From June 7, 2026, the European Pay Transparency Directive will come into effect, a measure that aims to promote greater pay equity and help reduce the gender pay gap. We spoke with AKA People , a specialist in recruitment and talent management, to understand what is changing, what companies should start doing today, and how recruitment communication will have to evolve in the coming years.
Among the various changes foreseen, the most notable are the mandatory disclosure of salary ranges in recruitment processes and the need to use neutral and inclusive language in job advertisements. For many companies and institutions, these changes represent more than a legal obligation: they are an opportunity to review practices, strengthen their employer brand, and make talent attraction processes more transparent and effective.
Tabela de Conteúdos
But are companies prepared for this new reality? How should they communicate their job opportunities? What mistakes should they avoid? And how can they turn these legal requirements into a competitive advantage? Keep reading, we’ll tell you everything!
The Salary Transparency Directive
1. The European Pay Transparency Directive comes into force on June 7, 2026. What changes, in practice, for Portuguese companies?
The European directive on pay transparency should have been transposed into Portuguese law by June 7, 2026. That deadline has passed, however Portugal has not yet enacted the national legislation.
This does not mean that nothing applies. ACT can already carry out inspections based on the principles of the directive, even without specific internal legislation.
The principles are simple to understand. Job advertisements must use gender-neutral language. Candidates need to be informed of the salary or salary range for the position before the interview. During interviews, it’s no longer acceptable to ask the candidate’s current salary. Instead, one can ask about their salary expectations.
Within the company, any employee can ask to know how their salary is calculated and can also ask to compare it with colleagues in the same or similar roles.
If there is a complaint of wage discrimination, the logic is reversed. It is no longer the worker who has to prove that they were harmed. It is the company that has to prove that there was no discrimination.
Companies with more than one hundred employees will also be required to periodically report on gender pay gaps.
2. What are the most common mistakes that companies still make in their recruitment processes and when communicating job offers?
There are several recurring mistakes, even in companies that have already heard of the directive.
The most common practice is to continue writing “salary to be negotiated” or “remuneration according to experience.” This no longer meets the required transparency standards. There must be a specific amount or salary range.
Another common mistake is using salary ranges that are too wide, for example between 20,000 and 50,000 euros per year. Technically there is a number, but in practice it means nothing to the candidate. It’s not real transparency.
Many companies continue to ask candidates how much they earn or earned before. It’s an old habit, difficult to break, but it’s becoming prohibited. The valid question is about salary expectations, not about work history.
There is also a lack of documented, objective criteria. When two candidates with similar profiles receive different offers, the company needs to justify this difference with clear criteria, written before the offer is made.
Another problem is the lack of consistency between what is communicated to the candidate and what is practiced internally. For example, promising clear salary progression, but having no real progression policy.
Job offer communication
3. Starting in 2026, companies will be required to disclose salary ranges in job advertisements. How can they do this strategically without compromising their competitiveness?
The Directive does not impose a rigid format, which leaves room for companies to be strategic in how they communicate. The starting point is to define realistic salary ranges, anchored in market benchmarks, and not artificially widened intervals that lose credibility with candidates. A company can, for example, communicate the salary range for the entry level without revealing the top of its internal structure for more senior levels. What the law requires is that the candidate knows, before the interview, what the expected base salary range is for that role. Saying “base salary between €2,000 and €2,500, with variable component and benefits” is legally sufficient and strategically prudent. The biggest risk is not revealing too much, but publishing a range that does not reflect the internal reality, which exposes the company both legally and reputationally.
4. Many companies fear that disclosing salaries will create internal tensions. Is this fear justified?
It’s understandable. The tensions that arise with salary transparency exist because the disparities already exist; disclosure only makes them visible. Empirical research consistently shows that companies with well-founded and communicated salary structures experience lower turnover and higher satisfaction, not the opposite. The real risk arises when there are unjustified disparities between equivalent roles, which may include gender disparities—precisely what the Directive aims to combat—or when the company lacks documented, objective criteria for salary progression. The recommendation is that, before the law comes into effect, companies should audit and correct inequalities, rather than waiting for external pressure to force them to do so from a more vulnerable position.
5. What advantages can salary transparency bring to attracting talent?
First, it reduces recruitment time: candidates who know the salary range from the outset qualify better, which means fewer interviews with misaligned expectations. Furthermore, salary transparency acts as a signal of organizational culture; companies that practice it are perceived as fairer, a factor that carries increasing weight among Millennials and Gen Z. In markets with a shortage of qualified talent, such as the IT and Engineering sectors in Portugal, salary visibility can be the differentiating factor compared to competitors who still communicate “salary to be discussed”.
6. The language used in job advertisements will need to be more inclusive and neutral. What does this mean in practice?
This means that language cannot, directly or indirectly, dissuade candidates based on characteristics protected by law. In practice, this translates into several concrete changes. Job titles must be designated in gender-neutral language: “Recruitment Consultant” or, increasingly common in modern contexts, forms that avoid gender binarism. Requirements must be based on verifiable skills and not on personality attributes with gender connotations, such as “dynamic and ambitious.” And requirements that are not functionally necessary must be eliminated; demanding “full mobility” when the role does not require it is an indirect exclusion factor that can constitute discrimination. This also includes visual elements: if the advertisement has images, they must represent real diversity and not reinforce stereotypes.
7. What expressions or approaches should recruiters avoid when writing a job offer?
There are some phrases that persist out of inertia and should disappear. “Salary to be agreed upon” is the most obvious, becoming illegal for the purposes of external recruitment. “We are looking for a young and dynamic manager” combines two problems in one: the reference to age, which can constitute age discrimination, and an adjective with gender connotations. Expressions such as “total availability” or “absolute flexibility” without specifying what that means in practice are also problematic because they disproportionately penalize those with caregiving responsibilities. Another pattern to correct is the lists of requirements where most are “desirable” without a clear distinction from what is mandatory; this increases self-censorship among underrepresented candidates and reduces the diversity of the pipeline before the process even begins.
8. Is it enough to simply add “(M/F/D)” to the advertisement, or is there a more in-depth inclusion effort that needs to be made?
The mention of “(M/F/D)” is a minimum formal requirement, necessary but clearly insufficient. Real inclusion demands substantial work throughout the process. Selection criteria must be revised to ensure that none act as an indirect barrier. The interview process should be structured, with standardized questions and evaluated using objective criteria, which significantly reduces unconscious bias. Whenever possible, interview panels should include evaluators with different profiles. And it is necessary to monitor the results: if certain groups systematically fail to pass a certain stage of the process, this is a sign that needs to be investigated. The Directive, moreover, mandates this type of internal reporting from a certain threshold of workers, which means that inclusion ceases to be merely an intention and becomes an auditable metric.
Employer Branding and Recruitment Marketing
9. What impact could this directive have on how brands communicate their value proposition as employers?
The impact is structural. The employer value proposition can no longer be built solely on intangible attributes such as “unique culture” or “dynamic environment”; it must be anchored in verifiable commitments, of which salary is only one. Companies that already had solid value propositions consistent with their internal reality gain an advantage; those that relied on vague communication quickly lose ground. There is also an additional element of pressure: the Directive creates obligations for public reporting on gender pay gaps for companies above certain thresholds. This data will be accessible, meaning that employer reputation will be partially anchored in objective and auditable metrics, and not just in perceptions or ratings on employer review platforms.
10. How should marketing and HR teams work together to adapt recruitment communication to this new reality?
The historical trend of HR producing job postings without Marketing validation, or vice versa, is becoming unsustainable. The model I recommend involves a joint editorial process: HR defines the functional criteria and salary range; Marketing ensures the tone, brand consistency, and inclusive language, but the collaborative work must go deeper than just producing the ads. Marketing cannot communicate “we value people” if the compensation data tells a different story. Employer brand credibility is built on consistency between what is communicated and what is practiced, and salary transparency will make this consistency, or lack thereof, much more visible.
11. What elements should a modern job offer include besides the salary range?
A well-structured job offer in 2026 must communicate the base salary range, which is now mandatory, but also the structure of any variable component, with clear criteria and periodicity, not just a mention of its existence. Benefits should be listed in a tangible and measurable way. The work model must be specified precisely: how many days of remote work, under what conditions, and with what degree of real flexibility. Expectations for career progression and evaluation criteria are increasingly valued by candidates who want to understand not only what the company offers today, but what they can build there. And the purpose of the role in the context of the business should be explained not as employer branding rhetoric, but as an honest explanation of what the person will do and why it matters.
12. Are benefits, flexibility, organizational culture, and purpose still decisive factors? How should they be communicated?
They remain crucial, especially in markets with a shortage of qualified talent. But the way they are communicated needs to change radically. The key is specificity. Instead of “collaborative culture,” describe a concrete practice. Instead of “flexibility,” specify: two days of remote work per week, with the employee choosing the days. Instead of “purpose-driven company,” directly link the role to its impact. Vague language doesn’t convince experienced candidates and penalizes the company precisely among the most critical and sought-after profiles, those who have more options and a greater ability to distinguish substance from marketing.
Preparing for the future
13. What recommendations do you have for companies that have not yet begun to prepare for this change?
Let’s begin now, with three clear priorities. First, an internal salary audit: mapping all functions, levels, and remunerations, identifying disparities, and documenting the objective criteria that justify them or determining the necessary corrections. Second, a review of recruitment processes: job posting templates, selection criteria, interview guides, with legal validation and a diversity perspective. Third, training for teams, recruiters, line managers, and leadership is crucial; they need to understand the new obligations before being caught in default. The June 2026 deadline still allows for some leeway, but it doesn’t permit any postponement.
14. What internal audits or reviews should be carried out before the directive comes into force?
A gender and job-specific compensation audit is the most urgent, as it is mandatory for companies with 250 or more employees by 2026, but recommended for all companies, regardless of size. Reviewing job descriptions is equally essential: verifying that the criteria are objective, measurable, and non-exclusive. And the entire recruitment process should be mapped, from the job posting to the final decision, to identify points where there are risks of systemic bias. This is not just about complying with the law. It’s about ensuring that the company can justify its salary and selection decisions with data.
15. If you could give just one piece of advice to Portuguese companies regarding salary transparency, what would it be?
Don’t treat this directive as a mere compliance exercise. Companies that treat it only as a legal obligation will do the bare minimum, communicate vague salary ranges, and miss the opportunity presented here. Companies that understand that salary transparency is a competitive advantage, attracts better talent, reduces recruitment time, improves internal satisfaction, and builds a more credible employer brand are the ones that will emerge stronger from this change.
Reflection UP WE GO
The new recruitment legislation reinforces the importance of transparent communication and a consistent professional presence, both for companies and candidates.
In this context, LinkedIn continues to be one of the main platforms for establishing contacts and creating career opportunities. If you want to optimize your presence on this network, discover our tips for creating a good LinkedIn profile .
