The PFRON penalty is a statutory cost for which the company receives no work in return. Employing persons with disabilities (PwD) can change that equation: reduce the penalty and create a team that delivers work for which the organisation currently lacks capacity. Three things are required: real work, a correct calculation and a decision-maker who can approve new positions (Act, Art. 21).
At InnoThink, we begin with the money and the work to be done, not with declarations. We establish what the company pays today, how much of that budget could fund a team and who will own and accept its output.
In the standard case, the PFRON penalty applies to an employer with at least 25 full-time equivalents (FTE) that does not reach the required 6% employment ratio. The monthly amount depends on the employment gap and the current statutory basis—not on the number of names on the payroll (PFRON: amount and calculation method).
For an initial discussion, we use PLN 4,650–18,600 per month as an indicative effect of employing one person, including the impact of a non-tax-deductible expense (NKUP). This is a range for a first estimate, not a uniform rate per employee or a savings guarantee. The exact result depends on the documents, the remaining employment gap, workforce changes and the company’s tax position.
We calculate the project’s full result more broadly: savings plus the value of work delivered minus total costs. Cash impact and the estimated value of work are shown separately. Management can then see what will actually change in the budget and what represents the estimated value of additional output.
The calculation is performed for a specific Polish employer, not for the entire corporate group. We establish the average monthly headcount in FTE and the employment of persons with disabilities included in the calculation. Headcount and FTE are usually two different figures (PFRON: monthly employment level).
For a company with 1,000 FTE, the standard 6% ratio creates a reference point of 60 FTE. This does not mean that the company should hire 60 new people. The calculation must include employees whose disability certificates already qualify, special medical conditions and the fact that total employment also rises when the project starts (Act, Art. 21).
Not every employer is governed by identical rules: exemptions and different ratios exist. Before an offer is prepared, finance or payroll confirms the correct method. The sections below show the standard case for an employer subject to the 6% ratio (Act, Art. 21).
We need data for the same month. Year-end employment, the current penalty and planned hires from three different periods do not produce one valid calculation.
| Input | What must be established |
|---|---|
| Total employment | The relevant employer’s average monthly FTE after required exclusions. |
| Current employment of persons with disabilities | FTE, disability degree, relevant documents and the dates from which they may be included. |
| Planned new employment | Number of FTE, start dates and the effect on total employment. |
| Calculation basis | The statutory value applicable to the month being settled. |
| Tax and baseline | CIT rate, ability to use tax-deductible costs and any invoice-based reductions. |
Employment is calculated as the average of daily employment levels during the month. A person who starts halfway through the month therefore does not automatically produce a full-month effect (PFRON: calculation rules).
In the standard calculation:
This shorthand combines the basic employment calculation with the effect of special medical conditions. Payroll confirms the settlement result against documents and data for the relevant month (PFRON: formula and ratios, regulation on special medical conditions).
For September, October and November 2026, the basis is PLN 9,233.13. It comes from earnings in Q2 2026; the calculation must always use the value applicable to the month being settled (PFRON: average earnings basis).
Not every FTE has the same multiplier in the PFRON calculation. The disability degree and a properly documented special medical condition matter (Act, Art. 21; regulation).
| Variant | Multiplier used in the calculation |
|---|---|
| Basic inclusion of one qualifying FTE | 1× |
| Moderate disability degree and a qualifying special condition | 3× |
| Severe disability degree and a qualifying special condition | 4× |
The variants show the multiplier applied to qualifying employment and the associated reduction in the required ratio. The company still employs one person in one position, not several employees; the applicable conditions must be confirmed by documents (PFRON: ratio adjusted for special conditions).
Three conditions must be checked before the indicative range per person becomes a company-specific offer. A new position also increases N, or total employment. A mid-month start changes the monthly average. Once the gap has been closed, another FTE does not create a negative penalty (PFRON: calculation rules).
The PFRON penalty is not deductible from the corporate income tax base. We therefore show both the nominal penalty and the equivalent pre-tax amount the company must earn to finance it (CIT Act, Art. 16(1)(36)).
Assuming a 19% CIT rate, the pre-tax equivalent is E = M / 0.81. The 19% rate is an assumption for this example, not the rate applicable to every company; the method must be confirmed against the client’s tax position (Ministry of Finance: CIT rates).
In the example below:
| Level of calculation | Approximate monthly value |
|---|---|
| Nominal penalty M | PLN 225,200 |
| Increase caused by NKUP: E − M | PLN 52,800 |
| Total pre-tax equivalent E | PLN 278,000 |
The nominal penalty may be added to the incremental NKUP effect: M + (E − M) = E. We do not add the nominal penalty to the full pre-tax equivalent, because that would count the same basis twice. The equivalent is not an additional amount transferred to PFRON.
This is a calculation scenario, not a client result. It shows a full month after the team has started, assumes no existing qualifying employment of persons with disabilities and excludes invoice-based reductions. All 18 new positions increase total employment.
We assume nine FTE with a 3× multiplier and nine with a 4× multiplier, supported by the required documents. The combined multiplier value is 9 × 3 + 9 × 4 = 63. This is an assumed team mix, not a promise that specific candidates will be available.
| Calculation step | Before the project | Full month after launch |
|---|---|---|
| Total employment N | 1,000 FTE | 1,018 FTE |
| Reference point: 6% × N | 60 FTE | 61.08 FTE |
| Combined multiplier value A included in the calculation | 0 | 63 |
| Remaining gap, not less than zero | 60 FTE | 0 FTE |
| Nominal penalty, rounded to hundreds | PLN 225,200 | PLN 0 |
| Pre-tax equivalent at 19% CIT | PLN 278,000 | PLN 0 |
Before the project: 60 × 40.65% × PLN 9,233.13 gives an approximate monthly nominal penalty of PLN 225,200. After hiring: 6% × 1,018 − 63 is below zero, so the gap in this scenario is zero. The rule and the basis come from PFRON and the table of applicable bases; team size is an assumption.
The actual first month may differ if employees start on different dates. A fall in employment or a change in documents or team composition also requires recalculation. A zero entered once in a presentation does not remain zero by itself (PFRON: monthly employment level).
In this scenario, we assume approximately PLN 219,000 in total monthly project costs. This includes employment and the agreed InnoThink service under the stated parameters. It is a calculation assumption, not a price list for every role and company. If a specific implementation requires additional equipment, licences or other expenditure, it is added before the decision.
Separately, we assume approximately PLN 132,500 in monthly value of work delivered. This is a working estimate of equivalent work value based on a cost benchmark, assuming full completion and acceptance of tasks. It is neither additional revenue nor confirmed cash savings. Before launch, the client approves the valuation method; after launch, delivery is verified.
| Monthly calculation component | Approximate value |
|---|---|
| Savings in pre-tax equivalent B | PLN 278,000 |
| Total project cost C | PLN 219,000 |
| Pre-tax surplus B − C | PLN 59,000 |
| Estimated value of work delivered V | PLN 132,500 |
| Total economic effect B + V − C | PLN 191,500 |
The rounded total effect is 278,000 + 132,500 − 219,000 = PLN 191,500 per month. It consists of the pre-tax surplus and the estimated value of work. We do not describe the whole amount as cash savings.
For tax purposes, we assume that project expenditure can be recognised as tax-deductible cost and its impact used at a 19% CIT rate. VAT is assumed to be neutral and is omitted. Wage subsidies are not included. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred for readability; the control calculation uses unrounded values.
Under unchanged assumptions, the company continues to incur approximately PLN 225,200 in nominal penalty each month. Including NKUP, this corresponds to approximately PLN 278,000 before tax. These are not two separate expenses: the second amount already includes the first and the increase caused by the lack of tax deductibility.
Over 12 months, the nominal penalty is approximately PLN 2,702,400. The NKUP increase is approximately PLN 633,900, and the full pre-tax equivalent is approximately PLN 3,336,200. Annual values are calculated from exact figures and rounded afterwards, so the sum of rounded components may differ by PLN 100.
What does the last amount mean for management? If the company eliminates the entire penalty, it could theoretically redirect its full equivalent to necessary purchases that qualify as tax-deductible costs. In this example, that is approximately PLN 3.34 million in annual purchasing capacity, instead of approximately PLN 2.70 million in nominal penalty. If the company spends the whole amount, it does not retain it as profit. It does, however, receive services, tools or materials. This is a different use of the same economic burden, not an additional NKUP refund.
The assumptions are specific: 19% CIT, full recognition and use of the expenditure as tax-deductible cost in the comparison period, VAT neutrality and actual elimination of the penalty. Control check: annual pre-tax equivalent × 81% = annual nominal penalty, calculated before rounding. Not every purchase produces the effect immediately—for example, if it is depreciated (CIT Act: tax costs, NKUP and rate, Arts. 15, 16 and 19).
In an InnoThink project, part of this budget already finances employment and service delivery. After the full project cost in our example, approximately PLN 707,700 per year before tax remains. The company may retain that surplus or use it for further tax-deductible costs under the same assumptions. It cannot spend the entire PLN 3.34 million again in addition to the project cost. A purchase—including a purchase with an Art. 22 reduction—is not a mechanism for eliminating the whole penalty (Act, Arts. 21 and 22).
We calculate the value of the team’s work separately. Twelve times the total project effect—pre-tax savings plus work value minus all costs—is approximately PLN 2,298,100. This is not additional purchasing capacity. All annual figures illustrate scale under constant assumptions; they are not a forecast for the next 12 months. The statutory basis, employment, costs and delivery may change.
Fifteen years change the scale of the calculation. Average earnings were PLN 3,466.33 in Q1 2011 and PLN 9,562.88 in Q1 2026—roughly an increase from PLN 3.5 thousand to PLN 9.5 thousand (GUS: Q1 2011; GUS: Q1 2026). With the same employment gap, the penalty rises in proportion to the basis even if headcount does not change (Act, Art. 21). Delaying the decision does not freeze the cost at today’s level.
Average earnings do not move independently of the economy. Minimum-wage increases affect the lower end of the pay distribution and pressure pay scales; inflation changes pay expectations; and economic and productivity growth affect both the ability to pay and demand for labour (NBP: wage-growth mechanisms, July 2024 material). These are related processes, not one automatic formula. The penalty is not indexed directly to inflation or the minimum wage: the formula uses quarterly average earnings in the national economy (Act, Art. 2(4) and Art. 21).
The long-term trend does not mean an increase in every quarter. After PLN 9,562.88 for Q1 2026, GUS reported PLN 9,233.13 for Q2. The latter is the basis used in the PFRON calculation from September through November 2026 (GUS: Q2 2026; PFRON: application periods). Settlement uses the correct statutory basis; budget discussions add trend and scenarios instead of assuming that today’s cost will remain unchanged forever.
Source: GUS quarterly average earnings. Data range: 1999Q1–2026Q2. The chart shows the historical trend, not a forecast of the next value.
From April, the first measurement month, to December, when the November declaration is filed, the calendar span covers nine months.
Four moments meet in the PFRON calculation: the period from which earnings are taken, publication by GUS, the months in which the basis applies and the filing date. Quarterly data describes the past, while the basis applies from the first day of the month following publication of the announcement in Monitor Polski (Act, Art. 2(4)).
In this example, earnings for April, May and June 2026 produced an average of PLN 9,233.13. GUS announced it on 10 August, publication in Monitor Polski followed on 11 August, and the company uses the basis for September, October and November. The November DEK-I-0 declaration is filed in December (GUS, PFRON, Act, Art. 49(2)). These are monthly declarations using one basis for three months, not a quarterly declaration.
Measured on a calendar basis from April—the first month included in the average—to December—the filing month for the November declaration—the span covers nine months. This does not mean a nine-month delay for one reading. It shows how far the oldest component of the average can sit from the settlement date. That is the “time travel”: a December declaration uses a basis built from data that began to accumulate in April.
Current monthly data helps assess direction but does not replace the statutory basis. Enterprise-sector statistics also cover a different population from the national economy as a whole (GUS: scope of earnings statistics). Piotr Konopka described this difference as “time travel” in the Polish-language article “System zatrudniania OzN w Polsce: tłumaczenie z polskiego na nasze”.
Direct employment under Art. 21 changes the employer’s own employment ratio. The purchase mechanism under Art. 22 permits a reduction linked to an eligible purchase, but it does not increase the buyer’s employment of persons with disabilities. These are two different business decisions (Act, Arts. 21 and 22).
| Question | Direct employment: Art. 21 | Eligible purchase reduction: Art. 22 |
|---|---|---|
| What changes the calculation? | The employer’s own employment and the resulting ratio. | A documented reduction generated by an eligible purchase. |
| Can this mechanism alone reduce the penalty to zero? | Yes, if the relevant employment and ratio conditions are met. | No. Use is limited to 50% of the penalty due for the month. |
| Which costs remain? | Employment and project service costs. | Expenditure on the purchased service or production. |
Art. 22 contains two separate limits: the reduction amount may be up to 50% of the net invoice value covered by it, while use is limited to 50% of the penalty for a given month. Requirements include an eligible seller, a qualifying purchase, timely payment and an INF-U document; any unused amount may be settled during the statutory six-month period (Act, Art. 22(1)–(5)).
If the company buys cleaning services, it still pays for cleaning. That cost does not disappear merely because direct employment later reduces the penalty to zero. When comparing options, we include the price and need for the service, the reduction that can actually be used, and the cost and value of the company’s own team.
Finance confirms the calculation. The business owner defines the work and accepts its output. A sponsor with decision authority approves new positions and the project scope. HR supports the hiring process, but should not be expected to decide alone whether the company wants to redirect the penalty budget to additional work.
We begin with a free initial assessment. We establish the data, scale and work, then agree responsibilities, recruitment, tools and team launch. Timing also depends on the client’s decision speed. The process and its possible stopping points are described on the Implementation page.
The client employs the team. InnoThink organises the agreed recruitment, onboarding and service so that HR involvement remains limited. This is not a way to conceal new positions under the label of outsourcing. The service scope and division of responsibilities are explained on the Business Model page.
The calculation is useful only when the conditions that must remain true are explicit. Before launch, we check both the penalty data and the organisation’s ability to use the team’s work.
Before launch, we record the baseline: penalty, employment, costs and the work that is currently not performed or is delivered differently. After launch, we compare the same scope and period. Reporting covers the actual penalty, full costs and accepted work, including quality and timeliness.
We do not claim savings the company was already achieving. We do not count the same work simultaneously as its full value and as supplier savings. If results differ from assumptions, we correct the valuation or the process—not the definition of success. Examples of documented outcomes are available in our Case Studies.
Below we answer the questions that usually arise before a project decision. Assumptions and calculations are shown in the 1,000 FTE example; the distinction between the nominal penalty and its pre-tax equivalent is explained in the NKUP section.
For this page, we use a simple range: employing one person may reduce the PFRON penalty, including the NKUP effect, by approximately PLN 4,650–18,600. The exact result depends on the current basis, the company’s remaining gap to the required ratio, the disability degree and any qualifying special medical condition. We therefore calculate the specific case before making an offer instead of presenting an unsupported average.
The PFRON penalty is a non-tax-deductible expense (NKUP), so it does not reduce the corporate income tax base. The business case therefore shows two values: the nominal penalty and the equivalent pre-tax amount required to finance it.
The full business case has three components: savings on the PFRON penalty, the value of work delivered and the project’s total cost. Each is shown separately before the final result is calculated: savings plus work value minus all costs. A reduction in the penalty alone does not establish whether the project makes sense.
We compare the same period and scale of activity. The nominal penalty and its pre-tax equivalent are shown separately, and only one level is used in the result; they are not added together. Work value has its own valuation method and is not automatically cash received. The InnoThink model does not assume wage subsidies. Any additional implementation costs are also included.
We do not assume that the company starts from zero. We first establish the actual qualifying employment, FTE and effect on the ratio. The project is then sized only against the remaining gap. This avoids creating unnecessary positions or attributing to the project savings the company already achieves.
The baseline is approved by the person responsible for settlement. We also verify documents, validity periods and employment change dates. If the gap is small, the penalty alone may not justify a large team; the real operational need and full cost then become decisive.
A lack of vacancies in the current plan does not end the discussion. In the InnoThink model, the starting point is a management decision to redirect the PFRON penalty budget towards new positions and real work. This is a decision about the use of company funds and resources, not a recruitment order that HR must fit into existing vacancies.
A sponsor must be able to approve new positions, and a process owner must define and accept the work. If headquarters blocks headcount growth, we present the full calculation and responsibilities. We do not relabel the client’s employees as outsourced staff to bypass a limit. Without approval to hire and without real work, the project does not start.
The InnoThink model assumes a seven-hour working day. Objectives, schedules and KPIs reflect the actual working time rather than an eight-hour template imported from another team. Time and absences are recorded under the agreed process. A shorter day does not reduce accountability for output; it requires well-designed work.
Under the adopted model, seven hours constitutes full-time employment, not automatically 7/8 FTE. The manager plans workload and availability accordingly, while payroll confirms the rules applicable to each employee. Work quality is measured by agreed tasks completed, not by hours spent online in a messenger.
The basis for the PFRON penalty is average earnings in the national economy for a completed quarter. GUS publishes the figure later, and it applies from the first day of the month following publication of the announcement in Monitor Polski. A current monthly DEK-I-0 declaration therefore uses earnings data from several months earlier, not today’s labour-market rates.
For example, the average for April–June 2026 was PLN 9,233.13. GUS announced it on 10 August, publication in Monitor Polski followed on 11 August, and the basis applies to September, October and November. The employer files the November declaration in December. This is not a quarterly settlement: declarations remain monthly, while one basis is used for three months.
The scale also changes over time. Average earnings were PLN 3,466.33 in Q1 2011 and PLN 9,562.88 in Q1 2026. With the same employment gap, the penalty rises in the same proportion. This does not mean that the basis rises every quarter or can be derived from the minimum wage or inflation alone.
Settlement uses the statutory basis. Budget planning adds the current wage trend and explicit scenarios. Monthly enterprise-sector earnings may indicate direction, but they do not replace the PFRON basis or provide a certain forecast. InnoThink updates the example quarterly; the client’s finance team confirms employment and the actual penalty monthly.
The sources are grouped by topic. The calculations follow the cited legislation and data; the InnoThink cooperation model defines the scope of work, service and responsibility.
| Topic | Sources |
|---|---|
| Ratio, employment, gap and the effect of one person on the penalty | Rehabilitation Act, Arts. 21 and 22; consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2026 item 884; PFRON: formula and monthly employment level; PFRON: calculation basis |
| NKUP and the tax part of the business case | CIT Act: Arts. 15, 16(1)(36) and 19; Ministry of Finance: CIT rates |
| Working time and FTE settlement | PIP: working time and employment of persons with disabilities |
| GUS basis, historical data and application dates | Rehabilitation Act, Arts. 21 and 22; consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2026 item 884; PFRON: calculation basis; GUS: average earnings in Q1 2011; GUS: average earnings in Q1 2026; GUS: average earnings in Q2 2026 |
For the first discussion, basic data is enough: employment in FTE, the current PFRON penalty, information about persons with disabilities already employed and areas in which the organisation lacks capacity. At this stage, do not submit disability certificates or employees’ health data through the form.
Let us establish whether there is a real case for the project, who can approve new positions and what work the team could take over. If the calculation or the operating model does not justify implementation, it is better to know before recruitment begins.
Data last updated: 16 September 2026. The PFRON basis used in the example applies from September through November 2026; the calculation is updated quarterly. An individual business case is built from the client’s data, not by copying this example.
