UK Data Archive Study Number 6568 - European Company Survey, 2009
European Company Survey 2009 (ECS 2009) Technical Report
European Company Survey (ECS 2009)
Technical Report: Methodology, Questionnaire Development and Fieldwork
prepared by Arnold Riedmann (TNS Infratest Sozialforschung, Munich)
With contributions from: Dr. Martin Pfister (TNS Infratest Munich; chapter 6) Kerstin Sleik (TNS Infratest Sozialforschung Munich) Monika Fedor (TNS opinion, Brussels) TNS Infratest Sozialforschung, Munich Landsberger Strasse 338 80687 Munich Germany on behalf of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin
Munich, 20 October 2009 67.04.059813
2
Contents
Page
Preface
5
1.
The design of the survey
6
1.1.
The universe
6
1.2
The respondents
7
1.3 1.4
Data collection method Topics
8 9
2.
The questionnaires
11
2.1
Questionnaire development
11
2.2
Questionnaire translation process
12
3.
Fieldwork preparations
16
3.1
Sampling
16
3.2
Programming of questionnaires
18
3.3
Briefing of interviewers
19
3.4
Material supporting fieldwork
20
4.
Fieldwork
21
4.1
Fieldwork period
21
4.2
Number and structure of completed interviews
23
4.3
Non-response in the management interviews
26
4.4
Non-response in the employee representative interviews
30
4.5
Non-response analysis of the ER interviews: A multi-variate approach
34
4.6
Fieldwork monitoring
40
4.7
Specific fieldwork observations
40
5.
Weighting
42
6.
Level of confidence – Bootstrap variance test
44
6.1
Introduction
44
6.2
Bootstrap Theory
45
6.3
Results
46
3
7.
Data structure
49
7.1
Data processing and cleaning
49
7.2
Harmonization of sector codifications
49
7.3
SPSS data file
52
7.4
ASCII data file
55
7.5
Cross-tabulations
55
8.
Recommendations for future surveys
56
8.1
Work organization
56
8.2
Timeframe
57
8.3
Identification and selection of respondents for the employee representative interviews
57
8.4
Reduction of the overload of questions asking for allowances at the end of the MM interview
57
Questions asking for percentage shares
58
8.5
Annex A: List of tables in the report
59
Annex B: Country codes
60
Annex C: Data map for the ASCII file
61
Annex D: Syntax used for the NACE harmonization
67
4
Preface
The European Company Survey (ECS 2009) is a large-scale representative survey among establishments in all EU-27 countries and three acceding and candidate countries (Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey). The survey was prepared and carried out on behalf of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions by TNS Infratest Sozialforschung, Munich (Germany) in co-operation with the international coordination centre of its sister company TNS opinion in Brussels (Belgium) and national fieldwork institutes of the TNS network (see table 1.3.1). For questionnaire development, TNS Infratest Sozialforschung co-operated with an international group of renowned scientific experts in the subject matters under investigation as well in international survey research (see chapter 2.1). The ECS 2009 is the second EU-wide establishment survey launched by the European Foundation in recent years. The preceding survey – the European Establishment Survey on Working-time and Work-life Balance (ESWT 2004/05) had been conducted in 2004 in the EU15 countries plus – in a second round in 2005 – in six of the ten countries that had newly joined the European Union on 1st May 2004 (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia). The ESWT 2004/05 had also been coordinated by TNS Infratest Sozialforschung. The main topics of the ECS 2009 are flexibility measures at the firm level and the involvement of employee representatives in decisions regarding their application (for more details on the topics cf. chapter 1.4). This “Technical Report” describes the development of the questionnaires, the translation process, the organization and outcome of the fieldwork and the basic principles applied for the sampling and the weighting of the data. It also contains some recommendations for future surveys of a similar kind.
5
1.
The design of the survey
1.1.
The universe The survey covers 30 European countries, namely the 27 EU Member States plus Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey. Interviews were carried out in establishments with 10 or more employees. Almost all sectors of activity were included in the sample, with the exception of the following sectors which are of limited quantitative importance considering the confinement of the universe to establishments with at least 10 employees:
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Private Households Extraterritorial Organisations
NACE Rev: 1.1 A and B P Q
NACE Rev. 2 A T U
All other sectors of activity, including Public Administration (NACE Rev. 1.1 L/ NACE Rev. 2 O) are part of the sample of the survey. All in all, the universe comprises about 3,2 million establishments with roughly 145 million employees. Table 1 below shows the size of the universe (establishments with 10 or more employees in the relevant sectors) for each of the countries involved. Figures are partially based on our own estimations, since exact statistical information about the universe is not available for several of the countries.1
Table 1.1.1: The size of the universe Country Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece Spain France Italy Cyprus 1
establishments (in '000) 54 37 79 34 564 13 20 57 282 327 300 5
employees (in '000) 3.072 1.641 3.154 2.115 27.842 471 1.359 1.637 10.015 18.629 11.221 178
For details cf. chapter 5 (“Weighting”).
6
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom Subtotal EU-27 Croatia Macedonia Turkey Subtotal 3 additional countries Total all 30 countries
1.2
17 24 4 69 2 96 48 176 83 119 13 42 27 74 445 3.011
697 1.080 238 2.439 111 4.968 2.262 8.213 2.541 5.240 611 1.345 1.677 3.297 20.362 136.415
18 6 179 203
892 260 7.661 8.813
3.214
145.228
The respondents In each establishment one management (MM) interview had to be conducted. The respondent for the MM interview was defined as the most senior person responsible for the personnel in the chosen establishment. In larger establishments this was normally the Human Resources Manager, in smaller units the Managing Director or – in the case of subsidiaries – the branch manager. In all organisations where a formal employee representation (ER) existed at the local level of the chosen establishment, additionally one interview with an employee representative was conducted wherever possible (ER interview). The proper respondent for this interview was the chairperson of the employee representative body in the establishment. In case of several bodies of employee representation coexisting within an establishment, the most important body was chosen for interviewing. This choice was made according to pre-defined general rules of selection. The programmed country specific filterings ensured that for each establishment the most appropriate ER respondent was selected, depending on the country situation and the specific constellation within the surveyed establishment.
7
The country-specific definitions of the ER bodies eligible for interview were worked out in close cooperation between the network of EUROFOUND’s EIRO2 correspondents, TNS Infratest Sozialforschung and the European Foundation team. (For details on the chosen bodies please refer to the master questionnaires and its annexes.)
1.3
Data collection method All interviews were carried out as Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI). All Interviews in the main data collection phase were carried out de-centrally by national fieldwork agencies located in the respective countries (see Table 1.3.1). Most of the institutes involved in the survey are part of the TNS group. In the few countries where no TNS fieldwork institute exists, long-standing cooperation partners of TNS (with cooperation experience from the Eurobarometer and other European studies) were responsible for fieldwork. Among the local fieldwork institutes carrying out the ECS 2009, 173 had already been responsible for the preceding survey ESWT 2004/05 and had thus collected experiences with this demanding survey design. Within each country, CATI interviewing was done centrally from one or more telephone studios in order to ensure an efficient sample management and a consequent quality control of the interviewing.
Table 1.3.1 Local institutes in charge of field-work for the ECS 2009 Country Austria Belgium
Name Österreichisches Gallup-Institut TNS Dimarso
Bulgaria
TNS BBSS
Cyprus
Cymar Market Research Ltd. TNS AISA
Czech Republic Denmark
TNS Gallup DK
Estonia
TNS Emor
Finland
TNS Gallup Oy
France
TNS SOFRES
2 3
Location and Website Vienna www.karmasin.at Brussels www.tns-dimarso.com Sofia www.tns-bbss.org Nicosia www.cymar.com.cy Prague www.tns-aisa.cz Copenhagen www.tns-gallup.dk Tallinn www.emor.ee Espoo www.tns-gallup.fi Montrouge Cedex www.tns-sofres.com
EIRO = European Industrial Relations Observatory The ESWT 2004/05 had been carried out in 21 countries. In all countries with the exception of Cyprus, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal the institutes that had been responsible for the ESWT 2004/05 were also responsible for the ECS 2009.
8
Germany
TNS Infratest
Greece
TNS ICAP
Hungary
TNS Hungary
Ireland
TNS mrbi
Italy
TNS Infratest
Latvia
TNS Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg
TNS Gallup Lithuania TNS ILReS
Malta
Misco
The Netherlands Poland
TNS NIPO
Portugal
TNS Euroteste
Romania
TNS CSOP
Slovakia
TNS Slovakia
Slovenia
RM PLUS
Spain
TNS Demoscopia TNS Gallup
Sweden
1.4
TNS OBOP
United Kingdom Croatia
TNS UK Ltd
Macedonia
TNS Brima
Turkey
TNS PIAR
Hendal d.o.o.
Munich www.tns-infratest.com Athens www.tns-global.com Budapest www.tns-global.hu Blackrock/ Co Dublin www.tnsmrbi.ie Milano www.tns-italia.com Riga www.tns.lv Vilnius www.tns-gallup.lt Luxembourg www.ilres.com Valletta ettawww.miscomalta.com Amsterdam www.tns-nipo.com Warszawa www.tns-global.pl Lisboa www.tns.pt Bucharest www.csop.ro Bratislava www.tns-global.sk Maribor, www.rmplus.si Madrid www.tns-global.com Göteborg www.tns-gallup.se London www.TNS-global.co.uk Zagreb www.hendal.hr Skopje www.tnsglobal.com/global/europe/macedonia Istanbul www.tns-global.com.tr
Topics Questionnaire development for the ECS 2009 took place in close cooperation between the European Foundation, its Advisory Committee, a group of researchers from various countries and TNS Infratest Sozialforschung. The thematic focus of the ECS 2009 is on different flexibility strategies used by firms in order to cope with challenges such as workload variations, problems in Human Resources Management or measures of restructuring or reorganisation. Among the flexibility measures
9
dealt with in the survey there are different forms of working-time flexibility and contractual flexibility, variable forms of pay and new forms of work organisation such as work in autonomous teams. The management survey investigates the application of these flexibility measures, the shape they take in the establishment and – in some instances – the rationale behind their application. The employee representative questionnaire deals with the degree and form of influence the establishment level employee representatives exert on these strategies. In more general terms, it also deals with the role of the employee representation in general, with its resources and the degree of influence it exerts on important management decisions that are tackling the situation of the employees. More in particular, the survey deals with the following issues: a) Working time arrangements: − − − −
part-time work extended operating hours (night work, week-end work, shift work) flexible working time arrangements (e.g. flexi-time, working time accounts) overtime
These flexibility arrangements were already investigated in the ESWT 2004/05. Part of the questions in the ECS 2009 was formulated identically to the ESWT questions in order to allow for an analysis of trends over time. b) Other flexibility measures: − − − −
contractual flexibility (fixed-term contracts; temporary agency work; use of freelancers) variable elements of pay (elements of pay depending on the performance of the individual, the working group or the establishment, share ownership schemes) new forms of work organisation (work in teams) further training of employees
c) Social dialogue practice: − − − − −
existence of different types of formal employee representation at the establishment level (trade union representation, works council, other types of representation) resources of the employee representatives (available time, provision with information etc.) Influence of the employee representation on establishment level decisions Influence of the employee representation on the application and shape of the flexibility arrangements dealt with in the management questionnaires Forms of employee involvement (direct consultation of employees, queries of employees directed to the formal employee representation)
10
2.
The questionnaires
2.1
Questionnaire development
The questionnaires were developed in close co-operation between TNS Infratest Sozialforschung and the following researchers: −
− −
the research team responsible for the ECS 2009 at the European Foundation (Greet Vermeylen, David Foden, Branislav Miculic, Agnès Parent-Thirion, Kasia Jurczak, Radoslaw Owczarzak, Stavroula Demetriades, Felix Wolf), The Advisory Committee set up for this project, consisting of representatives from trade union federations, employer federations, governments, EU representatives and scientists experts from a number of different European countries and research institutes: − Dr. Guy van Gyes and Monique Ramioul (HIVA, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium) − Dr. Marcel Kerkhoffs, Prof. Dr. Peter Ester and Heejung Chung (OSA, Tilburg University, Netherlands) − Prof. Dr. Dominique Anxo (Centre for European Labour Market Studies, Gothenburg, Sweden) − Prof. Dr. Rafael Munoz de Bustillo Llorente (Universidad de Salamanca, Spain) − Peter Ellguth and Dr. Lutz Bellmann (Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Nuremberg, Germany) − Prof. Dr. Colette Fagan (Manchester University/United Kingdom) − Dr. Spartak Keremidchiev (Institute of Economics at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria) − Dr. Jens Lowitzsch (Osteuropa Institut, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany)
At the contractor’s side, the main responsibility for the questionnaire concept in general and for the development of the MM questionnaire was with Harald Bielenski and Arnold Riedmann from TNS Infratest, while the main responsibility for the development of the ER questionnaire was shared between Guy van Gyes from the University of Leuven and Arnold Riedmann. All in all, the process of jointly developing the final master questionnaires lasted from February 2008 until the end of October 2008. During this period seven draft versions of both the MMquestionnaire and the ER-questionnaire were developed and circulated among the members of the research team. The team members commented via email on the various versions. Questionnaires were also personally discussed between TNS Infratest, the research team of EUROFOUND and the expert group in a meeting in Dublin on 07/08 April 2008. In another meeting on 27/28 May 2008, the Advisory Committee of the European Foundation for this project had the opportunity to personally discuss the questionnaire drafts with the
11
EUROFOUND team and TNS Infratest and to propose revisions. The questionnaires were thus the result of a long and intense period of reflections, discussions and revisions.4 The 6th draft, the English master versions of the MM and ER master questionnaires of 22th July 2008, was pre-tested in a quantitative pilot carried out in about 320 establishments in 8 countries (40 establishments per country), representing different geographical regions and different economic structures within the European Union (Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom). For the pre-test, the master questionnaires were transmitted to the TNS Quest translation tool and translated by members of the pool of translators maintained by TNS Opinion. Each national version was then thoroughly checked by native speakers and revised where necessary (for details on the translations for the pilot phase see separate Pre-test Report of 15/10/2008, chapter 1.3). The pre-testing in the 8 countries revealed a need for substantial shortenings of the master questionnaires and for slight revisions of some of the questions to remain. On the basis of the recommendations in the Pre-test Report and the expert feedback received on these, TNS Infratest Sozialforschung and the research team of EUROFOUND discussed the revisions and shortenings of the questionnaire in a joint meeting held on 22/23 October 2008 in Dublin. At this occasion, the decision was made to substantially shorten the questionnaire parts dealing with working-time arrangements in order to allow for a sufficiently differentiated coverage of the newly introduced topics. Among the trend questions allowing a comparison of developments since 2004/05 (ESWT), therefore only a limited set could be maintained. By 10 November 2008, the decisions on the revisions were implemented in the international master questionnaires and the new master questionnaires were acknowledged by EUROFOUND. Due to the substantial shortenings of some parts of the survey it was necessary to rearrange some of the questions in order to maintain a straightforward and logic structure of the questionnaires. This rearrangement is the cause for the partly illogical sequence of question numbers.
2.2
Questionnaire translation process Questionnaires had to be translated into all official national languages of the countries covered by the study. All in all, 38 different country versions were produced (see table).
4
We would like to thank all colleagues who were involved in the development of the questionnaires for their advice and their excellent co-operation.
12
Table 2.2.1: Available national questionnaire versions
Country
Language version(s)
AT
German
BE
French, Flemish
BG
Bulgarian
CY
Greek
CZ
Czech
DE
German
DK
Danish
EE
Estonian, Russian
EL
Greek
ES
Spanish
FI
Finnish, Swedish
FR
French
HR
Croatian
HU IE
Hungarian English (no translation required, only adaptations to national ER terminology and national language peculiarities)
IT
Italian
LT
Lithuanian
LU
Luxembourgish, French, German, English
LV
Latvian, Russian
MK
Macedonian
MT
Maltese, English
NL
Dutch
PL
Polish
PT
Portuguese
RO
Romanian
SE
Swedish
SI
Slovenian
SK
Slovakian
TR
Turkish English (no translation required, only adaptations to national ER terminology and national language peculiarities)
UK
At the beginning of the translation process, the final master questionnaires were transmitted to the TNS Quest translation tool, hereby creating a separate master file for each country version. This was necessary because some of the questions related to the systems of formal employee representation have country specific variations, with differences in the shape of the items and in the filtering.
13
24/11/2008 – 08/12/2008: The TNS Quest file was sent to the network of expert translators of TNS opinion. The translators of this network have years of experience in translating survey research documents for multi-country surveys. They are all native speakers and only work into their own language in their respective country. They were briefed on all the specific instructions for this questionnaire (use of specific expressions and terminology, etc.). 26/11/2008 – 15/12/2008: In a first step of quality control, all translated questionnaire versions were then sent to the corresponding local fieldwork institute in each country for proofreading. All the changes made in this step were flagged in the process. 05/12/2008 – 22/12/2008: In a second step, proofread translations were sent to the European Foundation to be submitted to their network of EIRO correspondents. The checks done by this group of experts focused on the correct implementation of the terminology for the national system of employee representation and on other specific terminology used in the survey. 16/12/2008 – 22/01/2009: The feedback from the EIRO correspondents was implemented by the coordination team of TNS Infratest and TNS opinion respectively sent to the national TNS institutes for implementation (for languages none of the team members was sufficiently familiar with). 19/12/2008 – 15/01/2009: The next step was the back translation of the local questionnaires into English by specific translators. These were different from those who did the initial translation. The back translators were new on the project and had not seen the source questionnaire in English. 14/01/2009 – 29/01/2009: Back-translations were then analyzed by native speakers in order to determine if differences between the original master in English and the back translated questionnaires were caused by errors in the translated local version. 15/01/2009 – 30/01/2009: TNS opinion screened the back translation analyses and then sent them to the national institutes so they could correct the questionnaire if an error was discovered. Changes made as result of the back-translations were documented.
14
The following illustration shows a concluding overview of the whole translation process as described above.
Table 2.2.2.: Translation process
Final Final English English master master questionnaire questionnaire provided provided by by TNS TNS Infratest Infratest Sozialforschung Sozialforschung
Transformation Transformation of of the the master master questionnaires questionnaires (word (word format) format) into into the the Excel-translationExcel-translationtool tool (TNS (TNS Quest) Quest) by by TNS TNS Opinion Opinion and and TNS TNS Media, Media, hereby hereby producing producing aa separate separate English English master master version version for for each each country country
Translation Translation of of the the master master questionnaire questionnaire (Excel-file) (Excel-file) into into 38 38 language language versions versions by by professional professional translators translators
Checks Checks of of the the translations translations by by the the local local field field institutes institutes
Check Check and and implementation implementation of of the the field field institutes' institutes' feedback feedback by by TNS TNS Opinion Opinion and and TNS TNS Infratest Infratest Sozialforschung Sozialforschung
Expert Expert check check of of the the translations translations by by network network of of EIRO EIRO correspondents correspondents
Check Check and and implementation implementation of of the the expert expert feedback feedback by by TNS TNS Infratest Infratest Sozialforschung, Sozialforschung, TNS TNS Opinion Opinion or or national national fieldwork fieldwork institutes institutes
Back Back translation translation of of the the thus thus revised revised language language versions versions into into English English by by professional professional translators translators different different from from original original translators translators
Comparison Comparison of of back back translations translations and and English English master master versions versions by by independent independent language language experts experts
Check Check of of the the back back translation translation reports reports by by TNS TNS Opinion Opinion
Implementation Implementation of of the the acknowledged acknowledged changes changes by by the the local local field field institutes institutes
Final Final language language versions versions used used for for programming programming
15
3.
Fieldwork preparations
3.1
Sampling Address registers Address registers to be selected for the ECS 2009 had to meet various requirements such as a consequent listing of both the headquarters and the subsidiaries in case of multi-site enterprises, completeness regarding the relevant sectors and availability of information on the sector and on the size-class for each listed address. In several countries address registers meeting all requirements of the study were not available. The best available registers often showed important shortcomings: −
In 17 of the 30 countries address registers were available at company level only. In the case of multi-site companies, these address registers contain only one entry (the headquarters), while the further local units (subsidiaries) are not listed.
−
In some countries address registers did not include Public Administration and/or included the sectors “Education” and “Health and Social Work” only partially (mostly only the private organisations within these sectors).
These shortcomings were analysed before fieldwork start and were dealt with as follows: −
In countries where no suitable establishment based register was available, the best available company register was used and an additional screening procedure was applied in order to get a random selection of establishments from the company based sample (see questionnaire questions MM050 to MM053c). The screening procedure had to be applied in 17 of the 30 countries surveyed (see table 3.1.1).
−
In countries where the best available register contains addresses of the sectors “Public Administration”, “Education”, “Health and Social Services”, but under-represents one or more of these sectors, the under-representation was compensated for in the drawing of the gross sample: Additionally to the strictly randomized drawing of addresses within the sector “Services”, additional addresses were drawn from those sectors which were known to be underrepresented in the address source. By this way it was guaranteed that these sectors would be sufficiently represented in the final net samples.
−
In countries where the best available register showed clear systematic shortcomings regarding the coverage of the sectors with a high share of public organisations (“Public Administration”, “Education” and “Health and Social Services”), addresses for the underrepresented sectors were drawn from additional address lists (such as lists provided by the respective Ministries or Yellow Pages telephone registers). For the sampling from these lists, the concerned countries received specific quota for NACE Rev. 1.1 L, M and/or
16
N (respectively NACE Rev. 2 O, P and/or Q). These quota were based on the available statistical information about the quantitative relevance of these sectors. −
In some of the countries where addresses had to be drawn from two (or more) registers, only the chosen main address register was company based while the additional register for the public sector(s) is establishment based. In these cases the screening procedure was applied only to the main address source and not to the addresses drawn from the additional lists.
Table 3.1.1: Address registers used for the survey
Country
Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece Spain France Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden UK Croatia Macedonia Turkey
Main address source
Sampling unit (C = Company, E = Establishment)
Screening applied (MM050MM053c)
Additional address source used (Public Sector(s))
Belfirst (Bureau Van Dijk) Bulgarian National Statistical Institute Albertina KOB (Kobmandstandens oplysningsbureau) AMS (Arbeitsstätten Master Sample) Estonian Business Register BILL MOSS Partnership ICAP Business Databank Schober SIRENE Dun & Bradstreet Business Register of Statistical Service
C C C E E C C C E E E C
yes yes yes no no yes yes yes no no no yes
x x x x x
Business Register of Central Statistical Bureau
E
no
-
JSC Creditreform EDITUS HBI LTD Employment & Training Corporation 2007
C E C C
yes no yes yes
-
Chamber of Commerce Establishment Register
E
no
x
Dun & Bradstreed B2B Austria 2006 PCM (Polskie Centrum Marketingowe) Informa Dun & Bradstreet
SCB Företagsregistret Dun & Bradstreet
E E C C C C E E E
no no yes yes yes yes no no no
x x -
Institute for Business Intelligence Central registry Chamber of Trade and Commerce
C C C
yes yes yes
x x
www.ListaFirme.ro IPIS Register of Slovene Companies Albertina database
Profinder BtoB by Fonecta
17
Sampling matrix For sampling, a matrix consisting of five size-classes and two sectors of activity (“Producing Industries” and “Services”) was used. For each of the 10 cells of this matrix quota were given. The quota were adapted to the structure of the national economy and therefore differed somewhat between the countries. Table 3.1.2: Sampling matrix Sector: Size class:
1. Producing Industries (NACE Rev. 1.1 C-F resp. NACE Rev.2, B-F)
2. Service Sector (NACE Rev. 1.1 G to O resp. NACE Rev.2, G-S)
10 – 19 employees 20 – 49 employees 50 – 249 employees 250 – 499 employees 500 + employees
The applied disproportional sampling design shows the following characteristics:
3.2
−
As regards the size-classes, the applied sample design reflects a mix of establishmentand employee proportionality. This approach was chosen because a strict establishment proportional design would result in extremely few interviews in the largest size classes (most establishments are rather small) while a strictly employee proportional sample would be hard to put into practice in view of the limited absolute number of large establishments. The approach also has the big advantage that it keeps the weighting factors for the establishment and employee proportional weighting relatively homogenous.
−
The “Producing Industries” were intentionally oversampled to a certain degree in order to get a sufficiently high number of interviews from this important sector.
−
Within the 10 cells of the sampling matrix, addresses were always drawn at random.
Programming of questionnaires For all fieldwork institutes using the software “NIPO Odin” or “Bellview”, the programming of the CATI script was done centrally by programmers of the international programming unit at TNS Dimarso, our Belgian sister company. Central scripting for NIPO Odin took place from 29/01/2009 to 04/02/2009. The scripting for NIPO Odin was based on the CATI script that had been produced for the quantitative pre-tests. Central scripting for Bellview was made between 09/02/2009 and
18
24/02/2009. For Bellview, scripting had to be done from scratch since the pre-test had been programmed centrally in NIPO Odin only. The centrally programmed script was thoroughly tested by TNS Infratest and TNS Opinion and then distributed to the country institutes. The country institutes received a general script in their local languages. They were in charge of adapting the programme to their local needs (e.g. the locally used Sample Management System) and of testing and finalising the script. Countries using different CATI software (e.g. Quancept) had to do the programming on their own, based on the centrally provided master questionnaires. The local project managers were responsible for testing the programmed CATI scripts. Local scripting took place between 23/01/2009 and 10/03/2009, with some countries starting and finishing earlier than others. Table 3.2.1 Software versions used in the countries Central scripting Odin Bellview
Local scripting
AT
DK
CY
BE
ES
EE
BG
FI
FR
CZ
IE
HR
DE
IT
MT
EL
LT
SE
HU
LV
SI
LU
SK
MK
UK
NL PL PT RO TR
3.3
Briefing of interviewers The introduction of the interviewers to the specific challenges of this survey was made by the supervisors in the local telephone studios and by the local project managers in the fieldwork institutes. To this end, the following measures were taken: General written guidelines for briefing the interviewers on the specific challenges of the survey were provided to all institutes by the coordination team. Among other issues, these guidelines contained: − Information about the contents and aims of the survey − Information about the European Foundation (tripartite structure, tasks etc.)
19
−
− − − −
Information about the supporting material available for this study (recommendation letter, link to the website of the European Foundation with information placed for respondents etc.) An emphasis on the importance of the survey and fieldwork quality Strategies for getting high response rates Explanations on the specific difficulties related to the ER interviews and the linkage between both the MM and ER interviews Hints on specific questions for which additional explanations were thought to be helpful.
The CATI supervisors and fieldwork managers of all countries were additionally briefed on the survey via an interactive TV session broadcasted on 12th January 2009 from the offices of TNS Opinion. The TV conference was used by the coordination team of TNS Infratest Sozialforschung and TNS opinion for providing further information on the survey concept and on the specific challenges the interviewers might be faced with. The survey team of the European Foundation responsible for the ECS 2009 also actively participated in the TV conference, giving presentations on the nature and tasks of the European Foundation and on the importance of the survey in the context of their research activities. The presence of the EUROFOUND team in the TV session served as a measure to raise awareness and motivation of the responsible fieldwork managers and CATI supervisors for this demanding survey. During and at the end of the TV conference, questions raised by the fieldwork managers or CATI supervisors were directly answered by the project coordinators of TNS Infratest and TNS Opinion and by the European Foundation staff. The questions and answers were additionally summarized in written form and provided to the countries as additional input for the interviewer briefings.
3.4
Material supporting fieldwork The European Foundation issued an official recommendation letter aimed at raising the acceptance of the survey among respondents by emphasizing its importance and by serving as verification of the project. The recommendation letter contained more information on the purpose of the survey and a reference to the website of the European Foundation where further information on the survey was available. It also mentioned the support of the survey by Businesseurope (The Confederation of European Businesses) and ETUC (The European Trade Union Confederation). The recommendation letter was translated by the local institutes. Additionally, further information on the survey (including links to the ESWT results) was presented on the website of the European Foundation. This information served both as a motivator for potential respondents in doubt about the usefulness of the survey and as a verification of the project.
20
4.
Fieldwork
4.1
Fieldwork period The fieldwork period lasted from 27 January 2009 to 05 May 2009. In the majority of countries, fieldwork was mainly done between mid-February and end-April 2009. The start and end date of the fieldwork period vary somewhat between the countries: Sweden was the first country to start fieldwork (27 January 2009) while Estonia was the latest one (02 March 2009). The first country to finish interviewing was Latvia with fieldwork ending at the 06 March 2009, the last country to finish was Turkey (05 May 2009). Interviewing started in each country immediately after finalisation of CATI-programming. There were several reasons for the staggered start of fieldwork in the various countries: • •
•
•
Some countries had to programme the questionnaires on their own because they do not use the CATI software in which the script was provided. Some countries had difficulties in adapting the centrally provided script to their local sample management system, especially as far as the complex interface between MM and ER interviews is concerned. Estonia started late due to incompatibilities of their NIPO ODIN software version with the version in which the central script was provided. They therefore had to programme the questionnaires from the scratch. For some countries, the feedback from the expert questionnaire checks came in later than for others. For these countries, therefore the back-translation process and the delivery of their final script were subsequently also delayed.
The overall length of fieldwork period finally needed for accomplishing the ordered number of MM interviews and the maximum available number of ER interviews also varies: Some countries finished fieldwork after about 4 weeks already while others needed the full available period of up to 3 months (depending on the fieldwork start). Among the reasons for this are differences in the response behaviour between countries (response rates, importance respondents attribute to the survey etc.) or differences in the number of interviewers working for the study (see table 4.1.1 below). The fieldwork period was in each country dimensioned so that fieldwork for ER interviews continued for at least one week after the finalisation of the MM interviews. This measure ensured that there was sufficient time to try to get ER interviews for those establishments where the MM interview had been carried out only towards the very end of the fieldwork period.
21
Table 4.1.1: Fieldwork period and number of interviewers working for the project, by country Country Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece Spain France Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom
Beginning 18.02.09 11.02.09 17.02.09 18.02.09 05.02.09 03.04.09 26.02.09 20.02.09 18.02.09 18.02.09 19.02.09 09.02.09 19.02.09 23.02.09 18.02.09 13.02.09 25.02.09 18.02.09 10.02.09 12.02.09 12.02.09 17.02.09 02.03.09 16.02.09 16.02.09 27.01.09 09.02.09
End 24.04.09 21.04.09 22.04.09 15.04.09 03.04.09 21.04.09 24.04.09 22.04.09 27.04.09 15.04.09 28.04.09 13.04.09 06.03.09 24.03.09 25.03.09 25.03.09 23.04.09 24.04.09 24.04.09 24.04.09 22.04.09 01.04.09 19.04.09 11.03.09 20.04.09 16.04.09 24.04.09
No. of Interviewers 27 18 37 22 52 7 7 31 38 85 63 25 15 13 12 41 9 24 25 67 50 12 12 50 11 15 39
Croatia Makedonia Turkey
11.02.09 25.02.09 20.02.09
22.04.09 15.04.09 05.05.09
3 7 25
After completion of approximately 30 interviews fieldwork had to be stopped and an interim data set had to be sent to the TNS opinion coordination centre for checking. The interim data sets for each country were checked with regard to technical correctness of the programmed CATI (completeness, filters etc.) and the structure of the data file (card-column-format, variable names, codes). Within about an hour, fieldwork institutes received an automated check report.
5
This figure is comparatively low because it refers only to the interviewers working permanently on this survey. In peak times with numerous appointments, more interviewers were used.
22
4.2
Number and structure of completed interviews Number of MM and ER interviews All in all 27,160 MM interviews and 6,569 ER interviews were carried out within the fieldwork period. The foreseen number of MM interviews was reached in all countries, in a couple of countries even more MM interviews were conducted than originally foreseen. Therefore the total number of MM interviews across all 30 countries is notably higher than originally planned.6 Regarding the ER interviews, it was assumed that on the average of all countries it would be possible to conduct ER interviews in approximately 25% of the MM interviews. This aim was almost reached, with ER interviews being carried out in 24,2% of all surveyed establishments. Results for the single countries however vary largely: In the Nordic countries, the highest shares of ER interviews could be accomplished (Finland: 57%, Sweden: 54%, Denmark: 39%). The number of achieved ER interviews is well above the average also in Germany (37%), Luxembourg (33%) and Croatia (32%). On the other hand, in a couple of countries only in less than 10% of the establishments an ER interview could be completed (Portugal: 4%, Turkey: 4%, Malta: 7%, Greece: 7%, Portugal 4%). The national differences can be explained by two factors: On the one hand the incidence of employee representative bodies varies largely due to factors such as differences in the national history and culture of employee representation or differences in the legally defined size thresholds for the set-up of an employee representation. On the other hand there are considerable national differences in the willingness of managers and employee representatives to agree in an ER interview. It also has to be noted that the percentage share of completed ER interviews depends on the structure of the net MM sample – especially its distribution over the size classes: The larger an establishment is, the more likely it is that there is an employee representation.
6
It was planned to conduct MM interviews in 26.800 establishments across all 30 countries.
23
Table 4.2.1: Number of completed MM and ER interviews per country Country
MM-Interviews
ER-Interviews
ER in % of MM
1,016 502 1,014 1,023 1,500 500 503 1,005 1,509 1,500 1,502 505 509 560 501 1,045 349 1,002 1,016 1,500 1,012 500 536 520 1,000 1,001 1,510 24,640
287 128 242 394 558 72 93 76 375 441 320 60 147 128 164 183 24 249 205 367 39 137 153 100 565 541 166 ,214
28% 25% 24% 39% 37% 14% 18% 7% 25% 29% 21% 12% 29% 23% 33% 18% 7% 25% 20% 24% 4% 27% 29% 19% 57% 54% 11% 25%
500 520 1,500 2,520
162 129 64 355
32% 25% 4% 14%
27,160
6,569
24%
Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece Spain France Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden UK Subtotal EU-27 Croatia Makedonia Turkey Subtotal 3 new countries Total all 30 countries
24
Sector and size structure of the net sample The table below shows the share of interviews realized in the various cells of the sampling matrix. Table 4.2.2: Structure of the net sample Sector: Size class:
1. Producing Industries (NACE Rev. 1.1 C-F / NACE Rev.2, B-F)
10 – 19 employees 20 – 49 employees 50 – 249 employees 250 – 499 employees
11% 11% 12% 5%
2. Service Sector (NACE Rev. 1.1 G to O / NACE Rev.2, GS) 16% 16% 17% 5%
500 + employees Total sector:
3% 42%
4% 58%
Total size-class
7% 100%
27% 27% 29% 10%
Due to the disproportionality of the sample design as regards both the size-classes and the ratio between the two sectors “Producing Industries” and “Services” (see chapter 3.1), a comparison of the unweighted net sample structures with the structures of the universe does not make sense. These “distortions” were intended and differences resulting from such a comparison would not allow for any conclusions on the quality of fieldwork.
25
4.3
Non-response in the management interviews For the description of the reasons for non-responses a difference has to be made between the countries where a special screening procedure was necessary in order to come from an originally company based address source to a sample at establishment level (see chapter 3.1 above) and the other countries where no such procedure was necessary. The screening countries had to undergo a 2-step selection process, implying a higher overall risk of nonresponse for all multi-site units within the sample. When comparing the structure of non-responses between countries it also has to be noted that differences might be due to given facts as well as due to different national habitudes in expressing a denial to participate.7 Another factor explaining some of the differences is that each national institute has developed own routines in coding non-responses. Even with a template provided for a harmonized non-response recording, therefore differences in the interpretation and application of the codes by the country institutes can not always be fully avoided. Table 4.3.1 shows the non-responses for the non-screening countries while table 4.3.2 shows non-responses for the screening countries. It can be seen that response rates vary considerably between the countries. Among the non-screening countries, Latvia has the highest response rate (54%), while the response rate in the Netherlands (11%) is the lowest within this group. For the screening countries, the analysis of non-responses is more complicated: For the interviews with multi-site organizations, in these a 2-step selection process had to be applied while the interviews with single-site establishments had the same 1-step selection process as the interviews from the non-screening countries (because in these cases the screening interview immediately led to the main interview, without the necessity of a further contact). To differentiate non-response reasons between multi-site and single-site organizations is not possible since this information can not be recorded separately. Overall, the response rates for the screening countries were in line with those from the screening countries or even a bit higher, with the highest rate reported from Greece (65%) and the lowest rates reported from Hungary and Croatia (17% each). The overall higher level reported from the screening countries is probably due to the fact that most of these countries are New Member States. There, the willingness of enterprises to participate in surveys is obviously generally still higher than in the old member states where a lot of company level research has been taking place over the years.
7
E.g. if the respondent says that he or she has “no time” for an interview during the fieldwork period this can actually be due to time constraints, but may also be a sort of “polite” general refusal. Depending on the interviewer’s assessment this might therefore be coded as “no interview possible during fieldwork period” in some cases and in other cases as a “refusal due to time reasons” or even as a general refusal to participate in this type of surveys.
26
Apart from differences in the habitudes of expressing refusals on part of the respondents and apart from possible differences in the interpretation of the non-response categories in the countries, there are a number of factors explaining differences in the response rates: •
Firm-level survey research has become more and more common in several of the countries involved in the survey. Therefore, more and more firms advise their managers generally not to participate in surveys (any more). This is e.g. among the most important reasons for the drop in response rates in Poland as compared to the ESWT 2005.
•
There are national differences in the degree of acceptance of the European Union. In countries where a positive attitude towards the European Union prevails, response rates in a survey conducted for an institution associated to the European Union can be supposed to be higher than in others.
•
In some countries, there are widespread doubts about the confidentiality of the answers given in such a survey. This was e.g. reported as a frequent reaction of respondents from Turkey.
•
The current economic crisis has hit some countries more or earlier than others. It was observed during fieldwork that several contacted persons (both on the MM and the ER part) refused their participation with explicit reference to this crisis. For management respondents saving measures applied as a reaction to this situation included a reduction of the participation in all “non-essential” activities. Employee representatives in turn sometimes expressed fears that their participation in the survey might be detrimental to their further employment prospects. It is however difficult to say in how far the crisis sometimes served as a pretext for the refusal.
27
Table 4.3.1: Non-responses MM interviews non-screening countries DK
DE
ES
FR
IT
LV
LU
NL
AT
PL
FI
5.544
12.386
19.970
6.931
10.202
1.202
2.435
12.089
579 155
27 438
2.208 909
0 393
0 867
20 130
28 65
1.087 283
831
1.093
5.357
695
352
5
34
16
169
902
21
0
0
6
2
31
410
0
344
4
60
858
1.632
122
237
109
SE
UK
6.629
13.008
4.239
2.795
7.047
69 33
376 378
0 77
80 221
128 86
216
504
315
0
103
401
42
1.787
29
1.648
0
53
0
85
221
113
1
17
37
74
74
0
430
122
172
624
Gross sample I: Total number of addresses used for the survey: • Establishment does not exist: • Line dead; fax/modem, wrong telephone number: • Telephone not answered after a minimum of 10 futile contacts: • Line always busy or answering machine: • Private households (out of scope): • Less than 10 employees in MM102a/b (out of scope): • No answer in MM102a/b:
0
0
3
0
12
0
0
3
0
51
1
0
0
• Quota for the cell already full:
0
125
3
0
12
0
0
821
0
3.202
0
0
0
3.901
9.645
8.547
5.700
8.378
934
2.228
9.478
4.015
8.114
2.390
2.202
5.718
Gross sample II: Total number of valid addresses: • Refusal to participate in the interview:
796
5.926
3.564
2.229
5.106
146
513
6.119
582
4.100
863
865
313
• No MM-interview possible within fieldwork period:
157
2.153
2.680
1.927
1.235
70
187
2.157
1.316
124
79
77
3.874
• MM-interview incomplete:
28
16
201
37
547
22
232
200
6
0
4
43
13
• No adequate respondent at the local establishment: • Other non-responses (please specify):
209 1.688
0 50
593 0
7 0
0 0
38 149
243 552
0 0
11 1.084
2.290 100
440 4
125 91
8 0
Complete MM interviews:
1.023
1.500
1.509
1.500
1.502
509
501
1.002
1.016
1.500
1.000
1.001
1.510
26%
16%
18%
26%
18%
54%
22%
11%
25%
18%
42%
45%
26%
MM interviews as % of gross sample without quality neutral non-responses:
28
Table 4.3.2: Non-responses MM interviews screening countries BE
BG
CZ
EE
IE
EL
CY
LT
HU
MT
PT
RO
SI
SK
HR
MK
TR
Gross sample I: Total No. of addresses used for the screening:
5.210
2.770
8.117
1.736
4.692
2.540
3.480
3.092
10.475
1.528
10.035
2.445
3.256
3.027
5.919
1.199
37.857
Quality neutral non-responses screening phase: • Establishment does not exist:
17
23
4.349
21
12
116
167
129
68
13
50
2
578
0
83
54
321
• Line dead; fax/modem: • Telephone not answered after a minimum of 10 futile contacts :
586
389
1
27
98
206
77
120
2.182
0
225
32
40
90
0
36
7.443
335
157
3
312
0
501
54
111
0
175
1
1.076
506
16
65
47
213
• Line always busy, answering machine
192
41
6
92
3.172
13
163
108
18
156
1.022
70
171
109
11
38
10.562
• Private households (out of scope): • Less than 10 employees in MM050a (out of scope): • No establ. with 10+ employees acc. to MM051a (out of scope): Total quality neutral non-responses screening:
75
374
155
32
9
20
165
2
0
26
28
1
0
18
3
16
2.421
492
1
6
4
4
28
6
27
39
1
18
7
0
1
0
58
34
92
1
9
19
9
0
8
16
216
0
243
9
5
3
0
1
41
1.789
986
4.529
507
3.304
884
640
513
2.523
371
1.587
1.197
1.300
237
162
250
21.035
Quality neutral non-responses main interviews: • Establishment does not exist; line dead; fax; modem: • Telephone not answered after a minimum of 10 futile contacts:
49
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
133
0
0
29
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
70
8
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
26
0
• Line always busy or answering machine:
5
0
0
0
0
0
45
6
0
0
0
39
0
0
22
0
• Private household (out of scope):
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
82
8
75
177
0
97
196
163
1.072
51
731
54
10
60
2
16
1.593
• Less than 10 employees in MM102a/b (out of scope): • Valid, screened addresses not used for main interview (quota completed, not needed any more etc.):
99
383
233
0
0
0
306
0
691
303
3.224
0
88
68
2.746
17
10.738
Total quality neutral non-responses main interview:
246
391
308
177
0
100
617
177
1.763
354
3.955
54
286
128
2.748
117
12.331
Total No. of valid addresses used for main interviews
3.175
1.393
3.280
1.052
1.388
1.556
2.223
2.402
6.189
803
4.493
1.194
1.670
2.662
3.009
832
4.491
Refusals screening phase: • General refusal to answer screening interview:
Gross sample II:
1.008
441
2.004
166
662
470
771
433
5.097
124
203
229
214
2.058
135
95
2.812
• No answer in MM050a, MM051a or MM052:
120
32
30
0
0
2
5
3
24
1
29
7
2
12
2
3
54
• Refusal to give information on target person in MM053a/b/c:
5
0
0
1
2
1
10
1
12
0
0
4
0
0
11
36
3
Refusals main phase: • No answer in MM102a/b:
0
339
4
0
110
2
6
8
13
0
50
2
184
14
200
0
9
• Refusal of MM-interview:
17
0
31
13
0
52
568
55
0
0
1.028
72
599
0
17
24
10
• No MM-interview possible within fieldwork period:
247
46
0
101
0
20
261
18
0
65
2.159
377
102
0
179
131
0
• MM-interview incomplete:
179
13
192
0
1
3
70
33
0
208
0
0
24
54
24
20
86
• No adequate respondent at the chosen local establ.:
427
0
0
95
9
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
39
0
• Other non-responses (please specify):
125
17
0
177
103
0
35
1.290
0
55
0
7
0
0
1.952
0
9
1.016
502
1.014
500
503
1.005
505
560
1.045
349
1.012
500
536
520
500
520
1.500
32%
36%
31%
48%
36%
65%
23%
23%
17%
43%
23%
42%
32%
20%
17%
63%
33%
Complete MM interviews: Response rate in %:
29
Fieldwork institutes were asked to assess whether the response rates reached for the ECS 2009 were higher, lower or about the same as those achieved for other recent CATI surveys among establishments or companies. In case of the rates being higher or lower than usual, they were also asked to name the (assumed) reason for this. The majority of countries rated the response rates obtained for the ECS 2009 as “in line with other surveys of this type and length”. The institutes in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, and Latvia however reported that response rates for the ECS 2009 were notably higher than those usually achieved. Some institutes attributed this to the recommendation letters, others to the topic of the study or to specific efforts in the fieldwork management. In two countries – the Netherlands and Turkey – response rates for the ECS 2009 were assessed to be lower than usual. For the Netherlands, this was attributed to the economic crisis and to the topic of the survey which was obviously perceived as little appealing. For Turkey, reasons were more fundamental: Many of the respondents were generally reluctant to give information on their personnel policies because of distrust regarding the way how their data would be used. Another factor is certainly an ambivalent attitude of many respondents in Turkey with regard to the European Union. Experience from fieldwork and further analyses of the response rates made in the preceding study ESWT shows that some differences in the responsiveness exist between the sectors of activity or between different size-classes. But there is no clear pattern discernable in this: The willingness to participate in the interview for example was clearly above average in the Public Administration in Italy, Germany and Sweden and interviewing in these sectors therefore had to be stopped after the interim sample checks8. In Spain, in turn, the willingness of the Public Administration to participate in the interview was lower than for other sectors. The quality of the net sample is not notably affected by eventual structural differences in the response rates. In all cells of the sampling matrix a sufficiently high number of interviews are available. Major differences in response rates between the cells of the sampling matrix were corrected in the course of the weighting process. Weighting in any case was necessary in order to redress the deliberately disproportionate structure of the net sample.
4.4
Non-response in the employee representative interviews Identification of ER respondents The gross-sample for the ER interviews was defined by the outcomes of the MM questionnaire: Eligible as respondents for the ER interview were all those establishments where according to MM650ff. a relevant formal body of employee representation exists and where the management respondent did not clearly express that he/she does not want us to contact the employee representative for the purpose of an ER interview. 8
In Italy and Germany, the Public Administration sector was already notably over-represented at the moment the interim sample checks were done (i.e. after 60% of fieldwork was completed). This over-representation in Italy and Germany was adjusted by the weighting, the relative weight of the Public Administration interviews within the weighting cell “Public Services” was reduced.
30
It has to be noted that the management respondents were not explicitly asked for their permission on conducting an ER interview, but that they were asked in the open question MM800 to provide the contact details for the spokesperson of the employee representative body identified earlier in the interview. At this occasion, interviewers were advised to code the answers of the management respondent according to three categories: (1) Respondent provides address of the ER (2) Respondent does not want to/cannot provide address of the ER, but does not show any general opposition related to interviewing the ER (3) Respondent expresses a clear refusal for us to contact the ER Success rate of ER interviews by availability of address details In all cases where code (1) was entered by the interviewer, efforts were made to get an interview with the named person by calling the indicated number. In total, in 8.568 establishments (65% of all establishments with an identified ER body) the management respondent provided the contact details of the ER. From these 8.568 ER addresses, 5.928 resulted (success rate of 69%). Table 4.4.1: Success rate for ER interviews by type of approach
Answer options in MM800/MM804/MM805
Answers (n)
Answers (in %)
ER interviews resulting from this base
Success rate in %
MM provides ER contact details
8.603
65%
5.963
69%
MM gives OK, but does not provide contact details
1.625
12%
552
34% 51%
MM allows ER interview only in ER's leisure time (and MM refuses and maintains refusal in MM804
106
1%
54
2.845
22%
0
0%
13.179
100%
6.569
50%
Code (2) was entered in 1.625 cases (12% of all establishments with an identified ER body). These managers did not express any general objection against us interviewing the ER in the establishment, but could not or did not want to provide information on the contact details of the ER9. In these cases attempts to contact the identified ER were made via the switchboard of the firm (respectively the phone number used for the initial contact with the establishment). This approach was considerably less successful, with only 552 ER interviews resulting from it (success rate of 34%). Code (3) was entered by the interviewer only if the management respondent expressed a clear refusal to allow for an ER interview. Nevertheless, in these cases the MM respondent was asked in a subsequent question (MM804) whether it would be ok for us to try and make an interview appointment with the ER in his/her leisure time. This question had been introduced as a measure to further reduce the non-response for the ER interviews. The success of this measure of refusal conversion was however limited: Only 240 of the 2.951 refusals in MM800 could be converted by this way and among these 240 cases, 134 MM respondents refused to enable the ER contact in the subsequent question MM605. So the refusal conversion attempt resulted in not more than 106 additional allowances (on the 9
In several cases, managers did not want to provide the contact details for reasons of data protection.
31
managers’ part) which in the end led to 54 additional ER interviews (i.e. a success rate of 51% of all posterior allowances, but only a 2% success rate from all MM800 refusals). Success of ER interviews by country On the average of all countries, ER interviews could be carried out in every second establishment (50%, see table 4.4.1 above) that has an eligible representation. Table 4.4.2 below shows however that the rate of ER interviews that finally resulted varies considerably between the countries. It is highest in Finland (ER interviews in 77% of all establishments with an ER), the Czech Republic (70%) and Latvia (70%) and it is lowest in Turkey (30%) and Cyprus (29%). Reasons for these differences in the final response rates reached for the ER are manifold. Differences in the culture of social dialogue within the countries are certainly one of the explaining factors, but also aspects such as differences in the availability of employee representatives (access of the ER to a telephone) might play a role.
32
Table 4.4.2: Non responses ER Interviews
Number of establishments interviewed interviews) • Establishments without ER (i.e. MM800 not asked) Establishments with employee presentation % Establishments with employee representation (unweighted!):
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
1.016
502
1.014
1.023
1.500
500
503
1.005
1.509
1.500
1.502
505
509
560
501
400 616 61%
283 219 44%
668 346 34%
268 755 74%
612 888 59%
375 125 25%
287 216 43%
871 134 13%
561 948 63%
438 1.062 71%
559 943 63%
297 208 41%
300 209 41%
344 216 39%
203 298 59%
• No OK for ER-interview by MM-respondent (if MM804 = 2 or 3 or MM805 = 3)
141
50
15
139
145
30
36
23
328
225
457
31
48
29
112
Establishment with OK of management for ER interview:
475
169
331
616
743
95
180
111
620
837
486
177
161
187
186
17 6 12 40 28 3 82
0 0 0 16 0 16 9
1 10 7 37 0 1 33
1 114 0 25 4 0 78
5 16 3 120 16 5 20
0 14 1 8 0 0 0
0 1 15 29 0 0 42
0 0 0 22 1 2 10
4 12 0 155 35 15 24
69 135 1 18 147 16 10
0 0 0 166 0 0 0
3 11 7 93 0 3 0
0 2 0 7 0 0 5
1 14 6 20 12 3 3
0 0 0 1 3 0 18
287 28% 47%
128 25% 58%
242 24% 70%
394 39% 52%
558 37% 63%
72 14% 58%
93 18% 43%
76 8% 57%
375 25% 40%
441 29% 42%
320 21% 34%
60 12% 29%
147 29% 70%
128 23% 59%
164 33% 55%
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
HR
MK
TR
1.045
349
1.002
1.016
1.500
1.012
500
536
520
1.000
1.001
1.510
500
520
1.500
649 396 38%
281 68 19%
354 648 65%
587 429 42%
707 793 53%
885 127 13%
161 339 68%
241 295 55%
228 292 56%
265 735 74%
257 744 74%
1.038 472 31%
241 259 52%
333 187 36%
1288 212 14%
• Line dead; fax/modem: • Telephone not answered after a minimum of 10 futile contacts: • Line always busy or answering machine: • Refusal by ER: • No ER-interview possible within fieldwork period: • ER-interview incomplete: • Other non-responses: ER interviews: ER interviews as % of interviewed establ: (unweighted!): ER interviews as % of establ. with ER:
Number of establishments interviewed (MM interviews) • Establishments without ER (i.e. MM800 not asked) Establishments with employee representation % Establishments with employee representation (unweighted!): • No OK for ER-interview by MM-respondent (if MM804 = 2 or 3 or MM805 = 3)
107
24
102
92
138
25
108
80
112
67
43
72
19
15
32
Establishment with OK of management for ER interview:
289
44
546
337
655
102
231
215
180
668
701
400
240
172
180
28 5 1 72 0 0 0
0 4 0 9 7 0 0
0 5 4 237 10 41 0
68 21 6 24 8 5 0
42 34 3 113 11 0 85
0 0 0 8 0 55 0
0 0 0 94 0 0 0
0 2 0 4 2 0 54
0 0 5 46 0 25 4
10 0 41 16 35 1 0
0 10 0 33 22 2 93
8 3 13 9 201 0 0
3 5 5 41 20 4 0
7 7 2 3 7 0 17
2 9 23 0 0 12 70
183 18% 46%
24 7% 35%
249 25% 38%
205 20% 48%
367 24% 46%
39 4% 31%
137 27% 40%
153 29% 52%
100 19% 34%
565 57% 77%
541 54% 73%
166 11% 35%
162 32% 63%
129 25% 69%
64 4% 30%
• Line dead; fax/modem: • Telephone not answered after a minimum of 10 futile contacts: • Line always busy or answering machine: • Refusal by ER: • No ER-interview possible within fieldwork period: • ER-interview incomplete: • Other non-responses: ER interviews: ER interviews as % of interviewed establ: (unweighted!): ER interviews as % of establ. with ER:
33
4.5
Non-response analysis of the ER interviews: A multi-variate approach In order to control for any non-response bias in the ER interviews, two multi-variate regression models were calculated which allow to analyse criteria with a potential influence on the response behaviour in isolation from others. In a first model, we analysed the refusals of the interviewed managers to allow for an ER interview in the establishment (all in all, 22% of the management respondents had refused this). A second model investigates the factors leading to structural differences between the gross sample available for the ER interviews (all establishments with an identified employee representation) and the net sample finally resulting from this. Potential differences between gross and net ER sample can be caused by a variety of non-response factors: − The refusals of managers to allow for an ER interview (in these cases no attempt for an ER interview was made). − Refusals on part of the contacted employee representatives to take part in the interview. − Neutral non-responses for the ER interview, such as the unavailability of the employee representative during the fieldwork period, wrong telephone numbers etc. − Aspects related to the organisation of fieldwork (Though fieldwork organisation and the training of interviewers were following common centrally provided standards, differences between countries might have occurred in some details, e.g. in the precise timing of the ER interviews). The base for both calculated logit regression models were all establishments where an eligible employee representation was identified in the management interview (n = 13.179 cases). Refusals of MM respondents to allow for an ER interview This first model shows that the factor “country” has by far the strongest influence on the decision of the interviewed manager on whether or not to agree in an ER interview within the establishment. The probability that the management would refuse to allow this interview to take place proved to be by far the highest in Italy. Highly significant and clearly above the average probabilities for an MM refusal were also found for Slovakia, Malta, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Romania, Latvia and Spain. The lowest probabilities for such refusals on part of the managers were found in the Czech Republic, Sweden, FYROM and Croatia. Table 4.5.1: Multi-variate analysis of management refusals to agree to an ER interview
34
Management refusals to allow for an ER interview (dependent variable) (according to MM800/MM804/MM805) Coefficient ER improves performance (reference: agree) neither nor disagree no opinion ER delays decisions (reference: agree) neither nor disagree no opinion Direct link to employees better (reference: agree) neither nor disagree no opinion ER enhances staff commitment (reference agree) neither nor disagree no opinion Work climate (reference: good) strained no answer Economic situation (reference: very good) quite good neither nor quite bad very bad no answer Changes (ref.: no changes acc. to MM150_1 to 5) More than one ER (ref. one ER body) Wage agreement (ref. no) yes no answer Establishment type (reference: single independent) headquarters subsidiary site no answer Public sector company (reference: no) yes no answer Size (reference: 10-19 empl.) 20-49 50-249 250-499 500+ Country (reference: Germany) Belgium Denmark Greece Spain Finland France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Sweden United Kingdom Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia Turkey Croatia FYROM Sector (reference: Manufacturing) Mining/ Quarrying Electricity/ Gas/ Steam/ Hot Water Supply Construction Wholesale/ Retail Trade Hotels/ Restaurants Transport/ Storage/ Communication Financial Intermediation Real Estate/ Renting/ Business Activities Public Administration/ Defence/ Social Security Education Health/ Social Work Community/ Social/ Personal Service Activities
0,16 0,27 0,31
Exp (B) * ***
0,11 -0,10 0,06 0,01 -0,12 0,01
-0,22 -0,26 -0,24 -0,31 0,21 -0,23 -0,36 -0,19 0,69 -0,07 -0,01 0,69 -0,25 -0,20 -0,13 -0,43 -0,54 -0,64 0,32 0,01 -0,73 0,55 -0,74 0,19 -0,01 1,90 0,71 -0,22 0,10 0,15 -1,41 -0,19 0,19 -0,64 -1,62 0,13 0,64 0,54 -0,27 0,82 0,02 0,59 0,99 0,68 -0,10 -1,03 -1,37 -0,10 -0,37 0,27 0,02 0,13 -0,06 -0,19 0,19 -0,83 -0,36 -0,52 -0,14
* ***
1,12 0,91 1,07 *
0,11 0,12 0,05 -0,10 0,61
1,17 1,31 1,36
1,01 0,89 1,00
*
1,12 1,13 1,11 *
0,91 1,84
*** ***
0,80 0,77 0,79 0,73 1,24 0,80 0,70
***
0,82 2,00
***
0,94 0,99 2,00
** ** *
**
*** *** *** * *** *** *** ***
*** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ***
**
*** ** ***
0,78 0,82 0,88 0,65 0,58 0,53 1,37 1,01 0,93 1,73 0,48 1,21 0,99 6,39 2,04 0,80 1,11 1,17 0,24 0,83 1,21 0,53 0,20 1,14 1,89 1,72 0,76 2,26 0,98 1,80 2,68 1,98 0,90 0,36 0,25 0,91 0,69 1,30 1,02 1,14 0,94 0,83 1,20 0,44 0,70 0,60 0,87
* ** ** * *** *** ***
*** **
*** *** *** * *** *** *** ***
*** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ***
**
*** ** ***
Nagelkerke´s R² = 0,171 Base: Establishments with an existing employee representation (at the level of the surveyed local unit) n = 13.179 cases Significance: * p
