EU Pay Transparency Transposition: Belgium Implements Public Sector Portion, Private Sector Still to Come

Takeaways

• Belgium has partially implemented the EU Pay Transparency Directive through measures for regional portions of the public sector, but private-sector employers are not yet covered by comprehensive federal transposition legislation.
• Although private-sector employers have additional time, the Directive provides a clear roadmap for many of the requirements they should anticipate. 
• Employers should use this period to prepare their compensation structures, job architecture, recruiting practices and pay data while remaining flexible to accommodate Belgium-specific requirements once federal legislation is published.

Related links

• EU Pay Transparency: Member States Near Transposition Finish Line 
• EU Pay Transparency + Uneven Member State Adoption: Four Points for Multinational Employers
• EU Pay Transparency Transposition: Poland Rolls Out Local Recruitment Requirements as Broader Framework Emerges
• EU Pay Transparency Transposition: Czechia Restricts Pay Secrecy Ahead of Full Transposition

Article

Although foundational legislation addressing the gender pay gap has been in place in Belgium for more than a decade, the EU Pay Transparency Directive 2023/970 requires further steps, particularly on transparency and enforcement, to fully align with the Directive’s requirements.

Belgium has partially transposed the Directive through measures applicable to portions of its public sector, including the Flemish public sector and the Brussels-Walloon Federation (French-speaking Community). Those measures, however, do not impose the Directive’s new pay transparency requirements on private-sector employers. Comprehensive federal private-sector transposition remains outstanding. The August transposition review therefore describes Belgium as having only a regional partial transposition, but for private-sector employer, this means that there is no transposition whatever.

For private-sector employers, the important question is what employers should be anticipating and doing while Belgium develops its federal framework. What is clear is that those investing today in transparent and structured reward practices will be the best prepared to implement the Directive’s objective.

What Private-Sector Employers Can Already Anticipate

Although the details of Belgium’s eventual legislation remain uncertain, the Directive provides a roadmap for the core requirements private-sector employers should expect. These include:

• Recruitment transparency. Applicants will need to receive information regarding initial pay or pay ranges, and employers will be restricted from asking about salary history. 
• Objective pay structures. Employers will need compensation structures based on objective, gender-neutral criteria that permit comparison of employees performing the same work or work of equal value. 
• Employee information rights. Employees will have greater access to information concerning their own pay and average pay levels for comparable employees, broken down by sex. 
• Gender pay gap reporting. Employers meeting applicable headcount thresholds will be subject to reporting requirements, with additional obligations potentially triggered by unexplained pay disparities. 
• Enhanced enforcement. Employers should anticipate greater scrutiny of unexplained pay differences and increased exposure to equal pay claims.

Belgium’s eventual legislation and (likely) national collective bargaining agreements will determine the precise procedures, enforcement mechanisms, and interaction of these requirements with existing Belgian employment and collective bargaining frameworks.

Gold-Plating: Too Early to Tell

Unlike Member States that have published comprehensive implementing legislation, Belgium has not yet provided private-sector employers with a federal framework against which potential gold-plating can meaningfully be assessed.

Existing public-sector measures generally follow the Directive’s core framework, and the current transposition review does not anticipate significant Belgian gold-plating. Furthermore, the influential employer organization FEB-VBO is opposed to the Directive (let alone to an extensive transposition), which is probably one reason the transposition is taking so long. Nevertheless, the first draft federal legislation and national collective bargaining agreements will tell employers whether Belgium will adopt the Directive’s minimum requirements without additional obligations.

Particular areas to watch include:

• Reporting procedures and thresholds; 
• Employee information-request requirements; 
• The role of employee representatives; 
• Enforcement and penalties provisions; and 
• Interaction with Belgium’s existing collective bargaining framework.

What Private-Sector Employers Should Be Doing Now

The Belgium transposition is not expected before the end of the year. The delay provides additional preparation time, but employers should use it strategically. In addition, it is likely that the new rules would still require larger companies (250+ employees) to report on the year 2026 (as requested by the Directive). 
Organizations should consider reviewing job architecture and: 

• Determining which employees perform the same work or work of equal value; 
• Evaluating whether compensation decisions are supported by documented, objective, gender-neutral criteria; 
• Identifying unexplained pay disparities; 
• Developing salary ranges and preparing recruitment processes for increased transparency; and 
• Assessing whether HR, payroll, and compensation systems can support future employee information requests and pay gap reporting.

For multinational employers, the goal should be to build these core capabilities as part of a broader EU compliance framework while preserving flexibility for Belgium-specific requirements.

Employer Takeaway

Belgium’s partial transposition does not mean that private-sector employers are currently subject to the Directive’s complete new transparency framework.

The absence of federal legislation should not be confused with an absence of the need for employers to prepare. The Directive provides sufficient certainty for employers to begin the most time-consuming aspects of compliance now, particularly around job architecture, compensation structures, recruiting practices, and pay data. The practical approach for private-sector employers is therefore to prepare for the Directive’s core requirements now, while avoiding Belgium-specific assumptions until the federal implementing legislation is published.

Previously in the series: Poland demonstrates how recruitment requirements can take effect ahead of full transposition, while Czechia illustrates how restrictions on pay secrecy can become enforceable while a broader national framework remains pending.

Watch for the next installment in our series as we continue to explore the status of national legislation, highlight significant departures from the Directive’s minimum requirements, and identify practical considerations for multinational employers.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about these and other EU pay transparency developments.