On August 25, 2026, Labor Minister Jean-Pierre Farandou set a date: the bill to transpose the Pay Transparency Directive will be presented to the Council of Ministers on September 9, 2026. After several months of silence and delays, the legislative timeline is once again taking shape. And it tells a different story from the one many HR departments have been telling themselves since June: “We have time.”

No. Postponing the issue doesn’t put it off—it brings it closer. And this fall’s budget decision—the one that sets the stage for fiscal year 2027—is the last chance to prepare for it rather than be caught off guard.

Postponing the issue doesn't put it off—it brings it closer.

Postponing the issue doesn't put it off—it brings it closer.

European Directive 2023/970, adopted on May 10, 2023, required member states to transpose its provisions by June 7, 2026. France, like 23 of the 27 member states, failed to meet this deadline (only Italy, Slovakia, Malta, and Lithuania succeeded). The history of the French legislation summarizes the delay:

• September 9, 2026: Presentation to the Council of Ministers; opening of parliamentary debate, with the goal of holding a vote before the 2027 presidential election.

• March 2026: The first draft of the bill was submitted to the social partners.

• June 2026: Second draft submitted, followed by review by the Council of State.

• June 7, 2026: The European deadline has passed, and no final text has been adopted.

• August 25, 2026: Announcement of a date for review by the Council of Ministers.

That is precisely where the trap lies. Many HR directors have interpreted “effective in 2028” as a green light to put off addressing the issue until 2027—or even later. Three factors suggest otherwise.

The timeline has just been finalized. As long as the bill had no set date for consideration, the wait-and-see approach was justified by the uncertainty. That is no longer the case. A bill presented to the Council of Ministers, with the goal of a vote before the presidential election, is unlikely to be sent back into limbo.

European deadlines are not subject to French law. Companies with 250 or more employees must report their compensation data annually starting with the 2027 fiscal year; those with 150 to 249 employees must do so every three years, also starting in 2027; and those with 100 to 149 employees must do so every three years starting in 2031. These obligations are set forth in the directive itself. France’s delay in transposing the directive does not postpone them.

The compliance project takes time. Identifying discrepancies, restructuring job categories based on the “work of equal value” criterion, job evaluation, and adapting the HRIS: for a medium- to large-sized organization, this project takes between 12 and 24 months. Counting from the law’s enactment—which is expected, at the earliest, in late 2026 or early 2027—the 2028 deadline will arrive just as the assessment is barely complete. To be ready on time—and not just roughly compliant—the project must begin now, based on the broad outlines of the legislation that are already known.

See also: Pay Transparency: Explaining Pay Gaps in 2026

What the 2027 budget must already cover

• This fall’s budget allocation process will determine the funding for 2027. If the “compliance, transparency, and compensation” line item is not included, it will not be established until the next allocation process in the fall of 2027—a further one-year delay for a project that was already behind schedule. Four positions must be budgeted for immediately.
• Identifying pay gaps. Extraction and analysis of payroll data by job category, broken down by gender, covering both fixed and variable compensation. This work often requires external support to ensure compliance with the expected statistical methodology (mean and median pay gaps, gaps in additional compensation, and distribution by quartile).

• The overhaul of the job classification system. This is the most time-consuming and costly task. Categorizing jobs according to objective criteria (skills, responsibilities, working conditions) to identify positions of “equal value” requires a comprehensive job evaluation—a process that has rarely been carried out since the last revision of the collective bargaining agreement or internal classification agreement. Allow 6 to 12 months for a multi-discipline organization.

• The performance adjustment framework. An average deviation exceeding 5 percent—if not justified by objective criteria and not corrected within six months—triggers a mandatory joint assessment with employee representatives. Even if the 2026–2027 assessment reveals unjustified deviations, the means to correct them must still be in place. A budget allocation identified during the fiscal year is always more difficult to secure than a line item set aside in advance.

• HRIS tools. Displaying pay ranges from the moment of hiring, responding to employee inquiries within two months, and generating reporting metrics: without an HRIS capable of producing this data accurately, every requirement becomes a time-consuming manual task. The cost of upgrading the information system must be budgeted for before the requirement turns into a rushed, high-pressure catch-up effort.

NAO and transparency: two initiatives that need to be synchronized, not piled on top of each other

It’s very tempting to handle the 2027 NAO as usual and then address transparency compliance “separately” later in the year. That’s the best way to double the workload and undermine social dialogue.

The two initiatives overlap directly. The directive stipulates that an unjustified pay gap triggers negotiations or a joint assessment with the social partners—exactly the scope of the NAO’s work on professional equality. For companies with 50 to 99 employees, a pay gap exceeding the regulatory threshold will trigger a specific obligation to negotiate. For larger organizations, employee representatives will be able to directly request explanations for any observed pay gaps.

Raising the issue of pay gaps twice with employee representatives (once during the NAO and once for transparency compliance, with no apparent connection between the two) sends the wrong message: that of a management team that is learning about the issue as it goes along. In contrast, incorporating the transparency assessment into the preparation for the 2027 NAO allows the company to present a coherent roadmap to the labor unions and to anticipate a future requirement before it becomes mandatory. It also offers the best protection in the event of future litigation: the directive reverses the burden of proof—it is up to the company to justify its pay gaps, not up to the employee to prove them.

The three decisions that must be made before the end of fall

Appoint a cross-functional project lead from HR, Finance, and Legal to align the internal timeline with the legal timeline (Cabinet meeting on September 9, parliamentary debate in the second half of the year, targeted effective date of 2028) and establish quarterly milestones for monitoring progress.

Launch the analysis of disparities in the 2026 data. The main points of the text (indicators, categorization based on work of equal value, right to information) have been known since the version submitted to the Council of State in June 2026. They are sufficient to get started without waiting for the final vote.

Allocate a dedicated budget line in the 2027 budget, separate from the NAO allocation. It must cover the assessment, support for the pay scale overhaul, and a contingency fund in case any unjustified discrepancies are identified.

See also: What kind of C&B profile is needed to support the implementation of transparency?

Be Proactive Rather Than Reactive

Postponing the implementation does not buy time; it simply shifts the preparation window to the fall of 2026. Companies that begin their assessment now will be ready when the law takes effect, with a well-established system in place and labor negotiations already underway. The others will discover the scope of the task just as the legal timeline—now set in stone—leaves them no room for maneuver.

MCR Rewards supports HR and compensation departments throughout this entire process: identifying pay gaps, revising job classification systems, conducting job evaluations, and coordinating with the annual salary adjustment (NAO) schedule.

FAQ