International Standard Classification of Occupations

Last updated

The International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) is a system developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) to classify and organize occupations into a structured hierarchy. It serves to facilitate international communication about occupations by providing a framework for statisticians to make internationally comparable occupational data available.

Contents

The ILO describes the purpose of the ISCO as: [1]

seek[ing] to facilitate international communication about occupations by providing statisticians with a framework to make internationally comparable occupational data available, and by allowing international occupational data to be produced in a form that can be useful for research as well as for specific decision-making and action-oriented activities.

According to the ILO, a job is defined as "a set of tasks and duties performed, or meant to be performed, by one person, including for an employer or in self-employment." Occupation refers to the kind of work performed in a job, and the concept of occupation is defined as "a set of jobs whose main tasks and duties are characterized by a high degree of similarity." A person may be associated with an occupation through the main job currently held, a second job, a future job, or a job previously held. Skill, in this context, is the ability to carry out the tasks and duties of a job. [2]

The latest version, ISCO-08, was adopted in 2008 and includes four classification levels: major groups, sub-major groups, minor groups, and unit groups. It is widely used for comparative labor market studies, policy development, and international reporting, including within the European Union, the United Nations, and other global institutions.

History

The origins of ISCO trace back to the mid-20th century when the need for a global occupational classification system became evident at the First International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) in 1923. [3] The first complete version, ISCO-58, was adopted in 1957 by the Ninth ICLS and published in 1958, providing a systematic method for grouping occupations to support labor market analysis and facilitate international comparisons. Subsequent revisions, including ISCO-68, ISCO-88, and ISCO-08, refined the classification criteria to reflect changing labor market structures, technological advancements, and evolving job roles. ISCO has since been widely adopted by national governments and international organizations to align workforce data with global labor market trends. The continuous adaptation of ISCO reflects the necessity of ensuring its relevance amid shifts in employment patterns, technological progress, and the emergence of new economic sectors. Moreover, its role in international labor statistics enables cross-country comparisons, aiding in policy formulation and economic planning. [4] [5]

The ISCO-08 revision was developed through consultations with national governments, labor organizations, and international experts to ensure relevance and adaptability. Looking ahead, future iterations of ISCO are expected to incorporate new occupational categories reflecting automation, digital transformation, and emerging industries. The adaptation of ISCO-08 for national use is a critical process to ensure its applicability across diverse labor markets. Countries often modify ISCO-08 to align with national occupational classifications while maintaining international comparability. For instance, the European Union, through the European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) framework, has built upon ISCO-08 by incorporating more detailed competencies and qualifications for cross-border labor mobility. [6] This adaptation process involves mapping national job structures to ISCO categories, refining classifications to reflect local labor market conditions, and ensuring consistency in data reporting for global labor statistics. [5] Of note, Donald Treiman developed the Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale using the ISCO. [7]

The ISCO-08 structure

ISCO-08 organizes occupations into a four-level hierarchical system:

  1. Major Groups (10 broad occupational categories)
  2. Sub-Major Groups (43 broader occupational categories within the major groups)
  3. Minor Groups (130 more specific job groupings)
  4. Unit Groups (436 detailed occupational categories)

The ISCO-08 divides jobs into 10 major groups: [8]

  1. Managers
  2. Professionals
  3. Technicians and associate professionals
  4. Clerical support workers
  5. Service and sales workers
  6. Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers
  7. Craft related trades workers
  8. Plant and machine operators, and assemblers
  9. Elementary occupations
  10. Armed forces occupations

Major group 1

Managers

Major group 2

Professionals

Major group 3

Technicians and associate professionals

Major group 4

Clerical support workers

Major group 5

Service and sales workers

Major group 6

Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers

Major group 7

Craft and related trades workers

Major group 8

Plant and machine operators and assemblers

Major group 9

Elementary occupations

Major group 10

Armed forces occupations

Methodology

Data collection [5]

The methodology for collecting occupation data involves structured survey questions that aim to capture essential details about a person's employment. Typical questions include:

Data coding and classification [5]

The coding process involves assigning standardized ISCO codes to the collected data. This can be performed through:

Data validation and analysis [5]

To maintain accuracy, ISCO coding is subject to quality control measures such as:

The ISCO framework is periodically reviewed and updated to reflect labor market changes, technological advancements, and shifts in workforce dynamics.

ISCO-08 skill model

ISCO-08 classifies skills into two key dimensions:

  1. Skill level – The complexity and range of tasks required to perform an occupation, usually linked to educational qualifications or vocational training.
  2. Skill specialization – The field of knowledge required, the necessary tools and machinery used, and the specific nature of the work performed.

The ISCO-08 skill levels correspond to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-97) groups as follows:

Skill level is typically assigned at the ISCO Major Group level, except for Major Group 1: Managers and Major Group 0: Armed Forces Occupations, where it is primarily applied at the second hierarchical level (Sub Major Group level). Within each major group, organizing occupations into sub-major, minor, and unit groups is mainly based on skill specialization. [2]

Comparison with other classification systems

ISCO is one of several major occupational classification systems used worldwide. Other prominent systems include the U.S. Standard Occupational Classification (SOC), the European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO), and national classification systems used in various countries.

Criticisms and limitations

ISCO is widely used for categorizing jobs across different sectors and countries. However, it has been subject to various criticisms and limitations. One major criticism is the challenge of cross-national comparability. Studies indicate that occupational titles coded under ISCO-08 often vary significantly between countries, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of classifications. A study found that only 64% of job titles retained the same ISCO-08 4-digit code across multiple countries, highlighting inconsistencies in occupational classification. [15]

Evolving occupational characteristics have also posed challenges to ISCO, which relies on task similarity, duties, and required skills. Factors such as working conditions (including hours, schedules, and remote work) and the work environment (encompassing safety, health considerations, and workplace interpersonal networks) significantly influence occupational categorization. [16] [17] [18]

Moreover, the ISCO framework, which consists of at least ten major occupational groups, is often difficult to apply in small-scale workforce studies or in reporting partial workforce data. As a result, professionals frequently use modified classification systems tailored to specific contexts, such as distinctions between manual and non-manual labor, white- and blue-collar jobs, office-based and outdoor work, or knowledge-based and physical labor. [19] [20] [21] [22]

The ISCO has been criticized for its broad categorization, which can group together jobs with significant differences in tasks, skills, and working conditions. For instance, the ISCO-88 version was noted to have excessive detail in some areas, such as plant and machinery operators, while providing inadequate detail in others, like service-related occupations and those prevalent in the informal sector. Additionally, there was a wide variation in the size of some sub-major and minor groups. [5]

See also

References

  1. "International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)". ILOSTAT. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
  2. 1 2 "ISCO-08". isco-ilo.netlify.app. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
  3. "International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)". ILOSTAT. Retrieved 25 February 2025.
  4. "International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)". ILOSTAT. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 International Labour Office, ed. (2012). Structure, group definitions and correspondence tables. International standard classification of occupations. Geneva: International Labour Office. ISBN   978-92-2-125952-7.
  6. "International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)". esco.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 18 February 2025.
  7. Treiman, Donald J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. Quantitative studies in social relations. New York: Academic Press. ISBN   978-0-12-698750-8.
  8. International Labour Organization. Resolution Concerning Updating the International Standard Classification of Occupations. Adopted at the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Labour Statistics, 6 December 2007.
  9. "SOC home". Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
  10. "European Skills/Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) - European Commission". employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
  11. Employment and Social Development Canada. "National Occupational Classification - Canada.ca". noc.esdc.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 27 January 2025. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
  12. "O*NET". DOL. Retrieved 26 February 2025.
  13. Hardy, Wojciech; Keister, Roma; Lewandowski, Piotr (2018). "Educational upgrading, structural change and the task composition of jobs in Europe". Economics of Transition. 26 (2): 201–231. doi:10.1111/ecot.12145. ISSN   1468-0351.
  14. "Crosswalk Files at O*NET Resource Center". www.onetcenter.org. Retrieved 26 February 2025.
  15. Tijdens, K.G.; Kaandorp, C.S. (2018). "Validating occupational coding indexes for use in multi-country surveys". Survey Insights: Methods from the Field. doi:10.13094/SMIF-2018-00007.
  16. Kilbourne, Barbara; England, Paula; Beron, Kurt (1 June 1994). "Effects of Individual, Occupational, and Industrial Characteristics on Earnings: Intersections of Race and Gender*". Social Forces. 72 (4): 1149–1176. doi:10.1093/sf/72.4.1149. ISSN   0037-7732.
  17. De Rijk, A.; Nijhuis, F.; Alexanderson, K. (1 June 2009). "Gender Differences in Work Modifications and Changed Job Characteristics During the Return-To-Work Process: A Prospective Cohort Study". Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 19 (2): 185–193. doi:10.1007/s10926-009-9168-1. ISSN   1573-3688.
  18. Goldberg, Marcel; Chastang, Jean François; Leclerc, Annette; Zins, Marie; Bonenfant, Sébastien; Bugel, Isabelle; Kaniewski, Nadine; Schmaus, Annie; Niedhammer, Isabelle; Piciotti, Michèle; Chevalier, Anne; Godard, Catherine; Imbernon, Ellen (15 August 2001). "Socioeconomic, Demographic, Occupational, and Health Factors Associated with Participation in a Long-term Epidemiologic Survey: A Prospective Study of the French GAZEL Cohort and Its Target Population". American Journal of Epidemiology. 154 (4): 373–384. doi:10.1093/aje/154.4.373. ISSN   0002-9262.
  19. Neal, Arthur G.; Rettig, Salomon (1963). "Dimensions of Alienation Among Manual and Non-Manual Workers". American Sociological Review. 28 (4): 599–608. doi:10.2307/2090075. ISSN   0003-1224.
  20. Locke, Edwin A. (August 1973). "Satisfiers and dissatisfiers among white-collar and blue-collar employees". Journal of Applied Psychology. 58 (1): 67–76. doi:10.1037/h0035418. ISSN   1939-1854.
  21. Vågerö, D.; Ringbäck, G.; Kiviranta, H. (April 1986). "Melanoma and other tumors of the skin among office, other indoor and outdoor workers in Sweden 1961-1979". British Journal of Cancer. 53 (4): 507–512. doi:10.1038/bjc.1986.80. ISSN   1532-1827. PMC   2001433 . PMID   3707844.
  22. Dul, Jan; Ceylan, Canan; Jaspers, Ferdinand (2011). "Knowledge workers' creativity and the role of the physical work environment". Human Resource Management. 50 (6): 715–734. doi:10.1002/hrm.20454. ISSN   1099-050X.

Further reading