**Respondent bias.** We took several steps to minimize respondent bias. First, we ensured that the interview was arranged with the appropriate person or persons; main managers (and other managers, such as plant managers and HR managers, in larger firms). Second, we used a closed-ended design in the questionnaire such that the respondent was questioned about specific technologies one at a time and was not told beforehand all the technologies that were associated with each business function. This design reduced measurement error in respondent’s answers. Third, we pre-tested the questionnaire in each country to ensure that our questions were clearly worded within the specific geographical and cultural contexts of each country, reducing the need for subjective judgement in responses (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2001). Fourth, to avoid _social desirability bias_ , which may cause respondents to overstate the use of more sophisticated technologies, the survey avoided the words "technology" and "sophistication", employing more neutral terms such as "methods" and "processes" instead.

# **2.5.3 Ex-post checks and validation exercises**

We conducted several ex-post checks to assess the quality of the collected data.

**Non-response bias.** The average (unit) response rate on the survey varies by country and ranges between 15% and 86%. For example, the response rate was 80% in Vietnam, 57% in Senegal, 39% in Ceará, Brazil, 24% in Korea, and 15% in Croatia. These response rates are high relative to typical response rates in establishment-level surveys, which are around 5 to 10% and are consistent with response rates observed for WMS which are around 40% (Bloom et al., 2016). To minimize potential non-response bias, we adjusted the sampling weights for unit non-response. The adjustment was calculated at the strata level, so that the weighted distribution of our respondent sample across strata (sector, size, region) exactly matches the distribution of establishments in the sampling frame.<sup>11</sup> We conducted three tests to assess potential biases from unit non-response-rates.<sup>12</sup> In each of these exercises, presented in Section A.6 of the Appendix, we find no statistical difference in the number of employees, technological sophistication, wages, and share of workers by skill and education

> 11Table A.17 in the Appendix A provides the response rate by country, defined as the ratio between establishments that responded to the survey and the total number of eligible establishments in the sample for which we attempted to conduct an interview. The response rates were higher when national statistical agencies implemented the survey. Section A.4 of the appendix provides more details on sampling weights.

> 12First, using the information from the sampling frame, we check if there are differences in the average number of workers per establishment between respondents and non-respondents within stratum. Second,using information on the number of contact attempts, we compare the establishment-level technology sophistication in GBFs, described in the next section, between establishments with above and below the average number of attempts. Third, in a similar vein, we compare establishments in the first list of contacts provided to interviewers, versus those provided subsequently. See Table A.18 to A.24 in Appendix A.

13