of cross-sectional data limits the ability to make causal inferences about the mediation pathways. While the findings are consistent with the hypothesised directional relationships, the cross-sectional design does not permit establishing temporal precedence. This is a recognised limitation of mediation analysis based on cross-sectional data (Hayes, 2013), and future research should employ longitudinal or experience-sampling designs to strengthen causal inference. Second, the sample was drawn from the South African banking sector using convenience sampling, which constrains generalisability to other industries, cultural contexts, and sampling populations. Replication across other sectors and countries is recommended to assess the model's boundary conditions. Third, despite the procedural and statistical remedies applied, the use of self-reported measures collected at a single time point remains a potential limitation. Future research could address this concern by using multi-source designs that incorporate manager or HR-system data on actual pay practices alongside employee perceptions. Fourth, this study focused on procedural and distributive justice; future research could examine whether informational justice (fairness of explanations provided) and interpersonal justice (respectful treatment in pay communication) further mediate or moderate the transparency\u0026ndash;retention relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the critical role of pay transparency and organisational justice in talent retention. While fair outcomes alone do not strongly influence retention in the banking sector, transparent and consistently applied pay communication processes significantly enhance employees' procedural justice perceptions, which, in turn, promote commitment and reduce turnover. The parallel mediation model, in which procedural and distributive justice operate as independent mechanisms linking transparency to retention, provides a theoretically precise and empirically supported account of these dynamics. For practitioners, the findings underscore the importance of designing transparent pay systems that foster procedural fairness, trust, and the psychological contract necessary to retain talented employees. For scholars, the study contributes empirical evidence and theoretical precision to the growing literature on pay transparency, organisational justice, and retention, and identifies a set of boundary conditions and future directions for this important research agenda.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDisclosure of Interest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe author declares that there are no competing interests to disclose. This research was conducted independently and received no commercial, financial, or personal benefit from any third party that could be construed as influencing the findings, interpretation, or conclusions reported in this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eContributed to the entire mansuctript\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Abdullahi, M., Abdullahi, M. S., \u0026amp; Suleiman, Y. (2024). Organisational justice and employee retention: The mediating role of job satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Human Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(5), 422\u0026ndash;436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eAdvances in experimental social psychology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2, pp. 267\u0026ndash;299). Academic Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Aman-Ullah, A. Aziz, H. Ibrahim, W. Mehmood, and A. Aman-Ullah, \".e Role of Compensation in Shaping Employee's Behaviour: A Mediation Study .rough Job Satisfaction During the Covid-19 Pandemic,\" \u003cem\u003eRevista De Gestao\u003c/em\u003e 30, no. 2 (2023): 221\u0026ndash;236.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Aman-Ullah, A., Aziz, A., Ibrahim, H., \u0026amp; Mehmood, W. (2023). Strategic HRM practices and employee retention: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 100895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100895\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Arnold, A., Fulmer, I. S., Sender, A., Allen, D. G., \u0026amp; Staffelbach, B. (2018). Variable pay transparency in organisations. \u003cem\u003eCompensation \u0026amp; Benefits Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 68\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368718792160\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Avdul, D. N., Martin, W. M., \u0026amp; Lopez, Y. P. (2024). Pay transparency: Why it is important to be thoughtful and strategic. \u003cem\u003eCompensation \u0026amp; Benefits Review, 56\u003c/em\u003e(2), 103\u0026ndash;116. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231181454\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Awwad, A. S., \u0026amp; Adaileh, M. J. (2025). Compensation fairness and turnover intention: The mediating role of organisational justice. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Human Resource Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Awwad, M. S., \u0026amp; Adaileh, A. M. (2025). Exploring perceived organisational justice in the healthcare sector: Insights from an Arab cultural perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Nursing Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2025\u003c/em\u003e, Article 7166487. https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/7166487\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Baker, M., Halberstam, Y., Kroft, K., \u0026amp; Mas, A. (2023). Pay transparency and the gender wage gap. \u003cem\u003eQuarterly Journal of Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e138\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;52. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac032\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Baker, M., Halberstam, Y., Kroft, K., Mas, A., \u0026amp; Messacar, D. (2023). Pay transparency and the gender gap. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 15(2), 157\u0026ndash;183.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Bamberger, P. (2023). \u003cem\u003eExposing pay: Pay transparency and what it means for employees, employers, and public policy\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197628164.001.0001\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Bamberger, P. A. (2023). Pay transparency and employee outcomes. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 259\u0026ndash;287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-043133\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Bangsu, M., Darmawan, D., Hardyansah, R., Suwito, S., \u0026amp; Mujito, M. (2023). The implications of remuneration, procedural justice principles, and work environment factors on employee retention rate. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 26\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Blau, P. M. (1964). \u003cem\u003eExchange and power in social life\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Brown, M., Bamberger, P., Bliese, P. D., \u0026amp; Shields, J. (2023). Fairness uncertainty and pay information exchange: Why and when employees disclose bonus pay to pay information websites. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(9), 1362\u0026ndash;1379. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2739\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Brown, M., Nyberg, A. J., \u0026amp; Weller, I. (2023). Pay transparency: Conceptual boundaries and future research directions. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Brown, M., Nyberg, A. J., Weller, I., \u0026amp; Strizver, S. D. (2022). Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy\u0026ndash;pay transparency continuum. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1661\u0026ndash;1694.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Brown, M., Nyberg, A. J., Weller, I., \u0026amp; Strizver, S. D. (2022). Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy\u0026ndash;pay transparency continuum. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1661\u0026ndash;1694. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221079249\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Burroughs, J. E. (1982). Pay secrecy and pay disclosure: A motivational perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(3), 318\u0026ndash;324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.318\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Cohen, L., Manion, L., \u0026amp; Morrison, K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods in education\u003c/em\u003e (8th ed.). Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organisational justice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(3), 386\u0026ndash;400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., \u0026amp; Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organisational justice? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 874\u0026ndash;900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., \u0026amp; Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e98\u003c/em\u003e(2), 199\u0026ndash;236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Cropanzano, R., \u0026amp; Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 874\u0026ndash;900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Cullen, Z. (2023). Pay transparency laws and labor market outcomes. \u003cem\u003eILR Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e(2), 453\u0026ndash;489. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221108917\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Cullen, Z. B., \u0026amp; Pakzad-Hurson, B. (2023). Equilibrium effects of pay transparency. Econometrica, 91(3), 765\u0026ndash;802.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Dash, G., \u0026amp; Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Market Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320915687\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Deloitte. (2023). \u003cem\u003eGlobal Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2023\u003c/em\u003e. Deloitte Insights.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Downes, P. E., \u0026amp; Choi, D. (2014). Employee reactions to pay dispersion. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organisational Behaviour\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(6), 841\u0026ndash;864. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1938\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Gerhart, B., \u0026amp; Rynes, S. (2003). \u003cem\u003eCompensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Greenberg, J. (1990). Organisational justice. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 399\u0026ndash;432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308272\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Greszki, R., Meyer, M., \u0026amp; Schoen, H. (2015). The impact of speeding on data quality. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Survey Statistics and Methodology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 321\u0026ndash;345. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smv012\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., \u0026amp; Nitzl, C. (2021). Assessing mediation in PLS-SEM. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial Management \u0026amp; Data Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e121\u003c/em\u003e(3), 685\u0026ndash;701. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2020-0403\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., \u0026amp; Sarstedt, M. (2017). \u003cem\u003eA primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM)\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., \u0026amp; Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use PLS-SEM. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Business Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Hayes, A. F. (2013). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., \u0026amp; Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e102\u003c/em\u003e(3), 530\u0026ndash;545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Kee, H. J., \u0026amp; Chung, Y. W. (2021). Organisational justice and turnover intention. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Manpower\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(5), 831\u0026ndash;846. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0452\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Le H, Lee J, Nielsen I, Nguyen TLA (2023), \"Turnover intentions: the roles of job satisfaction and family support\". \u003cem\u003ePersonnel Review\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 52 No. 9 pp. 2209\u0026ndash;2228, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2021-0582\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Le, H., Newman, A., Menzies, J., Zheng, C., \u0026amp; Fermelis, J. (2023). Work design and retention. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 244\u0026ndash;262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12433\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Marasi, S., \u0026amp; Bennett, R. J. (2016). Pay communication. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 331\u0026ndash;345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.07.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Martucci, W. M., Lopez, Y. P., \u0026amp; Avdul, D. N. (2022). Salary history bans and pay equity. \u003cem\u003eCompensation \u0026amp; Benefits Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(3), 130\u0026ndash;143. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687221084591\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Martucci, W.C., McMurray, L.R., Simsheuser, J. (2022). Pay transparency: The trend all employers should be anticipating. Labor Law Journal, 73(3), 180\u0026ndash;185.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organisational justice and OCB. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e(6), 845\u0026ndash;855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., \u0026amp; Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business and Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 281\u0026ndash;292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Nyberg, A. J., Cragun, O. R., Conroy, S. A., \u0026amp; Weller, I. (2024). Artificial intelligence and pay information disclosure: Changing how pay is communicated. \u003cem\u003eCompensation \u0026amp; Benefits Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(2), 58\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Nyberg, A. J., Weller, I., \u0026amp; Brown, M. (2024). Pay transparency and workforce outcomes. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Obloj, T., \u0026amp; Zenger, T. (2022). Pay transparency and pay equality. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1164\u0026ndash;1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221077543\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Obloj, T., \u0026amp; Zenger, T. (2022). The influence of pay transparency on (gender) inequity, inequality and the performance basis of pay. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(5), 646\u0026ndash;655.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Pan, J. (2024). Pay transparency and employee trust. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 100917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100917\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Rajasekar, S., Philominathan, P., \u0026amp; Chinnathambi, V. (2013). Research methodology. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Research in Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Robson, N. S. (2024). \u003cem\u003ePredictive Relationship Between Organisational Attractiveness and Pay Information Transparency Among Millennials and Gen-Z\u003c/em\u003e. Grand Canyon University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Rousseau, D. M. (1995). \u003cem\u003ePsychological contracts in organisations\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Rubenstein, A. L., Eberly, M. B., Lee, T. W., \u0026amp; Mitchell, T. R. (2018). Surveying the forest. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 231\u0026ndash;274. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0034\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Saunders, M., Lewis, P., \u0026amp; Thornhill, A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods for business students\u003c/em\u003e (8th ed.). Pearson.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Segbenya, M., Ofei, S. B., \u0026amp; Lamptey, Y. (2023). Compensation transparency and justice perceptions. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Economic and Management Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 452\u0026ndash;468. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-02-2022-0091\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Siman-Tov-Nachlieli, I., \u0026amp; Bamberger, P. A. (2021). The effect of transparency on pay perceptions. \u003cem\u003eOrganisation Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1014\u0026ndash;1035. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1414\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Stofberg, R., Bussin, M., \u0026amp; Mabaso, C. M. (2022). \u003cem\u003ePay transparency, job turnover intentions and the mediating role of perceived organisational support and organisational justice\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eEmployee Relations, 44\u003c/em\u003e(7), 162\u0026ndash;182. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2022-0077\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Stofberg, R., Mabaso, C. M., \u0026amp; Bussin, M. H. R. (2022). \u003cem\u003eEmployee responses to pay transparency\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eSA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 48\u003c/em\u003e, Article a1906. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v48i0.1906\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Tenhi\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;, A., Chung, D. J., \u0026amp; Park, T. Y. (2024). Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. \u003cem\u003eCompensation \u0026amp; Benefits Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(2), 83\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Tenhial\u0026auml;, A., Chung, D. J., \u0026amp; Park, T.-Y. (2024). Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. \u003cem\u003eCompensation \u0026amp; Benefits Review, 56\u003c/em\u003e(2), 83\u0026ndash;102. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231216135\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Tenhi\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;, A., Lepp\u0026auml;nen, A., \u0026amp; Perttula, J. (2023). Pay transparency regulation and organisations. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial Relations Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(4), 386\u0026ndash;404. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12386\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Theron, C. (2015). \u003cem\u003eEmployee retention diagnostic instrument\u003c/em\u003e. University of Pretoria.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., \u0026amp; Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1034\u0026ndash;1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Zhao, S. (2024). Organisational justice and turnover intention among workers. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1345621\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Pay transparency, talent retention, procedural justice, distributive justice, social exchange theory, South Africa","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9238083/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9238083/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePay transparency has gained prominence as a strategic human resource practice aimed at addressing pay inequities and wage disparities; however, the mechanisms through which transparency influences employee retention remain insufficiently understood, particularly in generationally diverse workforces. The present study investigated the direct and indirect effects of pay transparency on talent retention, with a specific focus on the mediating roles of procedural and distributive justice. A quantitative, cross-sectional research design was employed, drawing on survey data from 464 employees in the South African banking sector. Data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) via SmartPLS 4.0, with 5,000 bootstrap samples, to test direct relationships and parallel mediation effects among pay transparency, procedural justice, distributive justice, and talent retention. The results revealed that pay transparency has a significant positive effect on talent retention. Pay transparency was further found to positively influence both procedural justice and distributive justice, highlighting its role in shaping fairness perceptions. Procedural justice partially mediated the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention, whereas distributive justice did not. The hypothesised serial mediation pathway was not supported, suggesting that procedural and distributive justice operate as independent parallel mechanisms rather than sequentially. These findings extend Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory by clarifying how justice-based mechanisms translate transparent pay practices into retention outcomes. From a practical perspective, the study demonstrates that organisations can enhance talent retention through transparent, procedurally fair pay systems, particularly for retaining younger workforce cohorts who value openness and fairness.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Mediating Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Relationship Between Pay Transparency and Talent Retention","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-08 11:25:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9238083/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7ce63b9f-5bc2-4d45-b96f-fb40f132703c","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 8th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T23:53:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-08 11:25:13","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9238083","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9238083","identity":"rs-9238083","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}