The European Directive on remuneration transparency promises a decisive step towards pay equality. But behind the apparent harmonisation, investors and companies will have to contend with partial data, varying interpretations and new ESG risks.

The European Directive on pay transparency (2023/970), which must be transposed into French law by June 2026, is presented as a major step forward for equal pay. It requires companies to be more transparent: publication of salary ranges when recruiting, prohibition of questions about past salaries, employees' right to access average remuneration by gender, and obligation to correct any gap greater than 5%.

At first glance, this standardisation should facilitate ESG analysis on the investor side. In reality, it raises many issues of interpretation, enforcement and comparability, which complicate its integration into investment processes.

Ambitious regulation but uneven implementation

One of the main challenges lies in the different ways in which Member States are transposing the directive: some countries, such as Finland and France, have already published drafts that are compliant or almost compliant, while others are significantly behind schedule (Estonia, Latvia and others). This heterogeneity undermines the promise of comparable information at European level. In the short term, investors will have to contend with divergent national frameworks, incomplete data, varying interpretations of the employee base and unaligned methodologies.

Transparency that does not exclude blind spots

Although the Directive requires regular reporting for companies with more than 100 employees, it remains focused on the median pay gap, a useful indicator, but insufficient to assess the real dynamics of equity:

The overall ratio may mask significant differences between occupations or hierarchical levels.
Bonuses, which are often decisive in roles with high variable remuneration, are not explicitly covered.
The so-called ‘objective’ and ‘non-gender-based’ criteria required for pay rises and promotions remain largely at the discretion of companies.

For investors, this means that compliant reporting can give a partial, even misleading, view of the internal salary situation.

Increased ESG risks: costs, complexity and legal exposure

Companies will have to conduct salary audits, review their HR models, adjust certain remuneration packages and prepare for substantial legal risks if gaps exceeding 5% are not corrected.

What is often presented as an administrative formality could become a material financial risk for investors by 2026–2028:

Risk of localised wage inflation (mandatory rebalancing);
Increased litigation risk, supported by a strengthened regulatory framework and amplified by the new regulatory basis;
Operational risk: administrative overload, pressure on HR teams, uneven data quality.

Paradoxically, the Directive could lead to additional complexity related to interpretations, rather than simplification, in social analysis.

An opportunity for ESG... provided we go beyond the text

The standardisation of salary reporting nevertheless paves the way for a strengthening of human capital assessment, an area that is still underdeveloped in traditional ESG analysis.

However, the data provided will often remain minimal and will require interpretation. Companies will be able to comply while maintaining opaque practices in the management of high-potential employees, bonuses and accelerated progression. As a result, investors will need to develop proprietary methods, incorporating business structure, HR governance, variable remuneration policy and career trajectories.

In other words, the Directive creates a framework but leaves ample room for critical analysis, which investors will need to fill if they want to turn it into a genuine ESG assessment tool.

Useful transparency, but far from a paradigm shift

The European Directive on remuneration transparency undeniably represents social progress and an improvement compared to the Professional Equality Index. However, it raises as many critical questions as it provides answers:

Comparability still fragile
Increased legal exposure
Data sometimes superficial
Potentially underestimated compliance costs
Greater responsibility for investors in qualitative analysis

At this stage, regulated transparency does not guarantee pay fairness. Rather, it represents a starting point that requires vigilance, in-depth analysis and a critical eye to distinguish between companies that are committed and those that will limit themselves to the bare regulatory minimum.

Completed on 04/03/2026

From Say on Pay to See on Pay: making way for Fair Pay?

Dernières Actualités