A significant shift is coming for employers across Europe with the impending transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive. Monica De Jonghe from the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (VBO-FEB) provided an in-depth, though challenging, analysis of the directive, highlighting key obligations, risks, and the path forward for businesses, particularly in Belgium.

This article is an overview of what she said during the Hrpro conference on October 17, 2025.

The Directive: A Complex New System

While the VBO-FEB fully supports the directive's objective—equal pay for equal work to address the gender pay gap and combat discrimination—the implementation presents a complex challenge. The directive, published in May 2023, must be transposed into national law by June, 2026.

A major point of contention is the detail and lack of flexibility in the directive, leaving "little leeway for negotiation during transposition," making it feel more like a regulation than a directive. This issue is compounded by the fact that the administrative burden is being placed on top of existing Belgian reporting requirements. In the process of transposing the directive, there will hopefully be room for some simplifications.

Key Obligations and New Rights

The directive introduces numerous new individual and collective rights and obligations that will profoundly impact HR policy and practice.

For Applicants:

  • Applicants have the right to receive information about the initial pay or its range.
  • Crucially, employers are not allowed to ask applicants about their pay history during current or previous employment relationships. Asking these questions could lead to possible claims.

For Individual Workers:

  • Workers have the right to gain access to information about their pay.
  • The directive introduces extensive rights to compensation and reparation in cases of discrimination. These rights are broad and may be difficult to estimate in terms of financial impact for companies.
  • Workers are protected from retaliation (victimization and less favorable treatment) if they access their rights or support a colleague.

The Burden of Proof and Compensation:

  • The directive introduces a shift in the burden of proof. In the event of a presumption of discrimination, the employer must prove the contrary.
  • The comparison for "equal work" is interpreted broadly; it is not limited to workers employed by the same employer at the same time. Evidence can include statistical data or even a hypothetical comparison in case there is not a real comparator within the company.
  • Full compensation for workers may include back pay, all variable pay, and compensation for moral damages or loss of opportunity. Proving the contrary for past pay decisions (e.g., explaining a bonus decision from 10 years ago) will be a major difficulty.

Collective Reporting and Pay Assessment

The obligation for collective reporting and joint pay assessments is tiered by company size:

Number of Workers

Reporting Frequency (After Transposition)

  1. > 250 employees
    Every year, starting 1 year after transposition
  2. 150 - 249
    Every 3 years, starting 1 year after transposition
  3. 100 - 149
    Every 3 years, starting 5 years after transposition
  4. < 100
    No reporting obligation, but a standstill regulation may impact existing Belgian requirements

A joint pay assessment is triggered when three conditions are met:

  1. A gender pay gap of at least 5% exists within the same category of workers.
  2. The employer cannot justify the difference by objective and gender-neutral criteria.
  3. The employer does not remedy the difference within six months of the reporting.

Challenges for HR and Businesses

The directive presents significant challenges that increase the risk for employers:

  • Defining "Equal Work": The directive's broad approach to proving equal work will be challenging to implement in practice.
  • Neutral Criteria: Categories must be determined on a case-by-case basis using objective and gender-neutral criteria, requiring extensive work for companies.
  • Increased Risk: The shift of the burden of proof and the extensive rights to reparation mean the risk for employers increases significantly.
  • High Costs: Compliance will entail significant costs due to administrative burdens, potential pay adjustments, and the high risk of retroactive compensation claims and sanctions.
  • Complex Reporting: Collective reporting for larger businesses is a difficult task requiring a "very complex puzzle" of information that may not be easily available through a single flow.

The Belgian Context and the Way Forward

In Belgium, the social partners are currently involved in discussions on the transposition. The VBO-FEB is actively lobbying on two fronts:

  1. European Level: The federation is working with BusinessEurope to convince the European Commission to obtain a "stop the clock" directive (similar to the CSRD) in view of a revision of the directive and make it more tailor-made, reducing the administrative burden. Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries are also pushing for this.
  2. Belgian Level: The VBO-FEB will urge the Minister of Employment to postpone the national transposition until the outcome of the European efforts are clear. Encouragingly, the Belgian government has indicated it will not go for gold-plating (adding extra national requirements).

HR departments are set to play a central role in implementation, managing job classification, pay policy, and reporting. Employers must be highly prudent in all pay-related matters and focus on thoroughly documenting individual and collective HR decisions to be able to meet the burden of proof. The directive's requirements also necessitate creating new internal and external information and communication channels.