When the Salary Transparency and Compensation Criteria Law (Law 14,611/23) was published, there were great expectations about the positive effects it would have on making society more gender-equal. It was hoped that the new rule would help to reduce the well-known pay gap between men and women in Brazil.

Large companies that had been raising this banner welcomed the new law with enthusiasm: companies with good practices would be recognized and companies with bad practices would be exposed and would need to adjust. The new law would force people to walk the talk.

According to the timetables of the Salary Transparency and Compensation Criteria Law and Decree 11,795/23, which regulated it, after sending additional information THROUGH the Emprega Brasil Portal (which should have been done by August 30), companies will have until September 30 to publish the 2nd Salary Transparency Report prepared by the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MTE).

As this date approaches, it's time to reflect: is the Salary Transparency Report fulfilling its purpose? Aren't MTE regulations preventing the report from fully achieving its objective?

When it was created, the Salary Transparency Law assumed that the preparation and publication of salary transparency reports by companies would make it possible to compare salaries, compensation, and the proportion of management positions held by women and men. The reports would be accompanied by information that could provide statistical data on other possible inequalities related to race, ethnicity, nationality, and age.

The Salary Transparency Report should be an important milestone. With it, companies could demonstrate that they are effectively seeking to reduce and eliminate gender discrimination and pay gaps between men and women. The purpose of the Salary Transparency Law, however, was significantly impacted by the way the MTE implemented the provisions of the standard.

By deciding that the MTE itself would prepare the reports by comparing salaries and compensation criteria between men and women based on the general groups of the Brazilian Classification of Occupations (CBO), the Salary Transparency Report lost its purpose, since the methodology generates distortions in the results by grouping employees who carry out completely different activities in the same general groups of the CBO.

So much so that the importance of the results of the Salary Transparency Report for the first half of 2024 was much lower than expected, due to the inadequate regulation of Law 14,611/23. The initiative did not have much impact either from a legal point of view or in terms of image exposure.

The Salary Transparency Report has only helped to disseminate statistical data in general. There was no in-depth study of the issue that would allow the MTE to have concrete parameters for auditing companies and applying the appropriate administrative penalties. To achieve this goal, the MTE wouldn't even need a new law. It would suffice to consolidate and publish the information it receives in eSocial.

In the private sector, the data obtained from the Salary Transparency Report for the first half of 2024 did not add value for companies. For the most part, they did not have to implement adjustments to comply with the Salary Transparency Law.

In addition to the inconsistencies in the methodology, there was also the decision of the TRF for the 6th Circuit (TRF-6), which again suspended the obligation to publish the reports - a decision handed down in the record of Interlocutory Appeal 6002221-05.2024.4.06.0000/MG. Companies, therefore, do not have to publish the report provided by the MTE as long as the staying decision remains in force.

Despite having considered changing the format of the Salary Transparency Report, the MTE will keep the same model used in the first half of 2024 for the second semester. This means that the MTE will continue to adopt criteria and metrics to compare the salaries and compensation of employees who carry out different activities - and who are therefore not comparable.

In March, with the first report, we missed the opportunity to build a legal environment that actually contributes to promoting equal pay for men and women. In September, with the second report, history will repeat itself.

The question remains: how long will we continue to miss opportunities by insisting on comparing the incomparable and publishing reports that do nothing to further the discussion?