ESENER-PSR 2009 - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

More documents

Recommendations

Info

stage of sample preparations. An analysis of the LFS data shows that the availability and quality of the data on the size of people’s workplaces varies across the countries: For Ireland, Norway and Slovenia no information on the breakdown by size classes is available from the LFS 2007. For these countries therefore data of preceding years (2005 for NO and SI, 2006 for IE) were used 17 . In some countries (CH, DE, HR, FI, IE, NL, TR, UK) there are no cases in the category "unknown > 10". In other countries quite high shares of employees can be found in this category (LFS 2007: LU: 20%, EL: 24%, PT: 75%). The higher the share of missing answers to this question is in a country, the more limited is the validity of the LFS data as proxy for the statistical distribution of the universe. In most countries, there are also some interviews for which no sector of activity is attributed. The share of these interviews is however mostly negligible. Another potential problem with the LFS data on the number of employees working in establishments of certain categories is related to the type of employment: While certain types of employees with non-standard employment contracts such as marginal part-timers, persons in short-term temporary employment etc. are not always counted as employees by the firms they are working at, they will probably characterize themselves as employees of that establishment if asked for in a survey like the LFS. On the other hand, a big advantage of the LFS data is that it covers civil servants as well as “normal”, dependent employees. 3.3 Principles applied for best estimates This chapter describes the basic principles on which estimates on the statistical distribution of employees and/or establishments were elaborated for countries in which reliable statistical information on this was not available otherwise. The most important details of the estimates on the level of the single countries are documented in chapter 5. Estimates on the distribution of establishments respectively employees for countries in which this information is available only on the level of the company For the countries for which information on the distribution of organizations is available on base of companies only, it is obvious that best estimates had to be elaborated since company and establishment statistics differ significantly from each other (see chapter 1.2.3) regarding both the absolute number of units and their relative distributions over the cells of the sampling matrix. In the given situation there were basically two practicable ways on how to get to best estimates regarding the distribution of establishments for countries where only the distribution on company level is given: 17 The size of the establishment is a variable obviously asked not regularly in some countries but in intervals only. 31
Estimates derived from the ratio between companies and establishments in other countries Those countries where statistics on both the establishment and the company level were available were asked to provide both types of statistics. All in all, there were 10 countries from which we received both types of statistics. We systematically compiled these statistics, analyzed them fro their coherency and calculated a key showing the differences between company and establishment statistics regarding the overall number of units and their relative distribution among the various cells of the weighting matrix. In countries where only company statistics were available, this key was then applied to the company statistics, resulting in estimated figures on the universe in the 15 cells of the matrix. Calculations on base of the Labour Force Survey An alternative to this procedure was the usage of data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). LFS data were available for all countries covered by the ESENER. The LFS data on the distribution of the workforce were summarized to the three sectors of activity used in the weighting matrix (see Technical Report, chapter 5). As regards the size-classes, a key was developed for the distribution of the LFS size-class 50+ over the further differentiated size-classes 50-249, 250-499 and 500+ used in the ESENER. On this base, estimates on the universe could be derived from the LFS data. After systematically having applied both approaches to the available statistical data, we decided to use the Labour Force Survey as main source for our estimates on both the establishment and the employee figures. This decision is reasoned on the following observations and arguments: The LFS data are derived from a very large number of interviews being carried out under high methodological standards; they can therefore be assumed to be of high validity. Also, the LFS used by official EU sources as source of information on economically active persons. Many national statistics on the universe of companies have shortcomings regarding the coverage of certain sectors of activity. By applying the described key for the ration between company and establishments, these shortcomings would be reproduced. The LFS, in turn, is a survey among the whole (active) population and therefore has a full coverage of employees from all sectors of activity, including the Public Administration and other sectors dominated by public organisations. For the “Public Services” cells it was difficult to identify a clear pattern for the ratio between companies and establishments. The application of the solution with the “transition key” therefore would have been problematic for this sector. 32
Page 1 and 2: European Survey on New and Emerging
Page 3 and 4: Contents Page Preface 5 1. Challeng
Page 5 and 6: 5.30 Switzerland 75 5.31 Norway 76
Page 7 and 8: 1. Challenges for the sampling and
Page 9 and 10: For entities of the Public Administ
Page 11 and 12: equires the availability of address
Page 13 and 14: ends much earlier: the largest size
Page 15 and 16: of empl. in est. est. 10+ Est. prop
Page 17 and 18: at least rough information (size-cl
Page 19 and 20: owned by the state and may include
Page 21 and 22: 2. The address registers 2.1. Types
Page 23 and 24: 2.1.2 Commercial address-providers
Page 25 and 26: accessible in the country. The resp
Page 27 and 28: The way how this problem was tackle
Page 29 and 30: If available: Distribution of emplo
Page 31: statistical offices - especially th
Page 35 and 36: 4. Company vs. establishments: Prob
Page 37 and 38: A somewhat special case is Greece:
Page 39 and 40: MM052 Would you please tell me how
Page 41 and 42: a) Universe b) Targets Size class E
Page 43 and 44: 5.01 Belgium Address-source: Belfir
Page 45 and 46: 5.03 The Czech Republic Address-sou
Page 47 and 48: 5.05 Germany Address-source: Establ
Page 49 and 50: 5.06 Estonia Address-source: Estoni
Page 51 and 52: Source for Statistics: General Secr
Page 53 and 54: Source for Statistics: DIRCE (Direc
Page 55 and 56: 5.10 Ireland Address-source: BILL M
Page 57 and 58: 5.12 Cyprus Address-source: Busines
Page 59 and 60: 5.14 Lithuania Address-source: Busi
Page 61 and 62: 5.16 Hungary Address-source: HBI LT
Page 63 and 64: 5.18 The Netherlands Address-source
Page 65 and 66: 5.20 Poland Address-source: PCM (Po
Page 67 and 68: 5.22 Romania Address-source: www.Li
Page 69 and 70: 5.24 Slovakia Address-source: Alber
Page 71 and 72: 5.26 Sweden Address-source: SCB Fö
Page 73 and 74: 5.28 Croatia Address-source: Instit
Page 75 and 76: LFS data, it is plausible that the
Page 77: 5.31 Norway Address-source:: Lindor

ESENER-PSR 2009 - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?