On 7 April 2026, the Council of State published its advisory opinion (W12.26.00016/III) on the pay transparency bill. The message is clear: the regulatory burden on employers is significant and the effectiveness insufficiently substantiated. Employers will be required to statistically interpret pay differences, but the government provides no guidelines. The Council even suggests that a government body should compile reports centrally to reduce the burden.
Last update: April 10, 2026 · Reading time: 9 minutes
The Council of State is clear: the obligations are necessary, but the burden on employers is disproportionate to the expected result.
Complex obligations
Unclear, costly and complex
The Netherlands will not meet the EU deadline. The Council of State notes that the explanatory memorandum does not address the consequences of this delay.
The bill touches on tensions with privacy law. The Council identifies two issues.
The bill requires employers to register gender for pay comparisons. It is unclear how non-binary employees should be treated: may their pay be excluded or must it be included? The Council asks for clarification of the legal basis under the GDPR.
Average pay levels per category can, in small groups, lead to direct or indirect disclosure of an identifiable employee's salary. The government states that equal pay outweighs data protection, but the bill lacks concrete practical safeguards.
The obligations are coming, but the regulatory burden doesn't have to be unmanageable. Five ways to reduce the load.
The Council signals that employers must statistically interpret pay differences without government guidelines. Tooling that automatically analyses, corrects and prepares pay data for reporting saves weeks of manual work.
The law shifts to 2027, the first report to 2028 — but the analysis challenge remains. The sooner you start, the less last-minute scrambling at the deadline.
Manual reporting is exactly the regulatory burden the Council warns about. Automated reporting with built-in statistical correction reduces the load and improves quality.
Small-group anonymisation, GDPR-compliant gender registration and access controls are mandatory. Built-in safeguards cost less than retrofitting.
Currently the Labour Inspectorate only checks whether reports are present. But the Council recommends more substantive supervision. Make sure your reports can withstand scrutiny.
The Council of State warns that employers must perform complex analyses without government guidelines. Payqual removes exactly that burden — from data import to reporting.
Payqual connects to your HR system and analyses pay differences automatically. No manual calculations, no spreadsheets, no ambiguity about statistical methodology.
The law requires gender-neutral job evaluation. Payqual automatically clusters jobs based on objective criteria — the foundation for a fair comparison.
The Council says reporting requirements are unclear and burdensome. Payqual generates ready-made reports that meet all PTD requirements, including statistical substantiation.
Small-group anonymisation, GDPR-compliant gender registration and access controls are standard in the platform. No retrofitting required.
Real-time alerts for pay differences >5% and tools to document objective justifications. So you're not just compliant, but also prepared for substantive supervision.
Payqual automates pay analysis, reporting and privacy safeguards. Fewer spreadsheets, less risk, less regulatory burden.
This article is a legal analysis and not legal advice. Consult a specialist for your specific situation.
The Advisory Division published its opinion (W12.26.00016/III) on 7 April 2026 on the bill implementing EU Directive 2023/970. The Council supports the goal of equal pay but raises fundamental concerns about five areas: effectiveness and efficiency, exceeding the implementation deadline, limited enforcement, the absence of a designated monitoring body and tension with data protection.
No. The government aims for entry into force on 1 January 2027. The first reporting obligation for employers with 150 or more employees shifts to 7 June 2028, while the directive prescribes 7 June 2027. The Council of State notes that the explanatory memorandum does not address the consequences of this delay.
Employers with 150 or more employees must submit their first pay report by 7 June 2028. The advisory signals that statistical requirements are unclear and that supervision will initially remain administrative. Employers are advised to conduct a pay analysis now, develop a methodology for statistical correction and put privacy safeguards in place.
Per obligation: what applies to a regular employer, what changes for staffing agencies, and where reporting and LIV category averages sit under the draft law.
Employers must provide access to criteria for pay, pay levels and pay progression without a request. Read what Article 10a Wgbmv requires and consequences of non-compliance.
The Administrative Jurisdiction Division rejects dispensation from the ABU collective agreement. Six insights and what they mean for employers and staffing agencies.