What’s next for Romania? Lessons from Europe’s implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive

With a transposition deadline set for 7 June 2026, the directive mandates member states to embed robust pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms into national legislation. Its core objectives include ensuring equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, reducing the adjusted gender pay gap below 5% and empowering employees with the right to access pay information. 

Key provisions include mandatory pay reporting for companies with over 100 employees, transparency in recruitment processes, and the prohibition of pay secrecy clauses. 

Among the member states, Belgium stands out as the first to adopt the directive into national law, applying it specifically to public sector employers in the French Community, with the law effective from 1 January 2025. Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the Netherlands have already published draft laws or official investigations outlining their planned implementation. Lithuania has proposed amendments to its Labour Code to align with the directive, introducing significant new obligations for employers - from hiring practices to pay systems and reporting - with parliamentary approval expected during this fall. Poland is also among the early movers, having initiated steps toward transposition, though specific draft details are still pending. 

Meanwhile, in Romania, the draft law is expected to be published in the following period, marking the beginning of the national legislative process to transpose the directive. Given Romania’s current legislative landscape and public discourse around pay equity, the forthcoming draft is likely to reflect both EU obligations and national priorities. 

To better understand how Directive (EU) 2023/970 is being interpreted and implemented across the EU, we analysed draft laws and legislative amendments from seven member states^[i] - Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Poland^[ii]. This comparative overview highlights the diversity in national approaches, offering insight into how the directive is shaping up across Europe - and what Romania might soon follow. 

1. Pay transparency in job ads 

One of the directive’s most immediate changes is the requirement for employers to disclose salary information during recruitment - either in job ads or before negotiations. Member states vary in how strictly they apply this. 

Belgium and Lithuania mandate salary ranges directly in job ads, with Belgium also requiring non-discriminatory and accessible postings, while Lithuania builds on existing national practice. 

Finland, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland allow more flexibility. While all require salary disclosure before negotiations, not all insist it be in the job ad. Finland encourages it, Poland permits it at various stages, while in the Netherlands, employers must disclose any applicable collective bargaining agreements and their provisions concerning pay upfront in the recruitment process. In Ireland, it is expected that the legislation will introduce the disclosure of salaries before a candidate attends the first-round interview, rather than in the advertisement. 

2. Salary history ban 

The Directive prohibits employers from asking about a candidate’s past salary during recruitment - a key measure to prevent historical pay discrimination from influencing future compensation. 

All seven countries - Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden - have included this ban in their draft laws, showing strong alignment with Article 5 (2). 

Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden clearly prohibit salary history inquiries at any stage. Poland goes further by amending its Labour Code to ban such questions, while still allowing inquiries about previous employment. 

3. Transparent pay structures and work of equal value 

Directive (EU) 2023/970 requires employers to design and communicate gender-neutral pay systems and to evaluate roles based on “work of equal value” using at least four minimum criteria, such as skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The goal is to ensure employees understand how their pay is determined and that fairness can be assessed. 

Belgium, Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden explicitly mandate the integration of these criteria into pay-setting and career progression frameworks, often linking them to corrective measures where unjustified gaps are identified. In Ireland, the principle of equal pay for work of equal value (or ‘like work’) is already established under the Employment Equality Act, and the Directive builds on this requirement. While not yet finalised, it is expected that the four criteria will be embedded into job classifications and career progression frameworks. By contrast, Poland has yet to detail methodologies or enforcement mechanisms. Sweden goes further by embedding these evaluation standards directly into its mandatory annual pay equity audits, ensuring consistency and accountability. 

4. Data privacy 

The Directive strengthens employee rights to access pay information but requires all data processing to comply with GDPR - ensuring transparency doesn’t compromise privacy. 

Employers must: 

• Share pay data securely and confidentially.
• Anonymise or aggregate comparative data.
• Limit disclosures to what’s necessary. 

Finland, Ireland and Sweden embed GDPR safeguards in their draft laws, ensuring privacy in pay disclosures and audits. Poland also references GDPR in relation to recruitment and reporting. In Lithuania, while the draft law does not directly reference GDPR, employers are nevertheless required to comply with GDPR principles. In Belgium, pay data must be handled in consultation with employee organisations, adding oversight to protect privacy. 

5. Right to information 

Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 gives employees the right to request meaningful pay data - such as their own salary, average pay for equivalent roles (by gender) and the criteria used to determine pay and progression. Member states must ensure this right is enforceable, timely, and protected from retaliation. 

Belgium, Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden have embedded this right into their draft laws. Most require employers to respond within two months and issue annual reminders. Finland and Sweden offer strong privacy safeguards, including routing sensitive data through representatives or equality bodies. Sweden also extends this right to former employees. 

Ireland has yet to fully address Article 7 and Poland has not included it in current amendments - though future provisions are expected.

6. Trade unions implications 

Consultation with trade unions and employee representatives is highly encouraged by the Directive, especially in job classification, dispute resolution, and collective bargaining. 

Belgium requires job classification systems to be developed in consultation with trade unions, ensuring transparency and fairness. Finland, Lithuania and Sweden also emphasise representative involvement, particularly when privacy concerns limit direct data sharing. Sweden integrates unions into pay equity audits, while Lithuania allows data requests via representatives or equality bodies.

Ireland does not yet specify union involvement, but its strong tradition of collective bargaining suggests a role in implementation. Poland has not addressed trade union implications in current drafts, though future legislation may include provisions for consultation. 

7. Reporting 

Directive (EU) 2023/970 introduces phased gender pay gap reporting based on company size, with flexibility in how member states implement it. 

Finland and the Netherlands have transposed the directive almost as written, introducing phased reporting by company size (e.g., annual for 250+ employees, every three years for 100–249), and requiring detailed breakdowns such as median/average gaps, variable pay, and quartile distributions. Sweden also follows the directive closely, mandating comprehensive reporting for companies with over 100 employees, submitted to the Equality Ombudsman, who publishes aggregated data. 

Belgium stands out with a centralised model: the government publishes annual reports with detailed breakdowns and notifies employers of deadlines, but this currently applies mainly to the public sector and does not explicitly phase reporting by company size. In Lithuania, the draft law requires employers to correct any unjustified gender pay gap of 5% or more within six months of the pay report, in close cooperation with employee representatives, the Labour Inspectorate and/or the Equality Body. If the gap remains uncorrected, a joint pay assessment becomes mandatory. 

Ireland has yet to clarify how annual reporting will integrate with existing frameworks and Poland has only partially transposed the directive so far, with detailed pay gap reporting mechanisms still to be developed. 

8. State support for compliance 

Member states are encouraged to support employers - especially SMEs - through centralised tools, practical guidelines, and digital infrastructure, as outlined in Directive (EU) 2023/970. 

Belgium provides centralised reporting and direct notifications, helping reduce administrative burden. Even though the current provisions apply only to the public sector, a largely similar transposition is expected to be maintained for the private sector as well. Finland uses a hybrid model: most data is submitted automatically, while job category breakdowns are manual. 

Lithuania supports compliance through clear thresholds and remediation timelines, with the Labour Inspectorate and equality bodies assisting in data interpretation. The Netherlands aligns with EU methodologies and is exploring digital platforms to streamline reporting. 

Sweden mandates reporting to the Equality Ombudsman (DO), who also provides guidance and publishes aggregated data. 

Ireland has yet to define its support framework, while Poland is still developing its own; in both cases, future legislation is expected to provide centralised tools, templates, and supporting infrastructure. 

9. Penalties & sanctions 

The Directive mandates effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for non-compliance, but member states vary in their enforcement models: 

Belgium

• Burden of proof: shifts to the employer in discrimination cases.
• Compensation:
  • Lump sum up to €3,900 (indexed, multiplied by criteria).
  • Full actual damages.
• No reference to the 5% pay gap threshold. 

Finland 

• Negligence fee: €5,000–€80,000 for poor or missing joint pay assessments.
• Employee compensation: min. €3,240; up to €16,210 for hiring discrimination.
• Compliance orders: enforceable by fines (uhkasakko).
• Claim period: extended to 3 years.
• Burden of proof: on the employer unless minor/unintentional.
• Anti-retaliation: explicitly prohibited. 

Ireland 

• Complaint period: extended from 6 to 12 months (+6-month extension possible).
• Max compensation: raised from €15,000 to €75,000 under the Equal Status Act. 

Lithuania 

• Trigger: 5%+ unjustified gender pay gap.
• Action window: 6 months to remediate, in cooperation with employee representatives, the Labour Inspectorate and/or the Equality Body.
• Sanctions: administrative fines may be applied only after the mandatory assessment, if the gap remains uncorrected. 

Netherlands 

• Enforcement: led by the Labour Inspectorate, focused on high-risk cases.
• Oversight: works councils have consent rights.
• Legal remedies: civil action with reversed burden of proof.
• Sanctions: warnings, orders, fines up to €10,300, public disclosure.
• Backpay risk: high for unjustified disparities. 

Poland 

• Recruitment transparency: fines of PLN 1,000–30,000 for missing salary info in job ads. 

Sweden

• Compensation: economic and non-economic damages.
• Claim limit: 3 years from discovery.
• Orders: issued by the Board against Discrimination with fines.
• Equality Ombudsman (DO): strong audit and enforcement powers.
• Judicial remedies: no punitive damages, but cumulative financial impact can be high.

10. Different requests for SMEs? 

Directive 2023/970 acknowledges the need to balance transparency with the administrative capacity of SMEs, but member states have interpreted this flexibly. 

Finland closely follows the directive’s phased thresholds: large companies report annually, mid-sized firms every three years, and SMEs with 100–149 employees begin reporting in 2031; however, some obligations (like the gender equality plan for companies with 30+ employees) apply to smaller firms as well.  

The Netherlands also adopts the directive’s thresholds without extra SME carve-outs, but applies risk-based enforcement, meaning smaller firms may face less scrutiny.  

Lithuania applies general provisions to all employers (size-based reporting thresholds are being considered), though enforcement is triggered only by unjustified pay gaps that are not remedied within 6 months.  

Sweden includes SMEs in its reporting framework, with tiered frequency and support from the Equality Ombudsman to ease compliance.  

Belgium’s model, focused on the public sector, indirectly supports SMEs by centralising reporting and notifications. 

Ireland has not yet specified SME thresholds in its draft law, but its existing framework is expected to expand. Poland currently requires salary disclosure for all employers, with further SME-specific rules still in development.

Conclusion 

Notably, Finland, Lithuania and Sweden are moving quickly on the EU Pay Transparency Directive, aiming to be compliant ahead of or closely aligned with the June 2026 deadline. Finland’s draft law is already published and scheduled for enforcement in May 2026, with some provisions - such as gender equality plans for companies with 30+ employees - already in force. Lithuania expects parliamentary approval of its amendments in the fall, targeting early compliance. Sweden has released its draft and is embedding the Directive’s requirements into its mandatory annual pay equity audits, ensuring systematic and ongoing compliance from the start. Poland has set an earlier implementation deadline for pay transparency in recruitment provisions - 24 December 2025, 6 months ahead of the general EU transposition deadline of June 2026. 

By contrast, the Netherlands has confirmed it will delay national implementation until no later than 1 January 2027, with the first pay-gap reporting for larger employers (≥150 FTE) based on 2027 data. This patchwork of staggered timelines underscores the Directive’s complexity and the importance for companies to prepare early - ideally starting with a readiness assessment to map requirements, data gaps, and sequencing across jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, several other Member States are progressing more gradually, with some still finalising their legislative frameworks or only having published initial draft laws for transposition.

Transparent and equitable pay structures foster stronger employee trust, improve retention, and enhance reputation with both talent and investors. Companies preparing for compliance should view these requirements not just as a regulatory burden, but as an opportunity to lead by example and differentiate themselves in the market.

As Romania prepares to publish its draft law transposing Directive (EU) 2023/970, it enters a decisive phase - one shaped by the lessons learned across Europe. While not among the earliest adopters, Romania benefits from observing a wide range of legislative models, enforcement strategies, and implementation challenges. This perspective offers Romania a unique opportunity to design a framework that is both compliant and contextually relevant. By aligning national priorities with the directive’s core principles - equal pay, transparency, and accountability - Romania can build a system that empowers employees, supports employers, and closes the gender pay gap with lasting impact.

_____________________________________________

^[i]Since the time of writing, Slovakia and Malta have also published draft laws to transpose Directive (EU) 2023/970. While this article analyses the approaches of other early movers, developments in these additional Member States further underscore the accelerating momentum toward full EU-wide implementation.

^[ii]This analysis was prepared in collaboration with Forvis Mazars teams across the countries covered in the study.