Updated 9 June 2026: Since this article was published, Malta has formally transposed the EU Pay Transparency Directive through L.N. 173 of 2026 – the Equal Pay (Transparency and Reporting) Regulations, 2026, which came into force on 7 June 2026. The updates below reflect the Maltese legal position. Where the article refers to the Directive, the binding obligation for Maltese employers is now the Regulations.
For the past two years, the EU Pay Transparency Directive has been on most HR agendas as something to prepare for. As of June 2026, that preparation period is over. The EU Pay Transparency Directive is now in force.
For many organisations, the response so far has been to update job adverts with salary ranges and consider the obligation met. That will not be enough. In some cases, it may even create bigger problems.
What the Directive actually requires
The Directive goes far beyond salary disclosure in recruitment. It introduces strict structural requirements that cannot be addressed by simply changing a job advert template.
- Individual rights: Organisations are now required to provide employees with clear information about their pay level and the criteria used to determine it.
- Right to information: Employees can request data on average pay levels for comparable roles, and employers must respond within two months.
- Structural accountability: Employers are expected to carry out job evaluations, establish pay structures based on objective criteria, and eliminate any practices, formal or informal, that prevent employees from discussing pay.
Where Malta stands
Malta has formally transposed the Directive through L.N. 173 of 2026, the Equal Pay (Transparency and Reporting) Regulations, which came into force on 7 June 2026. The Regulations apply to all employers in both the public and private sectors and introduce obligations that go further than the Directive required in some areas.
Employers must disclose the salary range for a role before the recruitment process concludes.
Employees can request their pay level and the average for comparable roles, and employers have 8 days to respond in writing.
Employers cannot ask candidates about their salary history at any stage of recruitment.
Organisations with 25 or more employees must document their pay criteria internally. Those with 50 or more must maintain written, accessible pay policies.
Gender pay gap reporting applies to organisations with 100 or more employees, with the first reports due in June 2027 for larger employers.
What we often find when we look more closely
“Pay transparency does not create pay problems. It reveals what was already there.”
We recently worked with an organisation that believed its pay structure was in good shape. They had job descriptions for every role, salaries appeared consistent, and complaints were rare.
Looking more closely told a different story.
- Superficial Job Descriptions: Documents read more like recruitment adverts, describing the ideal candidate rather than the actual role, its level, or how it fitted into the wider structure.
- Lack of framework: There was no formal grading framework, no documented criteria for pay decisions, and no process for reviewing consistency over time.
A pattern had also developed where salaries were adjusted whenever employees pushed for a raise, brought an external offer, or hinted they might leave. Individually, each decision seemed reasonable. Collectively, they created a pay structure shaped by negotiation rather than an objective framework. Under the Directive, this organisation had no clear answer to give employees asking why they were paid what they were paid.
Preparing for the EU Pay Transparency Directive in Malta
Real preparation is not a quick fix. It starts from the beginning. A robust transition involves three core phases:
- Rebuilding job descriptions
Not refreshing existing documents, but rewriting them completely so they accurately reflect the actual content, scope, responsibilities, and level of each role.
- Defining objective evaluation criteria
The Directive points to four broad pillars to evaluate and compare roles, which must be tailored to the specific reality of your organisation:
| Evaluation pillar | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Responsibilities | The accountability and impact of the role. |
| Working Environment | The physical or psychological conditions of the job. |
| Knowledge & Skills | The qualifications, experience, and expertise required. |
| Effort | The physical or mental exertion necessary for the role. |
A framework designed for a professional services firm will not look the same as one built for an operational or customer-facing environment.
- Structuring and governance
Grouping roles and placing them within a pay structure that can be explained, defended, and applied consistently — even when an employee asks for more money or signals they are considering leaving.
The question organisations should be asking now
The organisations that will handle this transition well are not asking whether they are technically compliant. They are asking whether their pay structure is defensible.
- Defensible to employees.
- Defensible to leadership.
- Defensible to a regulator, if necessary.
Pay transparency is not a legal update to monitor passively. It is an implementation project, one that requires updated job descriptions, trained managers, a consistent method for explaining pay decisions, and a governance process that holds up under scrutiny.
Compliance is only the starting point. What matters beyond that is governance, consistency, and the kind of employer brand you want to build. If you have not yet carried out a structured review of your pay framework, now is the time to start, not simply because the Directive requires it, but because your employees already expect it.
SurgeAdvisory advises organisations on pay structures, job evaluation and compensation frameworks. For legal guidance on compliance with the Regulations, we work in collaboration with David Zahra & Associates Advocates.
Share this post