This chapter presents in-depth case studies of national approaches to pay transparency in Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain, with a focus on approaches to identifying, comparing reporting on and remediating pay gaps for equal work, and work of equal value. It provides an overview of approaches to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification and gender pay gap reporting and auditing in each case study country. The chapter begins with an overview of the main characteristics of pay transparency measures in each country, before presenting a more detailed review of pay transparency tools in the relevant countries.
Pay Transparency in Progress
Valuing Jobs, Closing Gender Pay Gaps
Abstract
Gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
Legal frameworks vary from binding mandates to recommended guidance. Spain requires all employers to conduct objective, gender-neutral job evaluations; France mandates gender-neutral classification through statutory equal-pay rules; Belgium requires gender neutrality where sectoral classifications exist and applies a statutory review mechanism; Portugal requires objective criteria but does not prescribe a specific methodology, relying more on voluntary tools and reactive enforcement.
Collective bargaining is central to implementation, though to varying degrees. In Belgium, France and Spain, sectoral agreements are the primary vehicle for defining job classifications, with high coverage through extension mechanisms. In Portugal, while collective bargaining coverage is high, gender-neutral job evaluation is not yet systematically embedded in sectoral agreements.
Statutory criteria for assessing work of equal value enhance consistency. France and Spain specify evaluation factors in law, providing a common reference. Belgium and Portugal allow greater flexibility, which accommodates sectoral diversity but may limit comparability across firms and sectors.
Practical tools and capacity-building support employers and social partners. All four countries have developed checklists, guides or evaluation tools. Spain’s publicly available tool operationalises statutory criteria. Belgium, France and Portugal offer guidance and training, with new tools being developed in Belgium and Portugal to support implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Gender pay gap reporting and salary transparency prior to employment
Across the four case study countries, there is considerable variation in the design and implementation of pay gap reporting systems. Worker coverage is comparatively high in all four countries – particularly in Portugal and Spain where all employers are required to report. However, gaps remain, including in the ability of companies to calculate the required pay information.
Approaches to pay auditing also vary: Spain mandates proactive pay auditing, France and Portugal require reactive auditing when inequalities exceed a certain threshold, while Belgium does not currently mandate pay auditing. Follow-up requirements can help shift the onus of identifying and remediating inequalities to employers rather than employees.
Variable approaches to communication of the results of pay reporting and auditing also mean that there are limitations in the visibility of pay information, and consequently in the information that workers have available to them to advocate for equal pay. France stands out for its centralised reporting database. In Portugal, some information is shared with workers, in Spain, information is not proactively shared but can be requested through workers’ legal representatives, and in Belgium, information is shared with workers’ representatives but cannot be shared directly with workers. Belgium and France stand out for the involvement of workers’ representatives in the reporting process.
Some countries have made impressive efforts to simplify reporting and reduce administrative burden. Portugal uses administrative data to fully calculate pay gap information for employers, while France’s reporting platform contains the formulae necessary to calculate required information.
Identifying and reporting on equal pay for equal work, and particularly work of equal value, is a challenge in pay gap reporting and pay auditing. All four countries require pay information to be disaggregated for different groups of workers, but existing job categories are often not granular enough to robustly capture (pay gaps for) workers performing equal work. Belgium and France have relatively high-level “default” reporting categories, while in Portugal reporting is done by profession. Reporting on pay gaps for work of equal value is particularly challenging, as existing requirements to report by job category could miss work of equal value that may be performed by workers in different job categories. Spain stands out for requiring larger companies to report specifically on pay gaps for work of equal value.
Greater attention could be paid to the question of equal pay for work of equal value in pay gap reporting and pay auditing, ensuring that reporting requirements are well-designed and sufficiently granular so as to enable such comparisons.
Design of pay gap reporting and auditing has significant implications for efficacy. Systematic pay auditing can help identify the extent and drivers of inequalities and focus attention on remediation; effective coverage in principle and practice matters; and digital tools and administrative data offer promising avenues to simplify reporting and reduce administrative burden.
As outlined extensively throughout this report, while the objectives of pay transparency are often similar, the design and implementation of specific pay transparency tools varies significantly across countries, also taking into account specific national and labour market features. In light of these varying design features and their implications for efficacy, this chapter provides in-depth case studies on pay transparency measures in Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain with an eye toward identifying promising and innovative approaches, together with common challenges. This chapter focusses on a select number of countries with novel gender-neutral job evaluation and classification and/or pay gap reporting tools, and selected in consultation with the project donors. Information in these case studies was based on responses to the OECD’s 2022 and 2025 questionnaires on pay transparency, and follow-up interviews with national authorities in the relevant countries.
Where conducted effectively, gender-neutral job evaluation and classification provide a strong foundation for effective pay gap reporting and remediation: where companies systematically evaluate the value of jobs in relation to one another – and classify them in an according remuneration structure – pay gap reporting for such groups would help to illuminate pay gaps for equal work, and work of equal value. Accordingly, each case study provides an overview of the national approach to job evaluation and classification, and then elaborates on national-level pay gap reporting and pay auditing requirements (where in place), before briefly discussing any relevant pre‑employment salary transparency requirements.
In Belgium, the approach to comparing of the value of work in private sector enterprises is primarily embedded in the system of sectoral collective bargaining. Where social partners choose to regulate wages through collective agreements, they also typically establish sectoral job classification. While establishing job classifications is not mandatory per se, sectoral classifications are widespread in practice, resulting in broad coverage across the private sector. Belgian legislation requires that such classifications be gender-neutral and subject to public control. Sectoral job classifications are reviewed by the Directorate General for Collective Labour Relations of the Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, using a statutory control instrument. Where classifications fail to meet gender-neutrality requirements, joint (parity) committees are required to introduce corrective measures, with an escalation mechanism culminating in a “name and shame” procedure. Statutory oversight is complemented by guidance and capacity-building and is being strengthened in the context of the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Gender pay gap reporting has been mandatory for private sector organisations in Belgium since 2012. As of December 2025, companies with 50 or more employees must report pay information every two years, with extended reporting requirements for companies with 100+ employees. Employers are not systematically required to address pay inequalities identified through reporting: they must provide a copy of the report to the works council or workers’ representatives, and jointly determine whether it is appropriate to develop an action plan. There is currently no national-level requirement for public sector organisations to conduct gender pay gap reporting, or for salary transparency prior to employment. Belgium is working to introduce such requirements to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive, and significant changes to pay gap reporting requirements are anticipated, including implementing systematic pay auditing and facilitating public reporting of employers’ gender pay gap information. These adaptations are expected to promote greater transparency and follow-up by employers in the case of unjustified pay inequalities.
France mandates gender-neutral job evaluation and classification in the private sector, grounding the comparison of work of equal value in statutory equal-pay rules and sectoral collective bargaining. The Labour Code defines work of equal value using objective criteria (knowledge, experience, responsibilities and physical or mental workload) and requires classification criteria and job evaluation methods to respect this principle. Sectoral collective agreements are the main mechanism for operationalising work of equal value. Branch-level agreements define job classifications and minimum wages. Through an extension mechanism, their provisions are binding on all employers and workers in the sector, regardless of union affiliation. The presence of classification provisions is a legal condition for extension of national collective agreements, and branches must periodically examine whether classifications should be revised, considering gender equality objectives. Classification systems are subject to legality review through the extension process, while branch-level wage and classification developments are regularly monitored by the administration. Guidance, tools and financial support are provided to help social partners revise classification systems and address potential gender bias.
France’s pay gap reporting requirements have been in force since 2018, when L’Index de l’Égalité Professionelle Entre les Femmes et les Hommes (the Professional (Gender) Equality Index – PEI) came into force. Private sector employers with 50 employees or more are required to analyse and submit gender pay and non-pay information annually, with requirements somewhat more expansive for larger employers (250+ employees). Affected organisations must calculate and submit the PEI annually, with the Index generating a composite equality score out of 100. Companies whose equality scores fall below allowable thresholds are required to set and publish “improvement targets” (for companies that score below 85) or to take and publish corrective action to increase their score within three years (for companies that score below 75 points). The online reporting portal facilitates follow-up and enforcement, with government able to track the evolution of company’s PEI scores over time to identify companies that have not complied with their follow-up obligations. Transparency is high, with professional equality scores for all reporting companies published on a searchable government website. Public sector employers are also required to report annually. Changes to pay transparency requirements are anticipated as France transposes the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Portugal’s framework for comparing the value of work is anchored in national legislation and applies primarily to the private sector. Employers are required to ensure that differences in pay between women and men can be justified based on objective, gender-neutral criteria and that comparisons extend beyond identical jobs to cover work of equal value. The legal framework combines constitutional principles, provisions of the Labour Code and the dedicated equal-pay law (Law No. 60/2018), which requires employers to adopt transparent pay policies supported by job evaluation systems based on common criteria for women and men. While the law does not mandate a specific job evaluation or classification methodology, it implicitly requires employers to rely on mechanisms capable of consistently and non-discriminatorily assessing the value of different jobs. In practice, gender-neutral job evaluation is largely reactive, as it is triggered when pay differences are identified or formally alleged.
Portugal’s current pay gap reporting system for private sector companies has been in place for over a decade and has been gradually expanded since: affected companies have been required to submit an employment survey to the Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security (the “Single Report,” or Relatório Único) since 2010, and potential follow-up requirements for affected companies with 50 or more employees were introduced in 2018. Portugal’s private sector pay gap reporting requirements have broad coverage, with currently all private sector organisations with at least one employee required to submit relevant pay information. Portugal also stands out as one of the few OECD countries where administrative data is used to calculate pay gap information for employers: employers submit relevant information as part of an employment survey, and government produces the pay gap reporting information for employers, which are comprehensive by OECD standards. Employers can access the information online and are then required to report at least some information to employees and workers’ representatives. Companies with low pay gaps are recognised through a certification scheme, while companies with pay gaps of more than 5% are required to develop an action plan to evaluate and – where unjustified – address them. Public sector organisations are generally not covered by the requirements, though state‑owned enterprises are required to report on gender pay inequalities every three years. Like all other EU OECD countries, changes to pay transparency measures are anticipated as Portugal transposes the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Spain has established a binding framework for gender-neutral job evaluation and classification in the private sector, grounded in Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute and operationalised through Royal Decree 902/2020 on equal pay between women and men. All private‑sector employers must assess and compare the value of work using objective and gender-neutral criteria. Spain further supports implementation by specifying statutory evaluation criteria and by providing a national job-evaluation tool, developed through social dialogue and published in 2022, which sets minimum methodological standards while remaining voluntary. Job classification systems are mandatory for all companies in Spain, with their structure and design defined primarily through collective bargaining or agreement with workers’ representatives; where no such agreement exists, companies must apply a classification system that complies with statutory requirements and is free from gender bias. Many substantive requirements related to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification under the EU Pay Transparency Directive have already been implemented, even though full transposition is still pending.
Gender pay gap and pay auditing requirements for private sector companies were implemented in Spain in 2019, and extended by Royal Decrees in 2020. Spain’s reporting requirements have broad coverage compared to its OECD peers, with all private sector employers required to establish and maintain a pay registry with gender-disaggregated pay and non-pay information for all employees, and to make that information available to workers on request. Pay audits are mandatory for private sector companies with 50 employees or more, as part of broader requirements for these companies to develop an equality plan. Public sector organisations are currently not required to conduct gender pay gap reporting or pay auditing. Spain is working toward transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, including the introduction of systematic pay gap reporting for public sector organisations and to meet Directive requirements on salary transparency prior to employment.
The four case studies are presented below.
4.2.1. Comparing the value of work: Gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
Sectoral collective bargaining provides the main framework for comparing the value of work
In Belgium, the comparison of the value of work for pay-setting purposes is closely linked to the national system of collective bargaining. In the private sector, wages are predominantly determined through collective agreements, with sectoral bargaining playing a central role. Sector-level agreements typically establish minimum wage scales and associated job classifications, which may be complemented – but not undercut – by company-level agreements. Collective agreements concluded at national (interprofessional) and sectoral level may be extended to all employers and workers falling within their scope, which contributes to almost full coverage of sectoral wage‑setting arrangements across the private sector. Importantly, all private sector employers – including those not covered by a specific sectoral agreement – are bound by the National Labour Council’s Collective Agreement No. 25 on equal pay, which requires that job evaluation systems and wage classifications be gender-neutral, and that employers review and correct them where necessary.
Within this framework, job classification systems negotiated by social partners at sectoral level constitute the primary mechanism through which different jobs are defined, ordered and valued. The establishment of job classifications is not mandatory per se; however, where social partners choose to regulate wages through collective agreements at sectoral level, they also generally define the corresponding job classifications, resulting in a range of sector-specific systems reflecting differences in occupational structures and economic activities. Sectoral job classifications are negotiated within joint (parity) committees, whose composition and mandate to conclude collective agreements are tightly regulated.
These classifications form the backbone of how work of equal value is operationalised in much of the Belgian private sector. Sectoral coverage is determined by the activity of the employer (i.e. the sector to which the company is assigned), rather than by the occupation of individual workers; as a result, workers performing similar functions (e.g. ICT roles) may fall under different sectoral agreements depending on the employer’s main activity.
Gender neutrality in sectoral job classifications is required where such systems exist
Belgian legislation on gender equality in pay – primarily the Law of 22 April 2012 on combating the gender pay gap, as amended by the Law of 12 July 2013 and implemented through subsequent Royal Decrees – embeds the objective of gender pay equality into wage‑setting at sectoral level, including by requiring that job classification systems used in collective bargaining be gender-neutral and subject to review.
Belgian law provides that where sectoral job classifications are in place, they must comply with gender-neutrality requirements. In practice, this applies in most sectors: given the widespread use of sectoral classifications in wage‑setting, this framework results in an effectively binding expectation that sectoral job classifications in the private sector be gender neutral.
Through the above Law and Royal Decrees in 2013 and 2015, Belgium established a formal review process to assess the gender neutrality of sectoral job classifications. Classifications negotiated by joint (parity) committees are submitted to the Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, where they are assessed using a dedicated control instrument (Box 4.1). Committees submit the relevant collective agreement together with a short, legally prescribed questionnaire, which provides information that may not be available from the agreement itself.
A distinctive feature of the Belgian approach is a strict pass/fail rule related to job titles. Where classifications contain a mix of masculine and feminine job titles, they are considered to fail the gender-neutrality test. Beyond this minimum requirement, the instrument also assesses whether classifications reflect broader good practices, including transparency of criteria and coverage of different dimensions of work, such as skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions, in both their physical and non-physical aspects.
Where a classification is found not to be gender-neutral, the relevant joint (parity) committee is granted two years to introduce corrective measures. If no changes are made within this period, the committee must provide a justification within three months. In the absence of a valid justification, the committee is placed on a “name and shame” list, transmitted to the Minister of Employment and to the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men. This escalation mechanism is used as a last resort, with many sectors adjusting their classifications before reaching that stage. The review process thus functions both as an enforcement tool and as an incentive for preventive correction.
In the first phase of implementation (2015), approximately 165 existing sectoral job classifications and 90 newly developed classifications were reviewed; 45 classifications were identified as not gender-neutral, primarily due to the use of gendered job titles, and required mandatory revision. As of today, almost all sectoral job classifications are considered neutral on the minimum requirement of neutral job titles.
Belgium assesses the gender neutrality of sectoral job classification systems using a statutory control instrument that covers key stages and features of job evaluation and classification. Developed with KU Leuven experts to be scientifically grounded and actionable across sectors, the instrument operationalises gender neutrality by combining 12 criteria, including a strict requirement on job titles as well as aspects reflecting good practices in job evaluation and classification design. The final assessment under the gender-neutrality control consists of two components: i) a pass/fail decision on gender neutrality in job titles (Q4) and ii) a supplementary scoring component which assesses the adherence to recognised good practices in job evaluation and classification, but does not influence the final pass/fail decision. Questions are grouped in four broad dimensions:
1. Objectivity of the evaluation method.
Q1. Use of analytical methods: Was an analytical system used for the development of the classification of functions?
2. Job evaluation project
Q2. Gender-balanced governance: Was the representation on the steering committee balanced in terms of gender? (e.g. at least one‑third of each gender).
Q3. External expertise with gender awareness: Was the job classification defined with the help of external experts who are familiar with the issue of gender discrimination in job evaluation?
3. Job evaluation
Q4. Gender-neutral job titles (decisive criterion): Do the job titles in the existing classification contain references to gender? If so, the classification fails the gender neutrality control.
Q5. Presence of job descriptions: Are all job titles accompanied by a job description?
Q6. Standardised information gathering: Was the information necessary for the job description gathered according to a predefined procedure and using a closed-ended questionnaire from the job holders?
Q7. Transparency on evaluation criteria: Are the evaluation criteria used to distinguish between the classes clearly indicated?
Q8. Selection of evaluation criteria: What evaluation criteria were used to distinguish the classes? (e.g. skills/qualifications, effort, responsibility, working conditions).
Q9. Breadth of criteria to mitigate bias: Were the evaluation criteria selected and defined in such a way as to apply to different aspects? (e.g. communication/interpersonal skills, emotional effort, responsibility for people and material assets, physical and psychosocial conditions).
Q10. Consistency across related classifications: Are there multiple classifications within the same job classification? For example, one classification for managers and another for operational staff.
4. Maintenance and procedural safeguards
Q11. Review mechanisms: When was the last major adaptation of the classification of functions?
Q12. Appeal mechanisms: Does the collective bargaining agreement mention an appeals procedure?
Source: Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (n.d.[1]), Method for analysing and assessing the gender neutrality of sectoral job classification systems.
Overall, Belgium does not prescribe a single job evaluation methodology or a uniform set of statutory evaluation criteria to be applied across all sectors. This reflects the autonomy of social partners in collective bargaining and practical considerations related to the large number and diversity of sectoral classification systems. Developments are expected in relation to the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
The control mechanism is designed to be scalable and workable, allowing the administration to assess many sectoral classifications based on collective agreements and accompanying documentation. While this approach supports broad coverage and compliance, it also implies limitations, as the review focusses on procedural and formal aspects of gender neutrality and it does not systematically assess whether/how the evaluation has been translated into the classification (job classes and pay structures) – i.e. if the groupings accurately reflect jobs of equal value.
Guidance and analytical tools complement statutory oversight
Statutory oversight is complemented by a range of guidance tools developed by the Belgian Institute for the Equality of Women and Men. These include a “Checklist Gender neutrality in job evaluation and classification” (Box 4.2), a manual on gender-neutral job classification, and practical guidance on analytical classification methods.
The “Checklist gender neutrality in job evaluation and classification”, developed by the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, supports employers and social partners in preventing gender bias at the stage of job evaluation and classification. The checklist is designed as a self-assessment and reflection tool, rather than a compliance mechanism. It does not prescribe a specific job evaluation method; instead, it guides users through questions to identify where gender bias may arise in the design, implementation or interpretation of job evaluation and classification systems. Employers are required to indicate, when reporting on pay structures, whether they used this checklist.
The checklist follows the main phases of a job evaluation and classification exercise:
Introducing a job evaluation project: Focuses on the launch of the project, including the objectives of the job evaluation, the commitment to gender neutrality, and the organisation of the process (e.g. composition of the working group, involvement of expertise).
Preparatory phase: Addresses preparatory work, e.g. defining the scope of the evaluation, identifying the jobs to be analysed, choosing the job evaluation method, and preparing tools and documentation.
Job analysis: Covers the collection of information on job content, including the use of job descriptions, questionnaires or interviews, and the need for neutral, complete and comparable descriptions of functions.
Job evaluation: Focuses on the application of evaluation criteria, examining whether criteria are clearly defined, comprehensive and applied consistently, and whether they adequately capture all relevant dimensions of work.
Classification and pay structure: Addresses how evaluation results are translated into job classes and pay structures, including the coherence of classification hierarchies and the link between job value and remuneration.
Follow-up and review: Considers how job classifications are maintained over time, including procedures for review, updating and addressing potential challenges or appeals.
Source: Institute for the equality of women and men (2010[2]), Checklist Gender neutrality in job evaluation and classification.
Capacity-building is also being strengthened in the context of EU pay transparency reforms. In preparation for the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, Belgium has launched the BE‑MAGIC project (2025‑2027), aimed at modernising and innovating gender-sensitive job evaluation and classification systems (Box 2.5). The project combines research, consultation with social partners and experts, and the development of updated tools and training materials to improve guidance on job evaluation and classification, raise awareness among employers’ and workers’ representatives, and support the practical implementation of requirements related to work of equal value under EU law. Belgian authorities indicate that BE‑MAGIC is currently in a research phase reviewing sectoral job classifications to identify existing good practices and remaining gaps vis-à-vis the Directive, with feedback workshops involving social partners, academics and classification experts and the preparation of an analysis to be submitted to the European Commission, followed by development of practical tools, including e‑learning and other training formats.
Strengths and challenges in Belgium’s approach to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
Belgium’s approach to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification benefits from strong institutional anchoring in sectoral collective bargaining and from high coverage across the private sector, as well as from advanced support instruments and guidance available to employers and social partners. The statutory review mechanism, combined with clear procedural requirements and a credible escalation framework, has incentivised many sectors to revise or update job classifications. At the same time, the framework prioritises feasibility and broad coverage over methodological standardisation or outcome‑based assessment. The public control focusses primarily on formal and procedural aspects of gender neutrality. Technical capacity and resources also vary across sectors, with some joint committees relying heavily on external expertise. Major developments are expected in relation to the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, including the definition of key criteria to assess the value of work.
4.2.2. Gender pay gap reporting
Coverage of pay gap reporting in the private sector is relatively high
Coverage of Belgium’s pay gap reporting requirements for private sector companies is relatively high. All private sector organisations that ordinarily employ 50 or more employees are required to report pay information every two years (see endnote for a more detailed explanation of how the reporting obligation arises).1 The company size threshold is amongst the lower thresholds in the OECD, and more ambitious than the minimum threshold set out in the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which requires employers with at least 100 workers to regularly report gender pay information. In 2023, the reporting requirement was estimated to reach around two‑thirds of workers in the private sector (68%).2
As of December 2025, public sector organisations were generally not required to calculate and/or report gender pay gaps, though Belgum will need to implement such a requirement for public sector organisations to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive. The Belgian region of Fédération Wallonie‑Bruxelles is the first region to have implemented such a mandate, having passed legislation in 2025 that requires affected organisations to assess and report on specified gender pay and non-pay information (Ministry of the French Community, 2024[3]).
Reporting requirements are comprehensive but do not necessarily facilitate assessment of pay gaps for equal work, or work of equal value
Belgium has relatively comprehensive requirements as to the type of pay and non-pay information that employers must report. Companies report pay information every two years, covering both financial years. Reporting requirements are more expansive for larger companies. Companies with between 50‑99 employees are required to prepare a short form report, while companies with 100 or more employees are required to prepare a long form report (see Table 4.1). Employers are required to report pay information for the employees within their technical operating unit during the two preceding calendar years. While temporary workers are taken into account to some extent when determining company size, employers are not required to include them in pay gap reporting, as they are considered employees of the leasing company.
Employers are required to report gender-disaggregated wage data including wages and direct benefits, employer contributions for supplementary insurance, and other extra-legal benefits.3 How the information is reported varies somewhat based on company size. Wage information must be further disaggregated for certain subgroups, though the level of disaggregation also varies based on company size (see Table 4.1): in companies with 100 or more employees, gender-disaggregated pay information must be disaggregated by job category, seniority (length of service) and education. In companies with 50‑99 workers, data must be disaggregated by seniority (length of service) and education but is not required to be disaggregated by job category. The requirement to disaggregate data by for these different population groups is relatively comprehensive by OECD standards and should help to facilitate a fuller understanding of gender pay gaps.
Note: Gender pay gap reporting requirements arise from the Gender Pay Gap Act 2012. Non-pay reporting requirements refer to those set out in Law of 22 December 1995 (submitting a social balance sheet) and Royal Decree of 30 January 2001 (content), and relate to the information that companies are required to submit when they submit their social balance sheet.
Source: OECD (2023[4]), Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform; Royal Decree amending the Royal Decree of 30 January 2001 implementing the companies code (10 February 2008); Employer reporting questionnaires, available at (Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, n.d.[5]), Gender equality: the pay gap.
However, greater attention could be paid to facilitating assessment of pay gaps for work of equal value. Companies with 100+ employees are required to disaggregate gender pay data by job function. No particular classification system is mandated: companies are advised to use those set out in the job classification set out in the company, or failing this, to use three pre‑defined functions contained in the reporting questionnaire, namely execution staff, executive staff and management staff. In practice, this means that the success with which employers report on gender pay gaps for equal work hinges on the strength of the evaluation and classification system used when reporting (i.e. whether the job categories reflect and enable effective comparisons of equal work, or work of equal value), and the job categories subsequently used for reporting.
Given the broad coverage of sectoral collective agreements in the private sector and their requirements on gender neutrality, it could be expected that companies using the job classifications set out in sectoral agreements to report pay gaps by job function are providing a fair picture of pay gaps for workers performing equal work. However, this approach has limitations. As noted above, the current approach to defining and controlling sectoral job classifications prioritises feasibility and broad coverage over outcome‑based assessment, meaning that there is limited control on the extent to which equivalent jobs are classified as such. Additionally, the “default” categories contained in the questionnaire – execution staff, executive staff and management staff – do not inherently facilitate an evaluation of pay gaps for equal work, or work of equal value for companies which use those categories. As has been noted by the Institute for Equality of Women and Men (2021[6]) – the requirement to disaggregate pay information by job function also goes a somewhat limited way to addressing the question of equal work for equal value, as it presupposes that work of equal value is limited to similar functions.
Affected companies are also required to report some relevant non-pay information; requirements vary depending on company size (see Table 4.1):
All private sector employers with 20 or more employees are required to report on the number of employees, training rates and number of hours worked by gender annually, when submitting the company’s social balance sheet; and
Separately, private sector employers with 50‑99 employees are required to report on the number of employees (in FTEs), by gender, and further disaggregated by seniority and education every two years; and
Private sector employers with 100+ employees are required to report on the number of employees (in FTEs), by gender every two years.
Employers are not systematically required to act on inequalities identified through reporting
Belgium does not currently require private sector employers to assess and/or develop an action plan to address any inequalities identified in the process of reporting pay information. Companies are required to provide the pay gap report – the analysis report on the structure of workers’ pay – to the Works Council or trade union delegation within three months of the end of the financial year. The report must then be discussed at the Works Council or with the trade union delegation (OECD, 2023[4]). It is left to the parties (the Works Council/trade union in consultation with the employer) to determine, based on the report, whether an action plan should be developed to implement a gender-neutral pay structure (Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, n.d.[5]). If the parties do elect to establish an action plan, they are required to include the plan in their pay report, and to include its evaluation in the following pay report (Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, 2021[6]). Belgium will need to implement “joint pay assessments” – systematic pay auditing requirements for companies with gender pay gaps of at least 5% in any category of workers which cannot be justified or remedied within six months – as it transposes the EU Pay Transparency Directive (for more details, see Box 1.2).
Transparency of pay gap reporting is relatively low
Pay gap reporting in Belgium is marked by relatively low transparency: while employers are required to discuss pay reports with workers’ representatives, they are not required nor permitted to share the report with employees, government authorities or the public, as they are bound by confidentiality.4 Employers are permitted to inform employees that the pay analysis has taken place, that issues have been identified, if any, and whether an action plan is being developed to address them. This system is expected to change with Belgium’s transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which will require employers, in addition to their current internal communication obligations, to also submit their reports to a designated monitoring body.
Currently, employers are also not required to share pay gap information for a given category of employees with workers’ representatives if there are fewer than three employees in that category. This limitation is expected to be removed as Belgium transposes the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Belgium takes a reactive approach to ensuring compliance
Belgium takes a reactive approach to monitoring compliance with gender pay gap reporting requirements. As outlined in Chapter 3, government does not actively monitor compliance with the reporting requirements, but the Social Law Enforcement Department intervenes in the event of a complaint related to non-compliance and can take enforcement action. Once employers become required to report to government – as is envisioned in the EU Pay Transparency Directive – Belgium could consider using already-available administrative data to strengthen compliance monitoring.
Fines can be levied for non-compliance, but these are relatively low in value. Non-compliant companies are liable for financial penalties from a minimum fine of EUR 25 to a maximum fine of EUR 500: companies who do not provide their remuneration report to participation bodies when required can face an administrative fine of EUR 25‑250, or a criminal fine of EUR 50‑500.5 Legal action can also be brought against non-compliant companies.
The gender pay gap reporting rules also establish a voluntary “mediator for the fight against the gender pay gap,” which can be established within a company on the suggestion of workers’ representatives (the works council, or otherwise the trade union). The role is held by a member of staff appointed to serve as a mediator within organisations in circumstances of suspected pay discrimination, and must be provided with pay data that will enable them to determine the case (Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, 2021[6]). Where that takes place, these pay data must remain confidential.
Strengths and challenges in Belgium’s approach to gender pay gap reporting
Belgium’s pay gap reporting measures in the private sector are relatively broad in coverage and in depth, with a low size threshold for reporting and a comprehensive set of pay information required to be calculated. However, companies are not systematically required to assess and address any inequalities identified in the process of reporting, and greater attention could also be paid to the question of equal pay for work of equal value. While companies are required to report on gender pay gaps by function, the requirements do not necessarily allow for a straightforward comparison of pay gaps for the same work, or for work of equal value. Greater transparency and oversight could also help to make the scheme more effective, as worker’s representatives are currently not permitted to share the result of pay gap reporting with workers or the public. Transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive should help to build on the strengths of the system, and address some of these challenges.
Questionnaires and guidance on pay gap reporting
Available questionnaires and guidance on pay gap reporting include:
Employer reporting forms are available here: https://emploi.belgique.be/fr/themes/egalite-et-non-discrimination/egalite-femmes-hommes-lecart-salarial#toc_heading_4 (see section “Measures put in place at the company level”).
An explanatory note for completion of the employer reporting forms is available at the same site (see section “Measures put in place at the company level”).
Guidance on pay gap reporting is available on the website of the Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, here: https://emploi.belgique.be/fr/themes/egalite-et-non-discrimination/egalite-femmes-hommes-lecart-salarial#toc_heading_4.
4.2.3. Salary transparency prior to employment
Like most OECD countries, Belgium will need to implement a national pre‑employment salary transparency requirement in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive (for more information on the requirements, see Box 1.2). In 2025, the Belgian region of Fédération Wallonie‑Bruxelles became the first region to implement such requirements by requiring affected organisations to make information on the starting salary or salary range available as soon as job offers or job advertisements are published (for more information on salary transparency prior to employment, see Chapter 3).
This case study focusses on pay transparency practices in the private sector only, in France.
4.3.1. Comparing the value of work in the private sector: Gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
High collective agreement coverage and extension anchor job classifications in pay-setting
In France, comparisons of the value of work for pay-setting purposes is embedded in the collective bargaining architecture. Wages in the private sector are predominantly determined through collective agreements, with sectoral (branch-level) bargaining playing a central role. Sectoral agreements define employee categories, minimum wage levels and associated job classifications, which apply to all companies covered by the branch once extended by public authorities (in France, collective agreements negotiated by representative social partners can be extended by ministerial decree, making their provisions legally binding on all employers and workers in the sector, regardless of union affiliation). Overall, and taking int account this extension mechanism, collective agreement coverage is very high (around 98% of employees). Company-level agreements may complement branch standards but must not undercut the branch-level minima.
Within this system, job classification is a cornerstone of labour market regulation. While the notion of “classification” does not have a precise legal definition, Article L.2261‑22 of the Labour Code links classifications to diplomas and professional qualification and makes the presence of classification provisions a prerequisite for extension of sectoral collective agreements. In practice, classification is understood as the outcome of negotiated processes of ranking jobs, occupations or qualification levels within the scope of a given branch collective agreement. In the rare situations where no branch agreement applies (e.g. the case of temporary work), professional agreements (accords professionnels) may cover the relevant segment and include provisions on classifications. Branch mergers are becoming increasingly common, to create larger branches with wider coverage and stronger bargaining capacity.
Statutory equal-pay rules require gender-neutral job evaluation and classification in the private sector
The French law sets the equal-pay obligation and the objective criteria for “work of equal value” and requires that classification criteria and job evaluation methods respect that principle. Article L.3221‑2 of the Labour Code provides that every employer ensures equal remuneration between women and men for the same work or work of equal value, defined as work that requires a comparable combination of professional knowledge validated by a title, diploma or professional practice; capacities deriving from acquired experience; responsibilities; and physical or mental workload (article L. 221‑4). Employers may add further criteria. Article L.3221‑6 requires that job classification criteria and the methods used to evaluate jobs be established according to rules that ensure the principle of equal remuneration between women and men for the same work or work of equal value.
While statutory principles apply across the private sector, job classification systems are negotiated at sectoral level. Different types of classification grids organise jobs according to occupations, qualification levels or job families and serve multiple purposes, including job identification, ranking, wage determination and career progression:
Parodi-type grids provide hierarchical listings of jobs and qualifications by socio-professional category, with diplomas and seniority playing a major role (these grids are the least aligned with gender-equality objectives and are now more marginal);
Grids based on ranking criteria, originally developed in industries such as metallurgy and mining, classify jobs using defined evaluation criteria; and
Mixed systems combine hierarchical listings with more flexible ranking criteria, task descriptions and considerations such as diplomas, experience and job mastery, allowing firms to adapt branch-level grids to their internal job structures.
Recent support initiatives have aimed to encourage branches to move away from seniority-based systems towards more structured, criteria-based approaches.
Sectoral agreements may apply different criteria and weightings when assessing whether jobs are of equal value, reflecting differences in occupational structures, skill profiles and economic activities across branches. This flexibility is explicitly permitted under the statutory framework: branches are not legally required to mobilise the full set of statutory criteria (i.e. capacities deriving from acquired experience; responsibilities; and physical or mental workload) in all cases and may select a subset of criteria when designing classification systems depending on sectoral realities, provided the requirement of gender neutrality is respected.
Nonetheless, as reported by the General Directorate for Labour (DGT), collective agreements show a convergence around a relatively homogeneous set of criterion families in ranking-based systems: i) content of activities; ii) skills and required knowledge (including qualifications and experience); iii) autonomy; iv) responsibilities; and v) relational/interpersonal dimensions. By contrast, physical and mental workload, while included in the statutory definition of work of equal value, appears more difficult to operationalise and is among the least mobilised in practice.
Public authorities monitor and extend sectoral classification agreements
Public authorities play an active role in monitoring and supporting branch-level job classifications. A key lever is the legality review linked to extension. Because extension gives branch agreements reach beyond signatory employers, the administration examines classification agreements to ensure legal compliance. This review checks the coherence of classification structures and verifies that evaluation criteria are objective, non-discriminatory and consistent with Labour Code principles on equal pay for work of equal value. At the same time, the State does not assess the appropriateness of the weighting choices made within branch grids, as branches are considered to have the mastery of the occupations concerned.
In addition, the DGT conducts regular follow-up of branch-level wage bargaining through a Salary Monitoring Committee. This committee meets twice a year with nationally representative trade union and employer organisations to review collectively agreed minimum wages in the 171 branches of the general private sector covering more than 5 000 employees. A specific annual review (in December) is also conducted for the metallurgy and construction branches. Within this framework, the administration examines the situation of collectively agreed minima relative to the statutory minimum wage (SMIC), reviews the most recent updates to branch classification grids.
Branches experiencing difficulties (linked in particular to minimum wage levels, compressed wage grids or outdated classification systems) may be met by the Ministry of Labour. These meetings, organised periodically and often ahead of the monitoring committee sessions, pursue a dual objective: to signal ministerial attention to collective bargaining issues that are central for workers; and to help advance negotiations by bringing trade unions and employer organisations together to confront points of blockage and encourage compromise. In the most difficult cases, branches may be placed in a joint parity committee, chaired by an external facilitator (sometimes a public official), in order to facilitate the progress of negotiations.
France is providing targeted support and capacity-building
Following the October 2023 Social Conference and in response to positions expressed by the social partners, the French Government strengthened the support framework for branches revising their job classification systems. This reinforcement reflects recognition of the technical complexity, significant time investment and operational difficulties associated with revising classification grids, including defining evaluation criteria, ensuring comparability across diverse firms within a branch, mobilising sufficient expertise and resources, and supporting effective implementation by companies.
First, the services of the DGT developed a guide on professional classifications, accompanied by a national webinar for branch-level social partners in 2024. The guide recalls the core principles underpinning classification systems, the main structuring choices, and the key stages to revise a classification grid. The webinar complemented this guidance by featuring testimonials from branches that had recently updated their classification systems, highlighting practical lessons. These tools are intended to support social partners in navigating revision processes, rather than to impose a binding methodology.
To further strengthen support and respond to branches’ concerns, the DGT and the National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions (ANACT) launched a call for projects providing financial support for actions contributing to the operational update of classification systems at branch level. Support is provided in the form of grants and targets activities such as diagnostic work on existing classifications, methodological development of evaluation criteria, and support for firms’ appropriation of revised grids. The scheme covers the period 2024‑2025, with two waves of calls for projects.
In addition to these instruments, guidance specifically addressing gender equality in job classification systems is available through the Guide for taking gender equality into account in classification systems (Box 4.3), published by the Higher Council for Professional Equality. This guide focusses on how classification criteria and processes may inadvertently undervalue female‑dominated work and provides analytical support to help social partners integrate gender-equality considerations into classification design and revision.
The Guide for taking gender equality into account in job classification systems, developed by the Higher Council for Professional Equality between Women and Men (CSEP), provides a methodological framework to help social partners identify and correct gender bias in job evaluation and classification systems. It positions job classification as a central lever for reducing gender pay inequalities and promoting occupational mix, highlighting that classifications shape minimum wage levels, career paths and the overall wage hierarchy. The guide starts from the premise that gender discrimination in classifications is most often indirect: systems that appear neutral may nonetheless undervalue jobs predominantly held by women, because of biased criteria, incomplete job descriptions, or stereotyped representations of work. It emphasises vigilance throughout the entire classification process, from preparatory diagnostics to negotiation, implementation and monitoring.
The guide is organised around a step-by-step analytical pathway. It first recommends a diagnostic phase, based on sex-disaggregated data, to identify jobs predominantly held by women or men. In the absence of branch-level data, the guide relies on national labour market statistics and proposes using thresholds (generally 80%, with flexibility down to 60%) to identify gender-segregated jobs. This diagnostic is complemented by an inventory of jobs and job content, aimed at ensuring that all occupations are made visible and described in sufficient detail.
The second part focusses on negotiation and classification design, identifying concrete factors that may introduce gender bias: outdated or gendered job titles; unequal levels of detail in job descriptions; the invisibility of certain occupations; and biased terminology that implicitly downgrades female‑dominated work (e.g. by framing skills as “personal qualities” rather than competences). Particular attention is paid to evaluation criteria, where missing, poorly defined or redundantly overlapping criteria may lead to systematic undervaluation of relational, emotional or care‑related work. The guide also highlights the risks associated with non-transparent or poorly justified weighting of criteria, which can reinforce gendered hierarchies even when criteria appear objective.
A final analytical step consists of verifying the relevance of classifications through cross-gender job comparisons. The guide encourages negotiators to compare pairs of jobs predominantly held by women and men but positioned at similar classification levels, to detect inconsistencies between job content, required skills and assigned value.
Across its sections, the guide stresses that classification systems must evaluate jobs, not individuals, and that all dimensions of work – technical, relational, physical, mental and organisational – must be fully recognised, regardless of the gender composition of the occupation. It also underlines that classifications should be embedded within broader gender-equality strategies and subject to regular review, as required by labour law. Overall, the guide provides practical tools, examples and points of vigilance to help social partners ensure that job classification systems operationalise the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, rather than reproducing historical or stereotyped valuations of work.
Source: CSEP (n.d.[7]), Guide pour la prise en compte de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes dans les systèmes de classification.
EU Pay Transparency transposition may broaden statutory criteria and requires managing timing gaps
France is currently in the process of transposing the EU Pay Transparency Directive. Consultations with social partners are underway, although political developments have slowed momentum, with some discussions temporarily put on hold in 2025, and then resumed in early 2026. French authorities have indicated that the stated objective remains to transpose the Directive as early as possible and within the required deadlines. A draft law is under preparation, with regulatory work progressing in parallel, subject to final legislative choices. French authorities report that, substantively, most existing statutory criteria for assessing work of equal value already align with the Directive’s framework. However, the draft legislation is expected to introduce additional criteria not currently explicit in the Labour Code, notably non-technical skills and working conditions, while “effort” is considered to be covered through interpretation of existing provisions. A key implementation challenge identified is the timing gap between the Directive’s requirements and the uneven state of sectoral job classification systems, given the long timeframes typically needed to revise classifications through collective bargaining.
The authorities also explained that France does not intend to develop a centralised categorisation tool to replace sectoral systems. Given both capacity constraints and the need for classifications to reflect firm-level realities, public action is expected to focus on methodological guidance, regulatory clarification (including Q&A), and strong support on the declarative dimension – such as automation of indicators – while responsibility for establishing job categories ultimately remains with employers (mostly using the sectoral classifications), as established in the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Strengths and challenges in France’s approach to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
France has one of the most comprehensive frameworks in the OECD for integrating job classification into gender-equality objectives. In the private sector gender-neutral job classification systems are mandatory, statutory definitions of work of equal value provide clear reference criteria, and high collective agreement coverage, supported by extension, anchors classification systems firmly in pay-setting. Regular, mandatory sectoral negotiations on wages and classifications, combined with legality review and targeted support, create opportunities to address gender bias and the undervaluation of female‑dominated work. At the same time, the framework remains largely principle‑based and decentralised. While the law clearly defines objectives, it leaves substantial discretion to social partners over the design, weighting and implementation of classification systems, with no prescribed methodology or mandatory scoring rules. Implementation depends on branches’ and firms’ technical capacity to revise and operationalise classifications, a process that can be lengthy and uneven across sectors. To date, no systematic national evaluation has assessed the impact of classification systems on gender pay gaps or pay outcomes, although the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive may strengthen guidance, transparency and comparability going forward.
4.3.2. Gender pay gap reporting
Coverage is high in principle, though there are gaps in practice
The firm size cut-off for reporting gender pay gaps is comparatively low in France, with all private sector companies with 50 employees or more required to report pay information by gender every year. France also has relatively broad inclusion rules as to which workers should be counted when determining company size and consequently eligibility to report, which should help to ensure the inclusion of more companies around the reporting threshold.6 Specified public sector employers with at least 50 workers in the civil service, local authorities and public establishments of inter-municipal co‑operation with more than 40 000 inhabitants and other specified public organisations such as public health and medico-social establishments are also required to report gender pay gap information annually, though requirements differ somewhat7 (this case study deals with reporting requirements in the private sector only, and public sector requirements are not elaborated in detail). Forthcoming changes to reporting requirements in France to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive are expected to apply to both public and private sector organisations.
While coverage of France’s private sector requirements are relatively high in principle, coverage is far lower in practice. A significant share of companies that report have incalculable PEI scores – particularly in smaller organisations – likely muting the potential impact of the reporting requirement to some extent. Scores can be “incalculable” on specific indicators or on the Index as a whole, and can arise, for example, where there are not enough men or women in certain jobs to be able to robustly calculate the gender gap for specific indicators (see endnote for a more detailed explanation).8 Analysis from the Directorate of Research, Studies and Statistics (DARES) indicates that in the period between 2018‑2022, around a third of reporting organisations had an incalculable overall PEI Index, with particularly high rates of incalculability amongst smaller companies. In 2023, 34.6% of organisations declaring for 2022 had incalculable scores, with 42% of companies with 50‑250 employees having an incalculable Index in this year, compared to 13% of companies with 251‑999 employees and 2% of companies with 1 000 or more employees (Briard, 2024[8]). OECD analysis of data from the Professional Equality Index database up to 2024 shows that this pattern has remained constant, and that a similarly high share of companies – over a third – had incalculable scores on the pay gap indicator in the period between 2019‑2024, with smaller companies particularly affected.9 While the share of employers with incalculable overall PEI scores is high, notably such employers are nonetheless required to publish any calculable indicators, and to comply with reporting and action obligations: they can be penalised for not reporting calculable indicators, though not for failing to take corrective action or achieve results.
The reasons for incalculability differ by firm size: in smaller firms (50‑250 employees), it is predominantly the pay gap indicator that cannot be calculated, accounting for 95% of incalculable cases in this size category, while in larger firms incalculability more commonly stems from insufficient workforce numbers within specific occupational categories to permit robust comparison (Briard, 2024[9]).
Among firms able to calculate a score, average scores have improved steadily since the Index’s introduction. The average score rose by 3.6 points between 2018‑2022, and the share of scores falling below the 75‑point corrective action threshold close to halved over the same period, falling from around 14% to 8% (Briard, 2024[9]).
Information requirements are extensive, but do not easily facilitate comparisons of pay gaps for equal work, or work of equal value
France stands out for the comprehensive amount of pay and non-pay information that employers are required to submit. Affected companies are required to complete the PEI annually, which requires companies to calculate and submit data online on gender gaps in pay and non-pay indicators (see Table 4.2 for an overview of the indicators, and how they are weighted and scored). All affected companies are required to submit specified pay gap information, though the non-pay information that employers are required to submit differs slightly by company size, with reporting requirements somewhat broader for larger companies.
The data that companies submit on gender gaps in pay and non-pay areas generates an Index score from 0‑100, with higher values representing greater gender equality. The pay indicator generates a score out of 40 points, while the four non-pay indicators collectively generate a score out of 60 points (with composition of those 60 points varying slightly between small and larger companies). Scores on each indicator are attributed in accordance with a defined scoring system: for the pay gap indicator, for example, a score of 40 reflects a gender pay gap of 0, where a score of 0 reflects an organisational gender pay gap of 20.1 or above.10
While pay information is required to be disaggregated by job category, the job categories in use do not easily facilitate comparison of gender gaps in pay for equal work, or for work of equal value. French regulations set out that categories of equivalent positions should be used, which either correspond to established socio-professional categories (blue‑collar-workers; white‑collar workers; technicians and supervisors; engineers and managers), or alternatively-defined groups after consultation with the social and economic committee or employee representative bodies (Ministry of Labour and Solidarity, 2019[10]). In practice, it is reported that most employers use the established socio-professional categories (Briard, Meluzzi and Ruault, 2021[11]), which do not easily lend themselves to comparisons amongst ostensibly comparable workers. Research conducted by DARES finds that a higher share of women is linked to a higher Index score, but that a high Index score does not necessarily reflect meaningful progress on equal pay. As consistently observed across labour markets, firms with a higher share of women among managers tend to score better on the Index – consistent with the policy’s intent, as this reflects reduced pay gaps in the group where they tend to be large. However, firms where women are concentrated in low-paid roles can also score well because pay is generally compressed at the lower end of the wage distribution, as can firms employing high numbers of women at relatively low salaries. This suggests that the Index can produce similar scores for very different underlying situations (Briard, Meluzzi and Simonnet, 2025[12]).
Note: Pay indicators collectively generate a score out of 40 points, while non-pay indicators generate a score out of 60 points. Higher values represent greater gender equality. Information is current as at July/August 2025.
1 Redundancy and retirement payments, bonuses linked to a particular hardship that does not concern the employee, seniority bonuses, overtime, additional hours, as well as payments made under the profit-sharing scheme are not included in the calculation.
2 Intended to ensure that a legal obligation for workers to “catch up” on pay on their return from leave is met. Values range from 0, representing a scenario where no employees receive the raises on their return to work, to 15 points if employers complied with the requirements for all relevant employees.
3 The higher the underrepresentation, the less points awarded to the employer.
Source: Based on OECD (2023[4]), Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform; 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire; Ministry of Labour and Solidarity (2019[10]).
In France, companies with at least 50 employees are also required to make a comprehensive amount of gender-relevant non-pay information available to employee representative bodies such as the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) or staff representatives (see Table 4.3), via the Economic, Social and Environmental Database (Base de données économiques, sociales et environnementales, or BDESE).
Information requirements arising from to the Economic, Social and Environmental Database (Base de données économiques, sociales et environnementales, or BDESE)
Note: The economic, social and environmental database (BDESE) gathers information on the major economic and social orientations of companies with at least 50 employees. The information contained in the BDESE also constitutes a diagnosis that can be used by the social partners within the framework of the mandatory negotiations on professional equality. In accordance with article L.2312-18 of the Labour Code, the BDESE must contain the results obtained at the Index.
Source: OECD (2023[4]), Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea13aa68-en.
Mandated follow-up action is sophisticated, but not often required
France has mandated follow-up requirements for companies: all organisations with PEI scores that fall below an “allowable” threshold are required to take at least some follow-up action. Any company that scores below 85 points out of 100 overall is required to immediately set and publish “improvement targets” for each indicator, with targets to be determined by the employer. Companies with an equality score below 75 points are required to take corrective action (“appropriate and relevant corrective measures”) to increase their equality score to at least 75 within three years of receiving the low score. Such corrective measures are negotiated between the employer and trade unions through a collective agreement, or otherwise, they are taken unilaterally by the employer after informing and consulting the Social and Economic Committee (CSE).11 Companies are not currently required to assess the causes of inequalities identified in the process of reporting – as is the case in pay auditing regimes in some other OECD countries – and France may need to adapt its follow-up requirements to meet requirements for “joint pay assessments” in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive (Box 1.2).
As outlined above, the share of companies required to take follow-up action is currently relatively low and has declined considerably, with the share of scores falling below the 75‑point corrective action threshold falling from around 14% to 8% in the fiscal years between 2018‑2022 (Briard, 2024[9]).
Given that requirements for follow-up are linked to overall performance – rather than on specific (e.g. pay) indicators – there is also a risk that acceptable performance on the Index masks poorer performance on the pay gap. There are companies with low scores on the pay gap indicator that nonetheless achieve an acceptable overall equality score, meaning they are not required to take any follow-up action. Data from the Professional Equality Index database suggests that in 2024, around 11% of private sector companies with calculable, “acceptable” overall equality scores (85 or higher) received a score of 34 out of 40 or lower on the pay gap indicator, meaning that they had organisational gender pay gaps of around 5% or higher, but were not required to take any follow-up action. France may need to adapt its regulations in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which requires companies to conduct “joint pay assessments” where they identify pay differences of at least 5% in any category of workers, and are unable to appropriately justify or remedy them within six months (see Box 1.2).
Transparency is high, though France’s index-based approach means pay gap information is not easily available
Another notable feature of France’s pay reporting system is high transparency, facilitated by a centralised reporting database: all employers must submit PEI information online in the Egapro database, and government then publishes all PEI scores online in a searchable database where individual employers can be identified. The reporting software helps to simplify reporting for employers: Egapro contains the formulas necessary to calculate the Professional Equality Index, and assesses the statistical significance of gender gaps.
Reporting companies are also required to share the results of the PEI with employees and workers’ representatives.12 Employers are required to provide workers’ representatives with the indicators and results obtained before the meeting following the publication of the Index, together with all information needed to understand them. This includes, for example, certain methodological details and corrective measures envisaged/implemented, and at minimum all the information transmitted to the Ministry of Labour. There is no obligation for employers to share raw gender pay information directly with employees. France may need to adapt its reporting measure to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which requires employers to provide workers and workers’ representatives with specified gender pay information. Nevertheless, social partners can already use data from the PEI – which is integrated into the social and economic database (BDESE) – to better understand gender inequalities and inform mandatory negotiations on professional equality.
France has a sophisticated oversight approach
France takes a proactive approach to oversight and enforcement, facilitated by a centralised reporting database. In France, oversight of compliance with pay gap reporting requirements is designated to the Labour Inspectorate. The Labour Inspectorate does not have manual or automated checks to check whether companies that are required to report have done so. However, France’s pay gap reporting system – with the requirement for affected companies to complete the PEI – means that the Labour Inspectorate has tools that enable it to target companies for inspection that may have failed to meet their obligations (for example, targeting companies with a Gender Equality Index below 75 points for four consecutive years).
The Labour Inspectorate also takes a proactive approach to enforcement, and France stands out for having tied possible enforcement action to improvement (in equality), in addition to reporting. Companies that do not publish The PEI can be sanctioned, as can companies whose PEI scores are below 75 points for 3 years following the first declaration, and so can companies that fail to achieve the necessary improvements in equality scores. The Labour Inspectorate carries out inspections of companies and, in circumstances of non-compliance, may draw up reports and take follow-up action on inspection visits. Based on these reports, formal notices and financial penalties can be levied against companies that have not complied with their obligations. Companies inspected for other reasons that are found to be in breach of the Index publication obligation will have this noted by the labour inspection. Financial penalties of up to 1% of the company’s total payroll can be levied for non-compliance, though fines are relatively rare. In the period between 2019 and 2025, the Labour Inspectorate reports having issued 1 001 formal notices related to the PEI and issued 101 penalties (Ministry of Labour and Solidarity, 2025[13]). Non-compliant organisations can also be subject to legal/administrative proceedings.
Strengths and challenges in in France’s approach to gender pay gap reporting
France has one of the most sophisticated pay reporting schemes in the OECD, standing out for the comprehensive amount of information required to be reported; high transparency; good communication of requirements; and strong oversight possibilities supported by a centralised pay reporting database. Further attention could be paid to ensuring effective coverage, clearer communication of gender pay gap information, and to facilitating assessment and comparison of equal pay for equal work, and work of equal value. Around a third of reporting organisations have incalculable Index scores, and therefore no gender pay gap information. Gender pay gaps are also generally not made publicly available, or disaggregated for different categories of workers (rather, the pay gap index “score” is made publicly available): such information is transmitted to workers’ representatives, but not directly to workers, or the general public. It is possible that this could mute the extent to which workers use the information to identify and address pay inequalities. Greater transparency is expected as France transposes the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which requires reporting of specified gender pay gap information to workers, and that such information is made publicly available.
Questionnaires and tools for gender pay gap reporting
France has made tools and guidance available for reporting:
The Egapro calculator and declaration tool is available here: https://index-egapro.travail.gouv.fr/.
Information on the Professional Equality Index and guidance on frequently asked questions is available here: https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/droit-du-travail/egalite-professionnelle-discrimination-et-harcelement/indexegapro
The Professional Equality Index can be consulted here: https://egapro.travail.gouv.fr/index-egapro/recherche.
An e‑learning module is available here: https://www.fun-mooc.fr/fr/cours/tout-savoir-sur-lindex-de-legalite-professionnelle-femmes-hommes/.
Salary transparency prior to employment
France is working on introducing requirements on salary transparency prior to employment in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive. For more information on salary transparency prior to employment, see Chapter 2.
4.4.1. Comparing the value of work: Gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
This section examines national measures in Portugal to ensure equal pay for equal work and work of equal value through gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems. The analysis focusses on the private sector.
Portugal has a statutory requirement to ensure gender-neutral comparison of work in the private sector and recommends gender-neutral job classification
Portugal requires employers in the private sector to be able to compare the value of work between women and men based on objective, gender-neutral criteria. This obligation applies exclusively to the private sector, as a recommendation (i.e. no obligation) to conduct gender neutral job evaluations exists for the public sector.
The legal framework underpinning this obligation is grounded in multiple layers of Portuguese law. The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (Article 59) enshrines the right to remuneration in accordance with the quantity, nature and quality of work, respecting the principle of equal pay for equal work. Article 31 of the Labour Code further clarifies that differences in remuneration do not constitute discrimination when they are based on objective criteria common to both women and men, such as merit, productivity, attendance or seniority, thereby defining the conditions under which pay differentiation may be justified.
Building on these principles, Law No. 60/2018 – Law promoting equal pay between women and men for equal work or work of equal value – operationalises the concept of work of equal value by requiring that comparisons extend beyond identical jobs. Article 4 of the law requires employers to adopt a transparent pay policy supported by a job evaluation system based on objective criteria common to women and men. While no specific job evaluation or classification methodology is prescribed, employers are implicitly required to rely on mechanisms capable of comparing the value of different jobs in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. Where pay differences between women and men are identified as part of pay gap reporting, employers must present a plan to assess pay disparities based on an evaluation of job components using objective criteria, in order to prove that their pay system is fair.
Portugal recommends the use of gender-neutral job classification systems but does not mandate a specific approach. Employers and social partners retain discretion to define the structure and methodology of job classifications, provided that the criteria used comply with equal pay legislation. In this context, the Portuguese Classification of Occupations 2010 (Classificação Portuguesa das Profissões – CPP/2010), developed by the National Statistics Institute (INE) and aligned with ISCO‑08, supports labour-market analysis and occupational comparability, but does not constitute a legally binding job classification or job evaluation system for pay-setting purposes.
Law No. 60/2018 does not require employers to proactively disclose the criteria used to determine pay levels, pay progression or job classification outcomes. However, workers have the right to request and receive in writing information on their individual pay level, as well as average pay levels broken down by sex for categories of workers performing the same work or work of equal value.
As reported by Portuguese authorities, social partners were consulted during the preparation of Law No. 60/2018, in line with established national practices for labour-market legislation. The first evaluation of the Law was conducted in 2024. While pay transparency is primarily anchored in national legislation, sectoral collective agreements cover most workers, and some sector-level initiatives have begun to address the evaluation of the value of work, although gender-neutral job evaluation is not yet systematically embedded in collective bargaining frameworks.
Portugal is providing technical support to support job evaluation
The Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment (CITE) – a tripartite body with representatives from government and the social partners, represented on the Standing Committee for Social Dialogue of the Economic and Social Council – has developed a support guide for job evaluation based on objective criteria that are common to both women and men (Box 4.4). This system is merely recommended, and the company may choose a different system that allows for the evaluation of job components based on objective criteria. CITE has promoted online clarification sessions on Equal Pay between Women and Men and on the implementation of Law No. 60/2018 within the scope of “Equality Laboratories”. Alongside these training sessions, clarifications were also provided via email and telephone contact.
Since 2023, Portugal also recommends the use of a voluntary Management System Standard for Equal Pay between Women and Men (NP 4588:2023), whose definition began in 2020 with the constitution of a Technical Committee for Standardisation (CT 216 – Technical Committee for Equal Pay for Women and Men) with 28 members, including representatives of the social partners, the public administration, the academia and certifying entities, as well as experts. The Standard functions as a certifiable management system and provides operational guidance to help organisations diagnose pay gaps, verify compliance with legal obligations, and implement corrective action plans. It can be consulted (https://projetos.cite.gov.pt/web/pdp1eps/produtos) and purchased online, at a low cost. In addition, CITE annually awards an Equal Pay Label to companies that demonstrate a commitment to promoting equal pay between women and men, as reflected by low organisational gender pay gaps (see below).
According to information provided by Portuguese authorities, a digital tool to support gender-neutral job evaluation is currently under development with support from the EU’s CERV programme, building on the ILO analytical methodology and complementing existing guidance. The tool is intended to address capacity gaps, particularly for smaller firms that lack access to external consultants. Its design is informed by a review of job evaluation tools used in other countries, conducted by an expert and with ITCILO co‑ordination, and with contributions from members of the Equal Pay International Coalition – EPIC (including Canada, France, Iceland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland), with the emerging model positioned between the Spanish and Icelandic approaches. Unlike earlier regression-based tools used in Portugal to detect unexplained pay gaps, the new instrument focusses directly on assessing the value of work. It will allow employers to evaluate jobs using defined criteria and weightings, identify jobs of equal value that are paid differently, and receive guidance on possible corrective actions. Authorities also indicated that links with existing pay reporting systems are being explored in the context of the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, although design choices are still under discussion.
The Guide to Job Evaluation Based on Objective Criteria Common to Women and Men was developed by the Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment (CITE) as a voluntary methodological tool to support employers in implementing gender-neutral job evaluation, in line with Law No. 60/2018 on equal pay for work of equal value. The guide is intended to help demonstrate that pay-setting practices rely on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, particularly in situations of alleged pay discrimination or following notifications by labour inspection authorities.
The guide is structured around a step-by-step analytical job evaluation methodology, centred on the job position rather than the individual worker. It proposes the use of an analytical point-based method, as recommended by the ILO, and organised around four mandatory evaluation factors that would be applicable to all jobs: skills, effort, responsibilities and working conditions. Each factor is further broken down into sub-factors, explicitly designed to capture dimensions of work that are often undervalued in female‑dominated occupations, such as emotional effort, interpersonal skills, confidentiality responsibilities or psychosocial working conditions.
A core contribution of the guide is its detailed guidance on avoiding gender bias at each stage of the evaluation process. This includes instructions on identifying female‑ and male‑dominated jobs, selecting sub-factors that reflect the full content of work, defining evaluation levels, assigning weights and points, and ensuring that traditionally “invisible” or stereotyped tasks are adequately recognised. The guide provides concrete examples, tables and figures illustrating how apparently different jobs may be of equal value when assessed against common criteria.
The guide also sets out procedural safeguards, recommending that job evaluation be carried out by a joint working group composed of employer and worker representatives, with balanced gender representation, dedicated training on gender stereotypes, and clear rules on participation and transparency. It further links job evaluation to pay gap diagnosis and action planning, outlining how evaluation results can be used to identify unjustified pay differences and to develop corrective measures.
Source: CITE (2022[14]), Guide for Job Evaluation, based on objective criteria common to men and women.
Strengths and challenges in Portugal’s approach to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
A key strength of the Portuguese system lies in the clarity and coherence of its legal principles. Equal pay for equal work and work of equal value is firmly embedded across multiple layers of law, with Law No. 60/2018 requiring that the job evaluation is based on objective criteria common to women and men, in order to exclude any possibility of discrimination based on sex. The framework is supported by a growing range of technical tools and guidance. In particular, CITE’s voluntary job-evaluation guide (which recommends an evaluation methodology based on qualifications, skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions), the Management System Standard for Equal Pay (NP 4588:2023), and the Equal Pay Seal provide employers with practical methodologies, structured management approaches and reputational incentives to support implementation. Ongoing capacity-building efforts, including training sessions, direct advisory support and the development of a digital job-evaluation tool based on ILO methodology, further strengthen the system’s potential reach, particularly for employers with limited internal resources.
At the same time, the Portuguese approach remains largely reactive in practice, which may limit its preventive impact on gender pay inequalities. Although employers are expected to embed job evaluation in their pay-setting and job-classification practices, in practice evaluation risks being mainly reactive and being undertaken only once pay differences are identified. The absence of a mandatory or standardised job evaluation or classification system gives employers flexibility but may also result in uneven implementation and limited comparability across firms and sectors. While collective bargaining coverage is high, gender-neutral job evaluation is not yet systematically integrated into sectoral agreements, and social partner involvement in this area remains uneven. In addition, employers are not required to proactively disclose pay-setting or job-classification criteria, potentially constraining workers’ ability to detect and challenge pay inequalities. As Portugal prepares to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive, further clarification and integration of job evaluation within broader transparency and reporting mechanisms may help address these gaps.
4.4.2. Gender pay gap reporting
Coverage of reporting requirements is high
Portugal’s pay gap reporting requirements for private sector companies stand out for their broad coverage, with all private sector organisations with at least one employee required to submit pay information annually.
Public sector organisations are not covered by the reporting rules, though a separate Ministerial Council Resolution (No. 18/2014) requires all state‑owned companies to analyse, document and report on gender pay inequalities every three years. This includes a requirement to share the pay report internally, to publish it on the internet, and to develop measures to eliminate any unjustified inequalities identified in the process of reporting.13 Portugal will need to ensure systematic pay gap reporting requirements for public sector employers in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Portugal is one of few OECD countries where administrative data is used to calculate pay gap information for employers
The type of pay information required as part of pay gap reporting is comprehensive by comparative standards, and Portugal stands out for its use of administrative data to produce such information on behalf of employers. Portugal is currently one of three OECD countries that uses pre‑existing survey or administrative data to calculate gender pay gaps for employers. Every year, all private sector companies with at least one employee are required to submit pay information for all employees to the government, as part of a broader requirement to fill in and submit an employment survey to the Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security (the “Single Report,” or Relatório Único). The Single Report is part of the Quadros de Pessoal, a longstanding annual, mandatory, national employment survey that requires employers to report on social activity, firm information and worker information.14 Government then uses the data to calculate pay gap information for employers.
Pay gap statistics are relatively comprehensive, though more attention could be paid to the question of equal pay for work of equal value
In Portugal, the information on pay and other worker characteristics (non-pay information) that is calculated for employers is relatively comprehensive, at least in terms of the number of different groups of workers that gender pay gap information is disaggregated for. All employers with at least one employee covered by the Labour Code must submit information on the sex, pay and other characteristics of all employees, which enables government to calculate raw and adjusted gender pay gap information for employers at an organisational level and for different groups of workers, namely disaggregating pay gaps by seniority (length of time with the company), education, profession and level of qualification (see Table 4.4). While employers provide information on both employees’ profession (in line with the Portuguese Classification of Occupations) and job category (using either the job categories defined in law, in collective agreements, company regulations or contracts) in the Single Report, the gender pay gap information that is made available to employers and the general public is disaggregated by different categories, namely professional categories in line with the Portuguese Classification of Occupations. This implies a limit on the granularity with which pay reporting illuminates pay gaps for equal work, as each professional category may contain many jobs which differ in value. It may also go a limited way to identifying pay gaps for workers performing work of equal value in different professions.
Pay and non-pay information made available annually to companies that submit the Single Report
Note: Refers to the information made available to employers in their individual Balance Sheet, rather than the information that could be extracted based on the information they provide in the Single Report.
Source: OECD (2023[4]), Reporting Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform and Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security (2021[15]), How to Interpret BdD.
Based on the information provided by employers, the Strategy and Planning Office (Gabinete de Estratégia e Planeamento, “GEP”) in the Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security publishes a national and sectoral-level report on the gender pay gap, the Barometer of Wage Differences Between Women and Men. It also makes employer-level data available to individual employers: employers can obtain a Balance Sheet of Pay Differences Between Women and Men in their company (the Balanço), setting out the information listed in Table 4.4 for their company. Employers, after submitting their Single Report, can automatically generate their Balance sheet through an online portal using their company credentials, and are required to communicate the results to individual employees and works councils and – where they request it – to trade union representatives (communication of pay gap reporting results is discussed in further detail below). The Labour Inspectorate also has access to the data and can notify employers to conduct a pay audit to address pay inequalities (>5%) identified in the process of reporting.
Companies can be asked to develop a plan to address inequalities identified in the process of reporting
In Portugal, pay audits are mandatory only for companies with 50 or more employees that have been asked to complete a pay audit by the Labour Inspectorate (Autoridade para as Condicoes do Trabalho, or ACT – the Authority for Working Conditions). Where an organisation has a gender pay gap of more than 5%,15 the Authority for Working Conditions (ACT) notifies employers – within 60 days of receipt of the balance sheet – that they must put in place an “evaluation plan” for the assessment of differences in remuneration.
Employers that are required to produce an evaluation plan have 120 working days to submit a plan to conduct an evaluation of pay differences, to rule out the possibility of discrimination. The evaluation plan must be based on an assessment of the “components” of functions, based on objective criteria common to both women and men, so as to exclude any possibility of discrimination on grounds of sex, meaning in principle that companies should conduct job evaluation based on objective criteria, and then assess whether there are unjustified pay gaps for categories of workers performing the same work, or work of equal value. The evaluation plan must be executed within 12 months; if any unjustified disparities were found, they must be corrected. Following the evaluation, employers are required to report to ACT on the results of the evaluation, either justifying pay gaps or demonstrating the correction of unjustified pay gaps. Differences in pay that the employer does not justify are presumed to be discriminatory.
The ACT checks evaluation plans submitted by employers, in line with guidelines from Portugal’s Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment (CITE). Non-compliance with the requirements can result in fines and exclusion from public tender for up to 2 years (see more on monitoring and enforcement below).
Beyond the requirement for affected companies with more than 50 employees to conduct a pay audit, since 2014 all private sector companies with more than 25 employees have also been recommended to do so. Ministerial Council Resolution (RECM No. 18/2014) sets out that these companies should be encouraged to conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis of wage differences between women and men based on the information contained in the Single Report, and to implement an action plan to address any unjustified pay gaps.
Transparency is relatively high, but will need to be strengthened
Transparency of pay gap information is relatively high, with relevant pay information made available to and by the government, including to the Labour Inspectorate, and at least some information made available to employees, workers’ representatives and the general public. As outlined earlier in this section, the government publishes an annual report with sectoral-level pay gap information which can be accessed by the general public (individual employers cannot be identified) (see Figure 4.2). This likely limits external social pressure to address pay equity, and Portugal will need to facilitate public reporting on employer-level data to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive. Company-level information is currently made available only to the Labour Inspectorate and to employers, with employers provided their company-level data alongside relevant sectoral-level data, enabling them to assess how they compare to their sectoral average.
Excerpt from the Barometer of the Pay Gap between Women and Men (Barómetro das Diferenças Remuneratórias entre Mulheres e Homens or BDD), 2025
Source: Ministry of Labour (2025[16]), Barometer of the Pay Gap Between Women and Men, https://www.gep.mtsss.gov.pt/trabalho.
Employers are required to provide some information to workers and workers’ representatives (OECD, 2023[4]). The Labour Code (Article 32) requires employers to provide annual information on the company’s social activity, namely on working hours, overtime, fixed-term hiring, vocational training, safety and health at work, and personnel records. The company must make this information available to employees, the works council, trade unions (where they request it), as well as workers’ representatives for health and safety in so far as it concerns them. Information also needs to be made available to employers’ associations represented on the standing committee for social dialogue who request it.
A good practice certification scheme provides a soft incentive for employers to address the gender pay gap
In Portugal, CITE annually awards a good practice certification to employers with small pay gaps, based on the information employers submit in their Single Report. Pay certifications are in use in a handful of OECD countries, including Iceland and Italy, and offer a reputational incentive for companies to promote pay equity within their companies. Portugal’s pay certification label – entitled “Company that Promotes Equal Pay Between Women and Men” – was implemented in 2022 and has since been awarded annually to companies with an adjusted gender pay gap between 1% and ‑1% (CITE, n.d.[17]).
Monitoring of the reporting rules is comprehensive, though enforcement could be strengthened
Portugal employs a proactive approach to monitoring compliance, both to ensure that companies that are required to submit pay information have done so, and to ensure that companies with pay auditing responsibilities have met them. Responsibility for oversight and enforcement of Portugal’s pay reporting measures are devolved to several government agencies. Portugal’s equality and non-discrimination body (CITE) has responsibility for oversight of pay transparency measures, and also plays a role in enforcing equal pay regulations: Portugal’s 2018 pay equity laws conferred the agency powers to issue binding opinions in individual cases of pay discrimination. The Labour Inspectorate (Autoridade para as Condicoes do Trabalho, the Working Conditions Authority – ACT) is responsible for the pay auditing process (discussed in further detail above).
The Working Conditions Authority (ACT) monitors whether affected private sector companies have submitted their Single Report, and failure to submit the Single Report within the required timeframes is an administrative offence that can lead to the application of a fine. As outlined earlier in this chapter, the Labour Inspectorate also takes an active role in ensuring that employers that are required to address pay inequalities identified in the process of reporting have done so.
Non-compliance with the reporting obligations can lead to financial penalties. Companies that do not submit the annual income report can face financial penalties ranging between EUR 612 and EUR 9 690, somewhat of a middle ground from an international comparative perspective, where fines for non-compliance range from EUR 250 in Belgium, to potentially unlimited fines in the United Kingdom. Provisional figures on inspection activity provided by the ACT for the 2023‑2024 biennium indicate that inspection activity resulted in 50 administrative offences for failure to submit a plan; 34 administrative offences for failure to implement the plan, and 6 administrative offences for failure to communicate the results of the plan’s implementation. In addition to financial penalties, non-compliant companies can also be subject to administrative/judicial action.
Strengths and challenges in Portugal’s approach to gender pay gap reporting
Portugal’s pay gap reporting scheme is marked by high coverage, and high simplicity for employers: Portugal is one of few OECD countries that makes use of administrative data to calculate pay gaps for employers. Transparency of the system could be improved, and greater attention could be paid to the question of equal pay for work of equal value. Transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive is expected to resolve these limitations, building on the strengths of the system already in place.
Tools and guidance on pay gap reporting and pay auditing
Portugal has made tools and guidance on pay gap reporting available:
Guidance on calculation of the gender pay gap is available here: https://www.gep.mtsss.gov.pt/documents/10182/45673/Como+Calcular+GPG+e+GPG+ajustado.pdf/5554ac62-edda-47d4-a3a7-2fe76de71502.
The Barometer on the Gender pay gap is available online: http://www.gep.mtsss.gov.pt/trabalho.
Guidance on interpretation of the pay information contained in the Barometer is available online:
Salary transparency prior to employment
Portugal currently mandates salary transparency prior to employment in the public sector, but not in the private sector. When publishing job advertisements for competitive recruitment processes, public sector organisations in Portugal are required to include the salary or salary level. Portugal will need to implement requirements with respect to salary transparency prior to employment for private sector organisations, in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive (see Box 1.2).
4.5.1. Comparing the value of work: Gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
This section examines national measures in Spain to ensure equal pay for equal work and work of equal value through gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems. The analysis focusses primarily on the private sector, where statutory obligations are most developed and where job evaluation is embedded within broader equality and pay-transparency frameworks.
Equal pay for work of equal value applies to all companies, with reinforced obligations for larger firms
The principle of equal pay for equal work and work of equal value is embedded in Article 28.1 of the Workers’ Statute, which establishes that work is of equal value when the tasks performed; the education, professional or training conditions required; the factors strictly related to performance; and the actual working conditions are equivalent. This principle is operationalised through Royal Decree 902/2020 of 13 October on equal pay for women and men, which requires companies to use job classification and job evaluation systems based on objective, gender-neutral criteria to ensure pay transparency and compliance with equal pay obligations.
Spanish authorities report that social partners were closely involved and consulted in the development of Royal Decree 902/2020, including the most representative employers’ and workers’ organisations, as well as the governments of the Autonomous Communities, and that the Royal Decree was agreed in its entirety with the social partners, reflecting Spain’s established practices of social dialogue. They also report that Spain had already implemented many of the substantive requirements relating to equal pay for equal work and work of equal value prior to the adoption of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which has not yet been transposed.
The obligation to ensure equal pay for work of equal value applies to all companies, regardless of size. However, companies with 50 or more employees are subject to additional requirements: they must develop and apply an equality plan, which must include an equal pay audit covering every job position within the organisation. The pay audit must identify potential gender pay gaps, assess whether they result from inaccurate or biased job evaluations, and define corrective measures where necessary (pay auditing requirements are elaborated in more detail below). In this way, job evaluation is not limited to situations where discrimination has already been identified but is required as a systematic and preventive tool to detect and address potential gender biases before they become entrenched.
Collective bargaining also plays an important role. Negotiating tables for collective agreements must ensure that the factors and conditions used to define professional groups or levels respect the criteria of adequacy, totality and objectivity, and comply with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, as set out in Article 9 of Royal Decree 902/2020.
Spain mandates objective and gender-neutral job evaluation
Compliance with Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute and Royal Decree 902/2020 is mandatory for all private‑sector employers. In practice, equal pay for work of equal value cannot be effectively applied or documented without an objective and gender-neutral job evaluation system.
Royal Decree 902/2020 explicitly required the government to approve a job-evaluation procedure within six months. In response, Spain adopted Order PCM/1047/2022 of 1 November, which establishes an official job-evaluation procedure and accompanying technical guidelines. While the use of the job-evaluation tool developed under this Order is not compulsory, it sets minimum methodological requirements that job evaluations must meet to be considered objective and gender-neutral.
The tool and the user guide are publicly available through the website of the Ministry of Labour and Social Economy (https://www.mites.gob.es/es/portada/herramienta_valoracion_puesto/index.htm) and the Women’s Institute of the Ministry of Equality (https://www.igualdadenlaempresa.es/asesoramiento/herramientas-igualdad/home.htm), facilitating consistent implementation across companies and sectors.
Spanish legislation specifies the categories of criteria that employers must use when assessing and comparing the value of work in the private sector. Consistently with the principle of work of equal value, Article 4 of Royal Decree 902/2020 requires job evaluations to consider the nature of the functions performed, including the actual tasks and content of the job; educational, professional or training requirements necessary to perform the work; factors strictly related to performance of the activity, including the effort required; and actual working conditions under which the work is carried out. In addition, a correct job evaluation must ensure that the principles of adequacy (factors must relate directly to the work actually performed), totality (all relevant job characteristics must be considered), and objectivity (evaluation must avoid gender stereotypes and bias) are respected. The regulation also requires explicit consideration of specific work factors that may otherwise be overlooked, such as the difficult or dangerous nature of work, accountability, isolation and similar conditions, as set out in Articles 4.3 and 4.4 of the Decree.
A national job-evaluation tool supports gender-neutral and consistent implementation
Spain goes further than many OECD countries by not only defining statutory criteria, but also supporting their operationalisation, including through weighting. A voluntary national job-evaluation tool, published online in 2022 alongside specific guidelines, automatically assigns values and weights to evaluation factors and sub-factors, as well as to different levels, taking into account the intensity with which they occur in each job (Box 4.5).
The tool was developed through social dialogue in technical negotiating tables bringing together key stakeholders. Its objective is to provide a structured procedure that enables companies to carry out job evaluations that comply with the requirements of Royal Decree 902/2020. Although its use is voluntary, the tool serves as a reference framework, particularly supporting employers with limited internal technical capacity, and promotes consistency and gender sensitivity in job evaluation practices.
In addition, the Women’s Institute provides specific training on equality to staff involved in recruitment, job evaluation and human-resources management. This training is intended to address and prevent stereotypes or discriminatory practices.
In October 2020, Spain adopted Royal Decree 902/2020 on pay equity between women and men, which requires companies to conduct pay equity audits that include systematic job evaluation. To support compliance, Spain’s Ministry of Labor and Social Economy and the Institute for Women developed a standardised Excel-based job evaluation tool through social dialogue with peak employer organisations (CEOE, CEPYME) and trade unions (CCOO, UGT).
Information provided by Spanish authorities shows that since its publication in 2022, the job-evaluation tool has seen substantial uptake, with around 90 000 downloads recorded since April 2022 from the website of the Institute for Women, suggesting widespread use by companies and social partners. Its development through social dialogue, combined with its clear legal anchoring in Royal Decree 902/2020 and Order PCM/1047/2022, has facilitated acceptance and implementation. The tool and its user guide are publicly available and regularly supported through guidance materials and webinars, reinforcing its role as a practical reference for gender-neutral job evaluation in Spain.
Methodology and design principles
The tool applies a quantitative, analytical point-factor method that evaluates all jobs against common criteria, assigning up to 1 000 points based on job requirements. The methodology adheres to three core principles mandated by the regulation: factors must relate directly to work actually performed (adequacy); all job characteristics must be considered without neglecting any (totality); and evaluation must avoid gender stereotypes and social biases (objectivity).
The tool is explicitly designed with a gender perspective, giving visibility to competencies traditionally considered “feminine” and often undervalued, such as emotional labour, care responsibilities, multitasking, interpersonal skills, and conflict resolution.
Evaluation criteria and weighting
The tool evaluates jobs across four main categories aligned with statutory requirements, with predetermined weightings established through social dialogue. This weighting structure aims to counter historical bias where technical skills and physical demands were overvalued relative to social-emotional competencies.
Within Category A (Nature of Functions), the 41% allocated to “Responsibility and Autonomy” is distributed to balance traditionally male‑coded responsibilities (economic, supervisory) with female‑coded ones (well-being of persons, confidential information):
Economic responsibility: 25% of subfactor weight
Responsibility for well-being of persons: 40% of subfactor weight
Confidential information responsibility: 35% of subfactor weight
Within Category C (Professional Conditions), the 50% weight for “Social Skills” is subdivided equally among:
Communication capacity: 35%
Emotional capacity (empathy): 30%
Conflict resolution: 35%.
Source: Ministry of Labour and Social Economy and Ministry of Equality (2022[18]), Herramienta de Valoración de Puestos de Trabajo: Guía de uso [Job Evaluation Tool: User Guide] and OECD Secretariat’s consultation with Spanish authorities.
Spain mandates gender-neutral job classification systems, while allowing flexibility in design
Spain mandates the use of job classification systems in all companies. Article 22 of the Workers’ Statute requires companies to establish classification schemes based on professional groups that bring together competences, qualifications and tasks. These schemes must be agreed through collective bargaining or workers’ representatives.
Royal Decree 902/2020 further requires that job classification systems be reviewed and adapted to ensure that they reflect objective criteria without gender-based biases. However, Spain does not prescribe a single classification model. Employers and social partners retain discretion to design classification systems suited to their sectoral or organisational context, provided statutory requirements are met.
This approach combines a national legal obligation with decentralised implementation through collective bargaining and company-level agreements.
Workers’ rights to pay information and transparency
Spanish law does not require employers to make information available to workers on the criteria used to determine pay levels and pay progression. Changes in this respect can be expected with the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive. Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute establishes workers’ right to access the company’s wage register through their legal representation (elaborated in further detail below).
Workers also have the right to request and receive information, in writing, on their individual pay level and on average pay levels broken down by sex for categories of workers performing the same work or work of equal value. Where access is requested directly, information must be disaggregated by type of remuneration and by the job classification system applied.
Strengths and challenges in Spain’s approach to gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
Spain’s framework stands out for its binding, preventive and systematic approach to gender-neutral job evaluation. By mandating objective job evaluation across all companies and embedding it within equality plans and pay audits for larger firms, Spain ensures that the value of work is assessed proactively rather than only in response to disputes. The explicit specification of gender-neutral criteria, the requirement to address bias in their application, and the availability of a national evaluation tool developed through social dialogue further strengthen the framework.
At the same time, the system places significant technical and administrative demands on employers, particularly smaller firms without specialised human-resources capacity. While the national job-evaluation tool provides valuable support, its non-mandatory nature may lead to variation in implementation.
4.5.2. Gender pay gap reporting
Coverage of Spain’s requirements is high
Spain is unique in that it is one of only two OECD countries that requires all private sector employers to collect and document specified gender pay information. In Spain, all private sector companies are required to establish and annually update pay registries with specified pay and non-pay information for their employees, and companies with 50 or more employees are required to conduct more expansive reporting, and conduct pay auditing (discussed in further detail below). Spain also has comprehensive (headcount) inclusion criteria for determining which companies are covered by pay gap reporting and pay auditing rules, with few workers excluded from company headcounts: part-time and temporary workers are included, and only indirectly employed workers (independent contracts) are not required to be counted.16 In principle, this comprehensive approach to company headcounts should help to ensure good reach of pay auditing requirements. Public sector organisations are currently not required to conduct gender pay gap reporting or pay auditing, though Spain is working toward implementation of such requirements as it transposes the EU Pay Transparency Directive. In parallel, Spain is taking steps to assess pay gaps in the public sector: the Fourth Plan for Gender Equality in the General State Administration and in Public Bodies linked to or dependent on it, published in October 2025, signals an intention to conduct study of the gender pap gap and to develop – if necessary – an action plan to guarantee equal pay between men and women.
Reporting requirements include an explicit focus on work of equal value
All employers are required to establish and annually update a remuneration register (a “pay registry”) that includes aggregated and disaggregated wage data for all employees. All employers are required to record the mean and median salary for their employees, broken down by base compensation, supplements and non-wage payments, and further disaggregated by job category17 (see Table 4.5). A pay registry tool is available to employers, including a sample pay registry, guidance on how to complete it, and a user’s guide for using the pay registry tool.
Spain’s requirements pay particular attention to the question of (equal pay for) equal work, and work of equal value. In Spain, it is mandatory for all employers to disaggregate pay information in pay registries by job category based on a gender-neutral classification scheme. No specific system is mandated, and employers are required to use either:
a) the job classification system in use within the company, as set out in the relevant collective agreement; or
b) where a job classification system is not set out in a collective agreement, employers are required to use a job classification system that is agreed with workers’ representatives.
Companies with 50 or more employees, or other companies implementing equality plans,18 are additionally required to disaggregate pay information by groups of jobs of equal value. Companies with 50 employers or more are also required to conduct a remuneration audit using a gender-neutral job evaluation system, and to develop and register an equality plan that remains valid for a maximum of four years (discussed in further detail below).
Note: Companies developing an equality plan are also required to analyse specified non-pay information, and to report on the results of that analysis in their equality plan (discussed in further detail below).
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[4]), Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform, supplemented by 2025 OECD Pay Transparency Questionnaire.
Pay auditing requirements are comprehensive in scope and coverage
Spain’s pay auditing requirements for private sector companies are comprehensive in their reach and scope, including an explicit focus on the question of equal pay for work of equal value. In Spain, all private sector companies with 50 employees or more are required develop an equality plan, and as part of that plan, are required to conduct a pay audit. Some companies with less than 50 employees also develop equality plans: companies can be mandated to develop an equality plan by the labour authority, some may be required to do so by a collective agreement, and companies can also voluntarily implement equality plans. Equality plans are required to contain:
1. A situational diagnosis of inequalities and barriers to equality between men and women, drawing on quantitative and qualitative data, covering at least selection and recruitment, professional classification, training, career advancement, working conditions (including a salary audit), and some other factors; and
2. A plan to address it. A plan that contains specific objectives, actions, measures, resources and timelines, monitoring and evaluation, and monitoring and periodic review of the equality plan. Equality measures can go “beyond” those that arise from the situational diagnosis, for example relating to sexist language or gender-based violence.
A technical guide is available to employers on conducting pay audits with a gender perspective, available as part of broader guidance on the development of equality plans.
Spain requires employers to develop equality plans through negotiation with workers representatives: equality plans and their situational diagnosis must be negotiated with a negotiating committee, typically comprised of staff or trade union representatives and the works council. The period of validity of an equality plan is determined as appropriate by the negotiating parties, up to a maximum period of four years. There are some events that would trigger a mandatory review sooner, for example if it becomes apparent that the company is not compliant with laws or regulations, where monitoring and evaluation of the plan calls for it, or in the event of a merger or takeover. The period of review of the equality plan must be set out in the plan’s calendar of actions – so it is left to the negotiating committee – though the law mandates at least a mid-term and final evaluation.19 Companies are required to register the equality plan in a public register (described in further detail below), and are required to maintain the equality plan until it expires, even if their number of workers falls below 50 in the meantime.
Equality plans are required to incorporate a “pay diagnosis,” or salary audit, which requires employers to assess whether their remuneration system complies with the principle of equality between men and women (described in Royal Decree 901/2020 at paragraph 3). The pay diagnosis must include:
1. A description and analysis of the job classification system. Employers are required to assess the criteria and system(s) used to assess the value of tasks, functions, and professional classifications/categorisations. Spain’s requirements on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification are outlined in further detail in section 4.4.1 above.
2. An analysis of the drivers or contributing factors to pay differentials. This includes issues or inequalities in the design or use of measures to promote work-life balance, and in professional promotion; and
3. An action plan for the correction of pay inequalities, described in further detail below.
Spain does not specify a specific method of statistical analysis but requires that employers adopt an analytical method that meets the objectives of the pay audit. Pay audits remain valid for as long as the company’s equality plan remains valid, unless a reduced period is established in the equality plan which would require the company to conduct a pay audit more frequently. De facto, this means that pay audits remain valid for up to a maximum period of four years, and must be conducted at least every four years.
Alongside the salary audit, companies developing an equality plan are also required to analyse specified gender-relevant non-pay information,20 including an analysis of selection and hiring process; professional classification; training; professional promotion; working conditions, including salary audits; co-responsible exercise of the rights of personal, family and work life; under-representation of women; remuneration; and prevention of sexual and gender-based harassment. This includes, for example, quantitative and qualitative indicators such as such as gender gaps in employee numbers by seniority, job category, salary level and contract type, and gender gaps in training, hours worked, promotions, and use of parental leave (non-exhaustive list) (OECD, 2023[4]). Employers are required to include a summary and the main conclusions and proposals from their analysis in a report that forms part of their Equality Plan (which is registered online and made available to the general public).
All employers are required to take steps to remedy inequalities identified through pay audits, and more intensive measures are mandated where significant inequalities are identified. As outlined above, all pay audits are required to contain an action plan setting out what steps will be taken to correct any inequalities identified through the audit, which contain objectives, the steps that will be taken, the schedule, the person or people responsible for monitoring its implementation, and the “monitoring system.” Where pay gaps of 25% or higher are identified, employers are required to justify that the pay gap is not related to gender. If the pay audit highlights an under-representation of people from one particular gender in positions or hierarchical levels, the equality plan must include actions to correct the imbalance.
Transparency is comparatively low, and will need to be strengthened
Transparency of gender pay information is comparatively low by OECD standards: while employees have a right to access the information collected in pay registries, it is not made available to workers proactively, and is not made publicly available. While broad coverage means that in principle all Spanish companies should be able to provide their employees with gender pay gap information, employees can generally access the information in pay registries only by making a request to the legal representative of workers in their company. In companies where there are no legal representatives of workers, employees can access some information in the salary registry directly, namely percentage differences. Companies are currently not required to report pay information to equality and/or state bodies nor to social partners. This should change in 2026 with implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which requires EU Member States to designate a monitoring body for gender pay transparency, and for that monitoring body to make employer-level gender pay information publicly available (see Box 1.2).
Transparency of pay auditing information is somewhat higher, as employers are required to make the results of their pay audit publicly available. All employers that complete an equality plan are required to register it, and are required to include the outcome of their pay audit when they do so. The results of pay audits are required to be registered with the equality plan, which are made available to the general public in a public registry, which enables individual employers to be identified.
Spain carries out proactive compliance monitoring
Spain takes a proactive approach to monitoring compliance with the reporting requirements, including through proactive inspections. The Labour and Social Security Inspectorate is responsible for monitoring compliance with pay transparency requirements, and carries out proactive work. Inspection campaigns on equality and gender-based discrimination have been included in annual plans agreed with the autonomous communities, and have been reflected in the Strategic Plan of the Inspectorate. Rates of compliance with the requirements are not known, as data on compliance is not currently collected. Non-compliant companies in Spain can face financial penalties or administrative/judicial action.
Spain has also implemented some ancillary measures to encourage compliance with the relevant requirements, and to promote progress in narrowing the gender pay gap. Public sector organisations are not allowed to contract with private sector companies that do not prepare an Equality Plan when they are required to (pursuant to the Ley de Contratos del Sector Público), meaning in principle that public sector organisations should not contract with private sector companies with 50 or more employees that have not conducted a pay audit and put in place a plan to address any inequalities identified in the audit. Companies that do not comply with the obligation to have an Equality Plan are also not eligible for specified social security contribution bonuses in some contexts.21 Pay transparency legislation also established a governance mechanism to promote progress: the Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, the Ministry of Equality and representatives of business and trade unions are required to meet every six months to assess the impact of the measures taken to address the gender pay gap (Royal Decree 901/2020).
Strengths and challenges in Spain’s approach to gender pay gap reporting
Spain stands out for its arguably strong focus on the question of equal pay for work of equal value and for pay auditing requirements which are comprehensive in their reach and scope. In Spain, companies with 50 employees or more are explicitly required to report on pay gaps for workers performing work of equal value. Greater attention could be paid to ensuring transparency, as pay information is generally only available to workers on request. Transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive – which requires public reporting through a designated monitoring body – is expected to improve transparency.
Tools and guidance on pay gap reporting and pay auditing
Spain has made tools and guidance on pay gap reporting and pay auditing available:
The remuneration (pay) registry tool is available here: https://www.mites.gob.es/es/portada/herramienta_registro_retributivo/index.htm.
A technical guide for employers on pay auditing with a gender perspective (available as part of broader guidance on the development of equality plans) is available in Spanish: https://www.igualdadenlaempresa.es/asesoramiento/herramientas-igualdad/home.htm and in English: igualdadenlaempresa.es/asesoramiento/herramientas-igualdad/docs/Remuneration_Registration_Tool_User_Guide.pdf.
The public registry where employers are required to register equality plans is available here: https://expinterweb.mites.gob.es/regcon/pub/consultaPublicaEstatal.
4.5.3. Salary transparency prior to employment
Like many other OECD countries, Spain is currently working to develop requirements on salary transparency prior to employment, in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
References
[8] Briard, K. (2024), Index de l’égalité professionnelle : quelles progressions depuis son entrée en vigueur ?, DARES, https://dares.travail-emploi.gouv.fr/publication/index-de-legalite-professionnelle-quelles-progressions-depuis-son-entree-en-vigueur (accessed on 30 March 2026).
[9] Briard, K. (2024), Index de l’égalité professionnelle : quelles progressions depuis son entrée en vigueur ?, Dares, https://dares.travail-emploi.gouv.fr/publication/index-de-legalite-professionnelle-quelles-progressions-depuis-son-entree-en-vigueur.
[11] Briard, K., F. Meluzzi and M. Ruault (2021), Index de l’égalité professionnelle : quel bilan depuis son entrée en vigueur ?, Dares, https://dares.travail-emploi.gouv.fr/publication/index-de-legalite-professionnelle-quel-bilan-depuis-son-entree-en-vigueur (accessed on 17 June 2024).
[12] Briard, K., F. Meluzzi and V. Simonnet (2025), Une proportion plus élevée de femmes dans l’entreprise s’accompagne-t-elle de meilleures notes à l’index de l’égalité professionnelle ?, Dares, https://dares.travail-emploi.gouv.fr/publication/proportion-de-femmes-plus-elevee-index-egal-pro.
[14] CITE (2022), Guide for Job Evaluation, based on objective criteria common to men and women, https://cite.gov.pt/documents/14333/297943/CITE+-+Guia+de+avalia%C3%A7%C3%A3o+de+diferen%C3%A7as+remunerat%C3%B3rias.pdf/2a55800d-328a-465f-ad63-12853d3da9d6.
[17] CITE (n.d.), Equal Pay Seal, https://cite.gov.pt/selo-igualdade-salarial (accessed on 12 January 2026).
[7] CSEP (n.d.), Guide pour la prise en compte de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes dans les systèmes de classification, https://www.haut-conseil-egalite.gouv.fr/sites/hce/files/files-spip/pdf/guide_egalite_systemes_de_classifications-v2-bat-vfinale.pdf.
[5] Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (n.d.), Gender equality: the pay gap, https://emploi.belgique.be/fr/themes/egalite-et-non-discrimination/egalite-femmes-hommes-lecart-salarial#toc_heading_4 (accessed on 27 November 2025).
[1] Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (n.d.), Method for analysing and assessing the gender neutrality of sectoral job classification systems, https://emploi.belgique.be/sites/default/files/content/documents/Gelijkheid%20en%20non-discriminatie/Tools%20en%20goede%20praktijken/M%C3%A9thode%20d'analyse%20pour%20le%20contr%C3%B4le%20de%20la%20neutralit%C3%A9%20sur%20le%20plan%20du%20genre%20des%20cl.
[19] Government of France (2024), Index of professional equality, https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/vosdroits/F35103?lang=en (accessed on 5 December 2025).
[6] Institute for the Equality of Women and Men (2021), Eliminating the gender pay gap by law: Lessons learned in Belgium, https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/sites/default/files/137_-_eliminating_the_gender_pay_gap_by_law_0.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2024).
[2] Institute for the equality of women and men (2010), Checklist Gender neutrality in job evaluation and classification, https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/sites/default/files/media/documents/39%20-%20Checklist_ENG.pdf.
[18] Ministry of Labour and Social Economy and Ministry of Equality (2022), Herramienta de Valoración de Puestos de Trabajo: Guía de uso [Job Evaluation Tool: User Guide], Directorate-General for Labour and Women’s Institute, https://www.mites.gob.es/ficheros/ministerio/Portada/valoracion_puestos/2022.04.01-Gua_Uso_Heramienta_SVPT.pdf.
[13] Ministry of Labour and Solidarity (2025), Results of the Professional Equality Index and the Rixain law for 2025.
[10] Ministry of Labour and Solidarity (2019), Professional Equality Index: calculation and questions and answers, https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/index-de-legalite-professionnelle-calcul-et-questionsreponses (accessed on 4 December 2025).
[16] Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security (2025), Barometer of the Pay Gap Between Women and Men, https://www.gep.mtsss.gov.pt/trabalho (accessed on 29 November 2025).
[15] Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security (2021), How to Interpret BdD, https://www.gep.mtsss.gov.pt/relatorio-unico#balan%c3%a7o+das+diferen%c3%a7as+remunerat%c3%b3rias (accessed on 28 November 2025).
[3] Ministry of the French Community (2024), Decree amending the Decree of 12 December 2008 on the fight against certain forms of discrimination, https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/decret/2024/05/16/2024006628/moniteur (accessed on 31 October 2025).
[4] OECD (2023), Reporting Gender Pay Gaps in OECD Countries: Guidance for Pay Transparency Implementation, Monitoring and Reform, Gender Equality at Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea13aa68-en.
← 1. In Belgium, every four years companies that employ more than 50 people on average during the referent period are required to hold social elections for works councils and workplace health and safety committees. Companies with 50 or more employees elect representatives for a Committee for Prevention and Protection at Work (CPPW), and companies with more than 100 workers on average during the referent period elect representatives to the CPPW and a Works Council. Within organisations, these bodies are the primary consultative bodies for workers, and are made up of representatives of company leadership, and representatives of workers. Companies required to hold social elections are required to set up a participation body, which are established at the level of the “Technical Operating Unit” (TOU). In Belgium, the enterprises required to report pay information are the Technical Operating Unit (TOU), which is determined based on social and economic criteria. Technical Operating Units generally correspond to legal entities, though this is not necessarily a given. Technical Operating Units are determined every four years during the social elections, in consultation between the employer and the unions. Reporting obligations are determined at the same time, when the parties determine if the size threshold has been reached that would require them to hold social elections and establish a works council. The courts can intervene in circumstances where there is disagreement.
← 2. Based on the number of organisations required to initiate social elections in Belgium.
← 3. This data is established with reference to specified headings from the company’s annual accounts.
← 4. Employers are separately required to provide some gender pay information to government annually: when the pay equity law was passed, a gender component was embedded into existing company reporting requirements, meaning that employers became obliged to gender-disaggregate existing data provided to the National Bank in its annual social balance sheet (Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, 2021[6]). Companies’ social balance sheets are used to calculate economic and financial indicators, and include for example data on the number of employees by gender and level of education (Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, 2021[6]) However, this is a separate requirement from employers’ pay gap reporting requirements.
← 5. In line with the Social Penal Code (Article 191/1).
← 6. Full-time employees with permanent employment contracts and home workers are included, part-time employees and employees with fixed-term, intermittent or temporary employment contracts are included in proportion to their working hours, while apprentices and workers with professionalisation, employment support and initiative‑employment contracts are excluded. Part-time employees are included when determining staff headcounts, by dividing their contractual working hours by standard full-time working hours. In France, indirectly employed workers are counted provided they have been with the company for at least one year, and are not replacing an absent or suspended worker (e.g. a maternity or paternity leave cover). When determining their eligibility to report, companies are required to use a staff headcount at a snapshot in time, namely on the 1st of March every year (the date when companies are required to publish the Index). Companies are required to include all workers in staff headcounts irrespective of whether they are working in different establishments, which should help to ensure the inclusion of workers in companies that have several physical locations.
← 7. Pursuant to Article 9 of the Law of 19 July 2023, amending the General Civil Service Code, “when managing at least fifty agents, the ministerial departments, the public establishments of the State, the regions, the departments, the communes and the public establishments of inter-municipal cooperation with more than 40 000 inhabitants, the National Centre for the Territorial Civil Service and the public establishments mentioned in Article L. 5 shall publish each year, on their website, indicators relating to the gender pay gap and the actions implemented to eliminate them. These indicators are made public on the website of the Ministry in charge of the civil service. These indicators shall be presented each year to the deliberative assembly of the local authorities and public establishments mentioned in this article.”
← 8. Employers submitting information for the Professional Equality Index can have incalculable scores on specific indicators (for example, the “pay gap” indicator), or on the Index as a whole. In some cases, an incalculable score on a specified indicator would leave to an overall “incalculable” score on the Index as a whole, though this is not always the case. Where employers have incalculable scores on specific indicators but an overall calculable Index score, the number of points is adjusted proportionally.
← 9. OECD Secretariat, based on data from the Egapro database, available at: https://egapro.travail.gouv.fr/index-egapro/recherche. Accessed 4 December 2025.
← 10. For more information, see the Spreadsheet for calculating the Equality Index for companies with 50 to 250 employees, available at https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/index-de-legalite-professionnelle-calcul-et-questionsreponses. The spreadsheet contains the formulae used to calculate the Index, together with the scoring system applied for obtaining the number of points for the indicators.
← 11. Companies with PEI scores below 75 points must determine corrective measures during usual negotiations on professional equality between women and men (which takes place at least once every four years), or otherwise employers can decide them after consulting with the Social and Economic Committee (Comité social et économique) (Government of France, 2024[19]).
← 12. In France, affected companies are required to provide their Professional Equality Index (PEI) scores to employees by publishing the results for each indicator in an accessible manner on their website or – where there is no website – to make the results available to employees by other means. Companies are also required to make the results available to the social and economic committee (CSE, the representative staff body in French companies with 11 or more employees) via the social and economic database (the BDESE). Employers are required to include the overall Index score; results for each indicator, even if some indicators cannot be calculated; and any “useful” accompanying information such as the methodology used. If the Index could not be calculated, employers are required to explain why it could not be calculated.
← 13. Ministerial Council Resolution No. 18/2014 does not specify the gender pay information that state‑owned companies are required to report.
← 14. This includes for example worker information, such as gender, age, education, occupational category, tenure and hours worked for all employees; and firm information, such as the industry, location, ownership and sales of the company.
← 15. The threshold for compliance is an administrative decision, based on the provisions laid down in Directive 970/2023. In 2023/24, the minimum threshold for Labour inspection action was 5% or more, based on the adjusted gender pay gap by four employee characteristics who have the same profession at the 1st digit level, the same qualification at the 1st digit level, the same educational qualification at the 1st digit level and the same seniority. In 2025‑2026, the minimum threshold is more than 5%, based on the gender pay gap at the organisational level.
← 16. In Spain, rules for company headcounts (to determine eligibility for reporting) cover all employees with a contract in force at the time of making the calculation regardless of their type of contract (permanent, temporary, or permanent seasonal). Part-time workers regardless of their working hours. Temporary contracts terminated at the time of making the calculation are included if they were in force in the previous six months (every hundred days worked or fraction will be calculated as one more employee).
← 17. Workers’ Statute, Article 28.2.
← 18. This includes companies that are mandated to complete an equality plan, and companies that voluntarily choose to do so.
← 19. Royal Decree 901/2020.
← 20. See Article 7, 8 and the Annex of Royal Decree 901/2020.
← 21. Royal Decree‑Law 1/2023, of 10 January, on urgent measures regarding incentives for employment and improvement of the social protection of artists.