Response to interpellation 2025/26:437 on the pay transparency directive
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the pay transparency directive and its implementation. L argues that Sweden voted no because the design is not adapted to Swedish conditions, risks administrative burden, and lacks flexibility 1. L wants to postpone the implementation to find solutions at the EU level 1 and argues that the government is stalling to reduce the regulatory burden for the business sector 2. L emphasizes that Sweden is a leading country with a low pay gap 2 and that the government has the largest gender equality budget ever 2 3. S argues that the government is withdrawing the work, stopping progress, and reinforcing the pay gap 4 5. S believes that the government refuses to listen to the parties, lacks leadership, and has worsened gender equality 4 5 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked me why I and the government choose not to implement the pay transparency directive.
I would like to thank the member for the question and the commitment. Wage discrimination and unjustified pay differences must be combated. Women and men shall have the same opportunities and conditions regarding paid work that provides economic independence for life.
In the spring of 2023, the EU's pay transparency directive was adopted, with the aim that unjustified pay differences should be combated more effectively. Despite the important objective, Sweden voted no to the directive because the design is not adapted to Swedish conditions, does not provide sufficient flexibility for national solutions, and risks creating an unnecessary administrative burden.
The challenges of implementing the directive in a national context are great, both for us in Sweden and in other EU countries. The best solution for Sweden is therefore that the implementation date of the directive is postponed and that we at the EU level find solutions to the challenges that exist with the directive. In this, the government does not rule out that a renegotiation of certain parts of the directive must take place.
Introducing regulations that do not fulfill their purpose in an effective way is bad for equality and for the EU's competitiveness. Therefore, the government is now taking action.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! From the answer, it sounds as if the government's position is now very skeptical and that one is now trying to handle this in the way that the question requires. It is interesting.
We can step back a bit and see what this story has been about. Just as the Minister said in the response, the decision came from the EU in 2023. It is clear that many directives and regulations come from the EU that Sweden does not always agree with in all parts or even has voted for, especially when it comes to the labor market area, as Sweden has a model that almost no other EU country has. This is therefore nothing strange or unique. But we have implemented directives earlier despite having held that position.
We appointed an investigation that submitted its work in May 2024. The Minister has had this on her desk. She knows what the investigation says about how the directive should be implemented in Swedish legislation. Yet, it has delayed until January 2026 before a referral to the Council on Legislation was presented. One has, therefore, had quite a long time to ponder this.
One chooses, therefore, to produce a Council of State referral – a referral that surprises many and upsets virtually all parties in the labor market. It is not, in fact, in line with what the investigation proposes, and it would neither reduce the wage gap between men and women in the Swedish labor market nor make it transparent – which was otherwise something one had great ambitions for the directive to generate.
Not least, the Minister herself expressed such ambitions, for in the budget debate we had here in the chamber in December 2025, she said: "Women still earn less than men. Now the Equality Ombudsman gets muscles to work effectively with the implementation of the EU's pay transparency directive. Making visible unreasonable pay differences can and will improve the conditions for women and men to receive equal pay for equal work." I completely agree. That was the common starting point.
When criticism comes from Svenskt Näringsliv, SKR, LO, TCO and Saco against the government, it is stinging and extensive. The proposal they put forward is not favorable and is not in line with the directive. Lawyers from Svenskt Näringsliv and SKR show that one can implement the directive in another way, but the government refuses to listen to that.
On March 5, the minister was in the Committee on Employment. There we had the opportunity to ask questions: Will you proceed with the referral to the Council on Legislation? Will this be implemented? Will the Swedish Parliament complete this before the end of the summer? I felt perhaps somewhat foolish at the committee meeting, but I believe I asked the minister and the government three times if they really intended to move forward with the proposal to the Council on Legislation, and the answer was yes.
Then it didn't even take three weeks before the proposal was withdrawn. One goes as far as to say that one wants to go back to the EU and renegotiate parts. At the committee meeting, it was said that this was not possible. Why does one now choose to handle this issue so differently on such short notice?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate, and thank you to my colleague Sofia Amloh who has raised the questions! These are very important questions.
Let me start with what it is actually about: equality and equal opportunities for women and men in Sweden. This concerns me, because I do not think this government has improved the conditions for women's equal opportunities, whether it concerns economically or their participation in society.
I would have wished that I could stand here and praise a minister from the Liberals. The Social Democrats and the Liberals have, in history, fought together for equality. We have fought to improve in many areas. That was what made Sweden a leader in the world when it came to equal opportunities for women and men.
What we see now is that it is retreating. Time and again during the mandate period, the budgets presented by the SD government have worsened the conditions for women. You have worsened the opportunities for women to stand strong, for example, so that a vulnerable woman can leave a violent man. You have also worsened the foundation for equal opportunities for women and men. This government has worsened equality in Sweden.
It is once again the men who stand as winners in all the budgets that this government has presented. Why do I mention this? Yes, because this is the basis of the Minister's answer. Based on my previous debates with the Minister, I do not hesitate – I am convinced that Nina Larsson is committed to issues of equality. But that commitment and that strength do not seem to have rubbed off on the remaining ministers in the government, and then it becomes difficult to get things through.
Where do we stand when the directive arrives? We are fifth from the bottom of all EU member states when it comes to the development towards equality. The development is therefore not moving forward, but we are now at the bottom. The pay gap has increased and is larger than it was six years ago. When the government's response to the directive arrives, there will be no great confidence.
I read in the government's response: "Therefore, the government is now taking action." Then I wonder: What does that mean? In what way is the government taking action? What is it that is being done to implement this? This debate is not intended to address equality in its entirety, but I also wonder: In what way is the government taking action to improve equality for women today? Because I do not see it doing so, which I am very concerned, sad, and worried about.
We need answers to the question that Sofia Amloh has asked. What is happening? Why is the government not acting regarding this directive or other issues concerning equality in Sweden?
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank members Amloh and Lindh for their remarks and questions.
I want to start by saying that Sweden will implement the pay transparency directive. Even though Sweden initially voted against the directive in the EU, the ambition with it is to find good and effective ways to increase transparency and thereby also reduce the unjustifiable pay gap between men and women.
This is something that we must work very actively for. Therefore, we also choose to request a stop to the introduction and make it possible to, together with other member states and the commission, find a solution that leads to the effects that the directive aims for, namely effective equality work linked to increased transparency and oversight for more equal wages.
Sweden very much always enters with the ambition to implement directives in the best possible way based on the Swedish conditions that prevail. This was also the government's starting point in the work with the pay transparency directive. Parallel to this, we have continuously had a dialogue with other member states and have, over time, had an increased exchange with other member states.
More countries are in fact discovering that there are major challenges with the very rigid and detailed governance that this directive entails. For Sweden's part, it concerns the concept of wages but also the time aspect and the timeline for implementation. More EU countries have also signaled that they intend to renegotiate the directive regarding the implementation period and parts of the content. We are maintaining an ongoing dialogue on this.
It is of utmost importance to try to manage both of these parts. We need to find effective tools to increase equality so that the ambition for increased transparency and insight can lead to a reduced pay gap, but we also need to safeguard good and flexible conditions for employers and the business sector. In harmony with other member states and after having conducted a dialogue on how they intend to implement the directive, we landed on the conclusion that we need to hit the brakes and ensure that the directive can be introduced in a way that achieves the intended effect. Anything else would be to handle this in an irresponsible manner.
The Department's and the Government's assessment was that in some parts we could not rely on the investigation that existed regarding the wage concept. If we are to handle this with Sweden's best interests in mind, a renegotiation or other forms of solutions are needed.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to offer an interpretation of what has actually happened. This has been negotiated in the EU for many years. Now, a conclusion has been reached on this issue, which matters for all women's and member states' opportunities to achieve more equal pay and reduce the pay gap between men and women across the entire European labor market. We have been involved in driving this.
Sweden is a pioneer country. Sweden needs to be involved to set the pace, drive these issues, and be the good example. Sweden has worked with wage revisions for many years and has done well.
The Pay Transparency Directive would have played a role in the Swedish labor market if the government had chosen to act in a completely different way than what was proposed. That proposal was withdrawn and they then backed down all the way to the EU. This now causes the work to stall. Now, many countries have reason to wait with doing anything for all women on the European pay market. This reinforces the pay gap. It does not push forward or move the positions when the government chooses to act in this way.
It is incredibly outrageous that one does not take a step back to redo and do right and then move forward. Instead, one retreats several years of negotiations. A lot of conservative countries around Europe get a reason to hold back women's wage development. This government is involved and contributes to that, and it is nothing less than outrageous, Madam Speaker.
One can also choose to do it in another way, which I have explained, when the parties in the labor market know how this could be implemented. But the government chooses to interpret and over-interpret every single letter of the EU's directive instead of having good self-confidence because Sweden is one of the best countries in these matters.
One can choose to interpret the directive in order to achieve its purpose in the best way in Swedish legislation. But there is a lack of political leadership to stand firm regarding what is required according to that interpretation and actually submit a proposal to the Riksdag. The government has not done that. There is actually nothing that comes close to closing the wage gap in Sweden. It has increased, which we have already heard from my colleague.
What is the government doing? I have listened to the Minister earlier. We have had debates on economic equality. The Minister has expressed a very strong belief in this directive. I have almost felt that I agreed that the directive will play a major role if it is introduced. The strong belief that it would level the economic gaps within Swedish equality policy was perhaps to attribute a bit too much to a directive.
Now the government chooses to do nothing. After four years, nothing has been done to reduce the wage gaps. The wage gaps are increasing. That is the result, the receipt, and the final score with this government. It is incredibly sad.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The wage gap is increasing. The differences between women and men are increasing.
Equality does not arise by itself – the Social Democrats and the Liberals know that. It requires political priorities. It requires strength. It also requires courage. Many times – as it has been in history, and as it is also today – it is required that politics takes precedence in order to change and to increase equality and gender equality between women and men. Therefore, it is with sadness that one sees that this is not happening.
Sweden is retreating. I believe that quite a few voters in Sweden see it. I know that many have seen that there actually have been no progress. They have seen that equality is decreasing. We also see something internationally. Many countries look with sorrow in their hearts at what is happening in Sweden. They wish that Sweden would lead the way.
This is an example where the Minister says that there are problems. That is what we are constantly told. But why was there no work done to improve this when this was presented? That is what I am curious to hear about. What has the government done, and how has it acted?
We must reduce the unjustified gap between men's wages and women's wages. We need to increase equality. I have a hope that the Minister will show the commitment to equality issues that I believe I know exists at the core. But what is the government doing now?
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to members Amloh and Lindh for the questions and the remarks!
It sounds here in the chamber as if Sweden would be lagging far behind in the area of equality – on one hand. On the other hand, Sweden is the pioneer country. I am not quite clear on the different messages from the party that the members represent.
Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries. Sweden is indeed a pioneer in these issues – a country that other countries take inspiration from and that other countries look up to. Sweden ranks at the top in most equality indices conducted in various places within the EU and in other comparisons. The unjustified pay gap between men and women was last at 4.6 percent. In other EU countries, it is significantly larger.
When we have this leadership role, it is extremely important that we take responsibility and that we find accessible paths that allow us to safeguard the employers' and the business community's conditions, so that there is a reduced regulatory burden, and at the same time increase oversight and transparency when it comes to wages in order to tackle and gradually eliminate the unreasonable wage gap between men and women.
This is a task. This is an implementation that Sweden will carry out. I look forward to us being able to do it in a better way – which is better than working with what we have had to work with until now. I have good hopes that we will succeed. There are several other countries that are in the same situation, and we have a very good dialogue both with them and with the EU Commission.
It would be anything but responsible, so to speak, to believe that things will hold up when one implements directives. We really need to keep our feet dry. That is why the government has pulled the brakes. It is about us being able to achieve a solution where the timeline is pushed back and which enables a more flexible interpretation of the directive in certain parts. It is important for Svenskt Näringsliv. It is also important for equality. The support for the measures we introduce needs to be great for them to have an effect.
This shows experiences. The salary mapping was indeed introduced during the 90s. It was the then liberal Minister for Equality who introduced them in Sweden, during the time of the then conservative government.
We must also have support from the parties in the labor market in the interpretations we make when we introduce this type of regulatory framework. That is why we are urgently having this dialogue with the EU, together with several other member states. It is indeed important that we achieve this as quickly as possible.
In addition to this, this government has introduced a number of reforms within gender equality policy, broadly speaking, regarding Member Eva Lindh's previous post. We have the largest gender equality policy budget within expenditure area 13 that this country has ever had. We have introduced a number of different reforms, and that is something we will continue with.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! Yes, in the 90s the Liberals were liberals and had ambitions even in this area, unlike the Liberals now. What I hear now is, in fact, incredibly lacking in ambition.
They argue that we have these irrelevant wage differences and that they are not very large. I hear someone who is quite satisfied, Madam Speaker.
This government has actually had, for the most part, the entire mandate period at its disposal. The directive was clear in the spring of 2023. Nothing has been done. Yes, this investigation was commissioned. But then it has just sat there, and then something happened only a couple of months ago.
The parties in the labor market are actually making a completely different assessment than the government. Svenskt Näringsliv, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, and the employee side, the trade unions, share the same view. It is perhaps rare for the parties in the labor market to have that, but in this case, they are completely in agreement on how this should proceed and on the criticism of the government.
The proposal that the government put forward and then withdrew was actually a historical failure – a bad proposal. It was good that the proposal was withdrawn, but the alternative is to come forward with another proposal where the criticism has been listened to. The government is not capable of that. Now, they are going to back out all the way to the EU and renegotiate something. The Minister has himself said, just a few months ago, that it is not feasible.
In what way is the government now acting to reduce the unjustified wage gaps? It is no longer just about women in Sweden and about the Swedish labor market. There are risks also on the European labor market. In what way is action being taken to move the positions forward? I want to hear at least about some concrete proposal.
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Economic equality is good business. It is something that will strengthen Swedish competitiveness. It is extremely good for our trade-dependent country that our companies can work more with equality and diversity. It is something that will give black figures in the results and increase profitability, and this is something we need to work more actively with.
I look forward to when we have achieved a good implementation, for Sweden's part, of this directive – so that it can then, so to speak, work hand in hand with the business sector to increase competitiveness and increase equality at the same time.
To do this, we need to consider the Swedish conditions based on the Swedish labor market, and the government's assessment is that we need to take a new approach with the EU. We have good hopes that it will be successful and provide better conditions to increase oversight and transparency linked to the wage component.
This government is implementing a number of different measures and reforms in the area of equality concerning men's violence against women, young relationships, and a number of other things. We have reformed the penal code so that the starting point is the crime victim's perspective. In the area of economic equality, we have given a number of assignments to Tillväxtverket for better data and better analysis. We also have an ongoing investigation on the long-term management of economic equality, where several sharp proposals will be submitted within a month. We have made the parental leave more flexible, which enables both men and women to combine family formation with career, and as recently as last Thursday, we made a decision to initiate work on European standardization for effective equality work.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.