CWI2013 Global Analysis
Contingent Workforce Index
HARNESSING THE WINDS OF CHANGE IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE
Propr ie tar y and Conf ident ia l , ManpowerGroup ©2013
2
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
The Contingent Workforce Index (CWI) is a relative comparison of local labor markets around the globe that measures the likelihood of identifying and accessing workers to supplement an organization’s full-time workforce. The numerical value assigned to each of the countries composing the index ranks them in descending order based on the availability, cost, regulation, and productivity of contingent workers.
The CWI is comprised of 36 calculated and weighted statistical data points summarized by the following categories:
Each data point is derived from an authority source and then calculated and weighted using proprietary formulas to reflect the distinct nature of the contingent workforce. As new statistics become available and prove to have correlative relationships with the global contingent workforce, they are either added to the index or replace data points where relevance is less significant.
By definition, this index is used to provide a relative measure of the potential benefit of contingent workforce engagement in countries around the world.
INTRODUCTION
PRODUCTIVITY
THE CONTINGENT WORKFORCE INDEX
COSTAVAILABILITY REGULATION
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 3
In order to enhance the CWI’s value to users, it comprises actual and relative underlying data points that are factored into the calculation of the availability, cost, regulation, and productivity of contingent workers in each country.
Because the CWI attributes each data point to the calculation of these four critical characteristics, TAPFIN’s proprietary formulas determine a relative ranking of 75* countries based on each characteristic, along with the more comprehensive CWI ranking.
Similar to how the GDP can be used as an economic indicator for a country, the CWI is intended to serve as a workforce indicator for both short- and long-term strategies related to contingent workforce procurement, including, but not limited to, capacity planning, recruitment strategy, program expansion, budget and forecasting, cost-savings initiatives, restructuring, and merger/acquisition diligence.
*The CWI provides analysis and ranking of every country
ManpowerGroup has operations in, excluding Guadeloupe,
Martinique, Monaco, New Caledonia, and Reunion which
were excluded as a result of inconsistent sources to track
comparative data.
Contingent WorkforceFor the purpose of this index, TAPFIN has
measured all non-traditional workers, thus
applying the general definition of contingent
workforce as any population of part-time,
temporary, or contract labor, excluding all
permanent staff.
The CWI measures a country’s receptiveness
toward the practice of engaging contingent
labor and assesses the extent to which a
country’s contingent workforce may meet the
needs of an employer.
The underlying logic makes a refined
assumption that countries with a predilection for
contingent labor in the broadest sense will have
a similar sentiment in support of a contingent
workforce delivered by temporary staffing firms.
4
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
2013 CONTINGENT WORKFORCE INDEXThe CWI gauges the health of a country’s workforce based on the value and comparison of statistics related to contingent workers within specified parameters. It is intended to serve as an indicator, primarily by delivering a relative assessment of labor, market, and regulatory conditions.
Hon
g K
ong
New
Zea
land
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Aus
tral
ia
Sin
gap
ore
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Mal
aysi
a
Can
ada
Thai
land
Uru
guay
Pue
rto
Ric
o
Ind
ia
Chi
le
Den
mar
k
Bah
rain
Chi
na
Irela
nd
Phi
lipp
ines
Per
u
Isra
el
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
El S
alva
dor
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Gua
tem
ala
Est
onia
2013 CWI RANKINGSTop 25 Markets for Contingent Workforce Engagement
3.60
3.54
3.32
3.22
3.19
3.17
3.17
3.08
3.08
3.06
3.05
3.03
3.02
2.95
2.94
2.94
2.92
2.92
2.89
2.88
2.87
2.86
2.84
2.83
2.81
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 5
INTERPRETING THE CWIComprehensive assessment and analysis of workforce statistics, economic factors, labor regulations, cost considerations and growth trends in 75 countries identified the Top 25 Markets for Contingent Workforce Engagement which represent:
• More skilled and professional workers
• Lower relative cost (associated with when to engage contingent workers)
• Higher productivity based on hours worked, paid leave, and overtime restrictions
• Relatively less geopolitical concerns
Analysis of data collected globally indicates that the factors used to establish this ranking will yield top market performers that support higher volumes of contingent hiring with more cost efficiency based on quality and productivity.
The Contingent Workforce Index is designed to allow for the rankings to be based on custom weighting of the total category scores for Availability, Cost, Regulation, and Productivity depending on an organization’s strategic priorities. However, for the purpose of this summary, we have assumed an equal value of the weighting for each of the four categories. Custom analysis of specific characteristics can be procured through your TAPFIN representative.
REGULATION
AVAILABILITY
A relative comparison of the current skilled contingent workforce in each country and the likely sustainability of that workforce based on emerging and aging workforce trends
DEFINING THE CATEGORIES OF THE CWI
PRODUCTIVITY
A relative comparison of the potential productivity of a workforce based on the amount of hours an
employer can pay a worker at base pay
COST
A relative comparison of basic wage and tax metrics to suggest potential cost efficiency
A relative comparison of how restricted the terms and practices of contingent workforce engagement are based on a standard set of regulations
NOTE: See page 19 for a detailed definition of measurement factors.
6
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE OF CWI RANKINGSBelow is an alphabetized list of the countries included in the CWI and their ranking based on the factors assessed.
TAPFIN scores and ranks each of these countries specifically for:
• Availability of contingent workers
• Cost of engaging those workers
• Regulation of that workforce engagement
• Productivity of those workers
The CWI ranking above reflects a cumulative index ranking based on equal weighting of the Workforce Availability, Cost, Regulation, and Productivity.
Argentina 2.23 Guatemala 2.83 Philippines 2.92Australia 3.22 Honduras 2.35 Poland 2.68Austria 2.68 Hong Kong 3.60 Portugal 2.43Bahrain 2.94 Hungary 2.37 Puerto Rico 3.05
Belarus 2.22 India 3.03 Romania 2.38Belgium 2.35 Ireland 2.92 Russia 2.20Bolivia 2.11 Israel 2.88 Serbia 2.42Brazil 2.09 Italy 2.03 Singapore 3.19Bulgaria 2.70 Japan 2.78 Slovakia 2.42Canada 3.08 Kazakhstan 2.81 Slovenia 2.45Chile 3.02 Korea 2.58 South Africa 2.80China 2.94 Latvia 2.58 Spain 2.30Colombia 2.46 Lithuania 2.41 Sweden 2.36Costa Rica 2.55 Luxembourg 2.36 Switzerland 2.64Croatia 2.55 Macau 2.58 Taiwan 2.58Czech Republic 2.50 Malaysia 3.17 Thailand 3.08Denmark 2.95 Mexico 2.40 Tunisia 2.49Dominican Republic 2.84 Morocco 2.13 Turkey 2.70Ecuador 2.01 Netherlands 2.61 Ukraine 2.34El Salvador 2.86 New Zealand 3.54 United Arab Emirates 3.17Estonia 2.81 Nicaragua 2.53 United Kingdom 2.87Finland 2.70 Norway 2.55 United States 3.32France 2.01 Panama 2.75 Uruguay 3.06Germany 2.25 Paraguay 2.57 Venezuela 1.87Greece 2.22 Peru 2.89 Vietnam 2.58
COUNTRY RANKING COUNTRY RANKING COUNTRY RANKING
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 7
STRATEGIC OVERVIEW OF WORKFORCE AVAILABILITY RANKINGS
Because the size of the contingent workforce is the single largest variable accounted for in the CWI, the total number of workers has substantial impact on the Availability and CWI rankings, resulting in a number of similarities in the list of top performers – most notably, China and India.
While the extraction for salaried employees from those particular markets substantially levels the playing field in comparing their workforces to those of other countries, they still maintain an advantage in this category, due to the sheer volume of workers in the workforce.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Hong Kong
Thailand
Mexico
Russia
Brazil
Korea
Vietnam
United States
India
China
2013 CWI AVAILABILITY RANKINGS
TOP TEN MARKETS FOR CONTINGENT WORKFORCE AVAILABIL ITY
0.84
0.49
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30
Calculation of the Contingent Workforce Availability Rankings is based on the following statistics: total labor force, unemployment rate, workforce mix (salaried vs hourly), skill classification, higher education and training, skill category, labor classification, literacy rate, tertiary enrollment, and age dependency ratio.
MAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING WORKFORCE AVAILABILITY RANKING:• Size of Local Contingent Workforce
• Gap between Age Dependency and Emerging Workforce
• Gap between Age Dependency and Tertiary Enrollment
8
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
STRATEGIC OVERVIEW OF WORKFORCE COST RANKINGS
The data points used to calculate the relative cost of contingent labor in these markets are based
on various wages paid to workers in each country, resulting in those nations with the lowest wage
thresholds ranking the highest on the CWI index for cost efficiency. Because the index does not
account for various rate computation requirements, there are a number of variables that can
impact the relative cost efficiency in any given market—particularly in Asia, where a number of
other factors can influence the hourly rates of any given worker. The average cost of labor and
average manufacturing costs include a number of those variables in their calculations, providing a
baseline for comparison to rank each market with a degree of accuracy.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
United Arab Emirates
Nicaragua
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Uruguay
Guatemala
Kazakhstan
Philippines
Honduras
Thailand
2013 CWI COST RANKINGS
TOP TEN MARKETS FOR CONTINGENT WORKFORCE COST
0.96
0.94
0.93
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.89
Calculation of the Contingent Workforce Cost Rankings is based on the following statistics: minimum wage, average manufacturing wage, average IT wage, average cost of labor, employer taxes.
MAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING WORKFORCE COST RANKING:• Countries below average minimum wage (<$5.50/hour) had substantially lower employer taxes
and average hourly labor costs
• Countries with no minimum wage were found to have higher costs in almost every aspect of contingent workforce engagement
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 9
STRATEGIC OVERVIEW OF WORKFORCE REGULATIONS RANKINGS
Despite an abundance of workforce regulations that impact contingent workforce engagement,
the CWI is based on those that most influence the process and cost of engaging workers locally.
Comprehensive analysis indicates that parity, contract duration limits, notice periods, and severance
restrict use and impact cost more than any other workforce regulations.
Because this targeted subset of regulations was used to determine the CWI scores, those
countries with the highest rankings offer the most workforce flexibility through contingent
workforce engagement.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Austria
Canada
India
Malaysia
Hong Kong
New Zealand
Australia
Guatemala
United States
Denmark
2013 CWI REGULATIONS RANKINGS
TOP TEN MARKETS FOR CONTINGENT WORKFORCE REGULAT IONS
0.95
0.95
0.92
0.90
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.82
0.81
Calculation of the Contingent Workforce Regulation Rankings is based on the following statistics: subcontracting legality, restrictions on fixed term contracts, pay parity, benefit parity, maximum contract duration limit — 1 term, maximum contract duration limit — total, notice period for termination, severance requirements, overtime premiums.
MAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING WORKFORCE REGULATIONS RANKING:• Lack of Contract Duration Limits
• Lack of Pay and Benefit Parity
10
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
STRATEGIC OVERVIEW OF WORKFORCE PRODUCTIVITY RANKINGS
Workforce productivity accounts for the ability to leverage a worker within each country over the length of a contract. Going beyond the productivity output, the comparison of the number of hours in a workday, days in a workweek, allowed overtime, and paid time off allows for a more relevant view of the value derived from each contractor.
Comprehensive assessment of the impact that these factors has on overall productivity indicates that restrictions on the hours in a workday or workweek, coupled with limitations on annual overtime, carry the most inhibitive considerations when comparing these markets.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
South Africa
Chile
Philippines
El Salvador
Hong Kong
Peru
United States
Australia
New Zealand
Puerto Rico
2013 CWI PRODUCTIVITY RANKINGS
TOP TEN MARKETS FOR CONTINGENT WORKFORCE PRODUCTIV ITY
0.77
0.76
0.70
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.63
0.55
0.54
Calculation of the Contingent Workforce Productivity Rankings is based on the following statistics: public holidays, days of paid leave, maximum annual overtime, maximum working day/week, standard hours in workday, labor market efficiency, technological readiness, institutions and infrastructure.
MAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING WORKFORCE PRODUCTIVITY RANKING:• Hours/Days per Workweek
• Paid Leave
• Public Holidays
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 11
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTINGENT WORKFORCE AVAILABILITY, COST, REGULATION, & PRODUCTIVITY VARIES BY MARKET *In the comparison of the top five markets ranked for contingent workforce availability, the majority of the highest ranking countries are in the Asia Pacific. These countries generally demonstrate higher cost efficiency along with availability but tend to have lower productivity and more restrictive labor regulations.
The one exception in this example is the United States. Although one of the highest ranked countries for contingent workforce availability and minimal regulation, it is far less cost efficient than many of the top performing markets on the Index.
Overall, India outperforms the other four markets as the only country to be in the top two countries in each category.
CO
ST
EF
FIC
IEN
CY
PRODUCTIVITY
Minimal Regulatory Impact Moderate Regulatory Impact Restrictive Regulatory Impact
Size of the bubble reflects the Relative Availability in each market, while the color reflects Relative Regulation:
Vietnam
Korea
India
United StatesChina
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
COMPARISON OF TOP 5 MARKETS FOR WORKFORCE AVAILABILITY
*NOTE: The size of each bubble in each chart is relative to the markets depicted in each view and cannot be compared to other comparative views.
12
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
In the comparison of the top five markets ranked for cost efficiency, Asia Pacific countries continue to show higher workforce availability when compared to other emerging markets. While similar in cost efficiency and availability, however, there are notable differences in Productivity, particularly between Thailand and the Philippines.
Conversely, while still among the most cost-efficient countries, Honduras and Guatemala have lower workforce availability, moderate productivity, and drastically different regulatory environments with Honduras being highly restricted and Guatemala being relatively flexible.
CO
ST
EF
FIC
IEN
CY
PRODUCTIVITY
Minimal Regulatory Impact Moderate Regulatory Impact Restrictive Regulatory Impact
Size of the bubble reflects the Relative Availability of each market, while the color reflects Relative Regulation:
COMPARISON OF TOP 5 MARKETS FOR WORKFORCE COST EFFICIENCY
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
Kazakhstan
Thailand
Honduras
Guatemala Philippines
Overall, Thailand outperforms the other four markets as it consistently ranks in the top two countries in each category.
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 13
WORKFORCE REGULATIONS OFTEN FAVORABLE IN THE AMERICASAlthough Workforce Availability is generally higher in North America, South and Central America have a number of countries with skilled workforce availability, cost efficiency, minimal to moderate regulations, and high productivity. It is important to note that, while moderate in impact compared to other countries, the local regulations of Latin America are often complex particularly when it comes to worker classification and engagement parameters.
The United States stands out for having a substantially larger contingent workforce availability, minimal regulatory impact, and relatively high productivity.
When evaluating the top markets ranked by the CWI, key countries such as Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico are noticeably absent. In fact, the United States is the only mature staffing market to rank in the Top 5 regionally. In general, the reason for this is the stringent regulation and productivity scores of these other countries, which reduced the overall CWI score despite the larger size of their workforce.
COMPARISON OF TOP 5 RANKING MARKETS IN THE AMERICAS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
30 40 50 60 70 80
CO
ST
EF
FIC
IEN
CY
PRODUCTIVITY
Dominican Republic
Uruguay El Salvador
United States
Puerto Rico
Minimal Regulatory Impact Moderate Regulatory Impact Restrictive Regulatory Impact
Size of the bubble reflects the Relative Availability of each market, while the color reflects Relative Regulation:
14
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
Higher manufacturing wages in the more mature markets is one of the primary reasons for their absence on top markets ranked in the Americas. While the United States had higher availability and favorable regulatory conditions, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico didn’t rank highly enough in the other three categories to counter balance their relatively higher cost compared to other countries in Latin America. In fact, strict regulations, in combination with manufacturing wages, substantially reduced how major markets like Canada, Brazil, and Argentina compared to smaller markets with lower costs and less regulation.
Nic
arag
ua
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Bol
ivia
Gua
tem
ala
El S
alva
dor
Per
u
Hon
dur
as
Col
omb
ia
Uru
guay
Par
agua
y
Chi
le
Ecu
ador
Vene
zuel
a
Cos
ta R
ica
Pan
ama
Mex
ico
Bra
zil
Arg
entin
a
Pue
rto
Ric
o
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Can
ada
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF MANUFACTURING WAGES
Regional Average $5.38
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 15
MODERATE TO RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS ARE COMMON IN THE ASIA-PACIFICIn the comparison of the top five ranking markets by contingent workforce index in the Asia-Pacific, there is substantial variance in the regulatory impacts of each market. China clearly has the largest contingent workforce shown, but the restrictive regulations have a huge impact on the cost efficiency and potential productivity. While they have a smaller workforce availability, the Philippines and Hong Kong continue to rank higher in cost efficiently and productivity.
CWI rankings clearly demonstrate that the most cost efficient and productive markets in the Asia-Pacific region are smaller in size; however, the region’s overall performance for workforce availability remains quite high due to China and India representing slighter more than 50% of the world’s workers.
COMPARISON OF TOP 5 RANKING MARKETS IN ASIA-PACIFIC
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
CO
ST
EF
FIC
IEN
CY
PRODUCTIVITY
Minimal Regulatory Impact Moderate Regulatory Impact Restrictive Regulatory Impact
Size of the bubble reflects the Relative Availability of each market, while the color reflects Relative Regulation:
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
New Zealand
Hong Kong
Philippines
China
India
16
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
While the region has some common regulatory dynamics, there is substantial variance in productivity and cost efficiency that impacts how each country performs on the Index. Most notably is the higher cost of labor in Australia, and the higher tax burden in China, that distinguishes them from the general cost trends in the region.
Phi
lipp
ines
Vie
tnam
Chi
na
Mac
au
Thai
land
Mal
aysi
a
Taiw
an
Ind
ia
Hon
g K
ong
Sin
gap
ore
Kor
ea
New
Zea
land
Jap
an
Aus
tral
ia
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF AVERAGE LABOR COST
Regional Average $11.10
New
Zea
land
Hon
g K
ong
Thai
land
Phi
lipp
ines
Kor
ea
Mal
aysi
a
Sin
gap
ore
Jap
an
Ind
ia
Taiw
an
Mac
au
Aus
tral
ia
Vie
tnam
Chi
na
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF AGGREGATED TAX RANGES
Regional Average 16.8%
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 17
WORKFORCE REGULATIONS ARE MORE CONSISTENT IN EUROPE THAN IN ANY OTHER REGIONIn the comparison of the top five ranking markets by contingent workforce index in EMEA, the markets are all shown to have relatively moderate workforce regulations. While there are many standard regulations as a result of common legislation in the European Union, each country does maintain unique labor laws that mandate how contingent workers are to be engaged.
These top five markets are comparable for contingent workforce availability, with a similar volume of workers in each country. Of course, there are other conditions to consider related to the political and economic environments when evaluating local workforce strategies in these countries.
Although United Arab Emirates is the second largest market aside from Bahrain, it outperforms the other four markets as the only country to be in the top two countries in each category.
COMPARISON OF TOP 5 RANKING MARKETS IN EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA
CO
ST
EF
FIC
IEN
CY
PRODUCTIVITY
Minimal Regulatory Impact Moderate Regulatory Impact Restrictive Regulatory Impact
Size of the bubble reflects the Relative Availability of each market, while the color reflects Relative Regulation:
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75
Bahrain
United Arab Emirates
Israel
South Africa
Turkey
18
Sources: The primary data sources for this index are all based on December 2012 statistics from the Ministries of Labour for the 75 countries
within the scope, the Central Intelligence Agency (U.S.), Trading Economics, and internal data collected as part of ManpowerGroup Solutions
global reporting effort (Annual Data Survey, Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, Talent Shortage Survey).
When evaluating the top markets ranked by the CWI, key countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany are noticeably absent. Although these more mature markets perform well from a workforce availability standpoint and are comparable by workforce regulation, these key countries tend to have higher costs associated with wages and tax requirements for employers.
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF AVERAGE LABOR COST
Regional Average $17.37
Ser
bia
Bel
arus
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Ukr
aine
Latv
iaK
azak
hsta
nR
oman
iaB
ulga
riaH
unga
ryC
roat
ia
Slo
veni
a
Est
onia
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Irela
nd
Fran
ce
Rus
sia
Bah
rain
Slo
vaki
a
Sou
th A
fric
a
Isra
el
Finl
and
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Sw
itzer
land
Pol
and
Tuni
sia
Por
tuga
l
Bel
gium
Turk
ey
Italy
Sw
eden
Den
mar
k
Lith
uani
a
Sp
ain
Mor
occo
Luxe
mb
ourg
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Aus
tria
Net
herla
nds
Nor
way
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup ©2013 19
CONTINGENT WORKFORCE INDEX — DEFINITION OF MEASUREMENT FACTORSIn the CWI, a number of measurement factors are used to determine the numerical value in each category. The factors are:
REGULATIONA relative comparison of how restricted the terms and practices of contingent workforce engagement are based on a standard set of regulations
• Subcontracting Legality
• Restrictions on Fixed Term Contracts
• Pay Parity
• Benefit Parity
• Maximum Contract Duration Limit - 1 term
• Maximum Contract Duration Limit - Total
• Notice Period for Termination
• Severance Requirements
• Overtime Premiums
AVAILABILITYA relative comparison of the current skilled contingent workforce in each country and the likely sustainability of that workforce based on emerging and aging workforce trends
• Total Labor Force
• Unemployment Rate
• Workforce Mix (Salaried vs Hourly)
• Skill Classification
• Higher Education and Training
• Skill Category
• Labor Classification
• Literacy Rate
• Tertiary Enrollment
• Age Dependency Ratio
PRODUCTIVITY
A relative comparison of the potential productivity of a workforce based on the amount of hours an employer can pay a worker at base pay
• Public Holidays
• Days of Paid Leave
• Maximum Annual Overtime
• Maximum Working Day/Week
• Standard Hours in Workday
• Labor Market Efficiency
• Technological Readiness
• Institutions
• Infrastructure
COST
A relative comparison of basic wage and tax metrics to suggest potential cost efficiency
• Minimum Wage
• Average Manufacturing Wage
• Average IT Wage
• Average Cost of Labor
• Employer Taxes
Proprietary and Confidential, ManpowerGroup @2013