Convergence of industrial classification between NACE and NAICS

Second report of the working group

October 2001

Executive Summary

The working group has developed a “same structure” scenario, with the same 20 major categories at the top of the classification and 379 classes in common, counting classes at all levels of detail, between both classifications. The working group has made no recommendations regarding the adoption of any changes at this time, nor should any aspect of the scenario be construed as a commitment to change by any party.

The scenario presented in this report represents the best trade-off that can be achieved between cost, in dollar terms and disruption for users, and comparability, according to the opinions of a working group of classification experts. It contains a combination of changes and restructuring that minimizes the impacts on either classification and maximizes comparability between them, while preserving, and in some cases improving, an analytically useful framework for industry statistics. At this point, however, the opinions of survey managers, data providers, and data users must be sought regarding the costs and benefits of the “same structure” scenario and the other options considered by the working group. The working group believes that the scenario provides a good example of a detailed convergence template for this consultation and recommends that the next step, assuming that the parties to the agreement wish us to proceed, is to launch a consultation process with stakeholders within our respective jurisdictions.

Introduction

On June 14, 2000, a project to study the potential for greater convergence between NACE and NAICS was initiated under an agreement signed by the heads of the statistical agencies of Canada, the European Union, and the United States. The agreement outlines a multiphase approach, beginning with a study of concepts and existing differences in the respective classifications, generation of possible scenarios for convergence, consultation with user communities, and finally recommendation of a template that could be used for convergence. A modular approach is being used during the life of the project. After the completion of each step, a review will be undertaken to decide whether to proceed with the next step. This is the second report issued under this convergence project.

The benefits of convergence

The benefits of convergence are considered by many to be self-evident. However, a brief summary of the potential benefits provides additional context that is vital when considering any future course of action.

The comparability of economic statistics across national boundaries is of growing importance in our global economy. For governments, the ability to observe the impact of a variety of regulatory issues, taxation issues, and other policy-based actions on comparably defined groupings of establishments across different countries will provide significant analytical power in support of policy formulation. In the field of international trade, while trade statistics are based on the actual goods or services that cross our borders, comparable data on the units that are making the goods or providing the services are also of significant interest. Most discussions of trade agreements or trade disagreements focus on the impact of an action on domestic industries. The availability of comparable statistics will provide a basis for the assessment of impacts that inform trade negotiations.

For business, the utility of comparing operating conditions and markets across national boundaries in our global economy cannot be understated. Statistics produced on the basis of comparably defined groupings of production units will allow businesses to better evaluate a variety of competitiveness factors such as occupation by industry, industry wage and benefit levels, productivity, inventory levels, order backlogs, capacity utilization, the number of direct competitors, potential customers and suppliers. Enhancing businesses’ abilities to assess comparative costs and benefits internationally will have a direct impact on a variety of investment decisions.

Comparable statistics on industries will improve the working of credit markets as well. Businesses will have greater access to credit markets, and credit providers will be able to more accurately analyze the risks inherent is the provision of credit, particularly to borrowers in other nations. Efficiency enhancements in credit markets increase the efficiency of economies overall.

International comparability of industry coding also provides significant benefits to the private data provider community such as marketing firms, research firms, and other compilers of statistics. These businesses now try to directly compare prices, employment, skill levels, and other variables by industry from a variety of sources, a task made more difficult because of the underlying differences in official government statistics.

Background

During the first meetings of the working group, a definition of convergence was discussed. Although the terms of the project referred to convergence, a working definition was not delineated. The convergence working group observed that over the years, continued technical cooperation has improved our understanding of our respective classification systems, which has led to consideration of our differences when independently making changes in NACE or NAICS. Thus, one of the design parameters for NAICS was to strive to ensure that detailed NAICS classes did not cross the boundaries of 2-digit classes in ISIC. Building on current understanding, convergence could be defined on a continuum beginning with changes to NAICS (at the trilateral level) or NACE that would make it easier to re-aggregate data compiled under one classification to data complied under the other. Changes to the trilateral level of NAICS may or may not affect detailed national level industries in Canada, Mexico, or the United States. The same situation holds for national versions of NACE. For national variations of both classifications, the mildest form of convergence could involve re-aggregation of national details to arrive at comparable groupings. At the other end of the continuum, convergence could mean a fully harmonized structure and nomenclature at the most detailed levels with the same industries, same codes and identical content.

In order to evaluate the range of possible convergence options, the working group first ascertained that there were no fundamental conceptual differences between NACE and NAICS. There was general agreement that adoption of the production function used by NAICS was feasible. In addition, the working group agreed that it was feasible to modify relationships with current product classifications. The North American Product Classification System, currently under development, is a companion to NAICS but does not have a direct industry of origin relationship to NAICS. The Statistical Classification of Products by Activity in the European Economic Community (CPA 1996) does have a direct relationship with NACE Rev. 1. This relationship would have to be softened. Based on these factors, the range of possibilities was discussed in the first report from the working group (October 2000) and an analysis of the perceived benefits and costs of a variety of options was also included. A brief summary of those discussions will place the balance of this report in the proper context.

In the early 1990s, the parties in this project completed a concordance among the Canadian SIC 1980, the U.S. SIC 1987, and NACE Rev. 1. The project did provide a better understanding of classifications but did not improve the harmonization of data or lead to a lasting result. The concordance produced was relatively complex and there were numerous “many-to-many” relationships that seriously limited the ability to make precise comparisons of data. The work was extremely valuable and did provide a tool that could be used for comparisons of data but, as noted, had considerable shortcomings. The convergence working group acknowledged this and also looked beyond this possibility at convergence options that, through changes to NACE and/or NAICS, would lead to greater comparability by either reducing or eliminating the “many-to-many” relationships or adopting a common structure at a given level. The common structure could involve changes to NACE and NAICS to adopt a common structure or even the same structure and same coding system. Many-to-many linkages could be reduced or eliminated while retaining the autonomy of the individual systems through re-aggregation of classes in addition to changing the content of some classes to allow better comparisons at any given level. The working group then generated a matrix of possible convergence approaches requiring change to one or both NACE and NAICS. This matrix covered the analysis of the common structure and reduced many-to-many relationships at the top level, at a mid-level of 100 classes, at a mid-level of 300 classes, at a hybrid level, and at the most detailed level.

Each of the options was evaluated based on several factors. These factors included the amount of change required (the number of changes required and perceived ability of the working group to resolve the issue), the level of comparability gained, the transparency and ease of use, flexibility in negotiations, tolerance of noise, the level of autonomy available to make either national or regional variations, and finally the ability to maintain any resulting increases in comparability. The initial discussions highlighted the fact that implementation costs would be incurred at varying levels depending on the path chosen. Significant implementation costs would be incurred by agencies as soon as the content of one lowest level industry changed. Once surveys are required, the incremental cost for the second or even tenth change is much less than the cost for the first one. Within certain boundaries, additional multiple changes are not as expensive once the fixed cost for an initial change is required. The cost of changing industry content is significant for the all of the parties in the convergence project.

To align the highest levels of the classifications, changes in the structure and arrangement of NACE and/or NAICS are necessary. The working group decided that the amount of comparability gained at the highest levels (roughly 20 sectors of NAICS or some combination of those sectors) would be of limited analytical use compared to the cost of recoding units and the disruption to data and time series associated with those changes. For example, the costs of changes required to NAICS and NACE to arrive at a comparable definition of manufacturing were deemed to be greater than the value of having a comparable category as broadly defined as manufacturing with no additional comparable levels below manufacturing.

The working group reviewed mid-level comparability in terms of NACE 3-digit groupings and NAICS 4-digit industry groups. Additional changes beyond those to obtain high level comparability would be required and there would be a resulting increase in the amount of disruption to existing data series offset to some measure by an increase in the amount of comparable data that could be generated. The working group also acknowledged that the degree of change required to both NACE and NAICS would be greatest with a convergence approach that sought to eliminate “many-to-many” relationships at the most detailed level or to apply a common structure at the most detailed level. The detailed level options would provide the greatest comparability of data but at the greatest relative cost to data collectors, data providers, statistical agencies, and public or private data users.

The first report concluded that the working group would detail two options on the spectrum of convergence possibilities: 1) the adoption by NACE and NAICS of the same structure at the top of the classification down to varying levels of detail across the classification yielding a common structure of 300-400 classes or aggregation levels (hybrid level); and 2) reduction or elimination of “many-to-many” relationships at the most detailed levels of NACE and NAICS (478 classes that are common to all three NAICS partners). The working group balanced the cost of implementing changes for these options with the improvement in comparability and the ability to maintain comparability in the future when choosing these two options. Option 1 was deemed to be more flexible for the parties. Rather than require strict agreement at a particular level, each area could be evaluated based on the desire for greater comparability. For example, the working group acknowledged that financial systems differ greatly across nations and a higher level agreement would be more appropriate. A similar situation exists for Public Administration. On the other hand, the working group felt that greater detailed comparability would be desirable for other areas, such as high-tech manufacturing and information.

The work is complicated to some extent because of the requirement for NACE to maintain a close relationship with the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) of the United Nations. As a result, any potential convergence-related change to NACE could have a consequential impact on ISIC. The United Nations is scheduled to revise ISIC for 2007 but at this time, a convergence study is, to some extent, trying to hit a moving target. The project was also constrained because only two of the NAICS partners were signatories to the project. After the initial meeting in Luxembourg in May 2000, Mexico was invited to join the working group and the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD) was invited to send an observer. In this way, all NAICS partners are part of the process and the UNSD is kept apprised of the issues and changes that could be provided as inputs for consideration during the scheduled 2007 revision of ISIC.

The first step of work under the project required the working group to study and evaluate the similarities and differences between NAICS and NACE. To assist in the analysis of differences and similarities between NAICS and NACE, the working group decided to produce ab initio and to validate a new concordance between the two classifications rather than try to use and reconcile the existing concordance between NACE Rev. 1, Canadian SIC 1980, and the U.S. SIC 1987. This was a massive undertaking and the result is a comprehensive concordance, fully reviewed and validated by the respective custodians. Even if all other work in this project is suspended, the project will, in this concordance, provide a concrete and valuable deliverable for all concerned. The concordance itself does not change the underlying incompatibilities present in the systems, but it does clearly identify our similarities and differences and allows comparison of existing data, albeit imprecise comparison. In addition, the concordance forms the basis for detailing the amount of work necessary to resolve the “many-to-many” relationships at the detailed level. While technically feasible, resolution of all differences at the most detailed level is not likely.

Analyses of differences and similarities between NACE and NAICS were conducted based on this concordance, sector by sector, according to an agreed upon division of labor. The results of these analyses were circulated among working group members and were discussed at the meetings of the working group. At a meeting during November 2000, in Washington, participants agreed to the work process and division of labor. At the next meeting, in February 2001, in Aguascalientes, the first batch of analyses was reviewed and preliminary convergence scenarios for the hybrid level option were developed based on those sectors. At the most recent meeting in June 2001, in Ottawa, most of the remaining analyses were reviewed and a detailed view of the hybrid level convergence option was developed, which is presented in this report.

Technical and Resource Implications of Convergence

The range of convergence options from the reduction or elimination of “many-to-many” relationships to a completely harmonized nomenclature at the detailed level would require varying levels of resources for successful implementation. Continued technical cooperation requires the lowest level of technical and resource expenditures for periodic meetings to discuss and evaluate classification issues and to share existing and new classification materials and tools, and could result in official concordances of the classifications used by the parties to this agreement. This level of cost will continue regardless of the outcome of this particular project. The reduction or elimination of many-to-many linkages increases costs. At the extreme, the adoption of a fully harmonized system at the detailed level would require significantly greater expenditures and involve data integrity issues. For example, a fully harmonized system would require significant survey activity to properly classify a variety of activities in the new system that are not currently identified at the industry level for both NACE and NAICS. In addition to the resulting time series breaks, there would be costs to recode or renumber business registers, draw new samples based on the redefined industries or classes, generate historical series based on the new structure, recalculate seasonal adjustment factors, and to carry out similar activities within the statistical systems of the countries. There would also be significant costs for data users and users of the classification that are not part of the statistical system. Third party users, such as mailing list providers, business analysis firms, marketing firms, academics, legislative bodies, and others, would be faced with the costs of updating their products, laws, or analysis tools. Overall, these costs would be offset in some measure by the increased ability to directly compare across national and regional lines the industrial structure, output, productivity, distribution of occupations by industry, and other factors relevant to policy, investment, and trade decisions. A problem with costs and benefits is that the benefits will not necessarily accrue to those who bear the cost of implementation. In addition to data integrity costs, the parties to the agreement would lose a certain amount of autonomy to make changes as may prove necessary to meet regional or national classification needs. Because of the relationship between ISIC and NACE, any structural convergence will have to meet an international standard applicable to all nations that has yet to be defined.

While continued technical cooperation leads to a greater understanding of the differences in our various statistics, it does not bring about improvements in the precision of comparison of those statistics. While there is value in greater understanding, the working group feels that greater comparability is desirable. The fully harmonized system would lead to more comparable, but not fully comparable, data because of a variety of technical considerations, such as the application of establishment definitions. Acknowledging that 100 percent comparability will not be achieved because of technical considerations like the definition of the establishment, the working group focussed on the creation of a scenario that is anticipated to minimize the number of disruptions to existing programs while obtaining greater comparability and enhancing the relevance of the industry classifications. The resource implications of the scenario are greater than the costs of continued technical cooperation but less than the costs to implement a fully harmonized system at the most detailed levels. The working group also notes that any convergence path should be focussed on long term agreement rather than a point-in-time improvement. It will be hard to justify the costs of change to the existing classifications for convergence if divergence will immediately follow. Changes to the existing systems and a requirement for long term agreement imply the development of a mechanism to maintain convergence in the future that would involve all of the NAICS partners as well as Eurostat and possibly the United Nations, depending on the extent of future changes required to classification(s) due to changes in the economies of the signatories. While this is inherent in the current relationship between NACE and ISIC, a new requirement for agreement by Eurostat or the United Nations would lead to a significant loss of autonomy for the NAICS partners. Future negotiations on changes to the classification will become more complex as the number of parties involved increases.

With this background, the working group presents one hybrid level scenario that represents the results of our analysis and efforts over the past year.

The Scenario

The working group has developed a “same structure” scenario, with the same 20 major categories at the top of the classification and 379 classes in common, counting classes at all levels of detail, between both classifications. Convergence is not pushed down to the same level of detail across the classification, however. In some areas, only the top-level aggregates are the same while in others, there is convergence down to a very detailed level. The end result is a “wavy line” scenario.

At this time, the working group makes no recommendations regarding the coding or numbering system that should be adopted. Whether the converged classes are incorporated into the existing numbering schemes of both classifications, or both classifications adopt a new numbering scheme should be determined after the consultation phase.

The scenario implies a few conceptual changes, in particular the adoption by NACE in a pragmatic way of a production process basis for the definition of industry categories and the relaxing of a strict one-to-one relationship between detailed industry classes and classes of the CPA, the EU product classification. While not apparent in the structure of the converged classification, the scenario also implies a certain harmonization in the application rules of the classification. For example, the rules regarding vertically integrated operations need to be harmonized. The working group has inventoried these differences and can act upon them if and when a final convergence proposal is developed. In specific terms, the current scenario treats installation and repair and most exceptions to the standard rule for vertical integration according to the NAICS practice.

The working group believes that this scenario represents the maximum achievable convergence without introducing truly massive and disruptive changes in either classification. In general, it was produced by moving whole classes, or large identifiable parts of whole classes, into new configurations, so as to minimize the amount of detailed recoding of individual records that its implementation would require.

High-level groupings:

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Mining

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale and Retail Trade

Transportation and Storage

Information

Hotels and Restaurants

Finance and Insurance

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

Administrative and Support Services

Education

Health and Social Services

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

Sanitation

Repair and Maintenance

Other Services

Public Administration

At this high level of aggregation, there are several important departures from the current structure of both classifications, in particular for NACE. As will often be the case, many of the convergence changes are in fact relevance enhancing changes that NACE would wish to pursue, with or without convergence, which were adopted earlier in NAICS. Examples include the Information sector and Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. In the case of Repair and Maintenance, these were grouped together in NAICS and the working group saw this as a desirable feature for the converged classification. It also provides an alternative solution for NACE class 50, covering the sale and repair of everything automotive, a grouping that was not considered successful by Eurostat. Finally, the scenario implies the adoption by the NAICS countries of a high-level grouping for Sanitation, an existing NACE grouping. The harmonization of the other high-level groupings can be achieved through a series of more minor changes and moves, which are described for each sector in Appendix 1.

Work Plan and Schedule

The next phase of the project involves consultation on the variety of paths that could be taken to obtain convergence. Data collectors, data providers, and data users should be consulted to determine where on the continuum of convergence possibilities (re-aggregation of national level details to full harmonization) they see the best balance of costs and benefits. The scenario presented in this report represents the best trade-off that can be achieved between cost, in dollar terms and disruption for users, and comparability, according to the opinions of a working group of classification experts. At this point, however, the opinions of survey managers, data providers, and data users must be sought regarding the costs and benefits of the “same structure” scenario and the other options considered by the working group. The working group believes that the scenario provides a good example of a detailed convergence template for this consultation and recommends that the next step, assuming that the parties to the agreement wish us to proceed, is to launch a consultation process with stakeholders within our respective jurisdictions. One objective would be to ask the question of what is the most useful level of convergence when taking into account the benefits and costs of each option. Another would be to test the robustness of the scenario to determine if: a) data users, data providers, and data collectors see the same cost and benefit balance as the working group; and b) the changes can be feasibly accommodated. The working group could then report in a year’s time on how much of the scenario, if any, can be made into a formal convergence template. The results of consultation on the workgroup scenario and other convergence paths that may be identified and determined to be feasible should result in an accepted definition of convergence and provide greater direction in the development of a formal template for convergence during a later phase of the project. If consultation results in a template requiring changes to the existing classifications, it could form the basis of negotiations between the signatories, the results of which could be fed into the revision process for our respective industry classifications as appropriate, as well as into the ISIC revision process, for 2007. The working group understands that ISIC revision, or lack thereof, will necessarily impact the viability of any template for convergence that requires change to NACE that is in conflict with ISIC.

In addition, if a long-term convergence is desired, additional negotiations will be required based on the resulting level of autonomy of NACE and NAICS. If the project is discontinued, the working group should recommend a schedule to formalize the concordance already prepared and a schedule to modify the concordance for future changes in our classifications. If a common structure is proposed, the working group should also recommend maintenance procedures and agree on how and when future changes to the common structure will be negotiated. If the independence of NAICS and NACE remains (common structure not adopted), plans to maintain agreement should also be recommended that meet the needs of the custodians of the classifications and to the extent desired, carry any increased comparability forward.

Should we proceed on this or a modified work plan, sufficient resources should be planned to complete and report upon this consultation phase by October 2002.

Appendix 1

Sector descriptions

In this section, a brief description of each sector will be presented, giving the rationale and conceptual basis for the grouping as well as listing the next level of detail in the convergence scenario. The number of additional detailed classes, if applicable, is shown in brackets. The full detail of the convergence scenario can be found in Annex 1.

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Agriculture

Crop Farming (3)

Animal Farming (6)

Mixed Farming

Support Activities for Agriculture (2)

Forestry

Forestry and Logging

Support Activities for Forestry

Fishing, Hunting and Trapping

Fishing

Hunting & Trapping

The scenario for agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting groups these activities into three broad categories. Agriculture can have a significant amount of detail, assuming that the major issue of the treatment of mixed crop and livestock farming can be settled. NACE has one category for this, while NAICS splits majority crop and majority livestock farms. Other issues which need to be settled include the treatment of aquaculture (the scenario includes this as a detailed class) and the boundary between agriculture and manufacturing (integrated farming and food processing and perhaps beneficiation are issues). Forestry has no significant issues while Fishing in the scenario includes fish processing on ships.

Mining

Mining and quarrying of energy-producing materials (3)

Mining of metal ores, except uranium and thorium ores (2)

Other mining and quarrying (3)

Support activities for mining (2)

In mining and quarrying, the scenario adopts the NACE structure, in

particular the creation of a grouping for the mining and quarrying of

energy-producing materials. The scenario follows NAICS in (1) classifying

support services to mining and quarrying in a separate grouping, and (2)

classifying salt manufacturing establishments (that are not integrated with

salt mining), in food manufacturing.

Utilities

Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution

Natural Gas and Other Gas Distribution

Water Supply and Irrigation Systems

Steam and Air Conditioning Supply

This scenario requires that NACE move the operation of irrigation systems from Agriculture to Utilities and that NAICS move Sewage Treatment Facilities from Utilities to a new Sanitation grouping. The level of detail below these classes is limited by the absence of further detail in NACE.

Construction

Building construction (2)

Civil engineering works

Special trades

Three broad divisions have been considered in the Construction sector scenario: Building Construction, Civil Engineering Works and Special Trades. At the same time, the Building Construction sub-sector would be subdivided in two more categories, that is, Residential Building Construction and Non-Residential Building Construction. Proposals for lower levels have not been considered, since achieving convergence further down would imply too many changes for both NAICS and NACE.

The scenario adopts the NAICS practice of considering installation of machinery not done by the manufacturers of the machinery as a construction activity whereas NACE generally treats it as a manufacturing activity.

Manufacturing

(NACE 15-22)

Food, Beverages and Tobacco (18)

Textile, Leather and Apparel (16)

Wood products

Paper manufacturing (7)

Printing

Both classifications have a significant amount of detail in these traditional manufacturing industries (some would say too much detail). Where the conceptual basis for disaggregation differs, it is very difficult to achieve convergence without significantly impacting one or both of the classifications. This is the case for the Wood products industries, for example. Where the disaggregation logic is similar, many common classes can be defined, for example in Food, Beverage and Tobacco. A new grouping for Textile, Leather and Apparel, which does not currently exist in either classification, provides an opportunity for defining a number of common classes at a middle level, at the cost of fairly large residual classes. These would be further broken down into appropriate detailed classes for each classification. Finally, all publishing activity has been removed from the Printing industry, in accordance with the NAICS concept for the Information sector.

NACE 23-28

Plastic and Rubber products (5)

Fossil and mineral fuel products (3)

Chemical products (25)

Non-metallic mineral products (4)

Primary metals (9)

Fabricated metal products (15)

The most significant change within this group of industries is the expansion of the boundaries of sub-sector 324 (Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing) to reflect the change in concept from “petroleum products” to the more general “fossil and mineral fuel products”. This latter concept puts together petroleum products manufacturing and nuclear fuel processing which is now classified under NAICS 325 (Chemical products manufacturing) and under 3314 (Nonferrous Metal production and processing).

In several other sub-sectors in this group, the criteria followed by each classification for disaggregation differ. To achieve convergence at detailed levels would imply many chnages for both classifications and it is deemed better to make the proposals at a high level. For instance, cement, lime and gypsum manufacturing were grouped together to reach convergence in the Non-metallic Mineral Products sub-sector.

In addition, some industries have been relocated because of the production function principle. For instance, textile dye preparations and other household dye or tinting preparations, and other inks (e.g. for duplication, printing and drawing) are classified in NAICS 3259 (Other Chemical Products and Preparation Manufacturing). In this proposal that activity has been relocated to paints, adhesives and sealers manufacturing, since their production processes are similar.

NACE 29-37

Computers, Communications Equipment, Electronic Components, and Related Electronic Equipment (9)

Electrical Equipment, Wire, Wiring Devices, and Electric and Nonelectric Household Appliances (6)

General Purpose Machinery (7)

Special Purpose Machinery (4)

Furniture (2)

Miscellaneous Manufacturing (6)

Transportation Equipment (6)

The scenario presented for this part of manufacturing incorporates a number of NAICS concepts that will require significant adjustments for NACE if they are accepted. Most significantly, these concepts include a clear breakdown between electrical machinery and electronic machinery. This fundamental split is required if a high tech manufacturing area is to be created in a converged classification. The convergence scenario recommends a grouping to include detailed industries for computers, communications equipment, semiconductors, household audio and video equipment, other electronic components, and high technology medical equipment such as MRI systems and X-ray equipment. This represents a significant improvement over many existing classifications and was considered desirable by the convergence working group. The cost to current industry structures is on the high side of moderate, particularly for NACE.

Wholesale and Retail Trade

Except for repair and maintenance activities, which is the subject of a separate proposed grouping in the convergence scenario, both NACE and NAICS cover essentially the same activities in wholesale and retail combined. However, different principles are used to determine whether a distributive trade activity is wholesale or retail. In NACE, this determination is made according to the class of customer. If the customer is business or institutional, then the activity is wholesale. Otherwise, it is a retail activity. In NAICS, the production process is used to determine whether an activity is wholesale or retail. If the activity is conducted in a store-like facility, using a retail business process, then it is retail, regardless of the class of customer. This difference in treatment creates a large number of incompatibilities between NACE and NAICS so that the best that can be achieved, without a massive recoding exercise across all classes, is a combined wholesale/retail high level grouping, with no further convergence at lower levels of the classification.

Transportation and Storage

Land transport (7)

Water transport (2)

Air transport (2)

Scenic transportation

Support services (5)

Courier and postal (2)

Storage and Warehousing

The crucial issue to achieving convergence in this area is the NAICS concept of Scenic transportation, which cuts across modes of transport, the primary disaggregation logic in this sector. The scenario assumes that NACE can adopt this concept, but the converse (i.e. NAICS abandoning the concept) would also result in significant convergence possibilities.

Information

Publishing Industries (7)

Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries (11)

Broadcasting, except Internet (4)

Internet Publishing and Broadcasting

Telecommunications (6)

Internet Service Providers, Web Search Portals and Data Processing (2)

Other Information Services (5)

In this sector, the scenario assumes that the definition of the Information sector for the 2002 version of NAICS will for the basis of the converged classification, a stated objective of the project from the outset.

Hotels and Restaurants

Hotels

Other Traveler Accommodation

Food Serving and Special Food Places

Drinking Places

In this sector the coverage and concepts are identical in NAICS and NACE. However, the detail is different, without any clear justification in any of the systems. The proposed scenario can be achieved with no cost to either system and the degree of detail, even if aggregated, may be sufficient for the purpose.

Finance and Insurance

Finance (3)

Insurance (3)

Other Financial Industries (3)

In this sector there is already a high degree of similarity. The main difference is the separate identification of Reinsurance in NAICS. The scenario assumes that NACE can adopt this concept which already has been strongly requested in Europe. The scenario does not include NAICS 525 Financial vehicles since they appear to fall outside the scope of an activity classification.

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

Real Estate (3)

Rental and Leasing (5)

NACE has two classes that fall outside the scope of real estate in NAICS.

Development and selling of real estate by people that do not actually do any physical construction themselves falls under construction in NAICS and in real estate in NACE. The scenario assumes that NACE can accept to follow NAICS. It has always been extremely difficult to explain the NACE treatment in Europe.

NACE also has Buying and selling of real estate as a separate activity. The scenario assumes that most would be under 70.20 or completely out of the scope of an activity classification. No further detail is possible, and perhaps not even necessary

For rental and leasing the coverage and concepts are identical in NAICS and NACE. However, as in other sectors, the detail is different, without any clear justification in any of the systems. The proposed scenario can be achieved with no or little cost to either system and the degree of detail, even if aggregated, may be sufficient for the purpose.

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

Legal Services

Accounting Services

Architecture and Engineering Services

Computer Services

Management Consultancy services

Research and Development Services

Advertising Services

Market Research and Opinion Polling Services

Photography Services

Translation and Interpretation Services

Design Services

Management of Companies and Enterprises

Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

The scenario for business services is based on the fact that NACE would wish to pursue, with or without convergence, relevance enhancing structural changes in line with that which were adopted earlier in NAICS. Therefore, at the highest level the scenario proposes the split between Professional, Scientific and Technical Services and Administrative and support services.

The detail in Professional, Scientific and Technical Services is very similar in the two systems and the cost involved to both NACE and NAICS would be fairly minimal.

Administrative and Support Services

Office Administrative Services

Facilities Support Services

Employment Services

Business Support Services

Call Centres

Travel Arrangements and Reservation Services

Investigation and Security Services

Packaging and Labeling Services

Services to Buildings and Dwellings and Industrial Cleaning Services

Convention and Trade Show Organization Services

Other Support Services

This area is presently under-developed in NACE and the scenario assumes that NACE can accept a number of NAICS concepts, especially office administrative services, facilities support, and travel arrangement and reservation services. The cost to NACE would be moderate to high, but it is recognized that the area needs improvement.

Education

Primary and Secondary Education

Higher Education

Other Miscellaneous Education

This scenario is consistent with the latest ISCED, which seems to indicate that all learning activities are considered as education. This draft includes under education sport instruction and education in recreational activities. The scenario also assumes that NAICS can accept to suppress education support services.

Health and Social Services

Hospital activities

Medical practice activities

Dental practice activities

Other human health activities

Veterinary activities

Social work activities

The scenario follows the NACE concept, which makes the distinction between medical services by doctors, medical services by paramedicals and social work activities without medical treatment. This would involve minor cost to NAICS. The crucial structural issue is the inclusion of veterinary activities in this area. The concept and coverage is already identical in NACE and NAICS, so a move in NAICS will come at no or minimal costs. The scenario assumes that NAICS can adopt this grouping, but the converse (i.e. that NACE move it out of this sector) is also at no or minimal cost.

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

Museums, Historical Sites and Buildings

Botanical and Zoological Gardens and Nature Reserves

Gambling and Betting Activities

Other Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Activities

For Museums, Historical Sites and Buildings, Botanical and Zoological Gardens and Nature Reserves as well as Gambling and Betting Activities the scenario supposes the NACE level of detail with no cost to either system.

However, Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Activities is the most difficult area in services. In the other sectors it is mainly borderline adjustments or clearly defendable concepts. Here there is no common ground on what is art and what is entertainment, and no clear underlying principles. The best that can be achieved, without a massive recoding exercise across all classes, is high a level grouping, with no further convergence at lower levels of the classification.

Sanitation

Collection and Treatment of Sewage

Collection and Treatment of Other Waste

Sanitation, Remediation and Similar Activities

Generally the concepts and boundaries are matching, but the scenario implies the adoption by the NAICS countries of a high-level grouping for Sanitation, an existing NACE grouping. This would move sewage away from utilities in NAICS.

Repair and Maintenance

Repair and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles

Consumer Electronics Repair

Computer and Office Machinery Repair

Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery Repair and Maintenance

Appliance Repair and Maintenance

Re-upholstery and Furniture Repair

Footwear and Leather Goods Repair

Other Personal and Household Goods Repair

This scenario presumes that the treatment of repair and maintenance follow the NAICS concept which was seen as a desirable feature by the convergence group. An analysis showed that the cost to NACE would be much less than expected.

Other Services

Services of Associations and Organizations (6)

Personal Care Services

Washing and Dry Cleaning Services

Funeral and Related Services

Other Services (3)

The definition and a high degree of detail is common to both NACE and NAICS. To achieve convergence only borderline moves would be necessay at little cost.

Public Administration

The definition of this sector is apparently the same in both NACE and NAICS. However, there are differences in application. Included in this sector are activities that are traditionally performed by governments. Lately, however, this has not been a stable concept, with the privatization of many activities previously performed by governments. While both NACE and NAICS classify to the appropriate activity outside of Public Administration various “private” activities performed by governments, there are some differences regarding privatized activities. For example, in NACE, fire-fighting and fire protection is by definition in Public Administration, regardless of the nature of the service provider. For some NAICS countries, the tendency will be to classify private fire-fighting services outside of public administration. There is a need to harmonize the treatment of these types of activities, first, around agreed upon definition of the activities of Public Administration, and secondly by distinguishing between activity classification and SNA sector classification. The latter is the appropriate framework for distinguishing private and public sector activities, not the former.

The following concepts could be used to define public administration:

(1) activities related to the determination of public policy, including the making and interpretation of laws;

(2) activities related to the state's monopoly over the use of force;

(3) activities related to the provision of public goods.

Examples of the first would include

- parliaments and legislatures

- central banks

- policy-making activities of government departments and agencies

- regulatory activities of governments

- could include regulatory activities of private entities, where authorized by law, for example law societies

Examples of the second would include:

- courts

- police and military

- prisons

- could include private entities performing these activities

Examples of the third could include:

- operation of activities with significant positive externalities, such as national parks.

The working group agreed that further common classes would not be sought below the sector level, due to the differences in the institutional structures in each country.