LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy, 2026-30: Employment Equality and the Limitations of the EU in Central and Eastern Europe

Scarlett Summers

University of Edinburgh, MSc Comparative Public Policy 2025/2026

In the context of a wave of anti-LGBTIQ+ policies and movements across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the issue of LGBTIQ+ workplace discrimination and access to employment equality raises an important question regarding the social dimension of the European Union (EU). To what extent can the EU affect progressive change within its member states in an era of national divergence? Across CEE countries, there has been a ‘steady rise’ in anti-LGBTIQ+ rhetoric in all spheres of society, including the workplace, as a populist wave spreads across the region. However, the EU’s new LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy, 2026-2030 to tackle these crackdowns has been dismissed as ‘more cosmetic than consequential’.

In October 2025, the EU launched its 2026-2030 LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy which seeks to protect the social rights and freedoms of LGBTIQ+ Europeans. The strategy covers issues including hate speech, online discrimination, and migration protection. Importantly, the report sets out a plan for ‘Empowering LGBTIQ+ Through Employment and Social Inclusion’, hinting to the enduring economic focus of the EU. Here, the Commission commits to tackling LGBTIQ+ unemployment, reinforcing employer diversity and inclusion policies, and promoting embracive working environments. It recognises the need for change at a ‘time when progress in this field is facing increasing pushback’ and discrimination is rife. Though backsliding is part of a broader European trend, crackdowns on LGBTIQ+ rights are a more significant threat in CEE, as shown by the ILGA’s rankings on LGBTIQ+-friendly policies.

This rollback on LGBTIQ+ rights is evident in the workplace. The ILGA 2025 Annual Review highlights numerous cases of discrimination in the workplace across Europe, particularly in CEE countries. In Romania, citizens have faced employment discrimination on the grounds of HIV infection status. In Hungary, there are concerns that new laws prohibiting those with “sexual deviances” from working for Child Protection Services will affect LGBTIQ+ people. Furthermore, changes to equality laws now mean that discrimination on the grounds of gender identity in employment is not prohibited in Hungary or Romania.

Sexual orientation- and gender identity-based discrimination has significant impact on access to and retention of employment. For example, Özaltuğ and Yalçın found that openly LGB applicants are 1.5x less likely to receive a job interview. When employed, many LGBTIQ+ people face discrimination. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights’ LGBTIQ+ Survey found that 28%, 25%, and 23% of LGBTIQ+ people in Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary respectively had experienced discrimination at work. Workplace discrimination results in a ‘host of negative outcomes’ for both employees and employers, including decreased productivity, high absenteeism, long periods of stress or mental health-related leave, and high turnover rates. The IGPP reports that ‘discrimination is a significant factor in driving LGBTQIA+ workers to quit their jobs’.

The EU’s Strategy also addresses the issue of pay inequality by restating the EU’s commitment to the Pay Transparency Directive (2023) and equal pay protections within member states. Pay inequality is particularly significant in CEE countries, where according to Open For Business and World Bank data, the wage gap between LGBTIQ+ people and their heterosexual counterparts is between 10% and 15%.

These factors – poor retention rates, decreased productivity, and pay inequality – contribute to the significant financial cost of workplace discrimination. The Commission cites the OECD, which estimates that discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people costs European countries €89 million per year. In 2025, this cost the Hungarian, Romanian, and Polish economies between 0.2% and 1.75% of GDP. Ultimately, data shows that states committed to diversity and inclusion experience improved financial outcomes and sustainable growth. At all levels, inclusion is central to financial success. Thus, whether the EU is, as it claims, a ‘global leader in promoting and protecting the rights of LGBTIQ+ people’, or not, there is a clear economic argument for workplace inclusion.

The Commission’s focus on financial factors, such as the cost of discrimination, highlights the enduring economic bias of the EU, raising questions over the extent to which the EU really is a “social” institution. Scholars like Crespy (2022) argue that ‘social policy at the EU level cannot be considered as an autonomous policy area isolated from economic policy’. Indeed, within the 2026-2030 strategy, the EU’s emphasis on the fiscal cost of discrimination and primary economic function is reflected in renewed commitments to the Employment Equality Directive (2000) and the Pay Transparency Directive (2003).

But how effective are international measures like these?

The EU launched a similar strategy five years ago, and though progress has been made, it claims, the rights and position of LGBTIQ+ people remain at risk. The European Parliament has therefore called for a renewed push for greater equality, backed by a 20-state Ministerial Declaration. Notably, the likes of Hungary and Bulgaria have not signed this declaration, highlighting a flaw in the EU policy model. Whilst a united EU-wide effort may result in greater change, the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) – a system in which member states act voluntarily and are monitored by EU bodies and ‘soft laws’ – can result in limited progress when not met with full cooperation. Critics argue that this model results in a kind of ‘empty shell’ or ‘neo-voluntarist’ Social Europe in which the EU has little authority over non-compliant and anti-progressive states. Though the Commission urges ‘all Member States to adopt national action plans on LGBTIQ+ equality by 2027’, it is unclear how effective this call will be.

Looking to the future, greater EU involvement in CEE states is needed to protect LGBTIQ+ workers from discrimination. Historically, EU ‘soft law’ has not been powerful enough to combat issues of discrimination. States must be held to account to ensure that they do in fact publish national action plans for the protection of LGBTIQ+ rights by 2027. It remains to be seen whether the new 2026-2030 LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy will be enough to tackle the increase in homophobia and transphobia in employment in Central and Eastern Europe.