Sweden’s Plan to Integrate EU Pay Transparency Directive Into Discrimination Act Faces Uncertainty

00:00

24:53

Quick Hits

• Sweden had planned to implement the EU pay transparency directive through amendments to the Discrimination Act rather than through a separate note statute.
• A January 2026 draft originally envisaged entry into force on 1 July 2026.
• On 11 March 2026, the government said it wanted to delay implementation to 1 January 2027.
• On 26 March 2026, the government said it wanted to seek an EU-level postponement and renegotiation of the directive.
• The government also said it does not currently intend to submit a bill to the Riksdag.

On 26 March 2026, the government announced that it intends to seek a postponement of the directive’s implementation date at EU level, pursue a renegotiation of the directive, and refrain from submitting a bill to the Riksdag, Sweden’s parliament.

This marks a significant change from Sweden’s earlier implementation plans. Until then, Sweden had still been working on national implementation through amendments to the Discrimination Act (2008:567), first with entry into force planned for 1 July 2026 and later with a proposed delay to 1 January 2027. In light of the government’s announcement of 26 March 2026, however, that legislative timetable must now be regarded as uncertain.

In its legislative referral of 15 January 2026, the government proposed implementing Directive (EU) 2023/970 through amendments to the Discrimination Act, rather than through a standalone statute. That proposal would have inserted the new pay transparency rules into Sweden’s existing discrimination law framework, including new obligations relating to recruitment-stage salary information, employee access to pay information, employer reporting, and procedural rules linked to pay discrimination disputes.

The government then adjusted its position on 11 March 2026. At that stage, it still intended to move forward with implementation, but stated that employers, employees, and labour market parties needed more time to prepare. It therefore announced that it intended to propose a later entry-into-force date of 1 January 2027 and to move the first deadline for submitting pay reports to the Equality Ombudsman from 20 May 2027 to 20 May 2028.

The later statement of 26 March 2026 went further. Rather than simply delaying domestic legislation, the government said it considered the directive too administratively burdensome and insufficiently adapted to national conditions. According to the government, unjustified pay differences must continue to be addressed, but the design of the directive should be simplified and its implementation deadline postponed. It has therefore indicated that it will seek both a postponement of the implementation date and a targeted renegotiation of the directive at the EU level.

Sweden had already voted against the directive when it was adopted in spring 2023, arguing that its design was not sufficiently adapted to Swedish conditions, did not provide enough flexibility for national solutions, and risked creating unnecessary administrative burdens. The government has since maintained close dialogue with labour market social partners and nongovernmental organisations regarding the difficulties associated with implementation. It has also emphasised that Sweden has long had requirements for employers to work preventively and proactively to counteract unjustified wage differences, including through wage surveys, and that any new rules should interact with and reinforce that work appropriately.

Although the timetable is now uncertain, the January 2026 draft remains the clearest indication of how Sweden had intended to integrate the directive into its existing legal framework. The draft proposed adding Chapter 3a to the Discrimination Act, specifically dedicated to pay transparency and pay equity.

Sweden already has a relatively robust framework addressing pay equity. These requirements include annual pay equity audits that larger employers must conduct and a firmly embedded prohibition on wage discrimination based on gender. Employers with ten or more employees are required to annually review and document pay structures to identify any unjustified gender pay gaps. Oversight is managed by the Equality Ombudsman, a Swedish government agency dedicated to combating discrimination and supervising compliance.

As many of the directive’s core principles are reflected in Swedish legislation, the government’s approach focused on aligning the directive’s new transparency obligations with existing legal structures, rather than introducing a new regulatory regime.

The January 2026 draft bill introduced pre-employment pay transparency requirements. Employers would have been required to provide job candidates with information on the starting salary or salary range and any relevant collective agreement provisions. Ideally, this information would have appeared in the job advertisement or before the interview stage, enabling an informed salary discussion. Employers would have further been prohibited from asking candidates about their salary history.

Sweden’s draft would also have strengthened employees’ right to pay information. Employees would have been entitled to request written information about their individual pay level and the average pay levels of employees performing the same work or work of equal value, broken down by gender. This information would have had to be provided by employers within two months of the request and employees would have been reminded annually of their right to request such data.

Unlike some other EU member states, Sweden’s draft bill proposed that pay information in small comparator groups would not have been restricted. Similar to the Dutch proposal, the Swedish draft considered the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as adequate to address privacy concerns and does not propose additional data protection obligations relating to the directive at a national level. However, employers may require employees to use the information solely for the purpose of verifying compliance with equal pay rights.

The directive’s reporting requirements would also have applied. Employers with one hundred or more employees would have been obliged to report gender pay gap data as part of a salary report every three years, most likely starting in 2031. Employers with 150 or more employees would have been expected to comply with earlier reporting requirements, with first pay reports to be submitted by May 2028. These reports would have included average and median pay gaps, differences in variable or additional pay components, the distribution of men and women across pay quartiles and the proportion of employees receiving bonuses or other variable compensation. These obligations would have been phased in depending on employer size. Unjustified pay gaps of 5 per cent or more within a category of workers performing equal work or work of equal value would have had to be remedied or justified by the employer. If the pay gap could not have been objectively justified within six months, the employer would have had to conduct a joint pay assessment (gemensam lönebedömning) in cooperation with employee representatives.

The draft also would have provided protection for employees to exercise their pay equity rights. An employee’s pay discrimination claim would have had to be brought within three years. If successful, employees would have been entitled to economic compensation as well as compensation for general damages.

Pending further developments at both the national and EU level, employers may want to keep a close eye on Sweden’s implementation process while also reviewing existing pay transparency and pay equity practices. Even if the legislative timetable changes, the January 2026 draft bill provides a useful indication of the direction of travel.

Employers are encouraged to stay informed about the implementation process in their respective jurisdictions. Information and updates on the progress of the directive’s implementation across the European Union can be found using Ogletree Deakins’ Member State Implementation Tracker.

Further information can also be found by listening to our podcast, “Understanding the EU Pay Transparency Directive: What Employers Need to Know.”

Ogletree Deakins’ London office, Pay Equity Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border, Pay Equity, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Daniella McGuigan is a partner in the London office of Ogletree Deakins and co-chair of the firm’s Pay Equity Practice Group.

Lorraine Matthews, a practice assistant in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Emilia Mobius, a paralegal in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts