Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation in the EU: Assessment of the Utility of the New EU Toolkit

The issue of fair and gender-neutral pay is increasingly coming into focus for employers in the EU. Directive (EU) 2023/970—also known as the Pay Transparency Directive (PTD), requires employers to have and maintain pay structures ensuring equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, supported by suitable, gender‑neutral job evaluation systems. PTD Article 4(2) requires Member States to provide employers with accessible evaluation tools and methodologies to easily establish and use gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems that exclude any form of sex-based pay discrimination.¹

Further, in accordance with PTD Article 4(3), last week the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)² published an “EU Toolkit on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification.” Anticipating such a publication, Member States struggling to provide their own tools and methodologies will be looking to use the EIGE Toolkit to fulfill obligations under Article 4(2).³ Consequently, employers must understand how this Toolkit works and how it maybe used (or not) in Member States.

Below is a practical overview of what the Toolkit offers employers in terms of a standardized, objective, and gender‑neutral job evaluation framework. 

General Takeaways from the Toolkit

Published on March 26, 2026, by the EIGE in cooperation with the European Commission, the Toolkit is a modular, step‑by‑step guide advertised as a tool to help employers of any size introduce gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems or review and adapt existing ones. The Toolkit is not new; it aligns previous EU guidelines on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification with the Directive.⁴

The Toolkit is a voluntary resource that provides guidelines, recommendations, and examples. Notably, it does not guarantee legal compliance with the Pay Transparency Directive. As discussed in the “Local Impact" section, the Toolkit may not be viable in certain jurisdictions. The templates, examples, and tools published in the Toolkit serve exclusively to illustrate the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value and are not intended to replace or supersede existing regulations, systems, or agreements. The Toolkit is therefore not a legally binding act and does not constitute an interpretation of EU or national law. It also does not provide legal advice. Employers are therefore advised to seek professional guidance regarding the applicable legal and institutional frameworks in each Member State. 

The Toolkit, in part, encourages employers to engage workers and worker representatives in the compliance process, above and beyond the cooperation required by the Directive. It remains to be seen whether this “additional” engagement will be an added layer employers need to consider to prepare for a potentially more “empowered” workforce. Employers will want to review Toolkit tools 8-9 to understand the playbook worker representatives and workers may rely on in the coming months (see further discussion below). 

Why and for What Purpose Was the EU Toolkit Created?

The primary rationale behind the Toolkit is the requirement under Directive Article 4(2) for the Commission and Member States to provide easily accessible tools or methods for analyzing the value of work. These instruments and methods are intended to enable employers and/or social partners (e.g., trade unions) to establish and use systems for gender-neutral job evaluation and occupational classification in order to eliminate pay discrimination based on gender. 

The Toolkit offers guidance to both employers and social partners to establish objective and gender-neutral criteria for the evaluation and comparability of work. This criteria must encompass skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions and must not be directly or indirectly related to the gender of the workers. 

In practice, the requirements for the evaluation and comparability of work are demanding, and national labour courts will play a central role in assessing whether employer‑implemented systems meet them. The Toolkit aims to convert these expectations into a workable approach that employers can realistically implement.

The Toolkit’s Step-by-Step Approach

With the Toolkit, the EIGE proposes a multi-stage implementation process that guides employers step-by-step through the introduction or revision of a job evaluation system.

The EU Toolkit is aimed at all employers, in both the private and public sectors, regardless of company size and industry. Two of the nine tools within the Toolkit are aimed at trade unions/employee representatives and employees/workers. Each tool is a progressive step in the process. 

Overall, the Toolkit integrates—depending on company size—two different methods for job evaluation and classification:

• analytical methods (using predefined criteria, e.g., skills, responsibility, effort, working conditions, and the point-factor method) for micro-organizations and for organizations with diverse job roles and structured HR processes, and
• non-analytical methods (based on overall judgments and subjective assessments, e.g., rankings, classification into groups, comparison with reference positions) for small and medium-sized organizations with fewer, similar jobs and limited HR capacity.

Tools 1–2: Baseline Assessment and Job Profiles

Tool 1 of the Toolkit addresses the need for a baseline analysis of existing jobs, tasks, and compensation, as well as the gender distribution. Employers may be wary that the Toolkit specifically emphasizes that workers should be involved in the inventory analysis, for example through surveys about their work (“real-life insights and examples of current requirements and demands”). Accordingly, it provides employers with a “sample worker questionnaire” and a “sample interview guide.”

Explicit reference is made to compliance with GDPR requirements when processing personal data as part of this inventory analysis; in particular, when collecting data on job profiles from workers themselves (via questionnaires, etc.), obtaining consent is recommended, and when compiling the information, aggregating or anonymizing data is advised. This guidance may be helpful if applicable Member States have not yet issued any guidance on the interaction between Directive and GDPR compliance. 

The inventory analysis and data compilation from Tool 1 is used in Tool 2 to create job profiles for each job. To this end, the Toolkit also provides a “job profile template.”  

Tools 3–5: Job Evaluation and Classification

Subsequently, Tools 3–5 are the tools to use to conduct the actual job evaluation and classification. Which tool depends on the size of the employer:

• Tool 3 offers micro-organizations (fewer than 10 workers) a simple, structured method for job evaluation (“graded factor comparison”) based on criteria such as skills, responsibility, effort, and working conditions. Jobs are evaluated based on selected (sub)factors, converted into points, and then compared, classified, and consolidated into a fair, gender-neutral pay structure.
• Tool 4 is designed for small (10-49 workers) and medium-sized enterprises (50-249 workers). Tool 4 uses a simplified pair comparison method, in which jobs are compared directly with one another and classified according to their overall requirements. Based on criteria such as skills, responsibility, effort, and working conditions, a ranking of jobs is created, which serves as the basis for a fair and transparent compensation structure. Particular attention is paid to avoiding gender bias, for example through objective criteria, documentation of decisions, and review of the results for systematic discrimination. In addition, variable and supplementary compensation components must also be reviewed, and the system must be regularly reviewed and adjusted to ensure long-term pay equity.
• Tool 5 can be used for any sized employer, but is designed for medium-sized (50-249 workers) to larger employers (250+ workers). It guides users step-by-step through job evaluation using a point-factor method, including the assessment of job profiles, calculation of point scores in Excel, and classification into job groups. Four key factors—skills, responsibility, effort, and working conditions—are considered, along with associated sub-factors, each divided into several levels from 0 to 5 (or 8 for knowledge), to describe the complexity and requirements of the positions in a gender-neutral manner.

From a legal risk perspective, the point-factor method (Tool 5) is the most defensible. It uses pre-defined factors, weighted subfactors, and level descriptors, creating a transparent paper trail that can withstand scrutiny by equality bodies, labor inspectorates, and courts.

HR should anticipate that equality bodies will expect medium and large employers to adopt analytical systems, not simplified ones.

Tools 6–7: Updating and Monitoring

After an employer completes the job evaluation and classification, Tool 6 can be used to standardize job titles and descriptions to remove gender-biased language or assumptions. The Toolkit provides a standard job description template. 

The purpose of Tool 7 is to help employers track and plan their compliance efforts, including remedies for gaps discovered during the job evaluation and classification step.

Tools 8–9: Empowering Social Partners and Workers

Tools 8 and 9 are focused on empowering social patterns (i.e., worker representatives) and workers. Tool 8 provides guidance to trade unions on how to be engaged in the compliance process, including suggestions on how to address employers’ concerns about engaging the trade union as well as how to formalize gender-neutral job evaluations and classifications through collective agreements. Tool 8 even provides sample language to include in a collective agreement. 

The Toolkit describes Tool 9 as “designed to equip you [worker] with the knowledge and confidence to start conversations with your employer about equal pay.” It includes guidance on what workers are entitled to and how-tos on gathering information, discussing with the employer, interpreting information, and “maintaining” on-going discussions with the employer. Tool 9 specifically instructs workers to “look for unexplained differences in pay...if there are noticeable gaps or discrepancies, ask for clarification as to why.”

With the newness of the Toolkit and the tensions between PTD deadlines and Member State self-imposed extensions, it is difficult to predict how impactful the Toolkit will ultimately be. Historically, recommendations from the EIGE have had minimal impact at the member state level. However, with the attention the Directive is drawing, the personal nature of pay, and the difficulty Member States will have developing tools of their own, employers should not ignore the potential influence the Toolkit may have on worker representatives and workers. 

Effect the Toolkit May Have in Member States with Pre-Existing Evaluation Tools 

Even before the publication of the Toolkit, relevant instruments and methods for analysis were either under development or already in place internationally and in a handful of Member States. For example, the ILO (International Labour Organization) commissioned and published a guide titled, “EQUITY Gender-Neutral Evaluation for Equal Pay” as early as 2008. The following is a sampling of how we anticipate the effect the Toolkit will have in Member State that have pre-existing evaluation tools. 

France

France already has domestic mechanisms relevant to gender-neutral job evaluation and equal pay, including collective bargaining classifications, mandatory collective bargaining on gender equality in the workplace and an existing equal pay index. Against that background, the Toolkit does not alter the structure of the French system. 

Collective bargaining classifications

These classifications are based on the analytical grade-point system. Under this system, jobs are evaluated based on predefined evaluation criteria (e.g., skill, scope of action, cooperation, leadership), each criterion is assigned a point value that reflects the job’s requirements and demands, the overall evaluation is determined by adding the points, with individual criteria weighted as necessary, and assignment to pay grades is based on the point range.

Mandatory bargaining on professional equality

The employer must negotiate on gender equality, including measures to reduce the gender pay gap. In the absence of an agreement, an action plan must be implemented. Companies with at least 50 workers may be subject to a financial penalty of up to 1% of payroll if they are not covered by an agreement or an action plan. 

Equal pay index

France has a statutory gender pay gap reporting mechanism, the “Index de l’égalité professionnelle,” applicable to companies with at least 50 workers, and is published annually. Its structure already varies depending on workforce size, and the current French transposition materials contemplate the introduction of a new seven-indicator framework. In this context, the toolkit is unlikely to significantly alter the existing French reporting architecture.

Categorization of workers performing work of equal value

Where the Toolkit may have the most likely impact is in negotiations with worker representatives. The current French transposition materials provide that the categorization of workers performing work of equal value may be determined by a company- or branch-level agreement or, failing that, by a unilateral decision of the employer following consultation with the CSE. As such, categorization creates a potential avenue for collective bargaining, in respect of which trade unions may rely on the Toolkit. Accordingly, while the Toolkit is unlikely to reshape the French framework at a normative level, it could materially strengthen the technical position of unions in discussions relating to worker categorization.

Germany

Germany also already has individual job evaluation tools; however, a uniform, systematic matrix is still lacking. Tools for gender-neutral job evaluation in Germany include, in particular, the so-called “EG-Check”/“GleichWertCheck” and the “EVA List,” as well as collective bargaining systems such as “ERA systems” in industry. 

EG-Check and GleichWertCheck

The EG-Check (eg.check.de) and the GleichWertCheck are digital analysis tools developed on behalf of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency. They enable a systematic review of pay structures in companies and public administrations. These tools provide guidelines for taking stock and preparing data, analytical job evaluation methods for assessing jobs based on objective, gender-neutral criteria (skills, workload, responsibility, working conditions), pay system checks for reviewing existing pay systems, and pair comparisons for the direct comparison of the duties of two workers of different genders. The evaluation is based on a point system and ensures compliance with the criteria of Article 4(4) of the Pay Transparency Directive in a manner that is legally sound and verifiable.

EVA List

The EVA List is a tool for reviewing the gender neutrality of existing job evaluation procedures. It serves to analyze the criteria used and their weighting for potential gender-specific biases. The EVA List checks whether the evaluation criteria are non-discriminatory and weighted proportionately, and whether female-dominated and male-dominated jobs are evaluated according to the same standards. The goal is to avoid unconscious stereotypes and indirect discrimination. 

Collective bargaining systems, e.g., “ERA systems in industry”

The ERA system (Wage Framework Agreement) of the metal and electrical industry is the central collective bargaining job evaluation procedure in Germany. It is based on the analytical grade-point system. Under this system, jobs are evaluated based on predefined evaluation criteria (e.g., skill, scope of action, cooperation, leadership), each criterion is assigned a point value that reflects the job’s requirements and demands, the overall evaluation is determined by adding the points, with individual criteria weighted as necessary, and assignment to pay grades is based on the point range.

Case Law

Case law has thus far confirmed the validity of the ERA system as a gender-neutral evaluation method, but emphasizes the necessity of non-discriminatory weighting and evaluation of all relevant criteria.

In Germany, case law has so far regarded analytical methods such as the GleichWertCheck and the ERA system as the standard for ensuring pay equity and gender neutrality. Summary methods, on the other hand, are considered unsuitable due to their lack of transparency and susceptibility to stereotypes. 

It is likely that existing tools such as the EG-Check, GleichWertCheck and EVA-List will not be replaced in the near future by the Toolkit, as the Toolkit has not yet become established and is not yet fully approved by the courts as being in compliance with EU law. However, it is also likely that these tools will be adapted to align with the EU Toolkit in terms of content, thereby effectively harmonizing with it.

Spain

As previously noted, the EIGE Toolkit is a voluntary resource and offers organizations three different methodological options for conducting gender‑neutral job evaluations.

In Spain, however, the regulatory landscape is far more defined. Since 2020—and well before the formal transposition of the PTD—Spanish legislation has required companies that are obligated to implement an Equality Plan (i.e., employers with 50 or more workers) to use a point‑factor methodology when conducting job evaluations. This requirement is established directly under Royal Decree 902/2020.

To support employers with this requirement, the Spanish Government—together with the country’s leading employer associations and trade unions—published an official job evaluation procedure and digital tool in 2022. While use of the tool itself is voluntary, the underlying methodology (pointfactor) is not: all Spanish companies must rely on a point‑factor system, regardless of the tool they choose.

A key advantage of using the Government’s tool is the legal certainty it provides. Under Order PCM/1047/2022, any evaluation completed using the official tool is presumed to comply with the formal requirements set out in Spanish legislation. This presumption significantly reduces compliance risk and protects employers against challenges to the methodological validity of their job evaluations.

By contrast, the EU Toolkit—although technically sophisticated and highly valuable from a capability‑building perspective—does not offer this presumption. It is not a legally binding instrument and does not constitute an interpretation of EU or national law. As a result, Spanish companies adopting the European methodology, including its point‑factor model, would still need to demonstrate independently that their evaluation system satisfies all Spanish statutory requirements.

What this means for Spanish employers: The EU Toolkit is aligned with Spain’s principles, factors and objectives, but it is not a substitute for the legally mandated point‑factor methodology. The toolkit does not provide the presumption of compliance that accompanies use of the Government’s official tool. Companies may use the Toolkit to enhance their internal processes, strengthen bias detection or improve documentation—but not to replace or deviate from the methodology formally recognized under Spanish law.

Takeaways

• Multinational employers should understand the Toolkit, but do not need to invest in its methodology without further binding, legal guidance.
• Micro and small employers may find the Toolkit helpful, but these employers should still consult with local legal counsel before investing fully into the compliance methodology suggested by the Toolkit.
• All affected employers should be planning for compliance with the Directive. In particular, employers should be consulting with legal counsel to categorize workers and stress-test pay practices. 
• As indicated by the language of the Toolkit, the Directive empowers workers and their representatives with regards to compensation structures. Employers need to be preparing to work with workers and their representatives on this issue regardless of whether there is formal worker representation in place.