A Guide to the EU Pay Transparency Directive 2025 | Download our eGuide for free
Centralized or localized? Choosing a pay equity and transparency approach
When designing a compensation strategy, companies increasingly need to account for both pay equity and pay transparency. While pay equity ensures fairness in compensation across comparable roles, pay transparency focuses on how openly compensation practices are communicated—both internally and externally. With global regulations tightening and employee expectations rising, organizations are under pressure to build compensation practices that are both fair and clearly communicated.
As with equity alone, companies face a critical decision: should pay equity and transparency be managed through a centralized model, or tailored regionally through localized systems? Many are adopting hybrid approaches, but each model comes with unique advantages and challenges. Here’s a breakdown of current trends, pros and cons, decision-making considerations, and the technological capabilities required for each model—now with a dual lens on pay equity and transparency.
Trends around pay equity and transparency models: centralized vs. localized
Centralized pay equity and transparency approach
Global consistency: Many multinational companies are opting for centralized strategies to ensure consistency in how both pay equity and transparency are defined, measured, and communicated across regions. A global framework makes it easier to maintain fairness and reinforce a unified employer brand through consistent messaging on compensation.
Regulatory requirements: A centralized approach supports global oversight and helps companies manage compliance with cross-border regulations. For example, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the EU Pay Transparency Directive require structured reporting on pay equity metrics and transparency practices. Central teams can streamline these efforts and standardize disclosures.
AI-driven models: Centralized models increasingly rely on AI and analytics to conduct standardized pay audits, benchmark compensation, and uncover inequities. These tools also support transparency by generating consistent, data-backed communications such as salary range guidelines, pay band structures, or public reporting summaries.
Localized pay equity and transparency approach
Regional flexibility: Companies operating in markets with diverse labor laws (such as the U.S., EU, and APAC) often adopt localized strategies to comply with region-specific requirements for both pay equity and pay transparency. For example, several U.S. states require salary range disclosures in job postings, while countries like France and Canada mandate gender pay gap reporting and local equity audits.
Responsive to local trends: Transparency norms vary widely—some cultures embrace openness about pay, while others approach it with caution. Localized models allow organizations to tailor their transparency communications and policies to fit cultural expectations and legal norms while still upholding core equity principles.
Hybrid approach
Global framework with local adjustments: Many companies are adopting a hybrid approach that allows them to maintain a consistent global vision for pay equity and transparency while adjusting implementation to local needs. A centralized core policy governs strategy, while regional teams execute equity audits, manage pay communication, and meet transparency mandates in ways that are locally compliant and culturally appropriate.
What are the pros and cons of centralized vs. localized models?
Centralized model
Pros:
- Consistency: Uniform policies reduce discrepancies and reinforce fairness and openness across all geographies.
- Efficiency: A central framework simplifies monitoring, reduces duplicate work, and enables consistent communication about compensation practices.
- Global reporting: Makes it easier to meet global regulatory demands, such as the EU CSRD and pay gap disclosure laws, with consolidated and standardized data.
- Strong employer brand: Centralized transparency policies (for example, clear pay bands and disclosures) can enhance talent attraction and retention across markets.
Cons:
- Overlooks local nuances: Central policies may fail to consider regional differences in cost of living, labor laws, or attitudes toward pay disclosure.
- Inflexibility: Difficult to adjust to unique local requirements, such as job posting laws or employee expectations around pay communication.
Localized model
Pros:
- Tailored compliance: Easily adapts to country-specific transparency laws and pay equity reporting requirements.
- Cultural alignment: Local teams can shape transparency messaging in a way that resonates with employees and reflects local norms.
- Competitive compensation: Regional flexibility allows for locally relevant pay adjustments and transparency strategies that align with local market conditions.
Cons:
- Inconsistency: Different approaches across markets may lead to confusion or perceptions of unfairness.
- Resource-intensive: Requires significant coordination and oversight to maintain alignment with broader company goals.
- Complex reporting: Aggregating pay equity and transparency data across regions for global reporting can be difficult without harmonized systems.
How can companies decide which model is right for them?
When choosing how to manage pay equity and transparency—centrally, locally, or through a hybrid model—companies should consider the following factors:
Company structure and size
- Global multinationals: A centralized model may provide the control and standardization needed to ensure global consistency in both equity and transparency efforts.
- Regional or smaller companies: A localized model can offer the flexibility to align with diverse market conditions and compliance environments.
Regulatory environment
- Localized approaches may be required in regions with strict pay equity or transparency laws (such as Canada’s pay equity audits, France’s gender pay gap reporting, or U.S. state salary disclosure requirements).
- Companies governed by broad international frameworks like the EU CSRD may benefit from centralized models to ensure cohesive, cross-border reporting and transparency practices.
Corporate culture
- Organizations that value openness and fairness as part of their culture may lean toward centralized strategies that ensure consistent communication about pay and equity across all teams.
- Companies that prioritize local autonomy may prefer regional control of pay communications and audit processes to reflect market-specific expectations.
Market competitiveness
- Pay equity and transparency can impact talent attraction, especially in competitive markets. Localized models can help fine-tune offers and communication strategies to reflect local talent trends, pay norms, and transparency expectations.
Technology and data maturity
- Companies with advanced HR technology can centralize data collection, equity analysis, and transparency reporting.
- Organizations without unified systems may find it more practical to manage equity and transparency initiatives locally, building capabilities regionally until centralized infrastructure is viable.
What technology capabilities are required to manage equity and transparency?
For a centralized model
- Global data integration: Centralized HR platforms must aggregate and standardize compensation and disclosure data across markets. Platforms like beqom are designed to support global pay equity and transparency efforts.
- Advanced analytics: AI-powered tools can detect pay gaps and monitor equity, while also generating consistent, localized transparency reports and employee-facing materials.
- Automated reporting: Centralized systems can automate disclosures required by regulations like the EU Pay Transparency Directive or CSRD. (See beqom’s Checklist for Preparing for the EU Pay Transparency Directive.)
- Benchmarking tools: Access to global market data helps organizations maintain competitive, equitable, and transparent pay structures.
For a localized model:
- Localized compliance tools: Systems must support region-specific reporting for both pay equity and transparency (such as local pay gap analysis, or salary range disclosures).
- Regional data capabilities: Tools need to gather and analyze compensation data within local legal and cultural frameworks.
- Customizable communications: Transparency messaging should be tailored by region to reflect varying norms around salary openness and equity disclosure.
- Decentralized flexibility: Systems must allow regional teams to manage compensation decisions and public-facing transparency actions within the broader organizational framework.
Conclusion
Choosing between a centralized or localized approach to pay equity and transparency depends on your organization’s structure, market presence, regulatory exposure, and internal values. While a hybrid model is emerging as the favored strategy, every company must weigh the balance between global consistency and regional flexibility.
With the right technology and governance in place, companies can build compensation practices that are not only fair, but also transparent—earning employee trust and meeting stakeholder expectations in every market.
PayAnalytics by beqom helps organizations manage both pay equity and pay transparency through flexible, scalable solutions tailored to global and local needs. Book a demo to see how PayAnalytics by beqom can help your team lead with fairness and clarity.
