The EU's Pay Transparency Directive mandates employers to report on the full spectrum of compensation, not just base salaries. For a continent where most companies have yet to implement a transparency strategy, the definitional question of what constitutes "pay" may be a source a legal exposure for employers.
Pierre Gousset
Vice President Presales EMEA
Workday
Report
Two months before the first major EU Pay Transparency Directive deadline on 7 June 2026, a serious readiness gap remains: only 14% of organisations globally, and just 9% of employers in Europe, have fully implemented a transparency strategy. The regulation itself, Directive (EU) 2023/970, is not new. It was adopted in 2023 and gave member states three years to transpose it into national law. Yet the challenge now catching executives off guard is not the principle of equal pay. That idea has been codified in European law since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The harder question is definitional: what, exactly, does "pay" mean when an employer must prove that no unjustified gap exists?
The Directive's answer is deliberately expansive. It defines remuneration as any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, received directly or indirectly by a worker from an employer in respect of his or her employment. That means that, not only base salaries, but also bonuses, commissions overtime, company cars, , meal vouchers, and occupational pensions may all fall within scope the precise contours of what constitutes remuneration will be defined at the Member State level. It is a structural reckoning.
The equal-pay principle is nearly seven decades old. What changes under the new Directive are the enforcement mechanisms. Employers with 100 or more workers must report gender pay gaps across both base and variable compensation. Where an unadjusted gap of 5% or more exists in any worker category and has not been justified by objective, gender-neutral criteria or remediated within 6 months, a mandatory joint pay assessment with employee representatives must beconducted. The burden of proof has been reversed: once an employee presents facts suggesting discrimination, the employer must demonstrate that the disparity rests on legitimate, documented grounds.
This reversal is not symbolic. Under many previous frameworks, employees bore the responsibility of proving pay discrimination, a burden that often proved insurmountable given information asymmetry. The new regime turns every pay-related information request into a test of organisational readiness. Employers must respond fully within two months to requests on comparative pay data, and they are required to actively inform employees of their right to submit such requests at least once a year.
The sanctions for non-compliance are designed to bite. Member states must introduce effective penalties, ranging from heavy fines to revocation of public benefits. Workers can claim back pay, lost opportunities, and non-material damages. The reputational exposure, once a case becomes public, is incalculable.
The heart of the compliance challenge lies in data infrastructure. The vast majority of medium to large enterprises operate with fragmented data structures. Base salaries sit in core HR systems. Commissions are computed in sales tracking tools. Equity grants live in specialised third-party platforms. Benefits are administered through regional insurance brokers. Nowhere does a single, consolidated view of total actual remuneration exist, yet such a consolidated view would significantly simplify efforts to adhere to the Directive's requirements..
This fragmentation matters because the 5% threshold applies to total remuneration, not just base pay. A sales team where base salaries are set at the same level can still trigger mandatory joint pay assessments if discretionary bonuses, shaped by subjective manager ratings, produce a 5% or more gap in actual payouts (that is not justified by obective and gender-neutral criteria). Working on the premise that national laws may or may not include stock options as part of remuneration, a one-off retention award in restricted stock units, given to three engineers but not their female peers, may become reportable evidence of possible discrimination.
The Directive also sharpens a long-standing tension between target compensation and actual pay received. Modern compensation packages, particularly in sales, financial services, and executive roles, are built around variable elements whose realised value diverges significantly from their theoretical design. Stock options granted at a fair market value of €50,000 may be worth €150,000 by the reporting date if the share price surges. Using grant-date values offers stability; using realised values captures economic reality. It is to be hoped that national laws or authorities—should they include stock options in the remuneration base—will clarify how these elements are to be factored into the calculations
The Directive provides a baseline, but member states are transposing the rules with significant variation. The result is a compliance patchwork for multinational employers.
Germany is required to overhaul its existing Remuneration Transparency Act but not expected to meet the 2026 deadline. The current framework allows employees in establishments with over 200 workers only to request the statistical median salary of peers of the opposite gender performing equal work. Critically, the German Federal Labour Court has already ruled that if a female employee is paid less than the median of male comparators, a rebuttable presumption of discrimination is established. As Germany expands its scope, thresholds for gender pay gap reporting will drop while disclosure rights of employees will apply to all employers, and the strict limitation to individual establishments will likely be removed.
France uses its prescriptive Index de l'égalité professionnelle, mandatory for companies with at least 50 employees, scoring firms out of 100 on pay gap metrics. But the French framework excludes overtime pay, seniority premiums, severance pay, and statutory profit-sharing schemes from the index calculation, this may evolve with the transposition of the Directive into national law. Therefore, the fact that a company currently scores highly on the French index does not mean that this same company will remain in a strong position without changes to its compensation practices, once the EU Directive is transposed into national law.
In addition, the draft transposition bill itself acknowledges that the current French Index does not fully meet the Directive’s requirements, as it relies on an overall score based on various indicators, whereas the Directive requires a more granular assessment of pay gaps for work of equal value and triggers specific obligations where defined thresholds are exceeded. It also seeks to further define “work of equal value” by including non-technical skills and working conditions, while referring to company-level collective bargaining for the definition of comparable categories of employees, which may create practical challenges in ensuring consistency of comparisons across companies, including at European level, notably in the case of European Economic Interest Groupings (EEIGs).
Spain has not yet completed the transposition of Directive (EU) 2023/970 and the final implementing approach is not yet known. However, independently of the additional obligations that may arise once the Directive is implemented, Spain already has a comparatively developed pay-transparency framework. . Royal Decree 902/2020 requires all companies, regardless of size, to maintain a detailed remuneration register broken down by gender and professional category, including transportation stipends, accommodation allowances, relocation expenses, and any their salary and non-salary items. Companies with 50 or more employees must negotiate, adopt and implement a Gender Equality Plan. That plan must include a pay audit, be negotiated with employee representatives through the legally prescribed process, and be registered in a public register, which makes its content publicly accessible.
Sweden already mandates annual equal pay surveys for all employers, and employers with at least 10 employees must document the survey in writing. As part of that exercise, employers must analyse whether pay differences between women and men are directly or indirectly linked to parental leave and certain other family-related leave. The draft transposition legislation requires pay-reporting employers (i.e., those with at least 100 employees) to report to the Equality Ombudsman on the share of female and male employees who benefited from pay increases during, or on return from, parental leave and certain other family-related leave, where pay reporting reveals an unexplained gender pay gap of at least 5 per cent that remains unremedied after six months. It should be noted that, in March, the Swedish Government announced that it will seek a postponement of the implementation deadline of the EU Directive and advocate a targeted renegotiation at EU level, on the basis that the current framework is overly administratively burdensome and insufficiently adapted to national circumstances .
For multinational organisations, these divergences mean that a single global compensation policy is insufficient. French law excludes elements that Spanish law mandates. Germany aggregates what Spain itemises. The safest, and most operationally demanding, approach is to build to the strictest standard across jurisdictions.
The operational burden is substantial. Employers whose HR and payroll systems are not fragmented but consolidated into a unified data architecture - capable of producing mean and median pay gap calculations across both base and variable compensation - will find it easier to meet legal requirements. The same applies to employers whose performance management frameworks allowevery variable payout to be linked to documented, auditable, gender-neutral criteria. The use of regression analysis, rather than simple raw averages, is highly effective for isolating the justified or unjustified portion of any gap - structural factors like tenure, location, and education can easily push raw figures past the 5% threshold.
The timeline pressure is real. Waiting until national legislation is enacted to build data infrastructure risks compressed timelines and reporting errors that expose the company to regulatory penalties. The cost of remediation, both corrective pay adjustments and system investment, is front-loaded. But the cost of inaction is higher: retroactive compensation orders, administrative fines, and the reputational fallout of a public equal-pay dispute.
The Directive materially strengthens employee bargaining power. The right to request comparative pay data, combined with the reversed burden of proof, gives workers tools that were previously unavailable in some jurisdictions. For candidates, mandatory salary-range disclosure, possibly in job postings, and the prohibition on asking about pay history shift the information asymmetry toward greater balance.
Yet transparency also carries friction. Published salary ranges can create internal tension where colleagues discover unexplained differentials. The quality of organisational communication, from Q&A sessions and clear narratives on pay progression to accessible job evaluation methodologies, will determine whether transparency builds trust or breeds resentment.
The enforcement challenge is considerable. Regulators must build the capacity to process pay gap reports from thousands of organisations and identify patterns of non-complianceThe tension between transparency and data protection adds complexity. Anonymisation protects individual privacy, but small comparison groups risk re-identification. The Directive stipulates that where re-identification is possible, only workers' representatives, labour inspectorates, or equality bodies should access the data [36]. Balancing these interests will require sophisticated guidance that most national regulators have not yet issued.
Report
Several assumptions embedded in corporate practice and regulatory design deserve scrutiny.
Base-salary equity does not equal pay equity. The research makes clear that this assumption is dangerously incomplete. Discretionary bonuses, in-kind benefits, and equity awards can harbour disparities that base-salary audits never surface. The Directive explicitly requires total remuneration analysis for this reason.
Discretionary pay carries more risk than most managers assume. Under the strict lens of the Directive, uncodified managerial discretion becomes a major liability. Subjective arguments may be legally indefensible if an employee challenges a pay disparity. Spot awards, retention bonuses, and ad hoc recognition payments that lack standardised, objective criteria increase litigation exposure.
Existing national compliance does not guarantee compliance with future laws transposing the EU Directive. The France example illustrates this. The current French framework comprises four to five indicators that differ from the seven indicators set out in the Directive. Furthermore, the list of components to be taken into account as part of compensation may evolve with the transposition of the Directive..
Modern flexibility perks are not clearly outside the scope. Remote work subsidies, mental health support, and wellness stipends remain under-examined by regulators. No bright-line rule yet exists for when these items cross from localised benefit to reportable component of pay. Until clearer guidance emerges, prudent employers may consider documenting every allocation decision on objective, non-discriminatory grounds.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive is not a future problem. The transposition deadline is weeks away, and the readiness gap is stark. The organisations best positioned treat the definitional complexity of "pay" as a structural opportunity: to clean fragmented data, to overhaul performance management, and to build documented, defensible compensation practices that earn trust from employees, regulators, and markets at once.
Suggested immediate next steps:
● Employers: Launch a cross-functional data consolidation sprint and audit all variable pay for documented objectivity.
● Employees: Familiarise themselves with the right to request comparative pay information and understand what data employers are now obligated to provide.
● Policymakers: Prioritise clear administrative guidance on equity valuation timing, the treatment of modern flexibility perks, and anonymisation standards for small comparison groups.
Bolster compliance, protect your brand and build trust with a Workday and Kainos solution that gives HR leaders the insights and confidence to lead with transparency.