The proposal is narrower than the EU Pay Transparency Directive but reflects an important shift towards pay transparency in recruitment. Employers should start reviewing job advert templates, pay ranges, recruitment agency arrangements and internal pay governance now.

As we have covered in this overview of the UK government's new consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination, one of the most eye-catching proposals is a new duty to publish pay information when recruiting. The EU Pay Transparency Directive has already walked this path and – although questions around enforcement remain, given member states are at different stages of their transposition processes – the Directive requires broadly the same thing of employers. Employers with EU based operations have been discussing pay transparency in recruitment since the Directive was adopted in 2023.

Here we look at what is proposed, why pay ranges in job adverts matter, and some of the practical difficulties employers will need to grapple with based on our experience advising clients on similar issues relating to their EU-based operations.

What is the UK proposing on pay transparency in job adverts?

The centrepiece is a new statutory requirement for all employers to publish pay and conditions in job adverts. Where there is no advert, the employer would instead have to give the candidate the same information in writing before interview. That is a subtly different requirement to the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which requires pre-employment pay information to be shared sufficiently early to ensure an informed and transparent negotiation on pay. The job advert and the period before the job interview are given as examples of when the information may be provided but, provided an informed and transparent negotiation on pay would still be possible in the circumstances, the door is open for pay information to be provided at another point in the recruitment process (save where gold plating levels up the requirement, like in Italy). The UK proposal is, in this sense, slightly narrower than the EU approach.

The government proposes to introduce this through regulations and has signalled a long implementation process. This suggests to us that if these proposals become final legislation – which we think they will – several important questions of detail will be left open for some time. The two key questions all employers will want to know are:

• how wide a pay range would be allowed to be; and
• what "pay information and conditions" needs to cover beyond base salary.

The government is keen to stress that the burden on employers should be kept as low as possible, and that it does not intend to introduce new reporting requirements on top of this. This is a key distinguishing feature setting it apart from the EU Pay Transparency Directive’s obligations (which we summarised in these FAQs). It also points out that many employers already publish pay ranges voluntarily, so, in its view, a statutory floor would deliver this “significant positive change to employees, with a low burden on businesses”.

Why does the UK government want pay ranges in job adverts?

The policy thinking is that pay transparency at the recruitment stage can prevent discrimination before it happens, rather than relying on people to bring a tribunal claim once the damage is done. The government's reasoning includes that it:

• encourages employers to evaluate roles and set pay consistently before they start recruiting, which should reduce subsequent disputes over opaque pay structures;
• addresses the "disparities in information" in hiring, where the employer knows what it is willing to pay and the candidate doesn't, which can cause assumptions about women, ethnic minorities or disabled candidates to creep into pay decisions and result in lower wages for these groups;
• gives candidates the information they need to make an informed decision about whether to apply, supporting a fairer job-matching process; and
• helps employers filter out candidates whose pay expectations don't match the role before interview, saving everyone's time.

It is the latter two points that are the most significant. The government's other objectives are laudable. However, they are likely to be less immediate and tangible than the practical impact of requiring pay information to be included in job adverts on who applies.

Most employers will recognise the familiar frustration of investing significant time in arranging interviews and conducting assessments, only for recruitment processes to collapse late in the day when it is discovered that pay expectations are not aligned. The result is not only a wasted recruitment exercise, but also valuable management time diverted from the day-to-day running of the business.

Furthermore, as we discuss here, one of the most significant consequences of the UK's recent changes to the qualifying period and compensation regime for unfair dismissal claims is the increased importance of getting recruitment decisions right. Against that backdrop, if publishing pay information in job adverts helps to filter out candidates whose pay expectations cannot be met, employers can instead reinvest that saved time and resource into more thorough assessment of genuinely viable candidates. That is a practical and worthwhile benefit which should be welcomed.

How would the UK proposal compare with the EU Pay Transparency Directive?

It's tempting to read this as the UK finally catching up with the EU Pay Transparency Directive. On the specific point of disclosing pay and conditions information before interview, the comparison holds up reasonably well. Despite the slightly narrower formulation of the UK’s proposals when compared to the Directive, both are aiming at the same basic idea: that candidates should know roughly what a role pays before they get to the negotiating table.

But that is really the only element the two have in common. The Directive also bans employers from asking candidates about their current and previous pay, gives workers a right to request pay information about comparators doing the same or equivalent work, and requires employers to make their criteria for pay-setting and progression accessible. None of that features in this consultation.

So this is an important, incremental step for the UK, and one that would bring recruitment practice measurably closer to the EU position if it is implemented. But it would be a mistake to describe it as the UK aligning itself with the Directive (as we have seen other non-EU countries do, such as Montenegro). The UK is following a wider global shift towards pay equity and pay transparency generally, one that plays out in recruitment in particular. For example, in:

• the US, Virginia became the latest state to require salary ranges in job postings from July 2026. Other states with similar requirements include California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio (Cleveland and Columbus only) and Washington, DC.
• Japan, employers must clearly state wage conditions in job adverts;
• Saudi Arabia, job adverts must include a clear job description and a clear description of job benefits (but local laws stop short of a requirement to disclose pay or a pay range); and
• Mexico and South Korea both have draft legislation under consideration which, if passed, would require disclosure of wages and other information in job adverts.

What practical issues could trip employers up on pay transparency in recruitment?

EU member states are further down the same road towards transparency in recruitment processes under the EU Pay Transparency Directive. Their early experience gives us a useful, if partial, preview of questions employers are likely to face and how they may respond to them.

What pay information would employers need to publish?

The consultation says only that the government will "carefully assess" what pay information or conditions need to be covered, giving salary, collective bargaining provisions, annual adjustments and other financial benefits as examples. That leaves uncertainty for employers who are already thinking about how to redraft their template job adverts, particularly for roles that are bonus or commission-heavy, come with significant benefits in kind, or where pay is negotiable depending on the candidate.

Although the consultation does not refer to the EU Pay Transparency Directive, it is likely informed by it. Similarly, we would expect (or hope) the draftsperson of any proposed legislation to know this was a key question for employers regarding the Directive and so proactively address it.

It is nevertheless possible that any proposed legislation may be unclear about what exactly an employer should include in the job advert. Many employers seeking to comply with the EU Pay Transparency Directive have, at least as an opening gambit, responded to this challenge by including base salary as a starting point, then taking a view on what other benefits might be considered material, and including those too.

How wide can salary ranges be in job adverts?

The detail of any permitted pay range is left to future regulations. Employers wanting to plan now have an information gap to work around. Europe offers an early steer on how this might play out.

Most member states implementing the EU Pay Transparency Directive haven’t addressed this point specifically in their proposed or final legislation. The exceptions to that rule are:

• Cyprus, whose draft law proposes a 20% cap on the spread of any published pay range; and
• Lithuania, whose Labour Inspectorate has issued recommended ranges that vary by job level.

As with pay and conditions, we would hope that these common questions in the context of the EU Pay Transparency Directive will be noted and addressed proactively in any proposed legislation. However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that those hopes will be dashed, and if so, UK employers may follow the example of EU employers currently facing the same uncertainties. In these cases, employers should expect to be held to some form of reasonableness standard. A similar approach is seen in New York State, which requires employers to advertise “good faith” salary ranges and where several employers came in for media criticism for publishing overly broad ranges. The question then becomes: what is reasonable? Here, the lesson from Europe is that, as a general rule of thumb, employers attempting to determine a “reasonable” pay range tend to share the minimum of the range to the mid-point, or to slightly above it, giving room to negotiate up for genuinely exceptional candidates.

What does pay transparency in job adverts mean for existing staff?

Publishing ranges externally inevitably makes them visible internally too. Employers should expect some pressure and tension from existing staff who see a published range and feel it doesn't match what they are being paid, particularly in sectors or roles where pay has traditionally been kept close to the chest, such as senior or executive positions.

Although the proposals do not set out plans to implement the same extensive rights and obligations found in the EU Pay Transparency Directive, it arguably isolates the most impactful of them. Questions regarding pay equity and transparency can go to the heart of employee trust. We know from our work that employees and candidates pay attention and ask questions about developments in these areas. In light of this, employers should not underestimate how greater transparency in recruitment processes may impact their relationships with existing staff.

Where do recruitment agencies fit into pay transparency compliance?

A lot of recruitment runs through agencies and other intermediaries, and the consultation doesn't clearly address where the compliance obligation would sit in that kind of arrangement. Employers using agencies will want clarity on who is responsible for getting the advert right.

The EU Pay Transparency Directive places this obligation on the “prospective employer”, making it reasonably clear that, in a recruitment agency scenario, ultimate responsibility would rest with the eventual employer. In practice, this has meant putting in place appropriate controls to ensure recruitment agencies provide correct pay ranges and, if in doubt, the employer publishing its own job advert as well.

What should employers do about pay transparency in recruitment now?

This is just a consultation. Actual legislation may be some way off yet. But it's not a reason to do nothing. Employers should consider the following:

• start reviewing current job advert templates and pay-setting processes now, so there is time to adjust before any statutory deadline lands;
• consider discussing these arrangements with any recruitment providers to explore how you can collaborate to comply with any future legislation;
• think about whether existing (or planned) job evaluation frameworks are robust enough to support salary ranges that would stand up to scrutiny;
• respond to the consultation, particularly the questions about what pay information should be covered and at what level of detail. Those answers will shape the regulations that eventually follow;
• consider whether your organisation could treat potential new compliance obligations as a good news story by choosing to join the approximately 21.6% of UK employers who, according to a recent survey by Silicon Republic, already publish pay information in job adverts; and
• keep an eye on how the detailed regulations develop, given so much of the substance of this proposal has deliberately been left for later.

The practical takeaway is that employers do not need to wait for final regulations before preparing. Reviewing job advert wording, salary range methodology, recruitment agency controls and internal pay governance now will make any future transition smoother.

The consultation closes on 27 October 2026 and can be viewed here. Lewis Silkin will be responding to this consultation and we are keen to hear your views.