Pay Transparency: Why “What Do You Earn Today?” Is Becoming the Wrong Question

For employers and finance or HR professionals in Belgium, pay transparency is no longer a distant European topic. It is already changing the conversations we have every week, long before the law is fully in place.

A recent example. A client wanted to align a new hire with the package of a colleague we placed last year: 3,500 euro gross per month, plus a company car. Our candidate had earned 4,500 euro at his previous employer. Within minutes, the whole discussion was no longer about his skills or his fit with the team. It was about one number from his past.

That number is exactly what European legislation wants to remove. The question moves from “What do you earn today?” to “What is this role worth?”

The EU Pay Transparency Directive (2023/970) aims to close the gender pay gap by making pay visible and comparable. For recruitment, two rules stand out.

Candidates must be informed of the starting salary or the pay range of a role before the job interview, based on objective and gender-neutral criteria. Employers will no longer be allowed to ask candidates about their pay history.

Companies with 100 or more employees will also have to report on their gender pay gap, the largest first. An unexplained gap of more than 5% leads to a joint pay assessment with employee representatives.

Member states had to transpose the directive by 7 June 2026. Belgium did not make it. On 1 June 2026, it formally asked the European Commission for six more months, and at the time of writing there is still no federal bill for the private sector.

That does not mean employers can wait. The principle of equal pay for equal work has been enforceable for decades, and Belgian courts are expected to read existing law in the light of the directive. The market is already moving.

Many companies still treat salary as something to negotiate at the end of a process. Under the new rules, it moves to the very beginning.

That forces a question many organizations have postponed for years: what is this role actually worth to us? Not what the last person earned, and not what the candidate earned elsewhere, but what the job requires and what the market pays for it.

In my experience, the companies that answer this question early run better processes. Candidates self-select, fewer people drop out at the offer stage, and the conversation stays focused on fit and ambition.

A published range is also read by your own employees. If a new controller starts above an experienced colleague in the same role, that difference will no longer stay hidden.

This is where pay transparency becomes more than a recruitment topic: it touches job architecture, job evaluation and the way you reward growth. Finance and HR need to tackle this together, before the first vacancy goes online.

For candidates, the change is a relief. Someone who was underpaid in a previous role no longer carries that disadvantage into the next one. Someone who earned well above market will need to explain their value, not just their payslip.

I also expect candidates to ask more direct questions. How was this range set? What does it take to move to the top of the band? Employers who can answer these questions clearly will build trust before the first interview has even started.

Candidates look closely at the range, and above all at the top of it. That is what they aim for, even when their experience fits the middle better. Employers must therefore be able to explain what sets someone at the top apart from someone who starts at the bottom.

Some only want to act once the range adds up. That is understandable, but they sometimes miss the content that should support their decision: the role, the team and the growth opportunities. A number says a lot, but not everything.

A range on paper does not decide who the right person is. Motivation, ambition and cultural fit still make the difference.

That is why I do not see pay transparency as a threat to our profession. It removes noise from the conversation, leaving more time for the match between what someone can do and who they are.

Belgium may be late with the law, but the direction is clear. The salary conversation is moving from the end of the process to the start, and from the past to the role itself.

For employers, the real question is therefore not when the Belgian law will be ready. It is whether they can explain, today, why a role pays what it pays.

This article reflects the situation as of 9 November 2026 and does not constitute legal advice.