Although the process approach combines aspects of both the firm and worker levels, it has limitations. Firstly, this approach only includes green jobs that contribute to reducing the firm's environmental footprint, while overlooking other green jobs that generate green outputs to reduce consumers' footprint (see Appendix A for a description of pilot projects that combine both the output and process approaches). Even if the objective is to count green jobs, this limitation cannot be easily resolved by simply summing up jobs obtained from both the output and process approaches, as there will likely be significant overlaps that result in double counting issues.<sup>25</sup> Secondly, while the firm may be reducing its environmental impact by using the listed GTPs, it is not necessarily the case that the worker is the one making the difference by using these GTPs. In other words, even if workers use certain GTPs, their tasks may not necessarily reduce the firm’s environmental impact.

This approach does not perfectly fit the objective of identifying jobs that contribute to lessening the impact on the environment and may need skills training. For example, a food manufacturing company using Energy Star certified refrigerators (an example under the GTP improving energy efficiency) will surely reduce energy consumption, but workers using the refrigerator or even installing it may do exactly the same tasks as a similar company using regular refrigerators. According to this measure, the BLS found that Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers were the second occupation with the highest GTP employment.<sup>26</sup> For a more recent example affecting a significant part of the global employment, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many firms have implemented telework programs (an example under GTP reducing GHG emissions). Telework programs for sure reduce firms’ environmental footprint but part of it is transferred to workers, and workers may be just doing the same sort of tasks as they were doing at the firm location. Besides this issue, it is not clear in the survey how workers should be counted when involved in GTPs (should all teleworkers or e-car drivers be counted as green workers?) or how to capture the intensity with which a worker may be performing green and nongreen tasks.

Applying the BLS process approach to developing countries also brings its own challenges. Besides the challenges already noted, this approach falls short of capturing the informal sector and the agriculture sector, both usually large in the developing world. Moreover, it should be added that the cost associated with these surveys is high, especially as they may require large sample sizes. While a large percentage of firms have adopted GTPs, very few have workers who dedicate time to them. For example, in the U.S., the BLS GTP survey found that 75 percent of firms adopted a GTP and that 0.7 percent of workers use these more than half of their time.<sup>27</sup> Hence, for the occupational module to be relevant, the survey needs to have a large enough sample size to generate statistical power. As one could imagine, these proportions are even lower in developing countries, exacerbating the sample size requirements.<sup>28</sup> For example, we added a few questions similar to the BLS GTP survey in the Environmentally Friendly Industry Study (SIRL) survey conducted in 2021 in Indonesia. It was found that about half of firms have

> 25 Stoevska & Hunter (2012) also raises this issue.

> 26 BLS (2012b).

> 27 BLS (2012b).

> 28 Of course, the statistical power also depends on the standard deviation of the variables of interest, which even if small they contribute little to reduce the sample size.

11