Work & pay
Directive (EU) 2023/970
Pay Transparency
Pay Transparency Directive
Employers must be clearer about pay — in job ads, in conversations, and in numbers that show if women and men are paid the same for equal work.
Does this hit me?
You should walk into interviews knowing the band. You can talk about pay with colleagues. If your employer is large, gap reports become public-ish tools.
Check in the wizardPick a country in the header to see who enforces this at home. Union text is not the last word for directives.
Next switch-on: already in force · 7 Jun 2026 — Pay Transparency Directive — Member States must apply
How it rolls in
Jun 2023
Entered into force.
Jun 2026
National rules must apply.
Why it exists
The gender pay gap stayed sticky. Secret salary bands make it hard to even see discrimination, let alone fix it.
What actually changes
- Job seekers can see pay ranges before interview; employers cannot ask your salary history.
- Workers can request pay information for comparable categories.
- Companies above size thresholds report gender pay gaps; a 5% unexplained gap triggers joint action.
- Pay secrecy clauses that stop workers talking about wages are restricted.
How it hits you
You should walk into interviews knowing the band. You can talk about pay with colleagues. If your employer is large, gap reports become public-ish tools.
For citizens
What this does to everyday life
Rights, bills, and what you can ignore. You are usually not the one who files — companies and states are.
Job ads with a number
From June 2026 in national law, you should see a pay range before you interview. Employers should not ask what you earned before.
Talking about pay
Clauses that forbid workers from discussing wages are restricted. You can ask how your category compares.
The gender pay gap as a number
Larger employers must report. A gap above 5% that they cannot explain should trigger joint action with workers' representatives.
Rights you actually get
- Pay information for comparable work.
- No salary-history question in recruitment.
- Compensation if you are paid less for equal work or work of equal value.
Costs and trade-offs
- Some advertised ranges will be wide. That is better than a secret, but you may still need to negotiate inside the band.
What you can do
- Keep the job ad. If the offer is far below the range, ask why in writing.
- Talk to a union or equality body if categories look like a trick to hide a gap.
What you can ignore
- Your exact salary is not published on a public website.
- You do not have to disclose your old salary to get an interview.
If something goes wrong
Works council or union, labour inspectorate, and the national equality body. Deadlines sit in national transposition.
More citizen notes across files: For people
Heard this? Not quite.
Claim: Everyone's exact salary is posted on the intranet.
Ranges, categories, and gap statistics — not a live feed of every colleague's payslip.
Latest official statements
All EU NewsNo tagged Commission, Parliament or Council statement in the current feeds.
Board one-pager
Board one-pager
Who this is for: EU employers and workers. Directive (EU) 2023/970. already in force · 7 Jun 2026.
Scope
- You employ workers in an EU Member State. Reporting thresholds phase by size (150+, then 100+).
First 90 days
- Before Jun 2026: Put pay ranges in job ads; ban salary-history questions in interview scripts.
- Before Jun 2026: Build gender-pay reporting categories and a 5% trigger process.
Penalties: National labour fines; compensation for victims of pay discrimination. Burden of proof tilts toward the employer in many cases.
For companies
How to stay on the right side of this file
Practical order of work, not a substitute for counsel. Employers in Member States — reporting and joint-pay-assessment duties scale with headcount.
You are probably
In if you advertise roles or employ people in the EU. Reporting extra if you are above the headcount threshold.
Effort
Ranges: days if pay bands exist. Equal-value mapping: weeks to months.
Budget
HR + reward, not a campaign. Software is optional; the job architecture is not.
Roles in this file
The same company can wear more than one hat. Classify before you buy a tool.
Employer
You hire in a Member State.
Ranges in ads, comparable-work map, answer staff questions, report if over the threshold.
Are you in scope?
This year's work- You employ workers in an EU Member State. Reporting thresholds phase by size (150+, then 100+).
Usually not, if
- Companies with no EU employees. Pure contractor models still need a hard look — misclassification is a separate risk.
First moves
- Before Jun 2026Put pay ranges in job ads; ban salary-history questions in interview scripts.Talent
- Before Jun 2026Build gender-pay reporting categories and a 5% trigger process.Reward + legal
- Even below reporting thresholds: ranges in ads and no secrecy clauses that forbid talking about pay.
If you skip this
- Ads without ranges after the apply-date.
- A gap you cannot explain with a comparable-work story.
- National delay used as a reason to wait — candidates will not.
Done looks like
- A live range in every ad.
- A documented comparable-work method.
- A named person who answers the staff question.
Keep this evidence
- Job ads with ranges.
- Category definitions.
- Gap reports.
- Joint-assessment file if required.
Ask vendors
- Can the HRIS report pay by comparable category and gender without manual Excel heroics?
Where programmes usually break
- Copying US 'pay transparency' ranges that do not match EU comparable-work categories.
Call counsel when
- Works-council consultation.
- A pay-gap report that could trigger a joint pay assessment.
- Cross-border roles advertised in several States.
Enforcement
National labour fines; compensation for victims of pay discrimination. Burden of proof tilts toward the employer in many cases.
Labour inspectorates and equality bodies under national transposition.
Need a stack, not one file? Open the company desk
Professional briefing
Legal architecture and duties
For counsel, compliance, and policy teams. Not advice. The Official Journal still wins.
- Instrument
- Directive
- Legal basis
- Art 157 TFEU · Directive (EU) 2023/970
- Application
- Transposition deadline 7 June 2026. Rights on pay information, pay-gap reporting, and enforcement apply from national entry-into-force dates — expect Q2/Q3 2026 divergence.
A labour-law directive to make equal pay for equal work and work of equal value justiciable. It imposes pay-range disclosure before interview, a ban on pay-history questions, worker access to pay-level information, gender pay-gap reporting for employers at 100+ (phased), and a joint pay assessment if the gap exceeds 5% and is unexplained. The burden of proof and compensation rules are deliberately claimant-friendly. This is national employment law once transposed.
How the file is built
Individual rights
Pay range in the vacancy or before the interview; no pay-history question; right to information on individual pay level and average by sex for categories of workers doing the same work or work of equal value.
Reporting and joint assessment
Gender pay-gap reporting to a national authority, published. >5% unexplained gap in any category → joint pay assessment with workers’ representatives.
Enforcement design
Shifted burden of proof, compensation without upper cap, limitation periods floor, equality bodies’ standing, prohibition of victimisation, possible class-style procedures under national law.
Operators
| Role | Who | Core duties |
|---|---|---|
| Employer | Public and private employers in the Union; reporting duties scale by headcount (100/150/250 waves). | Pay structures, job evaluation, vacancy ranges, reporting, joint assessments. |
| Workers’ representatives | Unions / works councils. | Access to data; participate in joint pay assessment. |
| Equality body / labour inspectorate | National. | Receive reports, litigate, fine. |
Scope
Employment relationships in the Member State of transposition. Posting of workers and multi-state employers will need a right-to-pay map. The Directive does not, by itself, bind a non-EU employer with no EU employees.
In
- Pay: wages and all complementary or variable components (bonuses, in-kind, occupational pensions in the pay concept as defined).
- Categories of workers doing the same work or work of equal value — analytical job-evaluation tools are expected.
- Applicants as well as workers for the vacancy-information rights.
Out, or narrower than assumed
- Reporting thresholds: employers below 100 workers are out of the reporting chapter (not out of equal-pay rights).
- Some Member States may exclude specified public-service categories — read the statute.
Operative provisions
| Anchor | Rule | What it does in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Art 5 | Pay range or initial pay in the job advertisement or before interview; no asking about pay history. | ATS and recruiter scripts are a legal control, not a comms preference. |
| Art 7–9 | Worker information rights; confidentiality clauses that prevent discussing pay are restricted. | US-style pay-secrecy policies fail. |
| Art 9–10 | Pay-gap reporting; 5% trigger for joint assessment. | Category design (how you bucket jobs) is the sensitive judgement — gaming it is litigable. |
| Arts 16–22 | Burden of proof, compensation, limitation, victimisation. | Once a prima facie gap is shown, the employer explains the system. |
Secondary law and guidance
- Commission implementing tools on reporting formats.
- National job-evaluation methodologies and equality-body templates.
National layer. Everything operational is national: who the equality body is, whether works councils exist, how ‘work of equal value’ is judged, and criminal vs administrative sanctions. Nordic and French employers already have cousins of this file; others start from near zero.
How it sits with other files
Hiring and promotion AI is Annex III high-risk. A biased model is an AI Act and a pay-transparency exhibit.
Pay data is personal (and sometimes special-category if inferred health/union). Disclosure to colleagues is statistically aggregated for averages.
ESRS S1 pay-gap metrics should match the labour-law report, not a second number.
Enforcement and private rights
Who
Labour inspectorates, equality bodies, labour courts.
Tools
Orders, fines, compensation with no statutory cap in the Directive, exclusion from public procurement as a possible national add-on.
Private rights
The main enforcement path. Representative actions possible. Victimisation is itself a cause of action.
Risk register
| Risk | Signal | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal vacancy | ‘Competitive salary’ with no range after June 2026 in a transposed State | Range in every ad; recruiter ban on history questions. |
| Category gerrymandering | Job families drawn to hide a 5%+ gap | Gender-neutral analytical evaluation; document the methodology. |
| Two pay-gap numbers | CSRD S1 vs labour report disagree | Single owner for the definition of pay and headcount. |
Open issues
- Quality of transposition on ‘work of equal value’.
- How variable pay and carried interest are categorised.
- Cross-border remote work: which State’s reporting applies.
Primary sources
Vacancy pay ranges and a right to compare with people doing the same work. Late national law is not a strategy past 7 June 2026.
You feel it now
Some Member States already had gap reporting. The Directive’s apply-date is 7 June 2026.
Next
Reporting thresholds phase with headcount. Inspectors will start with ads, not the algorithm.
Where it lands
| Channel | People | Companies |
|---|---|---|
| Job hunt | Look for a range in the ad. Ask how your pay sits against comparable work. | Every vacancy that still says ‘competitive’ is a finding waiting for an inspector. |
| Workforce | You can ask for average pay by sex for comparable work. Retaliation is the litigation risk. | Mapping ‘same work or work of equal value’ is the hard part — not the PDF of the gap. |
Who gains
Candidates and staff in underpaid comparable roles.
Who pays
Employers whose ranges only exist in a recruiter’s head.
Who pays
Employers, especially larger ones that must report and remediate.
Who benefits
Workers, particularly where pay was opaque or biased.
Read the official text