Living Wages: What Companies Usually Ask Us

30 August 2026

Dani, welcome back after your maternity leave. We are hosting these Living wage Info Sessions since 2023. What have been some of the most honest, and maybe even the most shocking, questions you’ve received?

Daniela: One of the big issues is of course: do migrants need a Living Wage?

For example, if someone migrates from Kerala to work in Singapore, should that person receive the Singapore Living Wage, or a bit less because they come from Kerala? We also hear a similar question in the Middle East: “Most of our employees are expats and their dependants live in countries where the cost of living is much lower, so why should we pay them a Living Wage based on the cost of living in the Middle East?”

For me, the basic principle is quite simple: the Living Wage should be linked to where the person works, not to where they come from. If you work in Singapore, your wage should reflect the cost of living in Singapore. Your nationality or country of origin should not determine what a decent wage is.

We sometimes use the Geneva example because it makes the issue very clear. Imagine someone lives just across the border in France, where living costs are lower, but works for the UN in Geneva. We wouldn’t normally say: “Well, you live in France, so we’ll apply French wage levels and French working conditions to you.” Their employment is in Switzerland, so the relevant wage context is Switzerland.

And the same logic has to apply to migrant workers. Otherwise, you end up with two people doing the same job, in the same place, for the same company, but one is considered to need less simply because of where they were born or where their family lives. That is very difficult to defend within a Living Wage policy.

A related question we get is: do young people need a Living Wage? Sometimes people argue that young workers don’t have a home or a family to support, that they still live with their parents, so why should they receive what is essentially a Family Living Wage?

Our answer is always: you simply don’t know. A young person may already have a child or other dependants. And if they don’t, they may be planning to start a family, move out, or become financially independent.

And as an employer, you really don’t want to start asking: Are you living with your parents? Are you pregnant? Do you want to become pregnant? Are you planning to get married? That would obviously be completely inappropriate.

So the much more sensible principle is that the Living Wage is attached to the job, not to the personal circumstances of the person doing it. Two people doing the same work shouldn’t receive a different wage because one happens to be 22 and living with their parents and the other is 35 with children.

Is it discrimination or...?

Daniela: Well, I think the starting point is simply that a person is a person, regardless of whether they come from another country, are young or old, married or single, or have children or not. A Living Wage should not depend on those personal characteristics. It should be linked to the work and to the cost of living where that work takes place.

How about working time? Is it easily accepted that a Living Wage is a concept related to “normal” working hours?

Daniela: Yes, and I think this is an important part of the concept. Some companies are perfectly ok with the idea that we calculate Living Wage estimates based on standard working hours. And in some cases, those standard hours are actually lower than the legal maximum. You might have a legal working week of 48 hours, while the standard working week is 40 or 42 hours. Of course, there are situations where people work much more. A young person might work 60 hours a week for a period because they are saving for a house, a wedding, or something else. That can happen.

But that is different from saying that someone needs to work 60 hours a week in order to reach a decent standard of living. If we are talking about a Living Wage, then the idea is really that a person should be able to earn enough within normal or standard working hours. A decent life is not only about how much money you earn, but also about having enough time to actually live it.

Do companies ever try to pressure you to make the Living Wage estimates lower?

Daniela: No, not in that sense. But there can definitely be pressure in a more indirect way.

Sometimes a client may feel that our estimate is high compared with another Living Wage estimate they have seen elsewhere or compared to what someone they know in a certain place has told them. And then there is always the risk that they say: “Well, maybe we should use that other estimate instead.”

So the challenge is not really bribery. It is more about staying consistent and being able to explain why your methodology gives the result it gives. If an estimate becomes inconvenient, that cannot be a reason to make it lower. At the same time, you have to take questions seriously and be transparent about the assumptions behind the estimate.

For me, that independence is very important. Otherwise, a Living Wage estimate risks becoming a number that follows what companies are comfortable paying, instead of a number that reflects what workers actually need for a decent standard of living.

Is it OK that clients shop around for the lowest Living Wage estimates?

Mehr: I don’t think simply choosing the lowest Living Wage estimate is really in the company’s best interest. The whole purpose is to understand what fair compensation looks like, not to find the cheapest number available.

There are smarter and more constructive ways to deal with concerns about the level of an estimate. For example, you can have a proper discussion about which bonuses, allowances and in-kind benefits can reasonably be included in the wage gap calculation.

That can get quite practical: maybe the company provides a dormitory bed to a migrant worker whose family lives 5,000 kilometres away. Maybe workers receive subsidised meals, or food through a company shop. Then the question is: what is the real value of those benefits, and should they count towards the Living Wage?

Those are legitimate discussions. But at the same time, you want to keep it fair and make sure that the calculation still reflects a decent life for the worker and their family.

So I would say: don’t shop for the lowest number. Work with a methodology you trust, and then have a transparent discussion about what can fairly be counted as part of compensation.

And what about greenwashing, or perhaps more accurately, social washing? Do you see companies making strong Living Wage claims that are not really supported by what is happening in practice?

Mehr: Yes, of course that risk exists. A company can have a very smart Living Wage policy on paper and still find ways to make the numbers look better than the reality.

Our role at WageIndicator is to provide the best possible Living Wage estimates and a logical framework. We explain what the methodology is, what can be included in remuneration, and where the boundaries are; but we are not the policeman and we are not the priest. We are not there to judge every company or investigate whether every claim they make is correct.

And I actually think that distance is very important: as researchers, we need to stick to our methodology and our rules (which, of course, we recommend to companies).

At the same time, yes, we see things. We see how creatively companies can sometimes interpret bonuses, allowances or in-kind benefits to say that they meet a Living Wage. That is why independent auditing matters. In the end, we hope auditors are strict, ask the difficult questions and check whether a company’s Living Wage claim really matches what workers receive.

So our job is to make the framework as clear and robust as possible. The auditor’s job is to check whether companies are actually applying it properly.

If you have any more questions, please get in touch with us directly.