After seeing off the corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence directives, Member States appear ready to tackle the pay transparency directive, which is due to be transposed in Member States by 7 June 2026.
Not only are many countries behind schedule, but a growing number of them are expressing open hostility to the directive, either by calling for its annulment, as Sweden has done, or indirectly, by delaying its implementation, as countries like France and the Netherlands have done, some of them in the hope that the European Parliament will revise this directive within the framework of a forthcoming Omnibus directive.
With the transposition deadline now just a couple of months away, the situation is becoming somewhat chaotic. Officially, the European Commission is holding firm, and has announced on several occasions that it will not postpone that date.
Recently, when unveiling the Gender Equality Strategy 2026-2030, the Commission pointed out that in the EU, on average, women still earn 12% less per hour than men (see press release). Consequently, “tackling this is a matter of righting an injustice and delivering on the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights”. And to this end, “the pay transparency directive is a game changer for tackling pay discrimination and the undervaluation of female-dominated jobs, which are root causes of the gender pay gap.”
The Commission explains that it “will continue to support Member States in the effective and timely implementation of this Directive”. In other words, it is not about to change course, and if the directive is not duly transposed by the appointed time, it will trigger the usual procedures against Member States, even extending to prosecution by the Court of Justice if necessary.
Nevertheless, on 26 March, the Swedish government, which voted against the text in 2023, launched hostilities, declaring that the “formulation” of the directive “is administratively much too cumbersome and therefore risks diminishing the gains achieved in terms of equality”. The government therefore “intends to work towards a postponement of the directive’s implementation date and a renegotiation of the directive, aimed at simplifying the regulations”. The end of the press release is very clear: “the government does not intend, at the present time, to submit a draft law to Parliament concerning the pay transparency directive” (see press release).
This government position, which is being pushed by the far-right Sweden Democrats party, will no doubt delight the employers’ organisations, which are calling for at least a pause in the implementation of this directive. The argument is always the same: “we agree with the goal that has been set, but the text imposes a bureaucratic nightmare”. Yet the fact remains that a large majority of Member States and the European Parliament voted in favour of this so-called bureaucratic nightmare three years ago.
Once again, as Roland Erne, Professor of European Integration and Employment Relations at University College Dublin notes, to take these steps is “to defy both the rule of law and democracy in the European Union”. It therefore seems that a growing number of actors now regard an EU directive as something that can be campaigned against not only before its adoption, but also afterwards, during the transposition phase.
The same goes for the revised EWC directive, which will undoubtedly be attacked on all sides during the transposition phase. In the case of pay transparency, Sweden’s attempt to hold up the directive’s progress looks set to remain a symbolic gesture. Non-transposition does not constitute effective immunisation against the directive: the Commission will be able to bring infringement proceedings against Sweden, and any fine imposed by the Court of Justice may be large enough to act as a deterrent and make it change its mind.
As for the directive, some of its provisions might be deemed to have a direct effect, thus enabling any Swedish citizen seeking justice to invoke them before their domestic courts. It should be borne in mind that the EU’s goal is to seek harmonisation, and it has the necessary legal tools at its disposal to prevent Member States picking and choosing among its legislation, i.e. to deter what the British call “cherry picking”.

(Article published in IR Notes 271 - 8 April 2026)