9th September 2026
The EU’s new pay-transparency rules address one of the most frustrating parts of recruitment: investing time in an interview process without knowing whether the salary is remotely aligned.
Under the new rules, employers will have to disclose the starting salary or pay range either in the job advert or before the interview. They will no longer be able to ask candidates about salary history.
Employees will also gain stronger rights to understand how their pay compares with colleagues doing the same work—or work of equal value. Organisations with at least 100 employees will have reporting obligations, while an unexplained gender pay gap of 5% or more could trigger a formal pay assessment. (European Commission)
On the face of it, this feels like common sense.
If a business knows what a role is worth, why hide the salary?
From a recruitment perspective, greater transparency should improve efficiency. Candidates can decide whether an opportunity makes financial sense before entering a process. Employers avoid interviewing people whose expectations are completely misaligned. Recruiters can spend more time assessing suitability and less time managing avoidable ambiguity.
But I think the bigger impact sits beneath the job advert.
Publishing salaries forces organisations to confront how they value roles, how consistently they apply pay bands and why two people doing comparable work may be paid very differently.
That could be uncomfortable.
Businesses that have relied on individual negotiation, previous salary or counteroffers to determine compensation may discover that their pay structures are far less consistent than they thought. A new hire seeing a published salary range may also ask why they are earning less than the advertised amount.
This is where pay transparency stops being a recruitment exercise and becomes an organisational one.
The UK has not automatically adopted the EU Directive. However, the Government is now consulting on reforms that would require employers to publish pay information in job adverts—or provide it in writing before an interview where no advert exists.
The precise requirements have not yet been decided. The consultation is considering whether employers should disclose a fixed salary, a genuine range or a benchmark rate, and whether information beyond basic salary should be included. It also proposes stronger enforcement and wider use of pay audits where discrimination is identified. (UK Government consultation)
So, this is not UK law yet. But the direction of travel is clear.
If these proposals become legislation, I expect several consequences.
First, vague phrases such as “competitive salary” will become increasingly difficult to defend. Employers will need credible market data and properly constructed salary bands before going to market.
Second, artificially wide ranges will attract scrutiny. Advertising £80,000–£160,000 may technically look transparent, but it tells a candidate very little unless the organisation can explain what determines someone’s position within that range.
Third, internal pay compression will become more visible. Companies may have to correct existing salaries before advertising new positions, particularly where talent shortages have pushed external hiring rates above internal pay levels.
Fourth, candidates will have more negotiating power—but better information does not necessarily mean every candidate will be paid at the top of the range. Employers will need objective criteria covering experience, scope, technical depth, leadership responsibility and market scarcity.
Finally, recruiters will have to provide better market intelligence. A client will no longer be able to brief a search firm to “find the best person” and decide the budget later. The compensation strategy will need to be tested before the search begins.
That will be particularly important in AI, machine learning and computational sciences, where businesses are competing across pharma, biotech, TechBio and frontier technology companies. These organisations often want access to the same small population of people but operate with very different compensation models.
Pay transparency will not make those differences disappear. It will make them visible much earlier.
I see that as broadly positive.
Good recruitment should be based on clarity: clarity about the role, expectations, environment, progression and reward. Publishing a salary will not fix a weak employee proposition, but it will make it harder to disguise one.
The companies that prepare early will not simply comply with future legislation. They will build greater trust with candidates and employees.
Those that wait may discover that the most difficult conversation is not with the regulator or the candidate.
It is with their existing workforce.
