​There is an immediate reason why salary surveys are becoming so important. Across a growing number of US states and cities, employers are restricted from asking candidates what they earn now or earned previously, while the EU’s Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to provide starting-pay information or a salary range and prevents them from asking applicants about pay history. The detail differs by jurisdiction, and EU implementation varies between member states, but the direction is clear: organisations increasingly need to price the role from reliable market evidence rather than anchor an offer to an individual candidate’s past salary. A well-built salary survey gives hiring teams that evidence and helps them enter conversations with a fair, credible and defensible range.

Many pay decisions begin with an old salary band, a previous hire or a quick look at a general salary guide. That may be enough for a rough sense check, but it is rarely enough when the role is specialist, the location is unfamiliar or the market is moving quickly.

We see this regularly across renewable energy and the wider energy transition. A title that looks straightforward on an organisation chart can sit in a very different talent market once technology, project stage, geography, working pattern and technical risk are taken into account. This article looks at what credible benchmarking involves, where it adds value and how TGRC turns recruitment knowledge into client-specific market intelligence.

Key Takeaways

Salary benchmarking is no longer something to revisit only when a vacancy is difficult to fill. Used properly, it helps employers make better decisions about hiring, retention, workforce planning and market entry.

• Pay below the market and strong candidates lose interest. Pay without reference to internal equity and you risk compression, dissatisfaction and avoidable turnover.

• Useful benchmarking compares the work, not simply the title, and looks at the whole package: base salary, bonus, allowances, benefits, location and the scarcity of the skills involved.

• The same insight can shape salary bands, retention planning, headcount budgets, offer strategy and decisions about where to build a team.

• A clear pay philosophy matters. Employers need to know where they intend to sit against the market and where they are prepared to pay a premium for scarce, project-critical capability.

The difference between a workforce strategy that works and one that quietly undermines itself often comes down to the quality of the market intelligence behind it.

The Cost of Getting Compensation Wrong

When a package is below market, the signs tend to appear early: thin shortlists, repeated candidate withdrawals, rejected offers and a search that takes longer than it should. In specialist markets, delay has a wider cost. Existing teams carry the gap, project milestones come under pressure and hiring managers can spend weeks revisiting a brief that was never realistically priced.

Paying above market is not automatically a mistake, particularly for a scarce or business-critical hire. The problem comes when the premium is accidental, inconsistent or impossible to explain internally. A new hire placed alongside longer-serving colleagues on similar or lower pay can quickly expose weak salary structures and create a retention issue elsewhere.

The aim is not to find one perfect number. It is to understand the realistic market range, the sort of candidate available at different points within it, and the package or career proposition needed to secure that person.

What Good Salary Benchmarking Should Include

The first step is proper role matching. Titles are unreliable: a Project Manager may own a package, an entire site, a development portfolio or little more than coordination. The benchmark must reflect scope, accountability, technical knowledge, decision-making authority and the consequences of getting the job wrong.

Context then changes the answer. Employer type, technology, project stage, location, travel or offshore requirements, team size, language capability and the availability of transferable talent can all move the range. In offshore wind, for example, a development role focused on early-stage origination does not compete in quite the same market as one responsible for permitting, grid and late-stage delivery.

The package also needs to be considered as a whole. Base pay is only one part of the decision. Bonus, equity, pension or retirement contributions, vehicle and travel support, site or offshore allowances, overtime, leave and flexibility can materially change how an offer is received.

Finally, the source mix matters. Public salary data can provide a starting point, but it becomes far more useful when tested against live recruitment conversations, recent offers, candidate expectations, employer behaviour and the actual availability of people with the required experience.

How TGRC Builds Salary Surveys

At The Green Recruitment Company, salary surveys are an extension of the market work our consultants do every day. We combine external research with our own talent-pool data, recent hiring activity and conversations with candidates and employers. The purpose is not to produce a generic list of salaries; it is to answer a client’s actual workforce question.

Three recent illustrative surveys show how the emphasis changes by market. Our South Korean wind work grouped roles across development, manufacturing, high voltage and grid, engineering and construction, operations and marine delivery. It used quartile ranges and considered short-term incentives and employee value proposition alongside base pay. In South Africa, the analysis concentrated on the overlapping talent needs of developers, IPPs and EPCs, including grid, project delivery, construction, finance and site-based reward. An East Coast US EfW and biogas study examined development, engineering, operations, asset management and executive hiring, together with benefits, 401(k) matching, leave and incentives.

These examples are not fixed products. We build client-specific surveys around the roles, locations and decisions that matter to the organisation. A project may focus on a single hard-to-fill position, a complete job family, a new country, competitor pay, total reward, candidate availability or the feasibility of a planned team. The output can also include talent-pool size, tenure, mobility, diversity, employer concentration, incentive practice and the factors most likely to influence acceptance and retention.

Beyond the Job Offer – The Strategic Case for Salary Benchmarking

Benchmarking is often commissioned when an offer is already proving difficult. Its greater value is earlier in the process, when an organisation is deciding what to hire, where to hire it and what the team will cost.

A sensible starting point is the compensation philosophy. Some employers aim to match the market. Others deliberately lead it for roles where talent is scarce or the cost of delay is high. The right position may differ by job family: there is little value in paying a universal premium if only grid, commissioning or project finance capability is genuinely difficult to secure.

Current market ranges also make salary bands easier to defend. They show where progression should sit, when a specialist premium is justified and whether a proposed new hire will create an internal equity problem. That gives HR, finance and hiring managers a common basis for decisions.

For geographic expansion, salary data is only useful alongside talent availability. A location may appear attractive on cost, but not if the required skills are scarce, concentrated with a handful of employers or dependent on relocation. A good survey tests both the price of talent and whether the proposed hiring plan is achievable.

The same intelligence supports retention. It can highlight groups that have slipped below market, packages that rely too heavily on base salary, or roles where competitors are offering a clearer route to progression. That is more useful than discovering the issue after the resignation arrives.

Conclusion

Salary benchmarking is most valuable when it gives decision-makers a clearer view of the market they are actually hiring into. That means looking beyond headline averages and understanding the role, the talent pool, the package and the business consequence of leaving the position unfilled.

TGRC produces tailored salary surveys and talent-market reports across renewable energy, infrastructure and the wider energy transition. These can be built around an individual role, a complete workforce plan or a market-entry question, with the level of detail matched to the decision you need to make.

FAQs

Q1. What is salary benchmarking and why does it matter?

Salary benchmarking is the process of comparing a role's pay against real market data - not just job titles, but scope, responsibility, location, and the scarcity of the required skills. It matters increasingly because pay-transparency laws across many US states and the EU's Pay Transparency Directive now restrict employers from asking candidates about current or past salary, making credible market data essential for building a fair, defensible offer.

Q2. How is salary benchmarking different from a generic salary guide?

A generic salary guide gives an average by job title, which can be misleading because roles with the same title may have different responsibilities, skills, and risks. Proper benchmarking considers the role’s actual scope, location, project stage, and technology, along with the full compensation package, including salary, bonuses, allowances, and benefits.

Q3. What happens if a company pays below or above the market rate?

Paying below market typically shows up as thin candidate shortlists, offer rejections, and searches that drag on, putting pressure on existing teams and project timelines. Paying above market isn't automatically a problem for scarce, business-critical roles, but an unexplained premium can create internal equity issues and retention problems among existing staff.

Q4. How often should companies review salary benchmarking data?

There is no single fixed schedule, but an annual review is a reasonable baseline for most roles. Fast-moving, hard-to-fill, or project-critical positions should be reviewed more often, especially when major hiring or expansion decisions are involved, as market rates in specialist sectors such as renewable energy can change quickly.

Q5. Can salary benchmarking support workforce planning beyond hiring decisions?

Yes. Market intelligence from benchmarking can shape salary bands, retention planning, headcount budgets, and decisions about which locations are realistic for building a team. It also helps identify roles or teams that have quietly slipped below market before that gap turns into resignations.

Q6. How does TGRC build a salary survey for renewable energy employers?

TGRC combines external market research with its own talent pool data, recent hiring activity, and direct insights from candidates and employers, rather than relying on generic salary averages. Its surveys are tailored to each client’s needs, whether assessing a hard-to-fill role, an entire job family, a new country, or a market-entry decision. They can also cover talent pool size, mobility, employer concentration, and factors that may influence offer acceptance.

Speak to Stephen Redmond

Stephen Redmond is Group Marketing & Operations Director at The Green Recruitment Company. He develops salary surveys, compensation benchmarks and talent-market intelligence for employers across renewable energy and the wider energy transition.

His work brings together market research, candidate data and the practical insight generated by TGRC’s specialist recruitment teams, helping clients test salary structures, hiring plans, market entry and talent-attraction strategies.

Request a Consultation

Tell us which roles, locations or workforce questions you want to explore. Stephen can shape a survey around the decision you need to make, whether that is pricing a key hire, reviewing a full salary structure or testing a new market.

​

​