EU equal-pay law requires equal pay for women and men who perform equal work or work of equal value. Equal work concerns work that is the same or materially equivalent. Work of equal value goes further: two jobs can be different in title, department or task mix and still be comparable if their value is equivalent when assessed using objective, gender-neutral criteria. Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 requires pay structures that enable this assessment using factors including skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions, together with other relevant job factors where appropriate. Employers therefore need a defensible method for identifying comparable work rather than relying only on titles, reporting lines or historic pay practice.
Jurisdiction: European Union
Equal Pay Is a Core EU Principle
Equal pay between women and men for equal work or work of equal value is not a new concept created by the Pay Transparency Directive. It is a long-standing EU principle now expressed in Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2023/970 strengthens the practical application and enforcement of that principle by requiring greater pay transparency, clearer comparison methods and stronger access to information and remedies. Employers should therefore treat equal pay as a substantive rule about the fairness of compensation outcomes, not merely as a reporting or disclosure exercise.
Equal Work and Work of Equal Value Are Related but Different
Equal work is the more direct comparison. It concerns workers whose work is the same or sufficiently alike in substance that they can be compared directly. Work of equal value addresses a broader problem: jobs may look different on the surface but still make an equivalent contribution when assessed objectively. A finance analyst and a technical coordinator, for example, may have different tasks and titles, but the value of the roles could still be comparable depending on the skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions involved. Employers should therefore avoid assuming that only identical job titles can support an equal-pay comparison.
Article 4 Requires Pay Structures That Support Comparison
Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 requires Member States to ensure that employers have pay structures that support equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. The practical point is that an employer should be able to explain why one role is placed at a particular level and how it compares with other roles. A pay structure does not need to erase every legitimate difference in pay, but it should make unjustified sex-based differences easier to detect. Historic salary patterns, manager discretion or job-title prestige are weak substitutes for a structured and explainable assessment of job value.
Skills, Effort, Responsibility and Working Conditions Are Core Factors
Article 4 identifies four core factors for assessing work value: skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. These factors are broad enough to apply across many job types but specific enough to force an employer to examine the work itself. Skills can include knowledge, training, experience and relevant interpersonal capability. Effort can be physical, mental or emotional. Responsibility can involve people, money, safety, systems or decision-making. Working conditions can include physical environment, scheduling demands, exposure to risk or other job conditions. Other relevant factors may also be used where appropriate, provided the criteria remain objective and gender-neutral.
Gender-Neutral Criteria Must Be Applied in Practice
A methodology is not gender-neutral merely because it uses neutral-sounding labels. The criteria, factor definitions and weighting need to be applied in a way that does not systematically undervalue work associated with one sex. Article 4 specifically states that relevant soft skills must not be undervalued. This matters for roles involving communication, care, coordination, emotional demands or relationship management, which may historically have been less visible in traditional job-evaluation systems. Employers should test whether the chosen framework captures the full demands of different jobs rather than rewarding only factors that are easier to quantify.
Comparable Work Does Not Require the Same Job Title or Department
Work-of-equal-value analysis is concerned with job value, not organisational labels. Two workers can sit in different departments, report to different managers or hold different titles and still be in a comparable situation if the value of their work is equivalent under the relevant objective criteria. Conversely, two people with the same title may not necessarily perform work of identical value if their responsibilities or working conditions differ materially. Employers should therefore use job content and value as the starting point for comparison and treat titles, departments and organisational charts as evidence rather than conclusive answers.
Objective Pay Differences Still Need Evidence
Equal pay does not mean that every worker in a comparable role must always receive exactly the same amount. Pay differences may be lawful where they are based on objective, gender-neutral factors that are relevant and applied consistently. Depending on the circumstances, experience, performance, skills, responsibility, location or other legitimate criteria may help explain a difference. The important point is evidence. Employers should be able to show which factor explains the difference, how it was measured and whether the same rule is applied consistently to women and men. An unexplained historical difference is not transformed into an objective reason simply because it has existed for a long time.
Employers Need a Repeatable Work-of-Equal-Value Process
A defensible process normally begins with accurate job information, a gender-neutral set of factors and a consistent method for evaluating jobs. Employers should identify the relevant categories of workers, document the evidence used to score or classify roles and review whether the resulting comparisons make sense across departments and occupational groups. Workers' representatives should be involved where required by Article 4 and national law. The process should also be reviewed when jobs change materially. The objective is not to produce a one-time compliance spreadsheet but to create a repeatable method that supports pay decisions, information requests, reporting and equal-pay investigations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the EU equal-pay principle?
Article 157 TFEU requires equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value. Directive (EU) 2023/970 strengthens the practical application and enforcement of that principle.
Can two different jobs be work of equal value?
Yes. Different jobs can be comparable where their value is equivalent when assessed using objective, gender-neutral criteria such as skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
Does equal pay mean everyone in a comparable role must earn exactly the same amount?
Not necessarily. Differences can be lawful where they are supported by objective, gender-neutral reasons that are relevant and consistently applied.
Do job titles decide whether work is comparable?
No. Job titles and departments may be relevant evidence, but the legal comparison focuses on the value and content of the work.
Related Guides
Official Sources
Requirements and practices differ by jurisdiction and organisation. Check current local law, official guidance and professional advice for a specific situation.