GLOBAL INDEX OF WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE AND FLEXIBILITY€¦ · In 2010, the Australian Human...

Supported by

GLOBAL INDEX OF WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE AND FLEXIBILITY

GLOBAL INDEX OF WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE AND FLEXIBILITY 2

FOREWORDS

As a co-sponsor of this report with Peter Wilson from the Australian Human Resources

Institute, I was very pleased for a number of reasons to see the remarkable power of

the tool that the Economist Intelligence Unit produced to showcase the comparative

snapshots on workplace flexibility from the 51 countries that were selected for the

study.

By selecting a mix of countries from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia-Pacific,

and North and South America, the tool ensured that all parts of the globe were

represented and that each country was able to make comparisons on the data

country-to-country and country-to-region, as well as across the board with all of the

other 50 countries in the study.

While many countries could not be included in the 51 selected, among the selection

there were representatives of nations small, medium and large, as well as a mixture of

developed and developing economies, some quite poor and others very wealthy. Yet

regardless of those significant differences, in each case what was being sought was

how each shaped up in the area of workplace flexibility and performance.

By looking through the three prisms of economic performance, operating

environment and regulatory regimes, the tool was able to divulge information not

only against the collation of data into the final ratings and overall scores but also

against each of those prisms one-by-one, and in many cases what has been revealed

was unforseen and is some cases unexpected. The design of the tool enables anyone

examining the data to see the relative strengths and weaknesses of countries in

segmented ways that are not usually made apparent. And by seeing those variables in

the three different areas of performance it would be possible for business enterprises

to develop insights and make judgments about countries with which they might be

deciding to trade or discuss opportunities, or indeed in which they are establishing

subsidiaries of their own operations as so often now occurs across the globe.

As an unweighted index, the business playing field represented by this index

acknowledges some hard restructuring work that has been completed over the last

decade within the economies of a few sub-Saharan African countries; for example,

and most notably, Botswana, South Africa, and Tanzania.

The message from the index is clear. It is a major signal about a country’s economic

and social future, and I trust will be of use to HR practitioners worldwide in advising

their own organisations with respect to investments in the global marketplace.

To conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Professor

Wayne Cascio from the University of Colorado Denver for his invaluable advisory role

on this project.

Dr Mark Schmit

Vice President, Research

Society for Human Resource Management


FOREWORDS

In 2010, the Australian Human Resources Institute and the United States Society

for Human Resources Management agreed to combine forces and sponsor a joint

research program designed to develop a Global Index of Workplace Performance

and Flexibility. To advance such a challenging initiative, we agreed to invite an

academic expert of international standing to assist us, and we were extremely

pleased when Professor Wayne Cascio of the University of Colorado Denver

accepted the invitation to take on the advisory role for the study.

The breadth, depth and path-breaking nature of the challenge meant a party of

significant international standing in the fields of economics, politics and social

development would be required to undertake the actual research, and also to give

the results credibility and acceptance internationally. The Economist Intelligence Unit

(EIU), a part of the Economist Newspaper Ltd, fitted this need and we were pleased

to formally engage the EIU to undertake the research work. The EIU has operated for

more than a century, and is very well known internationally for its outstanding global

economic and social research; for example, the World’s Most Liveable Cities Report is

a highly-regarded publication that it publishes annually.

The key results are presented in this report, and the full analysis is available online to

professional members of AHRI and SHRM on our respective websites. Essentially the

index tells us how each nation ranks as a place to operate a business productively,

fairly and flexibly. In doing that, its methodology takes a common ruler across all 51

countries surveyed, and the results are not weighted by their overall economic size.

The global-index ranking of all 51 countries surveyed is supported by three sub-

index rankings in the fields of economic performance, operating environment, and

workplace policy and regulatory framework. Australia’s operating environment

is ranked as 8th best in the world, but our policy and regulatory framework is

placed down at number 19. Economic performance is ranked at 34, and highlights

Australia’s stuttering productivity record over the last ten years relative to our global

competitors. In a globalized competitive world our regulatory framework stands

out as overly restrictive and conducive neither to optimal performance nor social

equity. The knock-on effect of poor regulation is seen in the economic-performance

numbers. Our trans-Tasman cousins, New Zealand, out-rank us on all three indices

and overall. Whilst New Zealand is a smaller and narrower economy, it has clearly

worked harder to get the most out of its more limited economic potential. While

Australia sits well below New Zealand on the index, its overall rank is not significantly

different from those of the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

The EIU’s World’s Most Liveable Cities Index celebrates the results of past efforts

– i.e. the work of business, government and society in a country over the preceding

50 years to produce a global best-practice benchmark standard of living now. This

Global Index for Workplace Performance and Flexibility is a guidepost for the future,

and provides a set of signals as to where a country needs to lift its game if it wishes to

be at the vanguard of world economic and social growth in the years to come.

Peter Wilson AM

National President

Australian Human Resources Institute


The project was jointly commissioned by the Society for Human Resource Managament and the Australian Human Resources Institute.

This report is an outcome of a project undertaken by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Acknowledgements

Project Sponsors: Dr Mark Schmit, SHRM & Peter Wilson AM, AHRI

Project Advisor: Professor Wayne Cascio, University of Colorado Denver

Report Author: Paul Begley, AHRI

© SHRM & AHRI July 2012

CONTENTS


FOREWORDS 2BACKGROUND 6OVERALL FINDINGS 8SAMPLE OF COUNTRY COMPARISONS 10HOW CAN THE FLEXIBILITY INDEX BE OF USE TO HR? 24ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY 25

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES:Figure 1. overall scores 8

Figure 2. Comparative data on China and Germany 11

Figure 3. Overall and category rankings - China and the Asia region countries 12

Figure 4. Overall and category rankings - Germany and European countries 15

Figure 5. Quantitative indicator data on work stoppage incidents - United States and all countries 16

Figure 6. Overall indicator data 18


During 2011 the US-based Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) engaged the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) to develop a tool that would facilitate a global index of workforce performance and flexibility. The principal academic adviser on the project was Wayne F. Cascio. Professor Cascio holds the Robert H. Reynolds Distinguished Chair in Global Leadership and is a Senior Editor of the Journal of World Business at the Business School of the University of Colorado Denver.

The fundamental purpose of the project has been to prepare a global assessment and benchmarking tool that would show the capacity of national economies to perform effectively and efficiently within workplaces that were fair, equitable and flexible places in which to work.

In selecting the countries to make up the index, the EIU looked for those with a capacity for overall economic growth, and were likely to contain operating conditions that optimised performance, and where there was the existence of and potential for improvements in flexible-workplace conditions. Countries were selected based upon whether they were also members of the World Federation of People Management Associations (WFPMA), the peak world HR body of which SHRM and AHRI are both members and directors of the Board governing this organization.

GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONA total of 51 countries were selected for inclusion in the index. The selection included appropriate representation from each of the world’s geographic regions.

Accordingly North America is represented by three countries: Canada, Mexico and the United States.

South America is represented by eight countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

The Asia-Pacific is represented by 11 countries: Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

Ten countries represent the Middle-East and Africa: Botswana, Egypt, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda.

The largest regional representation of 19 countries is from Europe: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

THE ASSESSMENT MODELThe assessment model that was developed by the EIU was chosen in consultation with SHRM and AHRI and considered the availability and appropriateness of data for the purpose of assessing workplace flexibility. Indicators were selected on the basis of their historically high correlation with the required overall and subgroup index attributes. For example, total-factor productivity is the most reliable indicator of productivity as it reflects the ratio of capital, labour, and technology drivers to production and GDP performance. The model enables a capacity to compare and contrast the workforce performance and flexibility of the 51 countries from the regions of the globe as set out above and was based on three indicator categories as follows:

1. Legal and regulatory framework

• Working hours

• Labour costs

• Union participation

• Retirement coverage

• Family-friendly practices

2. Operating environment

• Educational attainment and professional performance

• Gender equity and fairness

• Recourse for workplace equity via a formal structure for filing complaints

• Flexibility of practice in telecommuting

• Work-stoppage incidents (not including school strikes)

• Availability, affordability and quality of childcare services

• Risk of corruption

• Openness to global trade and competition

3. Economic performance

• Employment-to-population ratio, aged 25 and above

• Elasticity of total employment to total GDP

• Total-factor productivity growth

BACKGROUND

The model enables a capacity to compare and contrast the workforce performance and flexibility of the 51 countries... based on three indicator categories.


The EIU drew on a variety of national and international sources for its data and relied on its own estimates in the absence of data from other sources. It gave priority to sources that were recognised for accuracy, reliability and objectivity. Sources include the International Labour Organization (ILO), national statistics bureaus, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The data were modelled by normalising the indicator scores across categories and aggregating them to enable a comparison across countries. Scores between 0 and 100 were computed for each country with 100 representing the most flexible-workplace environment and 0 representing the least flexible. The overall scores, in addition to the category scores, are unweighted averages of the normalised scores for each indicator.

The global workplace flexibility findings based on the overall scoring model are set out as scores for each of the 51 countries in the Figure 1 map.

The colour code indicates quartile groupings from ‘one’’ to ‘four’. The higher scores come from countries in Scandinavia, central and western Europe and Australasia, with New Zealand rated 5th and Australia 12th between Switzerland and Germany in the lower level of the first quartile.

With one of the three assessment criteria being economic performance, it could be instructive to look in some detail at two of the wealthiest and influential countries in the world today, China and Germany, with a view to seeing how they compare using the indicator data in each of the three broad categories.

China and Germany are critical nations within the Asian and European regions respectively, with the activities of each also having a bearing on the wider global economy.

BACKGROUND


OVERALL FINDINGS

OVERALL SCORE SELECT CATEGORY

Score 0-100, 100=most favourable conditions

Rank 1-13; Score 54.9 to 69.6Rank 14-26; Score 48.3 to 54.9Rank 27-38; Score 44.2 to 48.3Rank 39-51; Score 36.8 to 44.2

WORSTNorway 69.6 Portugal 54.8 Uruguay 47.9 Indonesia 43.8Sweden 68.1 Hong Kong 54.3 Japan 47.8 United States 43.4Denmark 63.5 Brazil 54.1 Chile 47.6 Peru 43.3Finland 62.1 Botswana 53.6 Kenya 47.3 Costa Rica 43.2New Zealand 61.4 Czech Republic 53.4 Spain 47.0 Saudi Arabia 43.2Netherlands 60.6 Poland 53.4 Venezuela 47.0 Nigeria 42.7Austria 58.7 Canada 53.2 Ghana 46.7 Thailand 42.5United Kingdom 57.4 South Africa 52.5 Italy 46.7 Hungary 42.2France 56.7 Ireland 52.4 Russia 46.1 Malaysia 40.7Singapore 56.6 Tanzania 50.4 Egypt 45.7 Turkey 38.3Switzerland 55.2 Philippines 48.7 Uganda 45.5 Mexico 37.8Australia 55.0 Argentina 48.6 China 44.7 Colombia 36.9Germany 54.9 Namibia 48.3 India 36.8

BEST

FIGURE 1. OVERALL SCORES


OVERALL SCORE SELECT CATEGORY

Score 0-100, 100=most favourable conditions

Rank 1-13; Score 54.9 to 69.6Rank 14-26; Score 48.3 to 54.9Rank 27-38; Score 44.2 to 48.3Rank 39-51; Score 36.8 to 44.2

WORSTNorway 69.6 Portugal 54.8 Uruguay 47.9 Indonesia 43.8Sweden 68.1 Hong Kong 54.3 Japan 47.8 United States 43.4Denmark 63.5 Brazil 54.1 Chile 47.6 Peru 43.3Finland 62.1 Botswana 53.6 Kenya 47.3 Costa Rica 43.2New Zealand 61.4 Czech Republic 53.4 Spain 47.0 Saudi Arabia 43.2Netherlands 60.6 Poland 53.4 Venezuela 47.0 Nigeria 42.7Austria 58.7 Canada 53.2 Ghana 46.7 Thailand 42.5United Kingdom 57.4 South Africa 52.5 Italy 46.7 Hungary 42.2France 56.7 Ireland 52.4 Russia 46.1 Malaysia 40.7Singapore 56.6 Tanzania 50.4 Egypt 45.7 Turkey 38.3Switzerland 55.2 Philippines 48.7 Uganda 45.5 Mexico 37.8Australia 55.0 Argentina 48.6 China 44.7 Colombia 36.9Germany 54.9 Namibia 48.3 India 36.8

BESTONE TWO THREE FOUR

SECTION HEADING


SAMPLE OF COUNTRY COMPARISONS

Given the number of countries selected for the index, the capacity of the interactive tool to display

comparative indicator data amounts to a minimum of 2550 cuts of data comparing country to

country (51 X 50) as well as separate cuts of 612 category and indicator rankings (51 x 6 x 2), in

addition to qualitative and quantitative data cuts comparing individual countries against one or

more of the five global regions and ‘all countries’, amounting to another 612 cuts of data (51 x 6 x 2).

A scatter tool is also available enabling visual comparison of data by one country in relation to each

of the five regions and all countries, which adds another 306 cuts of data. On top of that, each cut

drills down to the many items under the three criteria headings, which amount to many thousands

of data cuts. The total numbers are, of course, far too great to represent in a report of this kind.

However, members of SHRM and AHRI have access as a membership entitlement to the electronic

version of the flexibility index on their respective websites, and are invited to make use of that

interactive tool in any way that suits their purposes.

CHINA AND GERMANYIn this report, a sample of comparative data, focusing particularly on China and Germany, is

set out as a means of indicating how the tool might be used in ways that could be useful to HR

practitioners.

The index is set up in a Microsoft Excel format and displays data cuts under the following

headings:

• A map of overall scores and first-to-fourth quartiles as set out on pages 8 and 9 of this report

• A cut of overall and category rankings

• A cut of indicator rankings under the three criteria headings

• Cuts of quantitative and qualitative indicators

• Country profiles showing each country’s overall score with grouped indicator scores showing

lists of strengths, medium scores and weaknesses, and a visual display of the country against

an ‘all countries’ average

• A total of 2550 country-by-country comparison displays

• A series of scatter charts displaying an overall score of each country in relation to the five

regions and ‘all countries’

• Three detailed charts setting out weights, normalised scores of countries, and indicator data

of all countries, each in a visual display

For purposes of illustration, Figure 2 displays a country comparison of China and Germany. The

two countries have contrasting workplace-flexibility overall scores in the Figure 1 quartiles one

and three of 54.9 (Germany) and 44.7 (China) respectively, with the top score in quartile one being

Norway on 69.6 out of a possible 100. On the left of Figure 2 are shown the items in which

China is stronger than Germany, and vice-versa on the right, with (1) recourse for workplace equity

via a formal structure for filing complaints and (2) availability, affordability and quality of childcare

services listed in the middle as the two areas in which they score as equals on 75.0.

The identical China and Germany scores aside, there are a number of striking variables seen in

Figure 2; for example, Germany is ranked distinctly superior to China in the policy-and-regulatory-

practice category on working hours (61.7 to China’s 25), paid annual leave (66.7 to 33.3), labour

costs (78 to 33), and retirement coverage (100 to 40.9). In the operating-environment category,

Germany is ranked distinctly superior in flexibility of practice in telecommuting (100 to China’s

0.0), openness to global trade and competition (75 to 50), and risk of corruption (75 to 0.0), and is

marginally better in family-friendly practices (55.8 to 53.8). Germany ranks better than China in two

of the economic-performance areas of elasticity of total employment to total GDP (40.5 to China’s

10) and total-factor productivity growth (28.3 to 20.5), while China is ranked distinctly superior

on population age 25 and above that is employed (73.1 to Germany’s 29.2). Otherwise, China is

ranked distinctly better in only three other areas: union participation (90.3 to 26.1) work-stoppage

incidents (99.6 to 16.8) and educational attainment and professional performance (62.5 to 45.8).

Figures 3 and 4 display the overall and category rankings of each country with respect to each

of the other 50 countries and so provide a slight variation on the overall scores in Figures 1 and

2. Figure 3 shows in particular how China compares with its highlighted Asia-region neighbours,

while Figure 4 shows how Germany compares with its neighbours in Europe.

With each nation being the nominal economic powerhouse in its region, the comparative data on

workplace flexibility is of some interest.


COUNTRY COMPARISON COMPARE WITH

China Germany

OVERALL SCORE 44.7 54.9 |1) POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 46.1 64.7 |1.1) Working hours 25.0 61.7 |1.2) Paid annual leave 33.3 66.7 |1.3) Labour costs 33.0 78.0 |1.4) Union participation 90.3 | 26.1

1.5) Retirement coverage 40.9 100.0 |1.6) Family-friendly practices 53.8 55.8 |2) OPERATING ENVIRONMENT 53.6 67.3 |2.1) Educational attainment and professional performance 62.5 | 45.8

2.2) Gender equity and fairness 66.4 75.7 |2.3) Recourse for workplace equity via a formal structure for filing complaints 75.0 75.0

2.4) Flexibility of practice in telecommuting 0.0 100.0 |2.5) Openness to global trade and competition 50.0 75.0 |2.6) Risk of corruption 0.0 75.0 |2.7) Work stoppage incidents (exclusive of school strikes) 99.6 | 16.8

2.8) Availability, affordability and quality of childcare services 75.0 75.0

3) ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 34.5 | 32.7

3.1) Population age 25 and above that is employed 73.1 | 29.2

3.2) Elasticity of total employment to total GDP 10.0 40.5 |3.3) Total factor productivity growth 20.5 28.3 |

China more than GermanyUnion participation Recourse for workplace equity via a formal structure for filing complaints OVERALL SCORE

Educational attainment and professional performance Availability, affordability and quality of childcare services POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Work stoppage incidents (exclusive of school strikes) Working hours

ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE Paid annual leave

Population age 25 and above that is employed Labour costs

Retirement coverage

Family-friendly practices

OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

Gender equity and fairness

Flexibility of practice in telecommuting

Openness to global trade and competition

Risk of corruption

Elasticity of total employment to total GDP

Total factor productivity growth

Germany more than Chinaequal

44.7

54.9

China

Germany

OVERALL SCORE

0

25

50

75

100

POLICY AND REGULATORYFRAMEWORK

OPERATING ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

China

Germany

COUNTRY COMPARISON COMPARE WITH

China Germany














Retirement coverage






Risk of corruption




44.7

54.9

China

Germany

OVERALL SCORE

0

25

50

75

100



China

Germany

FIGURE 2. COMPARATIVE DATA ON CHINA AND GERMANY COUNTRY COMPARISON COMPARE WITH

China Germany














Retirement coverage






Risk of corruption




44.7

54.9

China

Germany

OVERALL SCORE

0

25

50

75

100



China

Germany


OVERALL AND CATEGORY RANKINGS HIGHLIGHT COUNTRY REGION HIGHLIGHT

Scores 0-100 where 100=best

OVERALL SCORE

1 Norway 69.6 1 Sweden 87.3 1 Hong Kong 88.3 1 Argentina 58.82 Sweden 68.1 2 Denmark 86.1 2 Norway 83.0 2 Botswana 56.73 Denmark 63.5 3 Norway 85.4 3 Sweden 82.7 3 Uganda 49.84 Finland 62.1 4 Finland 80.1 4 Singapore 82.3 4 Kenya 48.75 New Zealand 61.4 5 France 74.0 5 Netherlands 81.0 5 Tanzania 44.26 Netherlands 60.6 6 United Kingdom 73.6 6 New Zealand 80.6 6 Ghana 43.77 Austria 58.7 7 Russia 71.6 7 Switzerland 80.3 7 New Zealand 42.48 United Kingdom 57.4 8 Austria 68.1 8 Australia 77.9 8 Venezuela 40.99 France 56.7 9 Czech Republic 66.5 9 Finland 77.0 9 Norway 40.2

10 Singapore 56.6 10 Brazil 66.2 10 Denmark 75.3 10 Philippines 39.811 Switzerland 55.2 11 Netherlands 65.8 11 Austria 75.1 11 Canada 39.712 Australia 55.0 =12 Portugal 64.7 12 Canada 74.4 12 Thailand 39.513 Germany 54.9 =12 Germany 64.7 =13 United Kingdom 73.7 13 Brazil 38.214 Portugal 54.8 =14 Turkey 61.4 =13 Japan 73.7 14 Italy 37.915 Hong Kong 54.3 =14 Poland 61.4 15 South Africa 72.5 15 Singapore 37.816 Brazil 54.1 16 New Zealand 61.2 16 France 71.9 16 Indonesia 37.617 Botswana 53.6 17 Italy 58.6 17 Chile 71.3 17 Saudi Arabia 36.7

=18 Poland 53.4 18 Ireland 58.1 18 Poland 69.3 18 Peru 35.9=18 Czech Republic 53.4 19 Australia 57.6 19 Portugal 68.4 19 Nigeria 35.6

20 Canada 53.2 20 Spain 56.4 20 Czech Republic 67.8 20 Malaysia 35.321 South Africa 52.5 21 South Africa 55.7 21 Germany 67.3 21 Netherlands 34.922 Ireland 52.4 =22 Switzerland 54.6 22 Ireland 66.2 22 Costa Rica 34.823 Tanzania 50.4 =22 Hungary 54.6 23 Uruguay 65.6 23 China 34.524 Philippines 48.7 24 Japan 52.3 24 Ghana 65.2 24 Sweden 34.325 Argentina 48.6 25 Egypt 52.0 25 United States 64.8 25 Namibia 33.526 Namibia 48.3 26 Uruguay 50.9 26 Botswana 63.5 26 Ireland 33.127 Uruguay 47.9 27 Singapore 49.8 27 Namibia 62.9 27 Austria 32.928 Japan 47.8 28 Namibia 48.5 28 Tanzania 62.8 28 Mexico 32.829 Chile 47.6 29 Philippines 47.5 29 Kenya 60.8 29 Germany 32.730 Kenya 47.3 30 Venezuela 47.0 30 Costa Rica 60.2 30 United States 32.0

=31 Venezuela 47.0 31 Hong Kong 46.6 =31 Indonesia 59.2 31 Portugal 31.3=31 Spain 47.0 32 China 46.1 =31 Egypt 59.2 32 Switzerland 30.6=33 Italy 46.7 33 Canada 45.4 33 Hungary 58.9 33 Colombia 30.1=33 Ghana 46.7 34 Chile 44.7 34 Philippines 58.7 34 Australia 29.5

35 Russia 46.1 35 Argentina 44.6 35 Spain 58.3 35 Poland 29.436 Egypt 45.7 36 Tanzania 44.3 36 Brazil 57.9 36 Finland 29.337 Uganda 45.5 37 Peru 43.0 37 Thailand 57.3 =37 South Africa 29.238 China 44.7 38 Botswana 40.6 38 Uganda 56.7 =37 Denmark 29.239 Indonesia 43.8 39 Colombia 40.2 39 Saudi Arabia 56.1 39 Hong Kong 28.040 United States 43.4 40 Nigeria 36.8 40 Nigeria 55.9 40 Uruguay 27.341 Peru 43.3 41 Saudi Arabia 36.7 41 Malaysia 55.4 41 Chile 26.9

=42 Saudi Arabia 43.2 42 India 35.5 42 China 53.6 =42 Spain 26.4=42 Costa Rica 43.2 43 Costa Rica 34.5 43 Venezuela 53.1 =42 India 26.4

44 Nigeria 42.7 44 Indonesia 34.4 44 Peru 51.1 =44 Egypt 25.945 Thailand 42.5 45 United States 33.4 45 India 48.4 =44 Czech Republic 25.946 Hungary 42.2 46 Mexico 32.5 46 Mexico 48.1 46 Russia 25.747 Malaysia 40.7 47 Kenya 32.3 47 Italy 43.5 47 United Kingdom 25.048 Turkey 38.3 =48 Malaysia 31.3 48 Argentina 42.5 48 France 24.349 Mexico 37.8 =48 Ghana 31.3 49 Turkey 41.2 49 Japan 17.450 Colombia 36.9 50 Thailand 30.8 50 Russia 41.0 50 Hungary 13.251 India 36.8 51 Uganda 30.1 51 Colombia 40.6 51 Turkey 12.3

Economic performanceOperating environmentPolicy and regulatory framework

FIGURE 3. OVERALL AND CATEGORY RANKINGS - CHINA AND THE ASIA REGION COUNTRIES

SECTION HEADING



Looking at Germany’s comparative data from this perspective, Figure 4 reveals a ranking in the

policy and regulatory category comparable with its overall rank of 13. However, it’s by no means

in the top rankings in its region with eleven European countries ranked ahead of it and nine below

it. Moving to the operating environment category, Germany rates comparatively lower at 21st

generally and within the regional context it has 12 European countries ranking higher than it ranks.

Curiously, while its general comparative ranking within the economic performance category is

lower still at 29th, only six other European counties rate higher than Germany in that category, and

China, for example, rates better at 23rd in that category.

Given that European countries of the order of Italy (14th) and Ireland (26th) are two of the

countries that rate higher in the economic performance category than Germany, and the

economic credentials of both are under a dark cloud to say the least, this is an opportune time

to be reminded that each category ranking taken alone is based on raw numbers without the

countervailing influence of other data such as qualitative and quantitative indicators of the

cultural, institutional, legal, economic and political contexts that define each country. The

category rankings also raise questions about the contribution that workplace-flexibility indicators

alone might play in the larger picture that takes in the combination of economic performance,

operational environments, and policy and regulatory frameworks.

To drill down for further meaning on these questions it helps to refer to the indicator-data cut

detailing a breakdown of each flexibility criterion item into sub-headings as set out in Figure 6, in

addition to the many quantitative-indicator charts (see Figure 5 for a US example) to get a sense of

how a nation is ranked and the indices that contribute to that ranking.

The indicator-data chart in Figure 6 shows that under the policy and regulatory framework, China

mandates 10 days paid annual leave a year and Germany 20, and both countries score 100 for

maternity leave cash benefits. Figure 6 also shows Chinese employees work 40 hours a week

against 48 hours in Germany.

In addition, the Figure 6 data present figures on union members as a proportion of the workforce,

which appear to count against Germany. In China that proportion is 90.3% whereas in Germany it’s

26.1%, suggesting on the face of it that workers in China may be in an advantageous workplace-

bargaining position compared to their German counterparts. That assumption is based on the

view that more union participation is better than less participation, the validity of which is by no

means shared universally in OECD countries or elsewhere. However, it can be a useful indicator of

employee flexibility and is included in the EIU data on that basis.

That said, only countries in quartile one, such as Finland (100%), Denmark (87.4%), Sweden (85.1%),

Norway (71.8%) and Ghana (70%), score higher than China on union participation, though many

countries from across the board score lower than Germany on that item; for example, Australia

(20.3%), Chile (11.9%), Hong Kong (21.5%), Indonesia (1`0%), Japan (18.7%), Peru (5%) and Saudi

Arabia 0.0%.

However, when attempting to overlay those data onto the figures for number of work-stoppage

incidents per year, considerable disconnections become evident in the indicator data relative to

common expectations. Finland had 92 stoppages for the year, Denmark 335, Sweden 5, Norway

10, Ghana 189 and China 3. The very low level of work disruption in Sweden, Norway and China

suggests either that a high level of harmony prevails in those nations’ workplaces or that the

unions are compliant. Alternatively, the data might indicate that the unions are government-

controlled bodies, and are therefore unions in name only relative to the common understanding of

the terms in other jurisdictions. It is widely believed that is the case in China.

It’s interesting to compare those figures, nevertheless, with the 811 stoppages in Spain (15.8%

union participation), 699 stoppages in France and Germany (31% and 26.1% participation

respectively), 656 stoppages in India (25.6% participation), and 177 in Australia (20.3%

participation).

Germany scores favourably on flexible hours (2.0 on a scale of 0-3) with China scoring 0.0. On

mandatory work-breaks China also scores 0.0 while Germany scores 0.5 hours a day. Figure 5

shows work-stoppage incidents which rates China 5th on 3 days a year and Germany equal 45th on

699 days.

SECTION HEADING


In the other area of relative Chinese scoring strength, Figure 6 shows that China rates 75.2% and

Germany 56.6% on the raw numbers of population aged 25 and above that is employed. Germany

is considerably stronger on the other two economic-performance items of total-factor productivity

growth (0.7% compared with China’s 0.1%) and elasticity of total employment to total GDP (0.7%

compared with China’s 0.1%).

In an area of German strength, operating environment, Figure 6 shows that Germany scores

more strongly on secondary-and-tertiary-student enrolment as a percentage of the population,

with Germany scoring 3.0 in company with Argentina, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, France,

Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, UK, Uruguay and Venezuela. Countries

that scored the top level of 4.0 are mainly European countries such as Denmark, Finland, Ireland,

Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden. On the other hand China scores on the lowest recorded

score of 1.0 along with countries of the order of Botswana, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya,

Malaysia, Namibia, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda.

The other main item of German relative strength is a low score of 1.0 on risk of corruption against

China’s highest score of 4.0 in an area in which low scores are desirable. Other countries scoring

the highest undesirable level of 4.0 on risk of corruption are Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Philippines,

Russia and Venezuela. A number of other countries scored 1.0 along with Germany in that area;

however, the following countries scored the best score of 0.0: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Hong

Kong, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland.

In most other areas of operating environment as set out in Figure 6, there are not material

differences in the scoring of China and Germany. They include expected years of school

enrolment, gender ratios of female to male in university enrolment, female to male labour-force

participation, and equal remuneration for the same job, though Germany is markedly stronger on

the ratio of women to men in professional and managerial positions (0.6 compared to China’s 0.2).



OVERALL AND CATEGORY RANKINGS HIGHLIGHT COUNTRY REGION HIGHLIGHT

Scores 0-100 where 100=best

OVERALL SCORE

1 Norway 69.6 1 Sweden 87.3 1 Hong Kong 88.3 1 Argentina 58.82 Sweden 68.1 2 Denmark 86.1 2 Norway 83.0 2 Botswana 56.73 Denmark 63.5 3 Norway 85.4 3 Sweden 82.7 3 Uganda 49.84 Finland 62.1 4 Finland 80.1 4 Singapore 82.3 4 Kenya 48.75 New Zealand 61.4 5 France 74.0 5 Netherlands 81.0 5 Tanzania 44.26 Netherlands 60.6 6 United Kingdom 73.6 6 New Zealand 80.6 6 Ghana 43.77 Austria 58.7 7 Russia 71.6 7 Switzerland 80.3 7 New Zealand 42.48 United Kingdom 57.4 8 Austria 68.1 8 Australia 77.9 8 Venezuela 40.99 France 56.7 9 Czech Republic 66.5 9 Finland 77.0 9 Norway 40.2

10 Singapore 56.6 10 Brazil 66.2 10 Denmark 75.3 10 Philippines 39.811 Switzerland 55.2 11 Netherlands 65.8 11 Austria 75.1 11 Canada 39.712 Australia 55.0 =12 Portugal 64.7 12 Canada 74.4 12 Thailand 39.513 Germany 54.9 =12 Germany 64.7 =13 United Kingdom 73.7 13 Brazil 38.214 Portugal 54.8 =14 Turkey 61.4 =13 Japan 73.7 14 Italy 37.915 Hong Kong 54.3 =14 Poland 61.4 15 South Africa 72.5 15 Singapore 37.816 Brazil 54.1 16 New Zealand 61.2 16 France 71.9 16 Indonesia 37.617 Botswana 53.6 17 Italy 58.6 17 Chile 71.3 17 Saudi Arabia 36.7

=18 Poland 53.4 18 Ireland 58.1 18 Poland 69.3 18 Peru 35.9=18 Czech Republic 53.4 19 Australia 57.6 19 Portugal 68.4 19 Nigeria 35.6

20 Canada 53.2 20 Spain 56.4 20 Czech Republic 67.8 20 Malaysia 35.321 South Africa 52.5 21 South Africa 55.7 21 Germany 67.3 21 Netherlands 34.922 Ireland 52.4 =22 Switzerland 54.6 22 Ireland 66.2 22 Costa Rica 34.823 Tanzania 50.4 =22 Hungary 54.6 23 Uruguay 65.6 23 China 34.524 Philippines 48.7 24 Japan 52.3 24 Ghana 65.2 24 Sweden 34.325 Argentina 48.6 25 Egypt 52.0 25 United States 64.8 25 Namibia 33.526 Namibia 48.3 26 Uruguay 50.9 26 Botswana 63.5 26 Ireland 33.127 Uruguay 47.9 27 Singapore 49.8 27 Namibia 62.9 27 Austria 32.928 Japan 47.8 28 Namibia 48.5 28 Tanzania 62.8 28 Mexico 32.829 Chile 47.6 29 Philippines 47.5 29 Kenya 60.8 29 Germany 32.730 Kenya 47.3 30 Venezuela 47.0 30 Costa Rica 60.2 30 United States 32.0

=31 Venezuela 47.0 31 Hong Kong 46.6 =31 Indonesia 59.2 31 Portugal 31.3=31 Spain 47.0 32 China 46.1 =31 Egypt 59.2 32 Switzerland 30.6=33 Italy 46.7 33 Canada 45.4 33 Hungary 58.9 33 Colombia 30.1=33 Ghana 46.7 34 Chile 44.7 34 Philippines 58.7 34 Australia 29.5

35 Russia 46.1 35 Argentina 44.6 35 Spain 58.3 35 Poland 29.436 Egypt 45.7 36 Tanzania 44.3 36 Brazil 57.9 36 Finland 29.337 Uganda 45.5 37 Peru 43.0 37 Thailand 57.3 =37 South Africa 29.238 China 44.7 38 Botswana 40.6 38 Uganda 56.7 =37 Denmark 29.239 Indonesia 43.8 39 Colombia 40.2 39 Saudi Arabia 56.1 39 Hong Kong 28.040 United States 43.4 40 Nigeria 36.8 40 Nigeria 55.9 40 Uruguay 27.341 Peru 43.3 41 Saudi Arabia 36.7 41 Malaysia 55.4 41 Chile 26.9

=42 Saudi Arabia 43.2 42 India 35.5 42 China 53.6 =42 Spain 26.4=42 Costa Rica 43.2 43 Costa Rica 34.5 43 Venezuela 53.1 =42 India 26.4

44 Nigeria 42.7 44 Indonesia 34.4 44 Peru 51.1 =44 Egypt 25.945 Thailand 42.5 45 United States 33.4 45 India 48.4 =44 Czech Republic 25.946 Hungary 42.2 46 Mexico 32.5 46 Mexico 48.1 46 Russia 25.747 Malaysia 40.7 47 Kenya 32.3 47 Italy 43.5 47 United Kingdom 25.048 Turkey 38.3 =48 Malaysia 31.3 48 Argentina 42.5 48 France 24.349 Mexico 37.8 =48 Ghana 31.3 49 Turkey 41.2 49 Japan 17.450 Colombia 36.9 50 Thailand 30.8 50 Russia 41.0 50 Hungary 13.251 India 36.8 51 Uganda 30.1 51 Colombia 40.6 51 Turkey 12.3

Economic performanceOperating environmentPolicy and regulatory framework

FIGURE 4. OVERALL AND CATEGORY RANKINGS - GERMANY AND EUROPEAN COUNTRIES


INDICATOR NOTES Temporary cessation of work due to a strike or lockout. A strike is initiated by one or more groups of workers (not necessarily unionized) with a view to enforcing or resisting demands or expressing grievances, or supporting other workers in their demands or grievances. A lockout is a total or partial temporary closure of one or more places of employment, or the hindering of the normal work activities of employees, by one or more employers with a view to enforcing or resisting demands or expressing grievances, or supporting other employers in their demands or grievances. *Exclusive of school strikes.

SCORING SYSTEM Min-max (higher data values score better). The country with highest data value scores 100. The country with the lowest data value scores 0

FIGURE 5. QUANTITATIVE INDICATOR DATA ON WORK-STOPPAGE INCIDENTS - UNITED STATES AND ALL COUNTRIES NUMBER OF STOPPAGES/YEAR. SOURCE: ILO. DATA YEAR: 2010

QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS Work stoppage incidents (exclusive of school strikes)Number of stoppages / year

COUNTRY HIGHLIGHT Source: ILOData Year: 2010

REGION HIGHLIGHT Rank Score / 100 Data

=1 Austria 100.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0.00

SELECT INDICATOR =1 Singapore 100.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0.00

=3 Botswana 99.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1.00

=3 Namibia 99.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1.00

=5 China 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Kenya 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Tanzania 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Uganda 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=9 Egypt 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Hong Kong 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Malaysia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Russia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Saudi Arabia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=14 Indonesia 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=14 Sweden 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=14 Thailand 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=17 Hungary 99.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 8.00

=17 Switzerland 99.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 8.00

19 Norway 98.8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10.00

20 Ireland 98.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12.00

21 United States 98.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 16.00

=22 Mexico 97.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21.00

=22 Netherlands 97.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21.00

24 Turkey 97.4 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22.00

25 New Zealand 97.3 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23.00

26 Venezuela 95.8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 35.00

27 Japan 94.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 47.00

28 South Africa 93.2 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 57.00

29 Czech Republic 93.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 58.00

30 Philippines 92.9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 60.00

31 Peru 92.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 63.00

32 Finland 89.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 92.00

33 Portugal 88.2 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 99.00

34 United Kingdom 82.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 144.00

=35 Costa Rica 82.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 150.00

=35 Uruguay 82.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 150.00

37 Poland 81.4 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 156.00

38 Chile 81.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 159.00

39 Australia 78.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 177.00

40 Canada 77.7 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 187.00

=41 Ghana 77.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 189.00

=41 Nigeria 77.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 189.00

43 Denmark 60.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 335.00

44 Brazil 51.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||| 411.00

45 Italy 26.1 ||||||||||||| 621.00

46 India 21.9 |||||||||| 656.00

=47 France 16.8 |||||||| 699.00

=47 Germany 16.8 |||||||| 699.00

49 Spain 3.5 | 811.00

=50 Argentina 0.0 840.00

=50 Colombia 0.0 840.00

INDICATOR NOTESTemporary cessation of work due to a strike or lockout. A strike is effected by one or more groups of workers (not necessarily unionized) with a view to enforcing or resisting demands or expressing grievances, or supporting other workers in their demands or grievances. A lockout is a total or partial temporary closure of one or more places of employment, or the hindering of the normal work activities of employees, by one or more employers with a view to enforcing or resisting demands or expressing grievances, or supporting other employers in their demands or grievances. *Exclusive of school strikes.

SCORING SYSTEMMin-max (higher data values score better). The country with highest data value scores 100. The country with the lowest data value scores 0


FIGURE 5. QUANTITATIVE INDICATOR DATA ON WORK-STOPPAGE INCIDENTS - UNITED STATES AND ALL COUNTRIES NUMBER OF STOPPAGES/YEAR. SOURCE: ILO. DATA YEAR: 2010




=1 Austria 100.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0.00


=3 Botswana 99.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1.00

=3 Namibia 99.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1.00

=5 China 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Kenya 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Tanzania 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Uganda 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=9 Egypt 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Hong Kong 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Malaysia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Russia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Saudi Arabia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=14 Indonesia 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=14 Sweden 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=14 Thailand 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=17 Hungary 99.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 8.00

=17 Switzerland 99.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 8.00

19 Norway 98.8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10.00

20 Ireland 98.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12.00

21 United States 98.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 16.00

=22 Mexico 97.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21.00

=22 Netherlands 97.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21.00

24 Turkey 97.4 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22.00

25 New Zealand 97.3 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23.00

26 Venezuela 95.8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 35.00

27 Japan 94.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 47.00

28 South Africa 93.2 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 57.00

29 Czech Republic 93.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 58.00

30 Philippines 92.9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 60.00

31 Peru 92.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 63.00

32 Finland 89.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 92.00

33 Portugal 88.2 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 99.00

34 United Kingdom 82.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 144.00

=35 Costa Rica 82.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 150.00

=35 Uruguay 82.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 150.00

37 Poland 81.4 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 156.00

38 Chile 81.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 159.00

39 Australia 78.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 177.00

40 Canada 77.7 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 187.00

=41 Ghana 77.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 189.00

=41 Nigeria 77.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 189.00

43 Denmark 60.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 335.00

44 Brazil 51.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||| 411.00

45 Italy 26.1 ||||||||||||| 621.00

46 India 21.9 |||||||||| 656.00

=47 France 16.8 |||||||| 699.00

=47 Germany 16.8 |||||||| 699.00

49 Spain 3.5 | 811.00

=50 Argentina 0.0 840.00

=50 Colombia 0.0 840.00






=1 Austria 100.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0.00


=3 Botswana 99.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1.00

=3 Namibia 99.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1.00

=5 China 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Kenya 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Tanzania 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=5 Uganda 99.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 3.00

=9 Egypt 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Hong Kong 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Malaysia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Russia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=9 Saudi Arabia 99.5 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4.00

=14 Indonesia 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=14 Sweden 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=14 Thailand 99.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 5.00

=17 Hungary 99.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 8.00

=17 Switzerland 99.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 8.00

19 Norway 98.8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10.00

20 Ireland 98.6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12.00

21 United States 98.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 16.00

=22 Mexico 97.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21.00

=22 Netherlands 97.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21.00

24 Turkey 97.4 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22.00

25 New Zealand 97.3 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23.00

26 Venezuela 95.8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 35.00

27 Japan 94.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 47.00

28 South Africa 93.2 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 57.00

29 Czech Republic 93.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 58.00

30 Philippines 92.9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 60.00

31 Peru 92.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 63.00

32 Finland 89.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 92.00

33 Portugal 88.2 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 99.00

34 United Kingdom 82.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 144.00

=35 Costa Rica 82.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 150.00

=35 Uruguay 82.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 150.00

37 Poland 81.4 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 156.00

38 Chile 81.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 159.00

39 Australia 78.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 177.00

40 Canada 77.7 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 187.00

=41 Ghana 77.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 189.00

=41 Nigeria 77.5 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 189.00

43 Denmark 60.1 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 335.00

44 Brazil 51.1 ||||||||||||||||||||||||| 411.00

45 Italy 26.1 ||||||||||||| 621.00

46 India 21.9 |||||||||| 656.00

=47 France 16.8 |||||||| 699.00

=47 Germany 16.8 |||||||| 699.00

49 Spain 3.5 | 811.00

=50 Argentina 0.0 840.00

=50 Colombia 0.0 840.00




INDICATOR DATA

Argentina Australia Austria Botswana Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Costa RicaOVERALL SCORE

1 POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK1.1 Working hours

1.1.1 Hours worked per week hours 48.0 38.0 40.0 48.0 44.0 40.0 44.0 40.0 48.0 48.01.1.2 Flexible hours Rating 0-3 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.01.1.3 Mandatory breaks for hourly workers hours / day 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5

1.2 Paid annual leave days / year 14.0 20.0 20.0 14.0 30.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 15.0 10.01.3 Labour costs

1.3.1 Hourly compensation costs, manufacturing US$ at PPP / hour 7.9 33.2 30.1 3.6 8.0 29.2 6.0 4.4 6.0 3.51.3.2 Mandatory redundancy requirement weeks of salary 95.0 4.0 2.0 90.0 46.0 28.0 52.0 91.0 59.0 29.0

1.4 Union participation Union members as proportion of total workforce 42.0 20.3 28.0 20.0 44.0 29.4 11.9 90.3 28.7 11.51.5 Retirement coverage % workforce with benefits 71.4 85.8 98.8 100.0 83.5 44.9 64.1 42.1 19.5 25.61.6 Family-friendly practices

1.6.1 Maternity leave duration weeks 18.0 18.0 16.0 12.0 24.0 17.0 18.0 12.0 12.0 16.01.6.2 Maternity leave cash benefits % of wages 100.0 63.0 100.0 25.0 100.0 55.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 OPERATING ENVIRONMENT2.1 Educational attainment and professional performance

2.1.1 Secondary and tertiary student enrollment as percent of total enrollment % 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.02.1.2 Expected years of school enrollment years 16.0 21.0 15.0 12.0 14.0 17.0 15.0 12.0 14.0 12.0

2.2 Gender equity and fairness2.2.1 Female/male university enrollment Ratio of women to men 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.32.2.2 Female/male labour force participation Ratio of women to men 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.62.2.3 Women in professional and managerial positions Ratio of women to men 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.42.2.4 Equal remuneration for men and women performing the same job Yes = 1, No = 0 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7

2.3 Recourse for workplace equity via a formal structure for filing complaints Rating 0-4 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.02.4 Flexibility of practice in telecommuting Score, 0-1; 1=Increasing 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.5 Openness to global trade and competition Rating 0-4 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.02.6 Risk of corruption Rating 0-4 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.02.7 Work stoppage incidents (exclusive of school strikes) Number of stoppages / year 840.0 177.0 0.0 1.0 411.0 187.0 159.0 3.0 840.0 150.02.8 Availability, affordability and quality of childcare services Rating 0-4 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE3.1 Population age 25 and above that is employed % 66.4 61.3 58.2 73.9 68.7 62.9 59.6 75.2 57.8 65.13.2 Elasticity of total employment to total GDP % 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.9 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.53.3 Total factor productivity growth % 6.3 -0.7 1.0 -1.5 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.5BG BACKGROUND INDICATORS

BG1 GDP growth % 6.8 2.6 2.2 2.9 5.2 0.7 3.7 9.6 3.5 2.7BG2 Gini coefficient Score 0-100, where 100=perfect equality 51.3 35.2 29.1 60.5 57.0 32.6 54.9 46.9 58.6 49.8BG3 Annual population growth rate (2005-2010) % 1.0 1.1 0.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.4BG4 Trade as a percentage of GDP % 4.7 -0.5 -0.1 2.5 1.5 2.8 5.0 8.0 0.4 -16.8

FIGURE 6. OVERALL INDICATOR DATA


Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Ghana Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Ireland

44.0 40.0 48.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 40.0 35.0 48.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 40.0 48.00.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.5

15.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 25.0 25.0 21.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 20.0

6.0 4.4 6.0 3.5 17.7 27.8 2.8 27.2 23.2 31.6 1.6 7.8 13.1 7.3 1.2 24.452.0 91.0 59.0 29.0 22.0 0.0 132.0 26.0 32.0 69.0 178.0 10.0 35.0 56.0 108.0 18.011.9 90.3 28.7 11.5 17.3 87.4 26.1 100.0 31.0 26.1 70.0 21.5 16.8 25.6 10.0 39.164.1 42.1 19.5 25.6 98.2 100.0 100.0 56.4 100.0 100.0 3.8 71.4 95.5 18.5 22.9 66.5

18.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 28.0 52.0 12.0 21.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 24.0 12.0 12.0 26.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 69.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 70.0 100.0 100.0 70.0

2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 4.015.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 15.0 17.0 11.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 15.0 10.0 13.0 13.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.20.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.80.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.50.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.73.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.01.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.02.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.01.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0

159.0 3.0 840.0 150.0 58.0 335.0 4.0 92.0 699.0 699.0 189.0 4.0 8.0 656.0 5.0 12.03.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

59.6 75.2 57.8 65.1 59.2 61.5 51.7 58.4 54.5 56.6 78.9 60.7 49.9 61.1 70.3 59.30.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.60.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

3.7 9.6 3.5 2.7 2.5 -1.1 7.2 1.0 -0.2 0.7 8.4 2.3 0.8 5.1 6.0 -3.054.9 46.9 58.6 49.8 25.4 24.7 34.4 26.9 32.7 28.3 40.8 43.4 26.9 36.8 34.3 34.3

1.0 0.6 1.5 1.4 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.5 -0.1 2.1 0.5 -0.2 1.4 1.2 1.85.0 8.0 0.4 -16.8 2.9 0.3 -15.2 3.8 -3.1 7.2 -17.5 -10.7 -0.5 -9.9 4.5 13.2

INDICATOR DATA















Italy Japan Kenya Malaysia Mexico Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Russia Saudi Arabia

40.0 40.0 52.0 48.0 48.0 45.0 55.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.01.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.00.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5

20.0 10.0 12.0 16.0 12.0 24.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 25.0 30.0 5.0 26.0 22.0 28.0 0.0

25.3 20.6 1.8 9.9 4.0 1.2 28.6 19.3 1.3 37.3 4.0 2.2 17.5 9.2 6.7 6.811.0 4.0 47.0 75.0 47.0 24.0 17.0 0.0 50.0 13.0 17.0 91.0 13.0 97.0 17.0 80.034.7 18.7 35.5 10.3 15.3 25.0 27.0 21.1 60.0 71.8 5.0 26.8 14.0 20.2 45.0 0.074.1 94.8 17.4 2.1 12.6 34.0 100.0 99.0 13.0 100.0 23.2 100.0 96.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

20.0 14.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 46.0 12.0 8.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 10.080.0 67.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.016.0 15.0 11.0 13.0 14.0 12.0 17.0 17.0 9.0 17.0 14.0 12.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 14.0

1.4 0.9 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.70.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.30.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.10.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.63.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.03.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.03.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0

621.0 47.0 3.0 4.0 21.0 1.0 21.0 23.0 189.0 10.0 63.0 60.0 156.0 99.0 4.0 4.02.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

48.1 58.7 82.6 66.3 63.7 58.7 62.9 66.8 66.9 67.0 70.5 69.1 53.8 60.2 63.1 62.51.2 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.71.7 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.7

-1.3 -1.2 1.7 4.8 1.2 4.3 1.8 -0.9 13.5 0.7 9.8 4.6 5.1 0.0 5.2 4.236.0 24.9 42.5 49.2 46.1 74.3 30.9 36.2 43.7 25.8 52.0 44.5 34.5 38.5 39.9 32.0

0.5 -0.1 2.6 1.7 1.0 1.9 0.4 0.9 2.3 0.9 1.2 1.8 -0.1 0.4 -0.4 2.1-0.1 0.8 -18.6 23.0 -1.6 -8.0 7.1 -1.3 20.4 19.4 2.0 -7.4 -5.8 -13.4 10.8 44.5

INDICATOR DATA














Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Ghana Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Ireland

44.0 40.0 48.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 40.0 35.0 48.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 40.0 48.00.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.5

15.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 25.0 25.0 21.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 20.0

6.0 4.4 6.0 3.5 17.7 27.8 2.8 27.2 23.2 31.6 1.6 7.8 13.1 7.3 1.2 24.452.0 91.0 59.0 29.0 22.0 0.0 132.0 26.0 32.0 69.0 178.0 10.0 35.0 56.0 108.0 18.011.9 90.3 28.7 11.5 17.3 87.4 26.1 100.0 31.0 26.1 70.0 21.5 16.8 25.6 10.0 39.164.1 42.1 19.5 25.6 98.2 100.0 100.0 56.4 100.0 100.0 3.8 71.4 95.5 18.5 22.9 66.5

18.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 28.0 52.0 12.0 21.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 24.0 12.0 12.0 26.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 69.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 70.0 100.0 100.0 70.0

2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 4.015.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 15.0 17.0 11.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 15.0 10.0 13.0 13.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.20.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.80.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.50.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.73.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.01.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.02.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.01.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0

159.0 3.0 840.0 150.0 58.0 335.0 4.0 92.0 699.0 699.0 189.0 4.0 8.0 656.0 5.0 12.03.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

59.6 75.2 57.8 65.1 59.2 61.5 51.7 58.4 54.5 56.6 78.9 60.7 49.9 61.1 70.3 59.30.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.60.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

3.7 9.6 3.5 2.7 2.5 -1.1 7.2 1.0 -0.2 0.7 8.4 2.3 0.8 5.1 6.0 -3.054.9 46.9 58.6 49.8 25.4 24.7 34.4 26.9 32.7 28.3 40.8 43.4 26.9 36.8 34.3 34.3

1.0 0.6 1.5 1.4 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.5 -0.1 2.1 0.5 -0.2 1.4 1.2 1.85.0 8.0 0.4 -16.8 2.9 0.3 -15.2 3.8 -3.1 7.2 -17.5 -10.7 -0.5 -9.9 4.5 13.2


INDICATOR DATA















40.0 40.0 52.0 48.0 48.0 45.0 55.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.01.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.00.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5

20.0 10.0 12.0 16.0 12.0 24.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 25.0 30.0 5.0 26.0 22.0 28.0 0.0

25.3 20.6 1.8 9.9 4.0 1.2 28.6 19.3 1.3 37.3 4.0 2.2 17.5 9.2 6.7 6.811.0 4.0 47.0 75.0 47.0 24.0 17.0 0.0 50.0 13.0 17.0 91.0 13.0 97.0 17.0 80.034.7 18.7 35.5 10.3 15.3 25.0 27.0 21.1 60.0 71.8 5.0 26.8 14.0 20.2 45.0 0.074.1 94.8 17.4 2.1 12.6 34.0 100.0 99.0 13.0 100.0 23.2 100.0 96.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

20.0 14.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 46.0 12.0 8.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 10.080.0 67.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.016.0 15.0 11.0 13.0 14.0 12.0 17.0 17.0 9.0 17.0 14.0 12.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 14.0

1.4 0.9 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.70.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.30.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.10.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.63.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.03.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.03.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0

621.0 47.0 3.0 4.0 21.0 1.0 21.0 23.0 189.0 10.0 63.0 60.0 156.0 99.0 4.0 4.02.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

48.1 58.7 82.6 66.3 63.7 58.7 62.9 66.8 66.9 67.0 70.5 69.1 53.8 60.2 63.1 62.51.2 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.71.7 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.7

-1.3 -1.2 1.7 4.8 1.2 4.3 1.8 -0.9 13.5 0.7 9.8 4.6 5.1 0.0 5.2 4.236.0 24.9 42.5 49.2 46.1 74.3 30.9 36.2 43.7 25.8 52.0 44.5 34.5 38.5 39.9 32.0

0.5 -0.1 2.6 1.7 1.0 1.9 0.4 0.9 2.3 0.9 1.2 1.8 -0.1 0.4 -0.4 2.1-0.1 0.8 -18.6 23.0 -1.6 -8.0 7.1 -1.3 20.4 19.4 2.0 -7.4 -5.8 -13.4 10.8 44.5


INDICATOR DATA















40.0 40.0 52.0 48.0 48.0 45.0 55.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.0 48.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.01.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.00.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5

20.0 10.0 12.0 16.0 12.0 24.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 25.0 30.0 5.0 26.0 22.0 28.0 0.0

25.3 20.6 1.8 9.9 4.0 1.2 28.6 19.3 1.3 37.3 4.0 2.2 17.5 9.2 6.7 6.811.0 4.0 47.0 75.0 47.0 24.0 17.0 0.0 50.0 13.0 17.0 91.0 13.0 97.0 17.0 80.034.7 18.7 35.5 10.3 15.3 25.0 27.0 21.1 60.0 71.8 5.0 26.8 14.0 20.2 45.0 0.074.1 94.8 17.4 2.1 12.6 34.0 100.0 99.0 13.0 100.0 23.2 100.0 96.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

20.0 14.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 46.0 12.0 8.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 10.080.0 67.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.016.0 15.0 11.0 13.0 14.0 12.0 17.0 17.0 9.0 17.0 14.0 12.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 14.0

1.4 0.9 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.70.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.30.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.10.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.63.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.03.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.03.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0

621.0 47.0 3.0 4.0 21.0 1.0 21.0 23.0 189.0 10.0 63.0 60.0 156.0 99.0 4.0 4.02.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

48.1 58.7 82.6 66.3 63.7 58.7 62.9 66.8 66.9 67.0 70.5 69.1 53.8 60.2 63.1 62.51.2 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.71.7 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.7

-1.3 -1.2 1.7 4.8 1.2 4.3 1.8 -0.9 13.5 0.7 9.8 4.6 5.1 0.0 5.2 4.236.0 24.9 42.5 49.2 46.1 74.3 30.9 36.2 43.7 25.8 52.0 44.5 34.5 38.5 39.9 32.0

0.5 -0.1 2.6 1.7 1.0 1.9 0.4 0.9 2.3 0.9 1.2 1.8 -0.1 0.4 -0.4 2.1-0.1 0.8 -18.6 23.0 -1.6 -8.0 7.1 -1.3 20.4 19.4 2.0 -7.4 -5.8 -13.4 10.8 44.5

Singapore South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Tanzania Thailand Turkey UgandaUnited

Kingdom United States Uruguay Venezuela

44.0 45.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 45.0 48.0 45.0 48.0 40.0 48.0 44.0 44.00.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0

14.0 21.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 28.0 6.0 26.0 21.0 28.0 0.0 20.0 15.0

10.8 5.7 21.3 30.2 26.4 2.2 3.9 4.9 2.1 23.1 26.9 4.6 3.24.0 24.0 56.0 26.0 13.0 18.0 54.0 95.0 13.0 22.0 0.0 31.0 52.0

23.7 57.8 15.8 85.1 25.7 18.5 2.0 58.4 1.1 29.1 11.8 10.0 10.0100.0 64.2 64.4 100.0 68.0 3.2 21.1 100.0 2.9 99.9 96.0 87.1 100.0

12.0 16.0 16.0 60.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 8.0 52.0 12.0 12.0 18.0100.0 60.0 100.0 80.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 67.0 100.0 90.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.010.0 13.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 14.0

1.0 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.70.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.70.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.40.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.62.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.01.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.04.0 19.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.00.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.00.0 57.0 811.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 22.0 3.0 144.0 16.0 150.0 35.04.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

66.5 52.4 50.5 63.2 64.6 82.9 78.6 44.2 86.6 58.8 61.6 63.9 68.70.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.60.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7

1.5 3.6 0.9 -0.8 2.1 7.4 2.5 0.7 10.4 -0.1 0.0 8.6 4.842.5 57.8 34.7 25.0 33.7 34.6 42.0 43.6 45.7 36.0 40.8 44.9 48.2

2.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.4 2.9 0.7 1.2 3.3 0.5 1.0 0.3 1.714.1 -1.6 -7.9 3.2 2.7 -16.5 6.4 -7.3 -11.2 -6.5 -5.8 -5.5 14.7


INDICATOR DATA














Singapore South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Tanzania Thailand Turkey UgandaUnited

Kingdom United States Uruguay Venezuela

44.0 45.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 45.0 48.0 45.0 48.0 40.0 48.0 44.0 44.00.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0

14.0 21.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 28.0 6.0 26.0 21.0 28.0 0.0 20.0 15.0

10.8 5.7 21.3 30.2 26.4 2.2 3.9 4.9 2.1 23.1 26.9 4.6 3.24.0 24.0 56.0 26.0 13.0 18.0 54.0 95.0 13.0 22.0 0.0 31.0 52.0

23.7 57.8 15.8 85.1 25.7 18.5 2.0 58.4 1.1 29.1 11.8 10.0 10.0100.0 64.2 64.4 100.0 68.0 3.2 21.1 100.0 2.9 99.9 96.0 87.1 100.0

12.0 16.0 16.0 60.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 8.0 52.0 12.0 12.0 18.0100.0 60.0 100.0 80.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 67.0 100.0 90.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.010.0 13.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 14.0

1.0 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.70.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.70.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.40.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.62.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.01.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.04.0 19.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.00.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.00.0 57.0 811.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 22.0 3.0 144.0 16.0 150.0 35.04.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

66.5 52.4 50.5 63.2 64.6 82.9 78.6 44.2 86.6 58.8 61.6 63.9 68.70.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.60.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7

1.5 3.6 0.9 -0.8 2.1 7.4 2.5 0.7 10.4 -0.1 0.0 8.6 4.842.5 57.8 34.7 25.0 33.7 34.6 42.0 43.6 45.7 36.0 40.8 44.9 48.2

2.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.4 2.9 0.7 1.2 3.3 0.5 1.0 0.3 1.714.1 -1.6 -7.9 3.2 2.7 -16.5 6.4 -7.3 -11.2 -6.5 -5.8 -5.5 14.7

SECTION HEADING


HOW CAN THE FLEXIBILITY INDEX BE OF USE TO HR?

As a tool assessing data across the board in many countries, from one perspective the Global

Workplace Performance and Flexibility Index is an instrument that assesses workplaces at a macro

level and so might not be seen as having an immediate use to HR practitioners on the ground.

However, there are a number of areas of activity in which the tool can be of significant use to HR.

PRESENTING BUSINESS CASES Because of the power of the tool to drill down into a great many cuts of workplace data, the index

is potentially useful to HR practitioners in a variety of jurisdictions who are looking for comparative

data to present business cases in the three key assessment areas of policy and regulatory

framework, operating environment, and economic performance, all of which are central to the HR

role. That said, it should be noted at the outset that when assessing the significance of the data

no single country’s scores can be understood fully without an understanding of the legal, political,

and cultural frameworks within which that country operates.

MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES

The index could be particularly useful to HR practitioners working within multinational companies

who, by using it, will have at their disposal multiple drill-down perspectives, enabling them to

compare organisational working practices in different business environments with a view to

maximising the economic potential of their own company’s performance at head office and

subsidiary locations. For example, at a glance they could look at a comparative data cut of their

own country as a workplace-flexibility quantitative indicator in relation to the legal limit of hours an

employer can require an employee to work in a week, averaged over a four-week period, without

overtime. A sample appears as Figure 5 below in which the US is highlighted visually in relation

to the other 50 countries in the index with respect to work-stoppage incidents, an item under

the operating-environment heading in which the US rates strongly with 16 stoppages reflected in

a score of 98.1. Austria and Singapore each rated first with a score of 100 (no stoppages), while

Argentina and Columbia each rated 50th (840 stoppages each) and Spain 49th (811 stoppages)

generating a lowly score of 3.5.

Different quantitative indicators could show a result highlighting each of the five regional groups.

The options available through the index for displaying relevant HR data to the executive group and

other parts of the business include qualitative indicators, scatter charts, and detailed line-by-line

numbers against each sub-group of the three main indicators, and could be particularly useful for

illustrating different cultural influences in overseas branches of the business and how they might

affect areas such as marketing, customer service and employee training. These indicators could be

particularly useful in a business setting that is increasingly influenced by global events and trends.

POLICY MAKERSProfessionals who are responsible for drafting policy or who exercise roles as advocates or advisers

may also find the index useful as they are constantly looking to international benchmarks as

guides to and justifications of workplace and employment policy options. The development of HR

policies and procedures within companies is an area in which having recourse to comparative data

from both better-performing and worse-performing economies could enable HR practitioners

devising policy to craft more informed business cases and to mount more robust arguments about

the pros and cons of a particular policy direction for the organisation.

The comparative data on workplace stoppages, as discussed in relation to Figure 5, is of interest

as an indicator of workplace flexibility and is also pertinent to the bottom-line issue of workplace

productivity, given that work stoppages are often associated with loss of productivity, and

improving productivity is regarded as a higher-order HR responsibility.

SECTION HEADING


ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY

The workplace-flexibility index looks at the three following indicators of business activity:

• Policy and regulatory framework

• Operating environment

• Economic performance

The index therefore potentially facilitates an understanding of the interface between micro

enterprises and the macro economy, with each of the three criteria having application at the level

of business activity and nation building.

An area of debate in many countries centres around the issue of productivity, including labour

productivity and total-factor productivity, and the role played by workforce flexibility in that regard.

That is particularly the case against the backdrop of increasing global business competitiveness.

THE US CONTEXT To draw broad economic lessons from the comparative data in this workplace-flexibility index is by

no means straightforward. It is worth considering in brief the United States rating as an example.

In general, the US rates well in the operating-environment and economic-performance categories,

but not so well in the policy-and-regulatory-framework category.

The US is relatively strong in the economic-performance area of total-factor productivity, with

a rating of 0.5%. While the top-ranked country on that item is Argentina with a singularly high

index score of 6.3%, followed in second place by Italy on 1.7%, all other 49 countries score below

1.0%. The robust US figure is further put in context by Australia’s negative score of -0.7% - the

lowest total-factor productivity score of the 51 countries. The total-factor productivity figures

clearly contribute to Argentina being ranked in 1st place for economic performance, Italy ranked

surprisingly high at 14th and Australia surprisingly low at 34th, with none of these rankings being

reflected in the overall scores following the influence of the other criteria in the determination

of the final overall rankings. That is because the productivity scores are just one part of a larger

picture which is reflected in Argentina’s ranking of 35th in policy and regulatory framework and

48th in operating environment, resulting in a total overall ranking of 25th, a significant drop from

the economic-performance ranking taken in isolation.

The US is also strong in the operating-environment areas of openness to global trade and

competition, with a score of 4.0 on a scale of 0-4 where higher scores are better, recourse for

workplace equity via a formal structure for filing complaints, with a score of 4.0 on a scale of 0-4

where higher scores are better, and risk of corruption, with a score of 1.0 on a scale of 0-4 where

lower scores are better.

In these operating-environment areas Argentina, by contrast, scores just 2.0 on openness to global

trade, only 1.0 on workplace equity, an alarming 3.0 on risk of corruption, and a whopping 840

workplace stoppages, thus resulting in an operating-environment category ranking of 48th out of

the 51 countries.

These are all areas in which the HR function has a potentially critical involvement in business

and in which it could be very useful to compare activity and outcomes with other countries both

regionally and globally, as well as country-by-country - all of which this flexibility index enables.

THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT

Given Australia’s second-lowest rank among the 51 countries in the Figure 6 indicator data on

total-factor productivity, a brief look at Australia as an economic snapshot may be useful, in

particular the extent that labour productivity may be playing in that low ranking. One of the issues

in Australia is the language used to convey ideas of flexibility. A recent report by Diversity Council

Australia (Get Flexible! Mainstreaming Flexible Work in Australian Business) makes the following

point:

“There is currently a mixture of arguments and approaches covering both the need to have

a flexible workforce (a common employer perspective) and the need for employees to have

access to flexible work options (an employee perspective). These are often viewed as two

competing ‘either/or’ perspectives.”

In Australia and other countries that debate is informed by workplace-relations legislation and

regulatory pressure for businesses to demonstrate a capacity to employ a workforce based on

principles of diversity. As seen in Figure 4, Australia’s category ranking in operating environment is

8th but in policy and regulatory framework its ranking is 19th and in economic performance a poor

SECTION HEADING


34th.

The high ranking in operating environment is based on a

strong educational foundation, improving workplace equity,

enlightened telecommuting practices and moderately

satisfactory childcare services.

However, the flexibility rankings in both the policy-and-

regulatory-framework and economic-performance areas

are both relatively poor and can be traceable in part to a

legislative environment that emphasises access to employee-

flexible work options at the expense of the economic need

to have a flexible workforce. Thus Australian workers are

entitled to request of their employers part-time work, flexible

start and finish times and working from home. According to

AHRI’s 2012 research, those requests are made and in many

cases employers comply with the requests.

At the same time Australia’s 2009 Fair Work Act requires

employers to engage in ‘good-faith bargaining’ with their

employees in negotiating employment arrangements. In

the bargaining process unions are entitled under law to

participate in negotiations with a number of regulatory

restrictions on what can be put on the bargaining table that

are widely seen to favour employees. Under the Act there

are employer restraints on the employment of workers,

especially on the employment of independent contractors,

and employers are required under the ‘transfer-of-business’

provisions to transfer all workers with their conditions intact

in the event of a business outsourcing a part of its operations

to a subsidiary or another employing body, regardless of the

appropriateness of the employment conditions with respect

to the new entity. In addition, the Act makes the dismissal

of underperforming employees difficult and prevents

under penalty a wide range of so-called ‘adverse actions’

being taken by an employer with respect to an employee’s

entitlements with a reverse onus of proof applying against the

employer.

In short, while employees are given ample opportunity to

adopt flexible-work options, employers in many cases are

complaining of difficulty in managing their own workforces

in the interests of improving productivity and global

competitiveness. Thus it is not a surprise to note the EIU data

showing Australia’s weakness in the larger flexibility context

with respect to both policy and regulatory framework and

economic performance.

Many business commentators argue that government

regulation of the Australian workforce is costly to business in

terms of the increasing need to seek legal advice and to cope

with the record-keeping burdens imposed by the Act. They

also maintain that the balance has shifted too far in favour

of employee flexibility and entitlement, at the expense of

the economy with total-factor productivity flat for nearly a

decade as reflected in the very low score on that item. In a

country with a remarkably low official unemployment rate of

around 5.0%, it is argued that a high under-employment rate

and long employee hours are symptoms of a reluctance by

employers to recruit staff when they have little control over

what they can do in periods of downtime.

As this report is being written, Australia’s Fair Work Act

is under review. Whatever they are, the outcomes of that

review will have an impact on Australia’s capacity for business

to remain competitive and to fully engage in facilitating

improvements in the diversity of its workforce, which is not

only a national imperative but an imperative at the enterprise

level.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY

Paper made carbon neutral from 100% recycled post consumer waste

AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RESOURCES INSTITUTE LIMITED

ABN 44 120 687 149

Level 13, 565 Bourke Street

Melbourne Victoria 3000

T (+613) 9918 9200

F (+613) 9918 9201

[email protected]

STAY CONNECTED WITH AHRI

SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

1800 Duke Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

USA

T +1 (703) 548-3440

f (703) 535-6490

[email protected]

WWW.SHRM.ORG

STAY CONNECTED WITH SHRM

GLOBAL INDEX OF WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE AND FLEXIBILITY€¦ · In 2010, the Australian Human...

Documents

Transcript of GLOBAL INDEX OF WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE AND FLEXIBILITY€¦ · In 2010, the Australian Human...