Gender Wage Gaps in Brazilian Companies Listed in the Ibovespa Index: A Critical Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of this paper is too broad. The research goal should be revealed even in the title.

The explanation on the research goal is opaque.  It should be more clearly stated from the introduction.

The method and approach are  creative. However, the insights obtained from them are very weak. There is no concrete policy suggestion.

Will requiring the gender information on the Sustainability report without missing or superficially filling solve the gender issue better? Explain more clearly instead of expressing superficially.

Content Analysis is a major engine of the analysis. However, it is explained very weakly. There is no regression analysis at all. 

  

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment: The title of this paper is too broad. The research goal should be revealed even in the title.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. We agree with your suggestion. Now the title is: “Gender wage differences on Brazilian companies listed in Ibovespa index: a critical analysis”.

 

Comment: The explanation on the research goal is opaque.  It should be more clearly stated from the introduction.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. We agree with your suggestion. We rewrote the paper goal, as follows:

“Considering this context, the main objective of this paper is to critically analyze how companies listed in Ibovespa index are reporting gender wage differences on their sustainability reports, considering guidelines provided by GRI 405-2 item and establish reflections to enhance the debates.”

 

Comment: The method and approach are  creative. However, the insights obtained from them are very weak. There is no concrete policy suggestion.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. There is a clear suggestion of policy associated with the findings of the paper, however, it may not be clear in the text. The main issue to be highlighted is that the companies listed in Ibovespa index can be understood as companies with mature management systems and well-structured. In addition, these companies are also considered benchmarking by other companies in Brazil. If a critical situation regarding gender wage differences is observed in these companies, it is expected, hypothetically, a similar or even worse situation in the other companies in Brazil. This evidence can be strongly used by policymakers to make Brazilian legislation stricter to ensure that companies provide equal wages between genders and properly report the ratio. This information is extremely important for society to be fairer regarding gender inequalities in market labour. We improved the text to make it clearer.

 

Comment: Will requiring the gender information on the Sustainability report without missing or superficially filling solve the gender issue better? Explain more clearly instead of expressing superficially.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. Yes, we believe that if companies must provide this information, society will have more arguments to request changes from companies. In addition, this process would create a clear overview for companies on gender wages inequalities, making them reconsider management decisions. We added this text in the text and we believe that your comment contributed to better clarify the message.

 

Comment: Content Analysis is a major engine of the analysis. However, it is explained very weakly. There is no regression analysis at all. 

 Answer: Thank you for the comment. We used content analysis to perform data analysis. The guidelines of Elo and Kyngäs (2008) were used to perform this analysis. We improved the text of methods section, extending the description of the procedures conducted. Regarding regression analysis, it is not mentioned by Elo and Kingäs (2008).

Reviewer 2 Report

The article contributes to evidence and debates pertaining to the global persistence of the gender pay gap, drawing on evidence from the Brazilian context. It is well presented, based on detailed analysis of the relevant data. The analysis is coherent and the structure is clear. Figure 1 does not really bring much to the paper but neither does it detract so it could remain as it is.  I recommend publication subject to final copy editing.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article, submitted to SUSTAINABILITY, reports on a study of gender balance in companies in Brazil. This is a simple study that proposes verifying the representation and pay gap of women in the bigger Brazilian companies that are obliged to present sustainability reporting. It is an interesting objective, and this first version has most of the elements required to present this convincingly, but needs some significant edits before it would be ready for publication.

• Abstract: should not include acronyms – the term GRI should be written in full
• Gender equality/balance/gap/diversity: These terms are not consistently used. Gender equality should be used when discussing the objectives of the MDGs and SDGs, and the concept in general. Gender balance should be used when talking about adequate representation of women in leadership and governance of companies. Gender gap should be used when referring to the gap in salaries between men and women. Gender diversity should only be used if discussing the representation of other (non-binary) gender groups. Therefore, the terms that should be consistently used in this article, are gender equality, balance, and gap (and not diversity, as it is not the theme of this study).
• There is not a clear progression from the literature (general, to specific) to the research questions of this study. In particular, the research questions need to be clearly stated.
• In line 257, the acronym TBL is used, but it was not clear to me what this stands for.
• The methods need to be more fully described, including the steps taken in the text analysis and theme identification and the software that was used for this analysis.
• The results section needs significant work. The current narrative description of the results does not leave the reader with a clear idea of the findings and should be reformatted to include some graphical representations of results (pie charts, or similar), with key findings described in relation to the graphs. Textual examples should be provided for just a few cases that exemplify, for example, the best and worst examples.
• The discussion should be separated from the results to aid the reader in following the central argument of the paper. It would be easier to follow if ordered in a more traditional way: results -> discussion (including limitations and future research -> conclusion
• In the current results and discussion section there is material that should be in the introduction section, as it builds the argument for the purpose of the paper. The discussion section should not bring in new information / material, but should refer to material already introduced earlier. Implications for policy and practice should be more specifically discussed.
• The final conclusion shouldn’t begin with “the goal of this research was achieved.” Achieving the goal of the project is less important than making a contribution for policymakers and practitioners, and this is what should be highlighted.
• The word “verify” or “verified” is overused in this paper.

All in all, this article requires rewriting before it will be ready for publication, but I encourage the authors to do this work, as I believe the result could be an interesting paper that makes a contribution worthy of publication.

 

Author Response

Comment: This article, submitted to SUSTAINABILITY, reports on a study of gender balance in companies in Brazil. This is a simple study that proposes verifying the representation and pay gap of women in the bigger Brazilian companies that are obliged to present sustainability reporting. It is an interesting objective, and this first version has most of the elements required to present this convincingly, but needs some significant edits before it would be ready for publication.

Answer: Thank you for the comment and for considering that the paper has “most of the elements required to present this convincingly”. We addressed the items presented by you and they contributed to enhancing our manuscript.

 

Comment: Abstract: should not include acronyms – the term GRI should be written in full.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We wrote it in full.

 

Comment: Gender equality/balance/gap/diversity: These terms are not consistently used. Gender equality should be used when discussing the objectives of the MDGs and SDGs, and the concept in general. Gender balance should be used when talking about adequate representation of women in leadership and governance of companies. Gender gap should be used when referring to the gap in salaries between men and women. Gender diversity should only be used if discussing the representation of other (non-binary) gender groups. Therefore, the terms that should be consistently used in this article, are gender equality, balance, and gap (and not diversity, as it is not the theme of this study).

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We adjusted the terms used according to your recommendation.

 

Comment: There is not a clear progression from the literature (general, to specific) to the research questions of this study. In particular, the research questions need to be clearly stated.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We restructured the introduction, modifying some paragraphs’ position, removing some text and adding some other texts. With these changes, we improved the progression of the literature, from general to specific. We established the research question, as “How do companies in Brazil are reporting and dealing with gender wage gaps?”. We believe that with your suggestions, the introduction improved significantly.

 

Comment: In line 257, the acronym TBL is used, but it was not clear to me what this stands for.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. TBL was referring to Tripple Bottom Line, from Elkington (1998), to address the three dimensions of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental). However, we agree with you that it is better to make the sentence clearer, so we changed TBL for the three dimensions mentioned.

 

Comment: The methods need to be more fully described, including the steps taken in the text analysis and theme identification and the software that was used for this analysis.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. A similar comment was made by reviewer 1. We addressed both comments, enhancing methods explanation. We emphasize that we did not use software for analysing the data.

 

Comment: The results section needs significant work. The current narrative description of the results does not leave the reader with a clear idea of the findings and should be reformatted to include some graphical representations of results (pie charts, or similar), with key findings described in relation to the graphs. Textual examples should be provided for just a few cases that exemplify, for example, the best and worst examples.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We improved the results section, adding charts to explain the main findings. We also highlight that we restructured one of the analysis to better clarify the presentation of the results. Regarding the examples, we have mentioned those that did not show from what companies they were about:

“One company - that does not cite item 405-2 - mentions that they aim to increase the number of women in leadership positions; however, only 0,03% of its female employees are directors, while 0.26% of its male employees are in this position.”

“In another company’s report that also does not mention item 405-2, it is just cited that women's professional development is sought as well as the increase of women in job positions.”

 

Comment: The discussion should be separated from the results to aid the reader in following the central argument of the paper. It would be easier to follow if ordered in a more traditional way: results -> discussion (including limitations and future research -> conclusion

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We separated the results and discussion, as you suggested. However, we maintained the limitations and future research in the conclusion. We consider that it is an option of the researchers, as there are articles that follow your suggestion, there are several manuscripts, inclusing articles published by Sustainability, that add this information in conclusion (such as https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105715; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103947). In addition, the other reviewers did not mention this topic, thus, we considered that they are satisfied with this structure.

 

Comment: In the current results and discussion section there is material that should be in the introduction section, as it builds the argument for the purpose of the paper. The discussion section should not bring in new information / material, but should refer to material already introduced earlier. Implications for policy and practice should be more specifically discussed.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We better explained in the methods section that the literature was analysed again, considering the findings of the research. Please, see the additional text we made. Regarding policy implications, this aspect was also commented on by the other reviewer. We added the following text to meet both comments:

“The main issue to be highlighted is that the companies listed in Ibovespa index can be understood as companies with mature management systems and well-structured. In addition, these companies are also considered benchmarking by other companies in Brazil. If a critical situation regarding gender wage gaps is observed in these companies, it is expected, hypothetically, a similar or even worse situation in the other companies in Brazil. This evidence can be strongly used by policymakers to make Brazilian legislation stricter to ensure that companies provide equal wages between genders and properly report the ratio. This information is extremely important for society to be fairer regarding gender inequalities in market labour.”

 

Comment: The final conclusion shouldn’t begin with “the goal of this research was achieved.” Achieving the goal of the project is less important than making a contribution for policymakers and practitioners, and this is what should be highlighted.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We adjusted the conclusion to meet the comment. Regarding the contributions for policymakers, see the previous comment.

 

Comment: The word “verify” or “verified” is overused in this paper.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We rewrite some words with synonyms.

 

Comment: All in all, this article requires rewriting before it will be ready for publication, but I encourage the authors to do this work, as I believe the result could be an interesting paper that makes a contribution worthy of publication.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. We performed several improvements as suggested by you and the other reviewers, that improved considerably the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments are not fully relfected in the revised version.

Author Response

Comment: The comments are not fully relfected in the revised version.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. However, as we highlighted for the editor, this comment does not allow us to identify which improvement requirements are still necessary, in your opinion. Then, we detailed better the changes we made in round 1. We also highlight that reviewer 3 considered the improvements satisfactory, only asking for English adjustments.

 

Comment: The title of this paper is too broad. The research goal should be revealed even in the title.

Answer round 1: Thank you for your comment. We agree with your suggestion. Now the title is: “Gender wage differences in Brazilian companies listed in the Ibovespa index: a critical analysis”.

Answer round 2: Please, compare the manuscript’s titles and the objective presented below. We emphasize that adjustments were performed on both in round 1 and now they are aligned with your requirements in round 1.

New title: “Gender wage gaps on Brazilian companies listed in Ibovespa index: a critical analysis”

New objective: “(…) the main objective of this paper is to critically analyze how companies listed in Ibovespa index are reporting gender wage gaps on their sustainability reports, considering guidelines provided by GRI 405-2 item and establish reflections to enhance the debates”

 

Comment: The explanation on the research goal is opaque.  It should be more clearly stated from the introduction.

Answer in round 1: Thank you for your comment. We agree with your suggestion. We rewrote the paper goal, as follows:

“Considering this context, the main objective of this paper is to critically analyze how companies listed in Ibovespa index are reporting gender wage differences on their sustainability reports, considering guidelines provided by GRI 405-2 item and establish reflections to enhance the debates.”

Answer in round 2: As we explained in round 1, we carefully analysed the manuscript title, the research question and the objective. For this, adjustments were made in these three elements.

New title: “Gender wage gaps on Brazilian companies listed in Ibovespa index: a critical analysis”

New objective: “(…) the main objective of this paper is to critically analyze how companies listed in Ibovespa index are reporting gender wage gaps on their sustainability reports, considering guidelines provided by GRI 405-2 item and establish reflections to enhance the debates”

New research question: “How do companies in Brazil report and deal with gender wage gaps?”

 

Comment: The method and approach are creative. However, the insights obtained from them are very weak. There is no concrete policy suggestion.

Answer of round 1: Thank you for your comment. There is a clear suggestion of policy associated with the findings of the paper, however, it may not be clear in the text. The main issue to be highlighted is that the companies listed in Ibovespa index can be understood as companies with mature management systems and well-structured. In addition, these companies are also considered benchmarking by other companies in Brazil. If a critical situation regarding gender wage differences is observed in these companies, it is expected, hypothetically, a similar or even worse situation in the other companies in Brazil. This evidence can be strongly used by policymakers to make Brazilian legislation stricter to ensure that companies provide equal wages between genders and properly report the ratio. This information is extremely important for society to be fairer regarding gender inequalities in market labour. We improved the text to make it clearer.

Answer of round 2: This comment was also made by reviewer 3 in round 1. We highlight the following text added in the last revision to meet both comments. Additionally, reviewer 3 considered it adequate. We highlighted in the text the concrete political implication.

“The main issue to be highlighted is that the companies listed in Ibovespa index can be understood as companies with mature management systems and well-structured. In addition, these companies are also considered benchmarking by other companies in Brazil. If a critical situation regarding gender wage gaps is observed in these companies, it is expected, hypothetically, a similar or even worse situation in the other companies in Brazil. This evidence can be strongly used by policymakers to make Brazilian legislation stricter to ensure that companies provide equal wages between genders and properly report the ratio. This information is extremely important for society to be fairer regarding gender inequalities in market labour.”

 

Comment: Will requiring the gender information on the Sustainability report without missing or superficially filling solve the gender issue better? Explain more clearly instead of expressing superficially.

Answer of round 1: Thank you for the comment. Yes, we believe that if companies must provide this information, society will have more arguments to request changes from companies. In addition, this process would create a clear overview for companies on gender wages inequalities, making them reconsider management decisions. We added this text in the text and we believe that your comment contributed to better clarify the message.

Answer of round 2: Besides the changes made in round 1, we also added the highlighted text to emphasize our argument.

“4) If companies must provide this information, society will have more arguments to request changes from companies (this can be considered a final goal of GRI, when it recommends the reporting of this information). In addition, this process would create a clear overview for companies on gender wages inequalities, making them reconsider management decisions.”

 

Comment: Content Analysis is a major engine of the analysis. However, it is explained very weakly. There is no regression analysis at all. 

Answer of round 1: Thank you for the comment. We used content analysis to perform data analysis. The guidelines of Elo and Kyngäs (2008) were used to perform this analysis. We improved the text of methods section, extending the description of the procedures conducted. Regarding regression analysis, it is not mentioned by Elo and Kingäs (2008).

Answer of round 2: We emphasize that content analysis was improved in round 1. Again, there is no logic in using regression analysis.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article has been greatly improved by the authors careful attention to the suggested edits. In particular, then new closing argument is lines 445-453, is excellent!

 

A thorough review of the use of English (to correct many small mistakes) is still required, and the following minor changes should be made:

Lines 183, 212, 225 – “gender diversity” should be changed to “gender balance”

Line 257 – “How do companies in Brazil are reporting and dealing with gender wage gaps?” needs to be changed to either “How do companies in Brazil report and deal…” or “How are companies in Brazil reporting and dealing…”

Line 435 – “gender equity” should be changed to “gender balance”

Author Response

Comment: This article has been greatly improved by the authors careful attention to the suggested edits. In particular, then new closing argument is lines 445-453, is excellent!

Answer: Thank you.

 

Comment: A thorough review of the use of English (to correct many small mistakes) is still required, and the following minor changes should be made:

Lines 183, 212, 225 – “gender diversity” should be changed to “gender balance”

Line 257 – “How do companies in Brazil are reporting and dealing with gender wage gaps?” needs to be changed to either “How do companies in Brazil report and deal…” or “How are companies in Brazil reporting and dealing…”

Line 435 – “gender equity” should be changed to “gender balance”

Answer: Thank you for the comment. In line 212, gender diversity is referring to the term used by GRI, that is the reason we maintained it.  The other mentioned terms were changed. The research question was corrected, as suggested. The term “gender equity” was changed for “gender equality”, because of the definition you sent us in round 1 (“Gender equality should be used when discussing the objectives of the MDGs and SDGs, and the concept in general”). In this sentence, we are focusing on an ampler view, considering SDG guidelines.