EU Commission’s FAQ on the Pay Transparency Directive (EU) 2023/970

During August 2026, the European Commission published the document “FAQ on the Pay Transparency Directive (EU) 2023/970”, aimed at providing useful guidance on the implementation of the Directive.

The document also addresses a number of issues that are currently the subject of significant discussion in Italy in connection with the implementation of Legislative Decree No. 96/2026.

Which elements of pay must be included for the purposes of pay transparency measures?

In line with the case law of the Court of Justice, the Directive defines ‘pay’ (Art3(1)(a)) as the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary, but also any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which a worker receives directly or indirectly in respect of his or her employment from his or her employer. In other words, complementary or variable components constitute an integral part of the definition of pay. The same definition is used in the Recast directive.
At the same time, the objective and function of the pay transparency measures is to help identify and assess potential instances of pay discrimination.
Concerning the pay reporting (Article 9 of the Directive), it involves providing an overview of the situation within an organisation regarding:

• current workers employed in the organisation;
• a given reporting period (the ‘previous calendar year’ referred to in Article 9 of the Directive);
• actual pay (Recital 22 of the Directive).

For the purpose of pay transparency measures, in line with the objective sought by the Directive, the scope of the concepts used (‘pay level’ or ‘gender pay gap’ or ‘median gender pay gap’) may be considered in a way that takes into account the objective and the function of these pay transparency measures.

Against this background, when implementing the pay transparency measures, the starting point should be that to calculate pay levels or gender pay gaps, all elements of pay related to workers employed during the reporting period should be included. It may be necessary to assign a specific monetary value to each benefit in kind for the purpose of pay transparency measures.
Employer’s contributions to occupational schemes always need to be taken into account for pay transparency purposes. The latter are indeed always paid for current workers in a given reporting period and therefore always constitute actual pay (in the context of both equal pay and pay transparency).
In line with the objective of the Directive and in view of the pay transparency measures under Articles 7, 9, and 10 it may not be useful to include:

• Payments and benefits in cash or in kind that are not subject to any eligibility criteria and are collectively paid to all employees without any exceptions (same amount or benefit to every employee). For example, lunch vouchers, smartphones, laptops, Christmas gift cards, collective learning courses, etc. would not need to be included, provided that they are benefits that are available to all workers without preconditions or exceptions;
• Payments and benefits in cash or in kind that are accessible to workers on a voluntary basis, without eligibility criteria and without exception (e.g. gym membership).

In line with CJEU case-law, statutory social security benefits and benefits deriving from them, are not considered as pay

What is a category of workers?

For the purpose of the Directive, the categorisation of workers should be based on the value of work assigned to them within the organisation. Workers performing the exact same work would, by definition, fall within the same category. However, there may also be workers within the organisation who perform different types of work, that are nevertheless of the same value. In such cases, these workers should be considered as belonging to the same category and pay range, because the value of their work is the same.
This assessment should be done by employers in a way that is not arbitrary, and that is based on gender-neutral criteria. Such criteria should be at least: skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Beyond these minimum requirements, employers
may include other relevant gender-neutral and bias free factors and are free to weigh each criterion differently depending on their relevance for evaluating the job role.
It is up to employers to define categories of work of equal value, based on a combination of weighted criteria in cooperation with workers’ representatives where they exist.
To facilitate this work and limit administrative burden, Member States are required by the Directive to ensure that analytical tools or methodologies are made available and are easily accessible to support and guide the assessment and comparison of the value of work in accordance with the criteria.

The European Commission, together with EIGE, has updated the EU‑wide guidelines on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification, and produced a toolkit that translates the legal requirements of the Directive into voluntary and practical, ready-made step‑by‑step support for employers, workers and social partners.

Can there be other factors used to assess work of equal value going beyond the four criteria mentioned in the Directive?

The Directive refers to mandatory four criteria when assessing the value of work: skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. These four mandatory criteria should be set as a minimum legal requirement for employers and should be sufficient to evaluate jobs.
Although all four mandatory criteria must be taken into account, individual employers may weigh each criterion differently depending on their relevance for evaluating the job role.
Article 4(4) also specifies that employers may go beyond these minimum requirements and include other relevant factors. This gives employers flexibility to take into account specific circumstances in their organizations. However, in line with the existing Court of Justice case-law, when taking into account additional elements, the employer must be able to justify the importance and relevance of such element; this element must be gender- neutral and non-biased; and its application must be proportional.
While market conditions could influence the determination of the level of pay of a worker, they are less likely to be directly linked to the intrinsic value of the job itself, and should be treated with caution.