Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Labour Market statistics on Businesses
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: European Commission, Eurostat
Subjects: EU statistics



IMMC.Ares%282022%294966427.ENG.xhtml.PART-2022-510615V1.docx








Factual summary report on the public consultation on European labour market statistics on businesses 


Disclaimer: the views presented in this factual summary report are not the views of the European Commission but of the stakeholders that participated in this public consultation. It cannot under any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services.


1.Introduction


The European Commission is working on a proposal to review European labour market statistics on businesses (LMB). The aim of this LMB review is to make it more up-to-date, relevant, consistent with other statistical domains and comprehensive in terms of coverage of the economy, as well as in accounting for the gender pay gap. It should also allow accommodating new data, in particular administrative and innovative sources, as a way to keep the response burden under control. 


This consultation was one of several consultation actions used to implement the back-to-back evaluation and impact assessment of LMB in line with Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines.


2.Approach to the consultation and responses received


The Public Consultation (PC) questionnaire had a section assessing the LMB statistics in general and specific sections on each data collection that are a part of the LMB. The latter covered questions on satisfaction and attitude towards possible improvements or simplifications. 


The PC took place between 9 February 2022 and 13 May 2022 and received 79 replies from 21 Member States, Montenegro, and the United Kingdom. Most responses were received from Italy, followed by Latvia, Sweden and Belgium. It was carried out via the Commission’s Have Your Say website, was available in 24 EU official languages and included open and closed questions. The public consultation was also advertised through different social media channels and through correspondence with data users.
                  1
 


Figure 0.Respondents to the open consultation per stakeholder category





Almost half of the respondent (46 %) represented public authorities, followed by academic and research institutions (19 %). Trade unions and companies represented each 4 % of the respondents. In terms of size, the majority of respondents came from large organisations with 250 or more employees (71 %), while only 6 % of respondents represented micro and small organisations. 


Two thirds of the respondents fall in the category of data users while almost one third represent producers of LMB statistics. Few respondents (4%) are providers of administrative data for the compilation of LMB statistics.


3.Current situation of the European Labour Market Statistics on Businesses


As depicted in 

Figure 2

, more than half of all respondents agreed that European labour market statistics on businesses provide sufficient information on earnings, gender pay gap, labour costs and job vacancies (just 50% for the latter). Most users use these statistics quarterly or annually with only around 5 % of respondents indicating, they use LMB statistics weekly.


Figure 1.Do European labour market statistics on businesses provide sufficient information on the following aspects of the labour market related to businesses?







The characteristics of LMB statistics that were most highlighted include: ‘relevant’, ‘contribute to the public good’, ‘impartial’ and ‘objective’.


To assess the value added of LMB statistics, respondents were asked to reflect on their added value compared to national statistics and other international statistical sources. 

Figure 3

 shows that in both cases, more than three quarters of respondents agreed that LMB provide added value compared to the statistics available from these other sources. It was noted that LMB statistics are often used to complement national statistics, and while national statistics may be more detailed in some cases, LMB statistics enable invaluable cross-country comparisons. One respondent highlighted that international comparability based on harmonised methods and identical concepts is the great asset of Eurostat statistics.


Figure 2.Do you agree with the following statement? European labour market statistics on businesses provide added value compared to statistics available from:









4.Current legal framework governing LMB


More than half of the respondents (58 %) stated that they are not familiar with the legal framework in force on European labour market statistics on businesses. Familiarity with the legal framework is more widespread among producers of LMB statistics (81 %) and significantly lower among data users (30 %) and providers of administrative data (33 %).


The legal framework was assessed positively and a majority of respondents agreed that it is fit for purpose, ensures comparability across countries and over time, and consistency (

Figure 4

)


A few users were not fully satisfied with the consistency of LMB concepts with related statistical domains (National Accounts, European business statistics). Some somewhat disagreed that the current LMB legislation is efficient in minimizing the cost and burden. 


Figure 3.Do you agree with the following statements? The current EU legislation:







5.Structure of earning survey


Results of the public consultation show that users most often use detailed levels, e.g. industry specific (64 %), or on the opposite highly aggregated (59 %) structure of earning survey (SES) data. Country-level data is used less frequently (24 %) than data for several countries (58%)
2
.


Overall, respondents were satisfied with most characteristics of the SES data, while approx. one-third of respondents expressed they are not satisfied with the frequency of the survey and the timeliness of the release of SES data. (

Figure 5

). About one quarter of the respondents were not satisfied with the coverage of economic activities (missing NACE rev. 2 section O: ‘Public administration and defence, compulsory social security’) or the non-coverage of micro firms with 1 to 9 employees.


Figure 4.How satisfied are you with the following SES elements?







In this context, in the public consultation the extra data requirements identified were:


Extending the coverage of the survey to micro firms (1-9 employees);


Extending the coverage of the survey to NACE rev. 2 section O;


Publishing all SES results earlier, at T+19 months instead of T+24 months (T = end of reference year)


Collecting SES data every 2 years instead of every 4 years, although there are different views on this requirement between the data producers and users (55 % of data users would support it against only 39 % of producers of LMB statistics).


6.Gender pay gap


Similar to SES data, gender pay gap (GPG) data is also most often used at cross- country (64 %) levels and highly aggregated level (63 %). Examples of how respondents use GPG data include: 


consultations of gender gaps relating to the earnings of workers in general and workers of the same economic activity; 


comparisons of these gaps within the same economic activity in other EU countries and the euro area; 




analysing the gender pay gap in relation with inequality in health.



Figure 6

 shows that overall respondents were satisfied with the different elements of GPG data. Notably, the frequency of the release of GPG data and the statistical precision of the GPG indicators were most positively assessed.


Figure 5.How satisfied are you with the following elements of the GPG?







Respondents also identified challenges and areas where GPG data can be improved. Most importantly more than half of the respondents would find it crucial or of high importance to create a legal basis for the mandatory transmission of annual adjusted GPG data. 


7.Labour cost survey


Overall, respondents expressed satisfaction with the labour cost survey, with satisfaction on specific points ranging from 39 % to 77 % of respondents.


The labour cost survey (LCS) is most often used at a highly aggregated level (65 %). Cross country level (58 %) as well as the EU and detailed level follow (both 54 %). 


As shown in 

Figure 7

, respondents assessed as most positive the available regional breakdowns, the statistical precision of LCS main indicators and the information provided in the LCS quality reports regarding administrative sources. On the other hand, 32 % of respondents were not satisfied with the timeliness of the release of LCS data, 24% with the frequency of LCS and 25 % with the economic activities covered by LCS.
3



Figure 6.How satisfied are you with the following elements of the LCS?







Results show that stakeholders would like to see similar improvements as in relation to SES data, including:


extending the coverage of the survey to micro firms (1-9 employees);


extending the coverage of the survey to NACE section O; 


improving timeliness;


collecting LCS data every 2 years instead of every 4 years, although there are different views on this requirement between the data producers and users: 45 % of data users would support it, compared to 23 % among producers of LMB statistics


8.Labour cost index


Respondents are generally satisfied with the various elements of the labour cost index (LCI), ranging from to 51 % to 78 % (

Figure 8

).


Figure 7.How satisfied are you with the following elements of the LCI?









The LCI is most frequently used on highly aggregated level (69 %), followed by cross country level (58 %) and EU as a whole (54 %). 


Areas where extra data are required include:


Collecting and publishing the numerator (labour costs) and the denominator (index of hours worked) of the LCI ratio for NACE aggregates: BtoE, F, GtoN, BtoN, OtoS and BtoS (or quarterly data on the ‘total number of hours worked’); and


adding a description of administrative sources/registers to the LCI quality report.


In addition, 31% of respondents asked for a better timeliness of this indicator, in particular for the EU and euro area. 


One respondent also noted that all labour statistics should align with the European Business Statistics (EBS) Regulation requirements, and that the LCI should possibly align with the Short-Term Statistics indicators included in the EBS.


9.Job vacancy statistics


As depicted in 

Figure 9

, data users most often access highly aggregated (e.g. on the economy as a whole) data on job vacancy statistics (JVS) (67 %) and on cross country level (65%) and are most satisfied with:


the frequency of the release of JVS data (currently every quarter of the year);


the timeliness of the publication of the full set of JVS data (currently 77 days after the end of the reference quarter); and


the statistical precision of JVS main indicators (e.g., number of job vacancies).


Figure 8.How satisfied are you with the following elements of JVS?







While users are satisfied overall with most elements of the JVS, some areas for improvement were also identified. Users would like to see the following extra data requirements:


Extending the coverage to micro firms (1-9 employees) for the missing countries;


Extending the coverage to public institutions and the non-business economy (O to S) for the missing countries;


Publishing data on vacancies and occupied posts by occupation (ISCO classification – 2 digits) and by region.


These were deemed crucial to build more comparable vacancy data, estimate skills needs (e.g., in the digital domain) and assess job shortages at the regional level. They would be also useful to check the quality of non-official vacancy data (online job vacancies).






(1)


 Including European Statistical Advisory Committee, Directors of Social Statistics, Business Statistics Directors Group, Labour Market Statistics Working Group, EUROFOUND, EIGE, ECB, DG EMPL CIVIC DIALOGUE, Employment Committee Indicators Group, Indicators' Sub-Group (ISG) of the Social Protection Committee, SME Envoy Network, LMB data collection correspondents, SES microdata users, EESC labour market observatory, Business Europe, SMEunited, ETUC, European Trade Union Federations, Platform of European Social NGOs and international organisations such as ILO, OECD and UNECE.




(2)


 Multiple replies were possible for questions on level of details of data use 




(3)


 Sum of not satisfied and very dissatisfied.