Earlier I already wrote about new pay transparency obligations that are on their way. As already explained in that publication, the deadline of 7 June 2026 is expected not to be met. This means that the implementation of the European Pay Transparency Directive in the Netherlands is being delayed.

At the same time, the pressure on employers is actually increasing. The recent opinion of the Council of State underlines that the bill still has friction on several points, without the core of the obligations being called into question.

Council of State opinion: support for the goal, criticism of the elaboration

On 7 March 2026, the Council of State issued its opinion on the bill, which was made public on 10 April 2026. The Council endorses the importance of equal pay and transparency, but is critical of the way the Netherlands intends to implement the directive.

The main message: the bill is substantively defensible, but falls short on feasibility and reasoning. Among other things, the Council points to:

• The high regulatory burden for employers, which according to the Council is insufficiently substantiated;
• The choice to place pay reporting entirely with employers, while the directive also offers room for central processing via the government;
• The deviation from the European deadline for the first report (Netherlands: 2028, directive: 2027);
• Lack of clarity about the reporting of pay data for non-binary persons;
• The risk that pay transparency leads to traceable personal data.

This last point in particular carries significant weight: the Council emphasises that the relationship between transparency obligations and privacy protection needs to be worked out better.

What does this mean for the legislation?

The opinion of the Council of State is not binding, but in practice carries significant weight. The bill is expected to be amended or further explained on certain points. Think of, among other things:

• Tightening of privacy safeguards;
• Better substantiation of the chosen system;
• Possible reconsideration of the reporting dates.

At the same time, it is clear that the legislator is not backing away from the core: employers will have to structurally provide insight into their pay policy and pay differences.

Tension with European law remains

The delay in implementation and the possible deviations from the directive create legal uncertainty. If national legislation deviates from the European framework, this may mean that:

• Employees invoke (parts of) the directive directly;
• National rules must be interpreted in conformity with the directive;
• National provisions are, in the most extreme case, left unapplied.

This creates a hybrid situation for employers in which both national and European standards play a role.

Practical consequences for employers

The Council of State’s criticism does not change the direction of these developments. Employers will need to prepare for:

• Insight into and analysis of pay differences;
• Consistent application of job evaluation;
• Clear and objective pay criteria;
• Internal documentation and accountability.

The administrative burden is expected to be considerable, certainly as long as employers themselves are chosen to carry out the reporting.

Wait and see, or prepare?

Although the bill is still in motion, the trend is clear and irreversible. Employers who wait for definitive legislation run the risk of falling behind the facts. Certainly once employees start invoking European rules themselves.

Getting ahead of the obligations is therefore not an unnecessary luxury, but a sensible way of limiting risk.

Do you need help?

Would you like to know what the (forthcoming) pay transparency rules specifically mean for your organisation? Or do you need support in mapping out pay differences, drawing up policy or preparing for the reporting obligations? Please feel free to contact us via info@thelegalcompany.nl and 020 345 0152. We are happy to help you achieve timely and practical compliance.