Pay transparency talent retention and the mediating effects of procedural justice and distributive justice

Pay transparency talent retention and the mediating effects of procedural justice and distributive justice | 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 Pay transparency talent retention and the mediating effects of procedural justice and distributive justice Calvin Mabaso This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658347/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) to test direct relationships and parallel and sequential mediation effects among procedural justice, distributive justice, pay transparency, and talent retention. The results revealed that pay transparency has a significant positive effect on talent retention. Procedural justice was found to positively influence both distributive justice and pay transparency and to exert a partial indirect effect on retention through these mechanisms. Distributive justice fully mediated the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention, underscoring the central role of fairness perceptions in shaping employee commitment. The hypothesised serial mediation pathway was not supported, suggesting that justice perceptions and transparency operate in parallel rather than sequentially. These findings extend Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory by clarifying how fairness-based mechanisms translate transparent pay practices into retention outcomes. From a practical perspective, the study demonstrates that organisations can enhance talent retention not only through equitable compensation outcomes but also through transparent and procedurally fair pay systems, with particular relevance for retaining younger workforce cohorts who value openness and fairness. Pay Transparency Talent Retention Procedural Justice Distributive Justice and Organisational Justice 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 disclosing some aspects of pay information to employees, has become a key strategy to address pay discrimination and reduce 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, 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 ). Beyond its role in promoting fairness, pay transparency is increasingly viewed as a strategic HRM tool that can influence workplace attitudes and behaviours (Bamberger, 2023 ; Pan, 2024 ). It encompasses not only disclosure of pay practices and structures, but also ensures employees are empowered to discuss compensation openly (Arnold et al., 2018 ). However, despite growing adoption, the link between pay transparency and retention is neither simple nor universally positive. 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 ). 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 mediating role of organisational justice perceptions remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining how procedural and distributive justice mediate the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention. By explaining these fairness-based mechanisms, the study offers insights into how organisations can design transparent reward systems that strengthen trust, reinforce perceptions of fairness, and enhance talent retention in an increasingly competitive and transparency-driven labour market. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development 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 ). At the organisational level, pay transparency refers to the extent to which employers openly communicate information about pay structures, decision-making criteria, and pay outcomes to employees through internal systems and sources (Bamberger, 2023 ; Pan, 2024 ; Stofberg et al., 2022 a, 2022 b). In parallel, talent retention has become a strategic priority due to the escalating costs of employee turnover and the importance of retaining high-performing employees (Aman-Ullah et al., 2023 ; Kee & Chung, 2021 ; Le et al., 2023 ). Transparent pay practices may reduce uncertainty, strengthen trust in management, and signal organisational integrity, thereby fostering stronger psychological attachment and willingness to remain with the organisation (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Bamberger, 2023 ; Pan, 2024 ). From this perspective, pay transparency is expected to directly improve talent retention. H3 Pay transparency has a positive effect on talent retention. Organisational Justice as a Fairness Framework Organisational Justice Theory provides a central framework for understanding how perceptions of fairness influence employee attitudes and behaviours (Greenberg, 1990 ). Justice perceptions are commonly conceptualised along multiple dimensions, with procedural justice and distributive justice being particularly salient in compensation contexts (Colquitt, 2001 ; Marasi & Bennett, 2016 ). Procedural justice refers to employees' perceptions of the fairness of the processes used to make decisions, including whether those processes are consistent, unbiased, ethical, and transparent (Colquitt, 2001 ). In pay systems, procedural justice refers to whether employees believe compensation decisions are based on clear, consistently applied criteria. Extensive research indicates that procedural justice is a strong predictor of organisational trust, commitment, and reduced turnover intentions (Colquitt, 2001 ; Greenberg, 1990 ; Kee & Chung, 2021 ). Distributive justice, in contrast, concerns perceptions of the fairness of outcomes themselves, such as salaries, bonuses, and pay increases, typically evaluated through social comparisons and equity assessments (Adams, 1965 ). When employees perceive pay outcomes as equitable relative to their inputs and those of referent others, they are more likely to experience satisfaction and remain committed to the organisation. Based on these theoretical arguments, both procedural and distributive justice are expected to influence talent retention directly. H1 Distributive justice has a positive effect on talent retention. H4 Procedural justice has a positive effect on talent retention. Procedural Justice as an Antecedent of Distributive Justice and Pay Transparency Procedural justice is theorised to serve as a foundational fairness signal that shapes how employees interpret both outcomes and organisational communication. Fair decision-making processes legitimise outcomes and reduce perceptions of arbitrariness, thereby strengthening perceptions of distributive justice (Colquitt, 2001 ; Greenberg, 1990 ; van den Bos et al., 1997 ). In compensation contexts, employees who trust the fairness of pay-setting procedures are more likely to perceive pay allocations as equitable, even when outcomes differ across individuals. Accordingly, procedural justice is expected to predict distributive justice positively. H5 Procedural justice has a positive effect on distributive justice. Procedural justice is also expected to influence perceptions of pay transparency. Transparent communication of pay information is more likely to be perceived as credible and legitimate when employees believe that underlying decision-making processes are fair and unbiased (Bamberger, 2023 ; Colquitt, 2001 ). Under conditions of uncertainty, employees may rely on procedural fairness as a heuristic for evaluating the trustworthiness of pay disclosures (van den Bos et al., 1997 ; Hartmann & Slapničar, 2012). Thus, procedural justice is hypothesised to predict pay transparency positively. H6 Procedural justice has a positive effect on pay transparency. Distributive Justice and Pay Transparency Distributive justice may further shape how employees interpret and respond to pay transparency initiatives. When pay outcomes are perceived as fair, transparency is more likely to reinforce trust and acceptance of the pay system. Conversely, when outcomes are perceived as inequitable, transparency may amplify dissatisfaction by revealing disparities (Segbenya et al., 2023 ; Stofberg et al., 2022 a, 2022 b). In this study's theoretical logic, distributive justice is expected to be positively associated with perceived pay transparency. H2 Distributive justice has a positive effect on pay transparency. Justice Perceptions as Mediating Mechanisms Drawing on Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory, justice perceptions can be understood as psychological mechanisms through which HR practices influence employee attitudes and behavioural intentions (Adams, 1965 ; Blau, 1964 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ). Fair treatment represents an organisational investment that employees are likely to reciprocate through loyalty and continued membership. Procedural justice is expected to influence talent retention indirectly by shaping both distributive justice and pay transparency. Fair procedures legitimise outcomes and enhance acceptance of pay-related information, which in turn strengthens employees' attachment to the organisation (Bamberger, 2023 ; van den Bos et al., 1997 ). Distributive justice and pay transparency, therefore, function as mediators that transmit the effects of procedural fairness to retention outcomes. H7 Distributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention. H8 Distributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention through a direct-only pathway. H9 Pay transparency mediates the relationship between distributive justice and talent retention. H10 Pay transparency mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention. H11 Distributive justice and pay transparency sequentially mediate the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention. Conceptual Model Specification Figure 1 presents the conceptual model tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). Procedural justice is specified as the primary exogenous construct, reflecting its foundational role in shaping fairness perceptions within compensation systems. Distributive justice and pay transparency are modelled as endogenous mediating constructs, while talent retention represents the final endogenous outcome variable. The model specifies direct paths from procedural justice to distributive justice, pay transparency, and talent retention, reflecting the assumption that fair decision-making processes influence both outcome fairness and retention intentions. Distributive justice and pay transparency are further modelled as direct predictors of talent retention, allowing for the assessment of partial and full mediation effects. In addition, the model includes both parallel mediation pathways (procedural justice → distributive justice → talent retention; procedural justice → pay transparency → talent retention) and a sequential mediation pathway (procedural justice → distributive justice → pay transparency → talent retention). All constructs are specified as reflective latent variables, each measured by its respective indicators, consistent with organisational justice and HRM research conventions. Research Method A quantitative research method was adopted for the study (Saunders et al., 2019 ), and the data are presented numerically, non-descriptively, iteratively, and conclusively (Rajasekar et al., 2013 ), aligned with the purpose and objectives of this study. In line with the study's philosophy, the quantitative method is associated with positivism and is deductive, with data collected and analysed to test the study's theory (Saunders et al., 2019 ). Data collection and participants Data were collected from 464 employees in the South African banking sector, including both full-time and part-time employees. All 464 responses were retained for analysis. A convenience sampling approach was used due to restricted organisational access and the confidentiality requirements typical of financial institutions. This approach enabled data collection within operational and ethical constraints and is consistent with prior HR research conducted in highly regulated environments (Cohen et al., 2018 ; Greszki, Meyer, & Schoen, 2015 ). Although convenience sampling limits statistical generalisability, it allows for the capture of authentic employee perceptions in a sensitive, tightly controlled context, thereby enhancing the practical relevance of the findings. 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%). Measures Procedural justice (PJ). Procedural justice 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 in the present study (Cronbach's α = 0.86). Pay transparency (PT). Pay transparency was measured using a seven-item scale developed based on Burroughs' (1982) conceptualisation of pay transparency as a continuum. The items were aligned with contemporary operationalisations of pay transparency, including those proposed by 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 in this study (Cronbach's α = 0.76). Talent retention. Talent retention was measured using a diagnostic tool developed by Theron ( 2015 ), designed to assess factors related to employee turnover and retention. The scale showed excellent internal consistency in the current study (Cronbach's α = 0.93). The structural model and hypothesis testing Following confirmation of the measurement model's reliability and validity, the structural model was evaluated using the consistent Partial Least Squares (PLS) algorithm with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The structural model was evaluated using bootstrapped direct and indirect effects, allowing for the simultaneous assessment of direct relationships, parallel mediation, and sequential mediation pathways in line with contemporary PLS-SEM guidelines (Hair et al., 2017 ; Hair et al., 2019 ). Variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below the recommended threshold of 5, indicating that multicollinearity did not bias the regression estimates. Hypothesis testing was conducted at the 95% confidence level (α = 0.05), and statistical significance was assessed using bootstrapped confidence intervals. Hypotheses H1 to H6 were tested using direct path coefficients, as summarised in Table 1 . In addition, the model is shown in Fig. 2 Hypothesis Relationship Beta SE t value p-value LLC ULC VIF H1 Distributive Justice → Talent Retention 0.071 0.118 0.601 0.548 -0.152 0.306 2.878 H2 Distributive Justice → Pay Transparency 0.440 0.051 8.593 0.000 0.332 0.536 1.240 H3 Pay Transparency → Talent Retention 0.519 0.107 4.834 0.000 0.310 0.729 2.939 H4 Procedural Justice → Talent Retention 0.148 0.060 2.473 0.013 0.028 0.265 1.290 H5 Procedural justice → Distributive Justice 0.440 0.051 8.593 0.000 0.332 0.536 1.000 H6 Procedural Justice → Pay Transparency 0.131 0.052 2.531 0.011 0.024 0.227 1.240 Notes : DJ = distributive justice; PJ = procedural justice; PT = pay transparency; TR = talent retention. The results indicate that the direct relationship between distributive justice and talent retention was positive but statistically insignificant (β = 0.071, SE = 0.118, t = 0.601, LLC = − 0.152, ULC = 0.306, p > 0.05). Thus, H1 was rejected . Support was found for H2 , demonstrating a statistically significant positive relationship between distributive justice and pay transparency (β = 0.440, SE = 0.051, t = 8.593, LLC = 0.332, ULC = 0.536, p < 0.05). H3 was also supported, indicating that pay transparency has a strong positive effect on talent retention (β = 0.519, SE = 0.107, t = 4.834, LLC = 0.310, ULC = 0.729, p < 0.05). Furthermore, H4 was validated, showing a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and talent retention (β = 0.148, SE = 0.060, t = 2.473, LLC = 0.028, ULC = 0.265, p < 0.05). H5 was supported, confirming that procedural justice positively influences distributive justice (β = 0.440, SE = 0.051, t = 8.593, LLC = 0.332, ULC = 0.536, p < 0.05). Finally, H6 was validated, indicating that procedural justice positively predicts pay transparency (β = 0.131, SE = 0.052, t = 2.531, LLC = 0.024, ULC = 0.227, p < 0.05). Mediation analysis Mediation analysis was conducted using bootstrapped indirect effects, as presented in Table 2 . H7 was supported, indicating that distributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention (β = 0.328, SE = 0.042, t = 7.765, LLC = 0.248, ULC = 0.416, p < 0.05). In contrast, H8 was rejected, as distributive justice did not mediate the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention through a direct-only pathway (β = 0.031, SE = 0.053, t = 0.591, LLC = − 0.068, ULC = 0.140, p > 0.05). Support was found for H9 , showing that pay transparency mediates the relationship between distributive justice and talent retention (β = 0.387, SE = 0.087, t = 4.468, LLC = 0.228, ULC = 0.567, p < 0.05). H10 was also validated, demonstrating that pay transparency partially mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention (β = 0.068, SE = 0.029, t = 2.363, LLC = 0.017, ULC = 0.132, p < 0.05). Finally, H11 , which proposed a serial mediation effect of distributive justice and pay transparency in the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention, was not supported (β = 0.170, SE = 0.043, t = 0.900, LLC = − 0.271, ULC = 0.100, p > 0.05). Table 2 Hypothesis with indirect effects summary Hypothesis Relationship Beta SE t value p-value LLC ULC Mediation type H7 PJ → DJ → TR 0.328 0.042 7.765 0.000 0.248 0.416 Partial H8 PJ → DJ → TR 0.031 0.053 0.591 0.554 -0.068 0.140 No mediation H9 DJ → PT → TR 0.387 0.087 4.468 0.000 0.228 0.567 Full H10 PJ → PT → TR 0.068 0.029 2.363 0.018 0.017 0.132 Partial H11 PJ → DJ → PT → TR 0.170 0.043 0.900 0.900 -0.271 0.100 No mediation Both direct and indirect effects were significant for H7 and H10, indicating partial mediation . Full mediation was observed for H9 , as the indirect effect was significant while the direct path was insignificant. No mediation was established for H8 and H11 due to non-significant indirect effects (Hair et al., 2021 ). Model fit assessment and model evaluation Model fit indices indicate an acceptable overall fit. The CMIN/df value was 3.53, the SRMR was 0.075, and the RMSEA was 0.076, all of which fall below recommended thresholds. The NFI (0.93) and CFI (0.95) exceeded the minimum criteria, confirming satisfactory model fit (Dash & Paul, 2021 ). The R² values for talent retention, distributive justice, and pay transparency were 0.298, 0.194, and 0.660, respectively, indicating weak to moderate explanatory power. Predictive relevance was further supported by Q² values exceeding zero for all endogenous constructs (TR = 0.092; DJ = 0.13; PT = 0.16), demonstrating adequate predictive capability (Hair et al., 2017 ). Results and Discussion This study explored how pay transparency and organisational justice influence talent retention, with a particular focus on the mediating roles of distributive and procedural justice. The findings highlight that employee retention is shaped not only by fair outcomes but also, critically, by the transparency and fairness of the processes that determine those outcomes. Starting with the direct relationships, distributive justice, the perceived fairness of outcomes, was positively related to talent retention, but this effect was not statistically significant. This suggests that while employees value equitable outcomes, fair outcomes alone may not strongly drive retention. In contrast, pay transparency emerged as a key predictor of retention, showing a significant positive effect. Employees appear to respond more to clarity and openness in pay practices than to outcomes in isolation, which aligns with research emphasising the role of transparency in building trust and commitment (Bamberger, 2023 ; Pan, 2024 ; Stofberg et al., 2022 ). Procedural justice, the perceived fairness of decision-making processes, also significantly influenced retention, albeit to a lesser extent than pay transparency. Procedural justice further had a strong positive impact on both distributive justice and pay transparency. These findings suggest that fair and transparent processes serve as the foundation for perceptions of outcome fairness and overall organisational transparency. When employees trust that pay decisions are made consistently and without bias, they are more likely to perceive both the outcomes and the system itself as just, reinforcing the psychological contract between employer and employee (Colquitt, 2001 ; Greenberg, 1990 ; Rousseau, 1995 ). The mediation analysis provides additional insights into these dynamics. Distributive justice partially mediated the relationship between procedural justice and retention, indicating that fair processes influence retention indirectly by shaping perceptions of fair outcomes. Pay transparency fully mediated the effect of distributive justice on retention, highlighting that employees' recognition of fair outcomes translates into retention primarily when those outcomes are communicated transparently. Procedural justice also partially influenced retention through pay transparency, underscoring that transparent communication acts as a critical mechanism linking fair processes to retention outcomes. However, the proposed serial mediation, in which procedural justice influences distributive justice, which, in turn, affects pay transparency and ultimately retention, was not supported. This suggests that while both justice perceptions and transparency are important, they likely operate in parallel rather than as a simple sequential chain. Taken together, these results reinforce key theoretical perspectives. Social Exchange Theory helps explain why transparency and fairness promote retention: transparent pay practices signal trust and respect, which employees reciprocate with commitment and loyalty (Blau, 1964 ; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ). Equity Theory adds a cognitive lens, illustrating that employees evaluate their compensation relative to peers and that transparency allows for more accurate assessments of fairness (Adams, 1965 ). Organisational Justice Theory further clarifies how perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness shape employees' responses to compensation systems (Colquitt, 2001 ; Greenberg, 1990 ). The findings suggest that transparent and fair pay practices work synergistically, reinforcing each other to create a strong psychological sense of justice that promotes retention. From a practical standpoint, the study highlights several implications for organisations. First, fair outcomes, while necessary, are not sufficient to retain talented employees; they need to understand how decisions are made. Transparent communication about pay structures, decision criteria, and internal equity benchmarks enhances perceptions of procedural and distributive justice, fostering trust and loyalty. Second, investment in consistent and unbiased processes, coupled with transparent reporting, can strengthen retention, particularly among younger employees who place a high value on openness and fairness (Ng et al., 2010 ; Deloitte, 2023 ). Finally, the partial mediation effects suggest that organisations should consider justice perceptions and transparency as complementary tools rather than relying on either in isolation. In summary, the study demonstrates that the pathway from procedural and distributive justice to retention is primarily influenced by pay transparency. Transparent practices amplify the positive effects of fair outcomes and processes, helping organisations build trust, strengthen psychological contracts, and reduce turnover. These findings contribute to theory by clarifying the mechanisms linking fairness and transparency to retention and provide actionable guidance for HR practitioners seeking to design equitable and transparent reward systems in today's increasingly transparent work environment. Implications The findings of this study have several practical and theoretical implications. For practice , organisations aiming to retain talent should prioritise both transparent pay systems and fair decision-making processes. Simply providing equitable outcomes is not enough; employees need to understand how pay decisions are made and feel confident that processes are applied consistently. Transparent communication about pay structures, salary ranges, and decision criteria can strengthen perceptions of both distributive and procedural justice, enhancing trust and commitment. Human resource managers should also recognise that transparency is particularly influential among younger employees, such as Millennials and Generation Z, who value openness, fairness, and ethical leadership. By integrating transparent practices with fair procedures, organisations can build stronger psychological contracts with employees and reduce turnover risk. For theory , this study contributes to understanding the mechanisms linking pay transparency and retention. It demonstrates that procedural and distributive justice act as essential mediators, with transparency amplifying their effects on retention. This supports the integration of Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory to explain how employees evaluate organisational fairness and respond through retention behaviour. The partial and full mediation effects identified in this study provide evidence that fairness and transparency should be considered jointly rather than in isolation when studying HR practices. Limitations Despite these contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the use of cross-sectional data limits the ability to make causal inferences. While the findings suggest relationships among pay transparency, justice perceptions, and retention, longitudinal studies would provide stronger evidence of causal effects. Second, the sample was drawn from the banking sector in South Africa, which may limit generalisability to other industries or cultural contexts. Organisational practices, employee expectations, and regulatory environments differ across sectors and countries, so replication in other contexts is recommended. Third, the study relied on self-reported measures, which may introduce common method bias despite the use of validated scales and statistical controls. Finally, while this study focused on procedural and distributive justice, other dimensions of organisational justice, such as interpersonal or informational justice, may also influence employee retention and merit future investigation. Conclusion This study highlights the critical role of pay transparency and organisational justice in retaining talent. While fair outcomes alone may not strongly influence retention, transparent, consistently applied processes significantly enhance employees' perceptions of fairness, which, in turn, promote commitment and reduce turnover. Distributive and procedural justice act as key mechanisms linking pay transparency to retention, with transparency amplifying the effects of fairness perceptions. For practitioners, these findings underscore the importance of integrating transparency and fairness into compensation strategies to foster trust, strengthen the psychological contract, and retain high-performing employees. For scholars, the study provides empirical evidence supporting theoretical frameworks such as Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory, offering a nuanced understanding of how pay practices shape employee attitudes. Ultimately, the study suggests that organisations can achieve better retention outcomes not only by ensuring fair compensation but also by making fairness visible and understandable through transparent policies and practices. In an era where employees increasingly demand openness and equity, transparent and fair pay systems are no longer optional, they are a strategic necessity. Declarations Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Funding This research received no external funding . Clinical Trial Number Clinical trial number: not applicable. Competing Interests The author declares that there are no competing interests . Ethics Approval, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee and the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management Ethics Committee (Reference number: IPPM-2023-827). All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee. Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed of the study purpose, procedures, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants signed and returned written consent forms before participating in the study. To protect anonymity, participant identities were coded, and all data were treated as confidential. References Abdullahi M, Abdullahi MS, Suleiman Y. Organisational justice and employee retention: The mediating role of job satisfaction. J Hum Resource Manage. 2024;12(1):45–60. Adams JS. Toward an understanding of inequity. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963;67(5):422–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968 . Adams JS. Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Volume 2. Academic; 1965. pp. 267–99. Aman-Ullah A, Aziz H, Ibrahim W, Mehmood, Aman-Ullah A. .e Role of Compensation in Shaping Employee's Behaviour: A Mediation Study.rough Job Satisfaction During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Revista De Gestao. 2023;30(2):221–36. Aman-Ullah A, Aziz A, Ibrahim H, Mehmood W. Strategic HRM practices and employee retention: A systematic review. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2023;33(2):100895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100895 . Arnold A, Fulmer IS, Sender A, Allen DG, Staffelbach B. Variable pay transparency in organisations. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2018;50(2):68–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368718792160 . Avdul DN, Martin WM, Lopez YP. Pay transparency: Why it is important to be thoughtful and strategic. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):103–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231181454 . Awwad AS, Adaileh MJ. Compensation fairness and turnover intention: The mediating role of organisational justice. Int J Hum Resource Stud. 2025;15(1):1–18. Awwad MS, Adaileh AM. (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. Pay transparency and the gender wage gap. Quart J Econ. 2023;138(1):1–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac032 . Baker M, Halberstam Y, Kroft K, Mas A, Messacar D. Pay transparency and the gender gap. Am Economic Journal: Appl Econ. 2023;15(2):157–83. Bamberger P. Exposing pay: Pay transparency and what it means for employees, employers, and public policy. Oxford University Press; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197628164.001.0001 . Bamberger PA. Pay transparency and employee outcomes. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2023;10:259–87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-043133 . Bangsu M, Darmawan D, Hardyansah R, Suwito S, Mujito M. The implications of remuneration, procedural justice principles, and work environment factors on employee retention rate. Int J Service Sci Manage Eng Technol. 2023;3(3):26–32. Blau PM. Exchange and power in social life. Wiley; 1964. Brown M, Bamberger P, Bliese PD, Shields J. Fairness uncertainty and pay information exchange: Why and when employees disclose bonus pay to pay information websites. J Organizational Behav. 2023;44(9):1362–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2739 . Brown M, Nyberg AJ, Weller I. Pay transparency: Conceptual boundaries and future research directions. Acad Manag Ann. 2023;17(1):1–38. Brown M, Nyberg AJ, Weller I, Strizver SD. Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy–pay transparency continuum. J Manag. 2022;48(6):1661–94. Brown M, Nyberg AJ, Weller I, Strizver SD. Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy–pay transparency continuum. J Manag. 2022;48(6):1661–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221079249 . Burroughs JE. Pay secrecy and pay disclosure: A motivational perspective. J Appl Psychol. 1982;67(3):318–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.318 . Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 8th ed. Routledge; 2018. Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organisational justice. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 . Colquitt JA, Greenberg J, Zapata-Phelan CP. What is organisational justice? J Manag. 2005;31(6):874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 . Colquitt JA, Scott BA, Rodell JB, Long DM, Zapata CP, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ. Justice at the millennium. J Appl Psychol. 2013;98(2):199–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757 . Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory. J Manag. 2005;31(6):874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 . Cullen Z. Pay transparency laws and labor market outcomes. ILR Rev. 2023;76(2):453–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221108917 . Cullen ZB, Pakzad-Hurson B. Equilibrium effects of pay transparency. Econometrica. 2023;91(3):765–802. Dash G, Paul J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM. Int J Market Res. 2021;63(1):2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320915687 . Deloitte. Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2023. Deloitte Insights; 2023. Downes PE, Choi D. Employee reactions to pay dispersion. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(6):841–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1938 . Gerhart B, Rynes S. Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Sage; 2003. Greenberg J. Organisational justice. Acad Manage Rev. 1990;16(2):399–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308272 . Greszki R, Meyer M, Schoen H. The impact of speeding on data quality. J Surv Stat Methodol. 2015;3(3):321–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smv012 . Hair JF, Howard MC, Nitzl C. Assessing mediation in PLS-SEM. Industrial Manage Data Syst. 2021;121(3):685–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2020-0403 . Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Sage; 2017. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 . Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press; 2013. Hom PW, Lee TW, Shaw JD, Hausknecht JP. One hundred years of employee turnover theory. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(3):530–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103 . Kee HJ, Chung YW. Organisational justice and turnover intention. Int J Manpow. 2021;42(5):831–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0452 . Le H, Lee J, Nielsen I, Nguyen TLA. Turnover intentions: the roles of job satisfaction and family support. Personnel Rev. 2023;52:2209–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2021-0582 . 9. Le H, Newman A, Menzies J, Zheng C, Fermelis J. Work design and retention. Hum Resource Manage J. 2023;33(2):244–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12433 . Marasi S, Bennett RJ. Pay communication. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2016;26(4):331–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.07.005 . Martucci WM, Lopez YP, Avdul DN. Salary history bans and pay equity. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2022;54(3):130–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687221084591 . Martucci WC, McMurray LR, Simsheuser J. Pay transparency: The trend all employers should be anticipating. Labor Law J. 2022;73(3):180–5. Moorman RH. Relationship between organisational justice and OCB. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76(6):845–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845 . Ng ESW, Schweitzer L, Lyons ST. New generation, great expectations. J Bus Psychol. 2010;25(2):281–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4 . Nyberg AJ, Cragun OR, Conroy SA, Weller I. Artificial intelligence and pay information disclosure: Changing how pay is communicated. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):58–75. Nyberg AJ, Weller I, Brown M. Pay transparency and workforce outcomes. Acad Manage Perspect. 2024;38(1):1–16. Obloj T, Zenger T. Pay transparency and pay equality. Adm Sci Q. 2022;67(4):1164–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221077543 . Obloj T, Zenger T. The influence of pay transparency on (gender) inequity, inequality and the performance basis of pay. Nat Hum Behav. 2022;6(5):646–55. Pan J. Pay transparency and employee trust. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2024;34(1):100917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100917 . Rajasekar S, Philominathan P, Chinnathambi V. Research methodology. Int J Res Manage. 2013;2(4):1–8. Robson NS. Predictive Relationship Between Organisational Attractiveness and Pay Information Transparency Among Millennials and Gen-Z. Grand Canyon University; 2024. Rousseau DM. Psychological contracts in organisations. Sage; 1995. Rubenstein AL, Eberly MB, Lee TW, Mitchell TR. Surveying the forest. Acad Manag Ann. 2018;12(1):231–74. 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 SB, Lamptey Y. Compensation transparency and justice perceptions. Afr J Economic Manage Stud. 2023;14(3):452–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-02-2022-0091 . Siman-Tov-Nachlieli I, Bamberger PA. The effect of transparency on pay perceptions. Organ Sci. 2021;32(4):1014–35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1414 . Stofberg R, Bussin M, Mabaso CM. Pay transparency, job turnover intentions and the mediating role of perceived organisational support and organisational justice. Empl Relations. 2022;44(7):162–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2022-0077 . Stofberg R, Mabaso CM, Bussin MHR. Employee responses to pay transparency. SA J Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde. 2022;48. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v48i0.1906 . Article a1906. Tenhiälä A, Chung DJ, Park TY. Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):83–102. Tenhialä A, Chung DJ, Park T-Y. Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231216135 . Tenhiälä A, Leppänen A, Perttula J. Pay transparency regulation and organisations. Industrial Relations J. 2023;54(4):386–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12386 . Theron C. Employee retention diagnostic instrument. University of Pretoria; 2015. van den Bos K, Lind EA, Vermunt R, Wilke HAM. How do I judge my outcome? J Personal Soc Psychol. 1997;72(5):1034–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034 . Zhao S. Organisational justice and turnover intention among workers. Front Psychol. 2024. 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-8658347","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":592352333,"identity":"284c04d6-3bd4-43fb-bb82-3434a2df88a4","order_by":0,"name":"Calvin Mabaso","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Johannesburg","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Calvin","middleName":"","lastName":"Mabaso","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-21 10:30:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658347/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658347/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102837040,"identity":"be5451a9-6d82-4c65-b30e-a34014562176","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 11:18:55","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":207660,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8658347/v1/72a19a444ccc5a4289020f47.png"},{"id":102837041,"identity":"1bf17664-6020-4e62-98e6-afbbdcf7264f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 11:18:55","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45155,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8658347/v1/f120b173b7d2c7402ff7c20e.png"},{"id":105498502,"identity":"33eb30a5-4385-4314-8fa8-41d9590f2a37","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-26 16:56:09","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1223787,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8658347/v1/72cbb630-21f6-4ba9-8c75-33e327b9aeba.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Pay transparency talent retention and the mediating effects of procedural justice and distributive justice","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., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Nyberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Globally, pay transparency, the practice of disclosing some aspects of pay information to employees, has become a key strategy to address pay discrimination and reduce wage inequality (Cullen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Baker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Martucci et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In most countries where such policies are implemented, the emphasis is on revealing horizontal pay gaps, 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 (Tenhi\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Obloj \u0026amp; Zenger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\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., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Le et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). As organisations recognise that human capital is central to sustainable growth (Kee \u0026amp; Chung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), 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, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Stofberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond its role in promoting fairness, pay transparency is increasingly viewed as a strategic HRM tool that can influence workplace attitudes and behaviours (Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). It encompasses not only disclosure of pay practices and structures, but also ensures employees are empowered to discuss compensation openly (Arnold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite growing adoption, the link between pay transparency and retention is neither simple nor universally positive.\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., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). 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 \u0026amp; Chung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough pay transparency resonates strongly with younger workforce cohorts such as Millennials and Generation Z (Robson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), there remains limited empirical clarity on the mechanisms by which transparency influences employee retention. In particular, the mediating role of organisational justice perceptions remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining how procedural and distributive justice mediate the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention. By explaining these fairness-based mechanisms, the study offers insights into how organisations can design transparent reward systems that strengthen trust, reinforce perceptions of fairness, and enhance talent retention in an increasingly competitive and transparency-driven labour market.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical Background and Hypothesis Development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePay Transparency and Talent Retention\u003c/h2\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., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Nyberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Siman-Tov-Nachlieli \u0026amp; Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). 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., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Cullen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Martucci et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Obloj \u0026amp; Zenger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Tenhi\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). At the organisational level, pay transparency refers to the extent to which employers openly communicate information about pay structures, decision-making criteria, and pay outcomes to employees through internal systems and sources (Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Stofberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003ea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn parallel, talent retention has become a strategic priority due to the escalating costs of employee turnover and the importance of retaining high-performing employees (Aman-Ullah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kee \u0026amp; Chung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Le et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Transparent pay practices may reduce uncertainty, strengthen trust in management, and signal organisational integrity, thereby fostering stronger psychological attachment and willingness to remain with the organisation (Arnold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). From this perspective, pay transparency is expected to directly improve talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay transparency has a positive effect on talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOrganisational Justice as a Fairness Framework\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganisational Justice Theory provides a central framework for understanding how perceptions of fairness influence employee attitudes and behaviours (Greenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Justice perceptions are commonly conceptualised along multiple dimensions, with procedural justice and distributive justice being particularly salient in compensation contexts (Colquitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Marasi \u0026amp; Bennett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Procedural justice refers to employees' perceptions of the fairness of the processes used to make decisions, including whether those processes are consistent, unbiased, ethical, and transparent (Colquitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). In pay systems, procedural justice refers to whether employees believe compensation decisions are based on clear, consistently applied criteria. Extensive research indicates that procedural justice is a strong predictor of organisational trust, commitment, and reduced turnover intentions (Colquitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Greenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Kee \u0026amp; Chung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice, in contrast, concerns perceptions of the fairness of outcomes themselves, such as salaries, bonuses, and pay increases, typically evaluated through social comparisons and equity assessments (Adams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1965\u003c/span\u003e). When employees perceive pay outcomes as equitable relative to their inputs and those of referent others, they are more likely to experience satisfaction and remain committed to the organisation. Based on these theoretical arguments, both procedural and distributive justice are expected to influence talent retention directly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice has a positive effect on talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH4\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural justice has a positive effect on talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedural Justice as an Antecedent of Distributive Justice and Pay Transparency\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProcedural justice is theorised to serve as a foundational fairness signal that shapes how employees interpret both outcomes and organisational communication. Fair decision-making processes legitimise outcomes and reduce perceptions of arbitrariness, thereby strengthening perceptions of distributive justice (Colquitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Greenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; van den Bos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). In compensation contexts, employees who trust the fairness of pay-setting procedures are more likely to perceive pay allocations as equitable, even when outcomes differ across individuals. Accordingly, procedural justice is expected to predict distributive justice positively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH5\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural justice has a positive effect on distributive justice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural justice is also expected to influence perceptions of pay transparency. Transparent communication of pay information is more likely to be perceived as credible and legitimate when employees believe that underlying decision-making processes are fair and unbiased (Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Colquitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Under conditions of uncertainty, employees may rely on procedural fairness as a heuristic for evaluating the trustworthiness of pay disclosures (van den Bos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Hartmann \u0026amp; Slapničar, 2012). Thus, procedural justice is hypothesised to predict pay transparency positively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH6\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural justice has a positive effect on pay transparency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDistributive Justice and Pay Transparency\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDistributive justice may further shape how employees interpret and respond to pay transparency initiatives. When pay outcomes are perceived as fair, transparency is more likely to reinforce trust and acceptance of the pay system. Conversely, when outcomes are perceived as inequitable, transparency may amplify dissatisfaction by revealing disparities (Segbenya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Stofberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003ea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003eb). In this study's theoretical logic, distributive justice is expected to be positively associated with perceived pay transparency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice has a positive effect on pay transparency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eJustice Perceptions as Mediating Mechanisms\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory, justice perceptions can be understood as psychological mechanisms through which HR practices influence employee attitudes and behavioural intentions (Adams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1965\u003c/span\u003e; Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Fair treatment represents an organisational investment that employees are likely to reciprocate through loyalty and continued membership. Procedural justice is expected to influence talent retention indirectly by shaping both distributive justice and pay transparency. Fair procedures legitimise outcomes and enhance acceptance of pay-related information, which in turn strengthens employees' attachment to the organisation (Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; van den Bos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Distributive justice and pay transparency, therefore, function as mediators that transmit the effects of procedural fairness to retention outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH7\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH8\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention through a direct-only pathway.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH9\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay transparency mediates the relationship between distributive justice and talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH10\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003ePay transparency mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH11\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributive justice and pay transparency sequentially mediate the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConceptual Model Specification\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the conceptual model tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). Procedural justice is specified as the primary exogenous construct, reflecting its foundational role in shaping fairness perceptions within compensation systems. Distributive justice and pay transparency are modelled as endogenous mediating constructs, while talent retention represents the final endogenous outcome variable. The model specifies direct paths from procedural justice to distributive justice, pay transparency, and talent retention, reflecting the assumption that fair decision-making processes influence both outcome fairness and retention intentions. Distributive justice and pay transparency are further modelled as direct predictors of talent retention, allowing for the assessment of partial and full mediation effects. In addition, the model includes both parallel mediation pathways (procedural justice \u0026rarr; distributive justice \u0026rarr; talent retention; procedural justice \u0026rarr; pay transparency \u0026rarr; talent retention) and a sequential mediation pathway (procedural justice \u0026rarr; distributive justice \u0026rarr; pay transparency \u0026rarr; talent retention). All constructs are specified as reflective latent variables, each measured by its respective indicators, consistent with organisational justice and HRM research conventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Research Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eA quantitative research method was adopted for the study (Saunders et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and the data are presented numerically, non-descriptively, iteratively, and conclusively (Rajasekar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), aligned with the purpose and objectives of this study. In line with the study's philosophy, the quantitative method is associated with positivism and is deductive, with data collected and analysed to test the study's theory (Saunders et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection and participants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected from 464 employees in the South African banking sector, including both full-time and part-time employees. All 464 responses were retained for analysis. A convenience sampling approach was used due to restricted organisational access and the confidentiality requirements typical of financial institutions. This approach enabled data collection within operational and ethical constraints and is consistent with prior HR research conducted in highly regulated environments (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Greszki, Meyer, \u0026amp; Schoen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Although convenience sampling limits statistical generalisability, it allows for the capture of authentic employee perceptions in a sensitive, tightly controlled context, thereby enhancing the practical relevance of the findings. 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%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eProcedural justice (PJ).\u003c/b\u003e Procedural justice 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: \u003cem\u003e\"Concerns of all those affected by the decision are heard.\"\u003c/em\u003e The scale demonstrated good internal consistency in the present study (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePay transparency (PT).\u003c/b\u003e Pay transparency was measured using a seven-item scale developed based on Burroughs' (1982) conceptualisation of pay transparency as a continuum. The items were aligned with contemporary operationalisations of pay transparency, including those proposed by Stofberg et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Sample items include: \u003cem\u003e\"My employer provides information on the salary range for each job or role\"\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e\"My employer provides information about the actual salaries it pays (e.g., the average per job or role).\"\u003c/em\u003e The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability in this study (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.76).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTalent retention.\u003c/b\u003e Talent retention was measured using a diagnostic tool developed by Theron (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), designed to assess factors related to employee turnover and retention. The scale showed excellent internal consistency in the current study (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.93).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe structural 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 Partial Least Squares (PLS) algorithm with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The structural model was evaluated using bootstrapped direct and indirect effects, allowing for the simultaneous assessment of direct relationships, parallel mediation, and sequential mediation pathways in line with contemporary PLS-SEM guidelines (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below the recommended threshold of 5, indicating that multicollinearity did not bias the regression estimates. Hypothesis testing was conducted at the 95% confidence level (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05), and statistical significance was assessed using bootstrapped confidence intervals. Hypotheses H1 to H6 were tested using direct path coefficients, as summarised in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. In addition, the model is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\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=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypothesis\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\u003eBeta\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 \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\u003eDistributive Justice \u0026rarr; Talent Retention\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\u003e2.878\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\u003eDistributive Justice \u0026rarr; Pay Transparency\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\u003e1.240\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\u003ePay Transparency \u0026rarr; Talent Retention\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\u003e2.939\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\u003eProcedural Justice \u0026rarr; Talent Retention\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\u003e1.290\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\u003eProcedural justice \u0026rarr; Distributive Justice\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\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural Justice \u0026rarr; Pay Transparency\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\u003e1.240\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eDJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;distributive justice; PJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;procedural justice; PT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;pay transparency; 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\u003eThe results indicate that the direct relationship between distributive justice and talent retention was positive but statistically insignificant (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.071, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.118, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.601, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.152, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.306, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Thus, \u003cb\u003eH1 was rejected\u003c/b\u003e. Support was found for \u003cb\u003eH2\u003c/b\u003e, demonstrating a statistically significant positive relationship between distributive justice and pay transparency (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.440, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.051, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.593, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.332, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.536, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). \u003cb\u003eH3\u003c/b\u003e was also supported, indicating that pay transparency has a strong positive effect on talent retention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.519, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.107, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.834, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.310, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.729, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Furthermore, \u003cb\u003eH4\u003c/b\u003e was validated, showing a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and talent retention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.148, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.060, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.473, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.028, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.265, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). \u003cb\u003eH5\u003c/b\u003e was supported, confirming that procedural justice positively influences distributive justice (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.440, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.051, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.593, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.332, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.536, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Finally, \u003cb\u003eH6\u003c/b\u003e was validated, indicating that procedural justice positively predicts pay transparency (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.131, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.052, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.531, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.024, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.227, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMediation analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediation analysis was conducted using bootstrapped indirect effects, as presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eH7\u003c/b\u003e was supported, indicating that distributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.328, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.042, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.765, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.248, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.416, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). In contrast, \u003cb\u003eH8\u003c/b\u003e was rejected, as distributive justice did not mediate the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention through a direct-only pathway (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.031, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.053, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.591, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.068, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.140, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Support was found for \u003cb\u003eH9\u003c/b\u003e, showing that pay transparency mediates the relationship between distributive justice and talent retention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.387, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.087, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.468, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.228, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.567, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). \u003cb\u003eH10\u003c/b\u003e was also validated, demonstrating that pay transparency partially mediates the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.068, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.029, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.363, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.017, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.132, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Finally, \u003cb\u003eH11\u003c/b\u003e, which proposed a serial mediation effect of distributive justice and pay transparency in the relationship between procedural justice and talent retention, was \u003cb\u003enot supported\u003c/b\u003e (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.170, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.043, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.900, LLC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.271, ULC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.100, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\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\u003eHypothesis with indirect effects summary\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\u003eHypothesis\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\u003eBeta\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 type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ \u0026rarr; DJ \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.328\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.765\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\u003e0.248\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.416\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ \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\u003eNo mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDJ \u0026rarr; PT \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.387\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.087\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.468\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\u003e0.228\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.567\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ \u0026rarr; PT \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.363\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.132\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePJ \u0026rarr; DJ \u0026rarr; PT \u0026rarr; TR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.271\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth direct and indirect effects were significant for H7 and H10, indicating \u003cb\u003epartial mediation\u003c/b\u003e. Full mediation was observed for \u003cb\u003eH9\u003c/b\u003e, as the indirect effect was significant while the direct path was insignificant. No mediation was established for H8 and H11 due to non-significant indirect effects (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eModel fit assessment and model evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel fit indices indicate an acceptable overall fit. The CMIN/df value was 3.53, the SRMR was 0.075, and the RMSEA was 0.076, all of which fall below recommended thresholds. The NFI (0.93) and CFI (0.95) exceeded the minimum criteria, confirming satisfactory model fit (Dash \u0026amp; Paul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The R\u0026sup2; values for talent retention, distributive justice, and pay transparency were 0.298, 0.194, and 0.660, respectively, indicating weak to moderate explanatory power. Predictive relevance was further supported by Q\u0026sup2; values exceeding zero for all endogenous constructs (TR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.092; DJ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13; PT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16), demonstrating adequate predictive capability (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored how pay transparency and organisational justice influence talent retention, with a particular focus on the mediating roles of distributive and procedural justice. The findings highlight that employee retention is shaped not only by fair outcomes but also, critically, by the transparency and fairness of the processes that determine those outcomes. Starting with the direct relationships, distributive justice, the perceived fairness of outcomes, was positively related to talent retention, but this effect was not statistically significant. This suggests that while employees value equitable outcomes, fair outcomes alone may not strongly drive retention. In contrast, pay transparency emerged as a key predictor of retention, showing a significant positive effect. Employees appear to respond more to clarity and openness in pay practices than to outcomes in isolation, which aligns with research emphasising the role of transparency in building trust and commitment (Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Stofberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Procedural justice, the perceived fairness of decision-making processes, also significantly influenced retention, albeit to a lesser extent than pay transparency. Procedural justice further had a strong positive impact on both distributive justice and pay transparency. These findings suggest that fair and transparent processes serve as the foundation for perceptions of outcome fairness and overall organisational transparency. When employees trust that pay decisions are made consistently and without bias, they are more likely to perceive both the outcomes and the system itself as just, reinforcing the psychological contract between employer and employee (Colquitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Greenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Rousseau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). The mediation analysis provides additional insights into these dynamics. Distributive justice partially mediated the relationship between procedural justice and retention, indicating that fair processes influence retention indirectly by shaping perceptions of fair outcomes. Pay transparency fully mediated the effect of distributive justice on retention, highlighting that employees' recognition of fair outcomes translates into retention primarily when those outcomes are communicated transparently. Procedural justice also partially influenced retention through pay transparency, underscoring that transparent communication acts as a critical mechanism linking fair processes to retention outcomes. However, the proposed serial mediation, in which procedural justice influences distributive justice, which, in turn, affects pay transparency and ultimately retention, was not supported. This suggests that while both justice perceptions and transparency are important, they likely operate in parallel rather than as a simple sequential chain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these results reinforce key theoretical perspectives. Social Exchange Theory helps explain why transparency and fairness promote retention: transparent pay practices signal trust and respect, which employees reciprocate with commitment and loyalty (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Equity Theory adds a cognitive lens, illustrating that employees evaluate their compensation relative to peers and that transparency allows for more accurate assessments of fairness (Adams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1965\u003c/span\u003e). Organisational Justice Theory further clarifies how perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness shape employees' responses to compensation systems (Colquitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Greenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). The findings suggest that transparent and fair pay practices work synergistically, reinforcing each other to create a strong psychological sense of justice that promotes retention. From a practical standpoint, the study highlights several implications for organisations. First, fair outcomes, while necessary, are not sufficient to retain talented employees; they need to understand how decisions are made. Transparent communication about pay structures, decision criteria, and internal equity benchmarks enhances perceptions of procedural and distributive justice, fostering trust and loyalty. Second, investment in consistent and unbiased processes, coupled with transparent reporting, can strengthen retention, particularly among younger employees who place a high value on openness and fairness (Ng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Deloitte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, the partial mediation effects suggest that organisations should consider justice perceptions and transparency as complementary tools rather than relying on either in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the study demonstrates that the pathway from procedural and distributive justice to retention is primarily influenced by pay transparency. Transparent practices amplify the positive effects of fair outcomes and processes, helping organisations build trust, strengthen psychological contracts, and reduce turnover. These findings contribute to theory by clarifying the mechanisms linking fairness and transparency to retention and provide actionable guidance for HR practitioners seeking to design equitable and transparent reward systems in today's increasingly transparent work environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study have several practical and theoretical implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFor practice\u003c/b\u003e, organisations aiming to retain talent should prioritise both transparent pay systems and fair decision-making processes. Simply providing equitable outcomes is not enough; employees need to understand how pay decisions are made and feel confident that processes are applied consistently. Transparent communication about pay structures, salary ranges, and decision criteria can strengthen perceptions of both distributive and procedural justice, enhancing trust and commitment. Human resource managers should also recognise that transparency is particularly influential among younger employees, such as Millennials and Generation Z, who value openness, fairness, and ethical leadership. By integrating transparent practices with fair procedures, organisations can build stronger psychological contracts with employees and reduce turnover risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFor theory\u003c/b\u003e, this study contributes to understanding the mechanisms linking pay transparency and retention. It demonstrates that procedural and distributive justice act as essential mediators, with transparency amplifying their effects on retention. This supports the integration of Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory to explain how employees evaluate organisational fairness and respond through retention behaviour. The partial and full mediation effects identified in this study provide evidence that fairness and transparency should be considered jointly rather than in isolation when studying HR practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the use of cross-sectional data limits the ability to make causal inferences. While the findings suggest relationships among pay transparency, justice perceptions, and retention, longitudinal studies would provide stronger evidence of causal effects. Second, the sample was drawn from the banking sector in South Africa, which may limit generalisability to other industries or cultural contexts. Organisational practices, employee expectations, and regulatory environments differ across sectors and countries, so replication in other contexts is recommended. Third, the study relied on self-reported measures, which may introduce common method bias despite the use of validated scales and statistical controls. Finally, while this study focused on procedural and distributive justice, other dimensions of organisational justice, such as interpersonal or informational justice, may also influence employee retention and merit future investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the critical role of pay transparency and organisational justice in retaining talent. While fair outcomes alone may not strongly influence retention, transparent, consistently applied processes significantly enhance employees' perceptions of fairness, which, in turn, promote commitment and reduce turnover. Distributive and procedural justice act as key mechanisms linking pay transparency to retention, with transparency amplifying the effects of fairness perceptions. For practitioners, these findings underscore the importance of integrating transparency and fairness into compensation strategies to foster trust, strengthen the psychological contract, and retain high-performing employees. For scholars, the study provides empirical evidence supporting theoretical frameworks such as Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory, offering a nuanced understanding of how pay practices shape employee attitudes. Ultimately, the study suggests that organisations can achieve better retention outcomes not only by ensuring fair compensation but also by making fairness visible and understandable through transparent policies and practices. In an era where employees increasingly demand openness and equity, transparent and fair pay systems are no longer optional, they are a strategic necessity.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received \u003cstrong\u003eno external funding\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number: not applicable.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that \u003cstrong\u003ethere are no competing interests\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for this study was obtained from the \u003cstrong\u003eUniversity of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee\u003c/strong\u003e and the \u003cstrong\u003eDepartment of Industrial Psychology and People Management Ethics Committee\u003c/strong\u003e (Reference number: IPPM-2023-827). \u0026nbsp;All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study prior to data collection. \u0026nbsp;Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed of the study purpose, procedures, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. \u0026nbsp;Participants signed and returned written consent forms before participating in the study. \u0026nbsp;To protect anonymity, participant identities were coded, and all data were treated as confidential.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbdullahi M, Abdullahi MS, Suleiman Y. Organisational justice and employee retention: The mediating role of job satisfaction. J Hum Resource Manage. 2024;12(1):45\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams JS. Toward an understanding of inequity. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963;67(5):422\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/h0040968\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams JS. Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Volume 2. Academic; 1965. pp. 267\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAman-Ullah A, Aziz H, Ibrahim W, Mehmood, Aman-Ullah A. .e Role of Compensation in Shaping Employee's Behaviour: A Mediation Study.rough Job Satisfaction During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Revista De Gestao. 2023;30(2):221\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAman-Ullah A, Aziz A, Ibrahim H, Mehmood W. Strategic HRM practices and employee retention: A systematic review. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2023;33(2):100895. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100895\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100895\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArnold A, Fulmer IS, Sender A, Allen DG, Staffelbach B. Variable pay transparency in organisations. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2018;50(2):68\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886368718792160\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886368718792160\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvdul DN, Martin WM, Lopez YP. Pay transparency: Why it is important to be thoughtful and strategic. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):103\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231181454\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/08863687231181454\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAwwad AS, Adaileh MJ. Compensation fairness and turnover intention: The mediating role of organisational justice. Int J Hum Resource Stud. 2025;15(1):1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAwwad MS, Adaileh AM. (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. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/7166487\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1155/jonm/7166487\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker M, Halberstam Y, Kroft K, Mas A. Pay transparency and the gender wage gap. Quart J Econ. 2023;138(1):1\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac032\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/qje/qjac032\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker M, Halberstam Y, Kroft K, Mas A, Messacar D. Pay transparency and the gender gap. Am Economic Journal: Appl Econ. 2023;15(2):157\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBamberger P. Exposing pay: Pay transparency and what it means for employees, employers, and public policy. Oxford University Press; 2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197628164.001.0001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/oso/9780197628164.001.0001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBamberger PA. Pay transparency and employee outcomes. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2023;10:259\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-043133\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-043133\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBangsu M, Darmawan D, Hardyansah R, Suwito S, Mujito M. The implications of remuneration, procedural justice principles, and work environment factors on employee retention rate. Int J Service Sci Manage Eng Technol. 2023;3(3):26\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlau PM. Exchange and power in social life. Wiley; 1964.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown M, Bamberger P, Bliese PD, Shields J. Fairness uncertainty and pay information exchange: Why and when employees disclose bonus pay to pay information websites. J Organizational Behav. 2023;44(9):1362\u0026ndash;79. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.2739\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.2739\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown M, Nyberg AJ, Weller I. Pay transparency: Conceptual boundaries and future research directions. Acad Manag Ann. 2023;17(1):1\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown M, Nyberg AJ, Weller I, Strizver SD. Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy\u0026ndash;pay transparency continuum. J Manag. 2022;48(6):1661\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown M, Nyberg AJ, Weller I, Strizver SD. Pay information disclosure: Review and recommendations for research spanning the pay secrecy\u0026ndash;pay transparency continuum. J Manag. 2022;48(6):1661\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221079249\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/01492063221079249\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurroughs JE. Pay secrecy and pay disclosure: A motivational perspective. J Appl Psychol. 1982;67(3):318\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.318\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.318\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 8th ed. Routledge; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organisational justice. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386\u0026ndash;400. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColquitt JA, Greenberg J, Zapata-Phelan CP. What is organisational justice? J Manag. 2005;31(6):874\u0026ndash;900. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0149206305279602\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColquitt JA, Scott BA, Rodell JB, Long DM, Zapata CP, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ. Justice at the millennium. J Appl Psychol. 2013;98(2):199\u0026ndash;236. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0031757\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory. J Manag. 2005;31(6):874\u0026ndash;900. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0149206305279602\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCullen Z. Pay transparency laws and labor market outcomes. ILR Rev. 2023;76(2):453\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221108917\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00197939221108917\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCullen ZB, Pakzad-Hurson B. Equilibrium effects of pay transparency. Econometrica. 2023;91(3):765\u0026ndash;802.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDash G, Paul J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM. Int J Market Res. 2021;63(1):2\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320915687\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1470785320915687\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeloitte. Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2023. Deloitte Insights; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDownes PE, Choi D. Employee reactions to pay dispersion. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(6):841\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.1938\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.1938\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGerhart B, Rynes S. Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Sage; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenberg J. Organisational justice. Acad Manage Rev. 1990;16(2):399\u0026ndash;432. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308272\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amr.1990.4308272\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreszki R, Meyer M, Schoen H. The impact of speeding on data quality. J Surv Stat Methodol. 2015;3(3):321\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smv012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jssam/smv012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Howard MC, Nitzl C. Assessing mediation in PLS-SEM. Industrial Manage Data Syst. 2021;121(3):685\u0026ndash;701. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2020-0403\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IMDS-07-2020-0403\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Sage; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHom PW, Lee TW, Shaw JD, Hausknecht JP. One hundred years of employee turnover theory. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(3):530\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/apl0000103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKee HJ, Chung YW. Organisational justice and turnover intention. Int J Manpow. 2021;42(5):831\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0452\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0452\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLe H, Lee J, Nielsen I, Nguyen TLA. Turnover intentions: the roles of job satisfaction and family support. Personnel Rev. 2023;52:2209\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2021-0582\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/PR-08-2021-0582\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLe H, Newman A, Menzies J, Zheng C, Fermelis J. Work design and retention. Hum Resource Manage J. 2023;33(2):244\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12433\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1748-8583.12433\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarasi S, Bennett RJ. Pay communication. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2016;26(4):331\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.07.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.07.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartucci WM, Lopez YP, Avdul DN. Salary history bans and pay equity. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2022;54(3):130\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/08863687221084591\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/08863687221084591\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartucci WC, McMurray LR, Simsheuser J. Pay transparency: The trend all employers should be anticipating. Labor Law J. 2022;73(3):180\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoorman RH. Relationship between organisational justice and OCB. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76(6):845\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNg ESW, Schweitzer L, Lyons ST. New generation, great expectations. J Bus Psychol. 2010;25(2):281\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNyberg AJ, Cragun OR, Conroy SA, Weller I. Artificial intelligence and pay information disclosure: Changing how pay is communicated. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):58\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNyberg AJ, Weller I, Brown M. Pay transparency and workforce outcomes. Acad Manage Perspect. 2024;38(1):1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObloj T, Zenger T. Pay transparency and pay equality. Adm Sci Q. 2022;67(4):1164\u0026ndash;204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221077543\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00018392221077543\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObloj T, Zenger T. The influence of pay transparency on (gender) inequity, inequality and the performance basis of pay. Nat Hum Behav. 2022;6(5):646\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePan J. Pay transparency and employee trust. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2024;34(1):100917. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100917\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100917\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRajasekar S, Philominathan P, Chinnathambi V. Research methodology. Int J Res Manage. 2013;2(4):1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobson NS. Predictive Relationship Between Organisational Attractiveness and Pay Information Transparency Among Millennials and Gen-Z. Grand Canyon University; 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRousseau DM. Psychological contracts in organisations. Sage; 1995.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubenstein AL, Eberly MB, Lee TW, Mitchell TR. Surveying the forest. Acad Manag Ann. 2018;12(1):231\u0026ndash;74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/annals.2016.0034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods for business students\u003c/em\u003e (8th ed.). Pearson.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSegbenya M, Ofei SB, Lamptey Y. Compensation transparency and justice perceptions. Afr J Economic Manage Stud. 2023;14(3):452\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-02-2022-0091\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/AJEMS-02-2022-0091\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiman-Tov-Nachlieli I, Bamberger PA. The effect of transparency on pay perceptions. Organ Sci. 2021;32(4):1014\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1414\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1287/orsc.2020.1414\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStofberg R, Bussin M, Mabaso CM. Pay transparency, job turnover intentions and the mediating role of perceived organisational support and organisational justice. Empl Relations. 2022;44(7):162\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2022-0077\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/ER-02-2022-0077\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStofberg R, Mabaso CM, Bussin MHR. Employee responses to pay transparency. SA J Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde. 2022;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v48i0.1906\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4102/sajip.v48i0.1906\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Article a1906.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTenhi\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; A, Chung DJ, Park TY. Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):83\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTenhial\u0026auml; A, Chung DJ, Park T-Y. Procedural pay transparency, motivational climate, and employee outcomes. Compensation Benefits Rev. 2024;56(2):83\u0026ndash;102. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231216135\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/08863687231216135\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTenhi\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; A, Lepp\u0026auml;nen A, Perttula J. Pay transparency regulation and organisations. Industrial Relations J. 2023;54(4):386\u0026ndash;404. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12386\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/irj.12386\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTheron C. Employee retention diagnostic instrument. University of Pretoria; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan den Bos K, Lind EA, Vermunt R, Wilke HAM. How do I judge my outcome? J Personal Soc Psychol. 1997;72(5):1034\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao S. Organisational justice and turnover intention among workers. Front Psychol. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1345621\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1345621\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\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 and Organisational Justice","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658347/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658347/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) to test direct relationships and parallel and sequential mediation effects among procedural justice, distributive justice, pay transparency, and talent retention. The results revealed that pay transparency has a significant positive effect on talent retention. Procedural justice was found to positively influence both distributive justice and pay transparency and to exert a partial indirect effect on retention through these mechanisms. Distributive justice fully mediated the relationship between pay transparency and talent retention, underscoring the central role of fairness perceptions in shaping employee commitment. The hypothesised serial mediation pathway was not supported, suggesting that justice perceptions and transparency operate in parallel rather than sequentially. These findings extend Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, and Organisational Justice Theory by clarifying how fairness-based mechanisms translate transparent pay practices into retention outcomes. From a practical perspective, the study demonstrates that organisations can enhance talent retention not only through equitable compensation outcomes but also through transparent and procedurally fair pay systems, with particular relevance for retaining younger workforce cohorts who value openness and fairness.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Pay transparency talent retention and the mediating effects of procedural justice and distributive justice","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-17 11:18:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8658347/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":"February 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-26T16:55:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-17 11:18:44","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8658347","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8658347","identity":"rs-8658347","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}