The EU Pay Transparency Directive does not set a universal maximum width for a salary range. Article 5 requires the initial pay or range to be based on objective, gender-neutral criteria, but it does not prescribe a percentage spread or ratio between the minimum and maximum. Employers should therefore choose a range that reflects realistic starting-pay outcomes for the position and be able to explain what objective factors justify movement within it. A very broad range is not automatically unlawful, but the broader it becomes, the more important it is that the employer can show the range is genuine, role-specific and meaningful for applicants rather than a way to avoid useful transparency.
Jurisdiction: European Union
The Directive Does Not Set a Percentage Limit
Article 5 requires employers to provide the initial pay or its range based on objective and gender-neutral criteria. It does not say that the maximum can be only a fixed percentage above the minimum, nor does it prescribe a standard monetary spread. Employers should therefore be cautious about using rules of thumb presented as if they were EU law. The relevant legal question is whether the disclosed range is genuinely based on objective criteria for the position and whether the employer can explain how it relates to the pay that could realistically be offered.
Range Width Should Reflect Real Starting-Pay Variation
Some roles have relatively narrow starting-pay variation because the job is tightly graded or governed by a collective agreement. Other roles may legitimately allow a wider spread because candidates can enter with materially different levels of relevant skill, experience or responsibility. The width should therefore reflect the role rather than a company preference for maximum negotiating flexibility. If the employer routinely hires nearly everyone within a small part of a very broad advertised range, it should review whether the published range meaningfully describes actual starting-pay possibilities.
A Broad Range Needs More Explanation, Not Less
The wider the range, the more important it becomes to define the factors that determine placement within it. Employers should be able to identify objective reasons why one candidate could properly enter near the minimum and another near the maximum. Relevant experience, scarce job-related skills, qualifications, responsibility or other role-specific criteria may support variation where they are applied consistently and without sex discrimination. A broad range with no documented placement logic gives recruiters excessive discretion and makes later pay differences harder to explain.
Do Not Combine Several Different Job Levels Into One Artificial Range
An unusually wide range can be a sign that the vacancy actually covers more than one job level. For example, an employer may be willing to hire either a junior or senior version of a role but advertise both under one title. That may be operationally convenient, yet it can make the disclosed range less informative. Employers should consider whether separate levels, titles or clearly explained sub-ranges would better reflect the actual hiring structure. The underlying objective is not to make ranges narrow for their own sake, but to make pay information understandable and connected to the position being offered.
Internal Pay Bands Provide an Important Reality Check
Article 6 requires the criteria used to determine workers' pay, pay levels and pay progression to be objective and gender-neutral. Recruitment ranges should therefore be checked against the employer's internal bands or job architecture. If the advertised range extends far beyond the approved pay band for the role, compensation teams should understand why. Likewise, a recruitment range that is much narrower than the actual starting-pay discretion may omit information that is relevant to applicants. Alignment between internal structures and external disclosure makes the range easier to defend.
Very Wide Ranges Can Undermine the Purpose of Transparency
The Directive's recruitment rules are designed to support informed and transparent negotiation on pay. A range can technically disclose numbers while still being of little practical use if the spread is so large that applicants cannot understand the likely starting-pay outcome. The Directive does not provide a numerical test for when that happens, so employers should focus on substance. If hiring managers cannot explain the real circumstances associated with different parts of the range, the organisation should reconsider the width or provide clearer information about the placement criteria.
Check Whether National Law Adds Specific Rules
Member States can implement more favourable or more specific transparency rules. A national law or official guidance may therefore address how ranges should be expressed or how misleading vacancy information is treated. Multi-country employers should monitor those rules rather than treating the absence of an EU-wide percentage cap as permission to use any spread in every jurisdiction. A central compensation methodology can define defensible range construction, while local legal review confirms whether additional national constraints apply.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does EU law set a maximum percentage width for salary ranges?
Directive (EU) 2023/970 does not set a universal percentage, ratio or monetary cap on the width of the initial pay range.
Is a very wide salary range automatically illegal?
Not automatically under the Directive, but the employer should be able to justify the spread with objective gender-neutral criteria and show that it reflects genuine starting-pay possibilities.
Should different seniority levels use separate salary ranges?
Where one broad range actually combines materially different job levels, separate levels or clearer sub-ranges can make the disclosure more accurate and useful.
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.