
Being transparent about pay could save EU women €700 per year
Women in the EU still earned, on average, 12% less than men in 2023, according to Eurostat. The EU's Pay Transparency Directive, which member states must incorporate into their national laws by June 2026, aims to address the gender pay gap.
However, some business groups oppose certain provisions and are calling for an exemption for companies with 100 to 250 employees, rather than limiting it to those with fewer than 50 workers.
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) calculated that blocking the transparency would cost EU women at least €4.8 billion per year, potentially rising to €7.2b. This is equivalent to €465–€700 per woman annually.
Despite these efforts, salary transparency in job postings remains very low in some of Europe's largest economies including Germany, with rates below 20%, according to hiring platform Indeed.
'The European Commission must include strong measures to support equal pay in its upcoming Roadmap for Women's Rights,' Isabelle Schömann, ETUC Deputy General Secretary, said.
'Equality thrives on transparency. The more we can shine a light on discrimination, the more we can force action to address its injustice.'
Related
Women's parity vital to EU competitiveness drive, says agency director
Average salary rankings in Europe: Which countries pay the highest?
ETUC estimates that the companies in Europe with between 100 and 250 employees — which could be subject to a transparency exemption — employ over 10 million women in total.
'Companies have been playing the card of being overburdened by regulation, but it is women workers who for too long have been overburdened with low pay,' Schömann said.
ETUC emphasises that transparency has been shown to be a crucial lever for women workers and their unions to reduce the gender pay gap.
Women in SMEs could lose €465–€700 per year
ETUC found that if pay transparency requirements reduced the gender pay gap by 15%, the gap for 10.4mn women working in enterprises with 100 to 249 employees would decline from €4,640 per year to €3,944. That would result in a gain of around €700 per woman, or €7.2b in total.
With a more conservative estimate of a 10% reduction, the gender pay gap would decrease to €4,176 per year, giving each woman a boost of around €465. In this case, excluding these workers in small and medium-sized enterprises from pay transparency would cost €4.8b annually.
Reporting obligations
ETUC states that lobby group BusinessEurope is advocating for the Commission to exclude the majority of companies covered by the Pay Transparency Directive from gender pay gap reporting requirements. In its report, Reducing Regulatory Burden to Restore the EU's Competitive Edge, BusinessEurope proposed that 'the scope of this article needs to be changed to exclude all SMEs with less than 250 workers from the reporting obligations'.
'BusinessEurope supports reasonable measures to reduce the gender pay gap. Unfortunately, the pay transparency directive imposes very burdensome pay reporting obligations and incomprehensible requirements ...on companies, which will not advance the cause of gender equality. It is a very clear case of necessary simplification,' the organisation told Euronews Business.
Salary transparency significantly varies in top economies
According to Indeed, as of the end of 2024, the UK had the highest salary transparency among six European countries, with 70% of job postings including salary information.
In France, salary transparency stood at 51%, slightly above the 50% mark. In the Netherlands and Ireland, it ranged between 40-45%.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, Germany (16%) and Italy (19%) lagged significantly behind, with transparency rates falling below 20%.
Reasons behind huge differences
'There is a stark contrast in salary transparency across Europe,' Lisa Feist, an economist at Indeed Hiring Lab, told Euronews Business.
'Labour markets have their marked differences and come with their own history and culture around pay.'
She explained that differences in sectoral composition and wage-setting institutions likely also contribute to these very different transparency levels.
ADVERTISEMENT
'Surveys indicate that comfort levels in discussing salaries differ significantly across Europe, making the transposition of the EU directive into national law a significant shift for many market participants.' she added.
Transparency supports women and marginalised groups
Lisa Feist also emphasised the key role of salary transparency in addressing the
gender pay gap
. 'Pay transparency—whether through salary data in job ads or early in the hiring process—helps reduce information asymmetry between employers and candidates,' she said.
Noting that women and other marginalised groups often have less access to informal networks and may face penalties for negotiating assertively, she added: 'Providing salary information upfront strengthens their position in pay negotiations and promotes fairer outcomes.'
Salary transparency is lowest in high-paid jobs
Indeed data reveals that salary transparency is lowest in high-paying occupations. Among the six countries analysed, cleaning & sanitation had the highest transparency, followed by driving, education & instruction, and food preparation & services.
ADVERTISEMENT
In contrast, industrial engineering, software development, information design & documentation, project management, and law were among the least transparent job categories.
Employers in high-wage industries tend to be less inclined to disclose salaries. This trend is consistent in five countries, except for the Netherlands.
For example, in France, salary transparency was 68% in low-wage jobs, compared to 39% in high-wage positions. This pattern is even more strong in Ireland: 57% vs 18%.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Tariffs: EU Commission to suspend retaliation by another six months
The European Commission will suspend on Tuesday a package of trade countermeasures targeting €93 billions' worth of American goods which was scheduled to take effect on 7 August, as it continues to negotiate a joint statement formalising the agreement struck by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump on 27 July. 'The EU continues to work with the US to finalise a joint statement, as agreed on 27 July,' EU spokesperson Olof Gill said, adding: 'With these objectives in mind, the Commission will take the necessary steps to suspend by six months the EU's countermeasures against the US, which were due to enter into force on 7 August.' In line with the agreement reached, the US reduced its tariff rate to 15% last Thursday. Gill said the step gained the EU immediate tariff relief, 'a first important foundation is laid for restoring clarity to EU companies exporting to the US". The trade dispute is not over However the trade dispute between the EU and the US is not over, as both sides still need to negotiate certain points of the agreement that have led to differing interpretations. Furthermore, the US Executive Order of July 31 does not provide relief to the EU automotive industry as expected (it remains subject to 25% tariffs), nor does it exempt strategic sectors such as aircraft. As negotiations continue, the Commission should postpone through urgency procedure the retaliation package it adopted against the US tariffs. It consists in two lists of products that were worth respectively €21 billion and €72 billion and were merged on 24 July after EU member states adopted them, targeting US products such as soyabean, cars, aircraft and Bourbon Whiskey.


Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
Dutch group sues FIFA over transfer regulations after Diarra ruling
A Dutch foundation representing footballers has launched a class action lawsuit against FIFA and five football associations, alleging that transfer regulations unlawfully reduced players' earnings for over two decades. Justice for Players, the group behind the legal challenge, announced on Monday that professional male and female footballers who played for clubs within the European Union or the United Kingdom since 2002 are eligible to join the lawsuit. The action targets FIFA alongside the football federations of the Netherlands, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark. According to the foundation, FIFA's rules on contract terminations and player transfers violated EU laws on competition and free movement of labour, a claim strengthened by a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last year. "Preliminary estimates indicate that the number of affected footballers may comprise approximately 100,000 players," the foundation said in a statement. 'All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful FIFA regulations," its Chair Lucia Melcherts added. "The past and even current system unduly favours FIFA who has far too much unilateral power. In any other profession, people are allowed to change jobs voluntarily," she explained. The legal case is rooted in the ECJ's ruling in the case of former Real Madrid, Arsenal and Chelsea player, Lassana Diarra, who joined Lokomotiv Moscow in 2013 before terminating his contract early due to alleged wage disputes. FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport sided with the club and ordered Diarra to pay €10.5 million in compensation. Diarra argued that FIFA's rules had made it difficult for him to find a new club, as any new employer would have been liable for the fee. The ECJ ruled that such regulations contradicted EU competition laws. Some commentators have compared the judgment to the Jean-Marc Bosman ruling of 1995, which ended transfer fees for players whose contracts ended in the EU. The Diarra ruling has not yet led to systemic changes in the global football transfer market, which is worth more than €8.6 billion annually. Justice for Players cited economic analysis from consulting firm Compass Lexecon, which estimates that affected players earned on average 8% less over the course of their careers due to the contested regulations.


Fashion Network
6 hours ago
- Fashion Network
EU brands turn to obscure customs clause to soften blow of Trump's tariffs
European brands scramble to find ways to ease US tariff pain as labels including L'Oreal increasingly explore the decades-old 'First Sale' law and low US consumer confidence limits room for price hikes. L'Oreal and a growing number of European fashion and cosmetics companies are exploring use of an obscure, decades-old US customs clause known as the "First Sale" rule as a potential way to soften the impact of US President Donald Trump 's tariffs. While Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a deal this week for US tariffs of 15% on most imported EU goods - half the initially threatened 30% - that is still 10 times higher than the average tariff on EU imports before Trump's return to the White House. Some apparel and consumer brands are understandably wary of passing on the higher duties through price hikes to inflation-weary US consumers. That's why they are looking to invoke the "First Sale" rule, which allows companies to pay lower duties by applying tariffs to the value of a product as it leaves the factory - much lower than the eventual retail price. 'It's part of the possibilities,' L'Oreal CEO Nicolas Hieronimus told Reuters on Tuesday. "We will make decisions," he added, without giving a timeframe. Brands like Italy's high-end sneakers maker Golden Goose, outerwear specialist Moncler and fashion label Ferragamo have all touted the strategy. "It's a significant benefit," Moncler executive director Luciano Santel said in a call with analysts, estimating the production cost at around half the import price. The strategy, which can only be invoked for goods clearly destined for sale in the US and involving multiple foreign transactions, is not without risk, however. It requires a detailed paperwork trail, a firm grip on supply chains and legal structures to handle the required transactions. Consultants including KPMG and PwC have seen a surge this year in enquiries from companies into how to use this method to ease the burden of Trump's tariffs. "We've got three times more requests than usual," for mitigation strategies including the First Sale rule, said Ruth Guerra, a partner at KPMG in Paris, adding that the rule could also be combined with other measures. To benefit from lower customs duties, a company must prove that US-bound products have gone through multiple transactions. Usually that means the goods are sold from the factory gate to a middleman and then to a US-based company handling the goods. All transactions must be handled at arm's length by clearly distinct entities. Usually a US subsidiary is involved to avoid revealing confidential information to an external entity, PwC custom and tax lawyer Francesco Pizzo explained. "In our case the 15% tariffs will potentially translate into a 3% impact on the US retail price", Golden Goose CEO Silvio Campara said, adding that the US accounted for roughly 35% of its revenue. While several major textile and apparel companies have been using First Sale for a while, many had overlooked the strategy while the tariff environment remained low, said Mark Ludwig, national leader of trade and tariff advisory services at consultancy RSM in New York. "Now the cost-effectiveness is much higher," said Lucio Miranda, founder of consultancy firm ExportUSA, who expects a jump in First Sale use with interest from companies in other industries. There is no publicly available data on goods imported through the First Sale rule, but a 2009 investigation by the US International Trade Commission found that 8.5% of importing entities over a year used the workaround, equivalent to 2.4% of total US import value. Nearly half of that amount was linked to footwear and apparel. For French cosmetics producers, US duties present a new challenge as the industry had benefited from zero tariffs. "While the agreement brings an end to uncertainty, it brings a significant threat to the French cosmetics industry," said Emmanuel Guichard, head of French cosmetics lobby group Febea. The First Sale rule is also only available to companies that can comply with a strict process which entails other risks as well. "One of the biggest problems with selecting First Sale is that only fancy people can truly afford it - both the compliance costs and the risks of audit that come with it," said US-based tariff and trade lawyer Michael T. Cone. Improper use could also lead to penalties, he said, noting that the US Customs and Border Protection agency routinely audits and denies use of the rule. "Importers must proceed with utmost caution,' he said.