2. SDG Metadata
3. 8-8-2
4. English

<p>International Conference of Labour Statisticians (2018) 20^th Session, <a href="http://www.ilo.org/20thicls">www.ilo.org/20thicls</a> </p>

<p>International Conference of Labour Statisticians (2018) 20^th Session, <a href="http://www.ilo.org/20thicls">www.ilo.org/20thicls</a> </p>
<p></p>

<p><strong>Data availability:</strong></p>
<p>The data is available for all ILO member states. This submission covers country, regional and global data from 2015 to 2021.</p>
<p><strong>Disaggregation:</strong></p>
<p>The disaggregation by sex and migrant status is not currently available. </p>

<p><strong>Data availability:</strong></p>
<p>The data is available for all ILO member states that ratified both ILO Convention no. 87 and 98, which is currently 137 countries. This submission covers country, regional and global data from 2015 to 20201.</p>
<p><strong>Disaggregation:</strong></p>
<p>The disaggregation by sex and migrant status is not currently available. </p>

<p>The regional and global aggregates are weighted averages (with weights derived from ILO labour force estimates). </p>
<p>A country&#x2019;s weight is the share of its labour force in the global labour force for a given time period, where the labour force is derived from the latest edition of the ILO modelled estimates (for further information on the estimates, please refer to the ILO modelled estimates methodological description, available at <a href="https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/concepts-and-definitions/ilo-modelled-estimates/">https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/concepts-and-definitions/ilo-modelled-estimates/</a>). </p>

<p>The regional and global aggregates are weighted averages (with weights derived from ILO labour force estimates). To avoid biased estimations, regional aggregates include both countries that have and have not ratified ILO Convention Nos. 87 and 98. For non-ratifying countries, the scores are calculated based on the methodology adopted by the 2018 International Conference of Labour Statisticians (<a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_648636.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_648636.pdf</a>) and are used only for estimation of aggregate scores.</p>
<p>A country&#x2019;s weight is the share of its labour force in the global labour force for a given time period, where the labour force is derived from the latest edition of the ILO modelled estimates (for further information on the estimates, please refer to the ILO modelled estimates methodological description, available at <a href="https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/concepts-and-definitions/ilo-modelled-estimates/">https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/concepts-and-definitions/ilo-modelled-estimates/</a>). Regional averages, however, are only provided for regions where the proportion of the labour force of countries that have ratified ILO Convention nos. 87 and 98 to the total labour force is greater or equal to 25%, or, where the difference in absolute value between the regional aggregate including all countries and the regional aggregate including only countries that have ratified the ILO conventions is smaller or equal than 2.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>At country level</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>There is no treatment of missing values at country level. The indicator will be reported for countries where, based on comparison with an externally produced indicator, the score should be treated with care due to the possibility of insufficient information in the textual sources. For these countries, based on the decisions adopted by the tripartite technical committee set up to further address refinements to the methodology, the indicator will be reported with the following note: &#x201C;The score should be treated with care due to the possibility of insufficient information in the textual sources, based on comparison with an externally produced indicator (see Metadata, point 4.f.).&#x201D;</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>At regional and global levels</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>For the computation of the regional aggregates, treatment of missing values (i.e. scores that are recommended to be dropped) is based on the following rules: (1). If scores are missing for all years, the country is dropped from the sample; (2). If scores are available for a single year, the available score is used for all other years; (3). If scores are available for multiple but not all years, the missing value is computed as the average of available scores.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>At country level</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>There is no treatment of missing values at country level. The indicator is neitherwill be reported for non-ratifying countries, nor for countries for which ILO supervisory body textualcountries where, based on comparison with an externally produced indicator, the score shources do not provide ld be treated with care due to the possibility of insufficient amount of information in a specific year. The ILO will consult its constituents regarding which countries should be dropped from reporting for these reasons. Until then, the Office proposes continuing with the comparison with an externally-produced indicator to provide the starting poithe textual sources. For these countries, based on the decisions adopted by the tripartite technical committee set up to further address refinements to the methodology, the indicator will be reported with the following note: &#x201C;The score should be treated with care due to the possibility of insufficient infor the ILO Department of Statistics to consult internalmation in the textual sources, based on comparison with and external sources and the tripartite constituents.ly produced indicator (see Metadata, point 4.f.).&#x201D;</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>At regional and global levels</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>For the computation of the regional aggregates, treatment of missing values (i.e. scores that are recommended to be dropped) is based on the following rules: (1). If scores are missing for all years, the country is dropped from the sample; (2). If scores are available for a single year, the available score is used for all other years; (3). If scores are available for multiple but not all years, the missing value is computed as the average of available scores.</p>

<p>The indicator is based on three key premises: (i) definitional validity &#x2013; the extent to which the evaluation criteria and their corresponding definitions accurately reflect the phenomena they are meant to measure; (ii) transparency &#x2013; how readily a coded violation can be traced back to any given textual source; and (iii) inter-coder reliability &#x2013; the extent to which different evaluators working independently are able to consistently arrive at the same results.</p>
<p><em>Definitional validity</em>. As these are meant to be indicators of <em>international</em> FACB rights, the evaluation criteria and their corresponding definitions are directly based on the ILO Constitution, ILO Conventions No. 87 and 98 and the related body of comments of the ILO supervisory bodies.^{<a href="#footnote-8" id="footnote-ref-8">[7]</a>} Given that the ILO supervisory system is also guided by these definitions, this facilitates the coding itself given the heavy reliance on ILO textual sources produced by the supervisory system. </p>
<p><em>Transparency</em>. A key rationale for the large number of evaluation criteria is to eliminate catchall evaluation criteria for violations of FACB rights not elsewhere coded, that is, violations for which there are no explicit evaluation criteria. This level of detail also facilitates the transparency of the method, in that very specific violations can be readily traced back to individual textual sources. This is made possible by the coding itself, in which violations are coded with the letters &#x201C;a&#x201D; through &#x201C;g,&#x201D; with each letter standing for one of the seven textual sources coded (see Table 1.). </p>
<p><em>Inter-coder reliability</em>. The method is based on clear and comprehensive coding rules as well as definitions for each of the evaluation criteria with the aim of making the indicators reproducible. Inter-coder reliability was assessed in the process of training teams of lawyers (sequentially and independently of each other) to do the coding and in double-checking their coding, which resulted in a number of clarifications and refinements to the coding rules and definitions. This process led to the conclusion that the inter-coder reliability of the method depends first and foremost on the coders being sufficiently well-trained and in particular being sufficiently well-versed in the coding rules and definitions to be able to apply them consistently. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-8">7</sup><p> The related body of comments of the ILO supervisory bodies are: <em>Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO</em> (ILO, 2006); <em>Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining: General Survey of the Reports on the Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), 1948, and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98)</em> (ILO, 1994); <em>General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions Concerning Rights at Work in Light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008</em> (ILO, 2012). <a href="#footnote-ref-8">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>

<p>The indicator is based on three key premises: (i) definitional validity &#x2013; the extent to which the evaluation criteria and their corresponding definitions accurately reflect the phenomena they are meant to measure; (ii) transparency &#x2013; how readily a coded violation can be traced back to any given textual source; and (iii) inter-coder reliability &#x2013; the extent to which different evaluators working independently are able to consistently arrive at the same results.</p>
<p><em>Definitional validity</em>. As these are meant to be indicators of <em>international</em> FACB rights, the evaluation criteria and their corresponding definitions are directly based on the ILO Constitution, ILO Conventions No. 87 and 98 and the related body of comments of the ILO supervisory bodies.^{<a href="#footnote-68" id="footnote-ref-6">[58">[7]</a>} Given that the ILO supervisory system is also guided by these definitions, this facilitates the coding itself given the heavy reliance on ILO textual sources produced by the supervisory system. </p>
<p><em>Transparency</em>. A key rationale for the large number of evaluation criteria is to eliminate catchall evaluation criteria for violations of FACB rights not elsewhere coded, that is, violations for which there are no explicit evaluation criteria. This level of detail also facilitates the transparency of the method, in that very specific violations can be readily traced back to individual textual sources. This is made possible by the coding itself, in which violations are coded with the letters &#x201C;a&#x201D; through &#x201C;g,&#x201D; with each letter standing for one of the seven textual sources coded (see Table 1.). </p>
<p><em>Inter-coder reliability</em>. The method is based on clear and comprehensive coding rules as well as definitions for each of the evaluation criteria with the aim of making the indicators reproducible. Inter-coder reliability was assessed in the process of training teams of lawyers (sequentially and independently of each other) to do the coding and in double-checking their coding, which resulted in a number of clarifications and refinements to the coding rules and definitions. This process led to the conclusion that the inter-coder reliability of the method depends first and foremost on the coders being sufficiently well-trained and in particular being sufficiently well-versed in the coding rules and definitions to be able to apply them consistently. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-6">58">7</sup><p> The related body of comments of the ILO supervisory bodies are: <em>Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO</em> (ILO, 2006); <em>Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining: General Survey of the Reports on the Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), 1948, and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98)</em> (ILO, 1994); <em>General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions Concerning Rights at Work in Light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008</em> (ILO, 2012). <a href="#footnote-ref-68">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>

<p>The method is based on the coding of textual sources (see above) against a list of evaluation criteria and then converting the coding into indicators. For the list of evaluation criteria, see Table 1 and 2 (pp. 6-12.) at: <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_648636.pdf">https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_648636.pdf</a> </p>
<h1>The indicator has a range from 0 to 10, with 0 being the best possible score (indicating higher levels of compliance with FACB rights) and 10 the worst (indicating lower levels of compliance with FACB rights). For the purpose of computation, in the first step, the coding of textual sources is transformed into a binary coding, with 1 assigned to observed non-compliance and 0 to no observed non-compliance (unweighted raw scores). The binary coding is then multiplied by the weights as derived from the Delphi method (weighted raw scores). The final scores are the weighted raw scores normalized in a range from 0 to 10.</h1>
<h1>Using the Delphi Method to Construct Evaluation Criteria Weights</h1>
<p>The weights were constructed with the use of the Delphi method. The application of the Delphi method involved two rounds of surveys conducted via email of internationally-recognized experts in labour law having knowledge of the ILO&#x2019;s supervisory system and particular knowledge of FACB rights as defined by the ILO. Regional representation was another consideration. Experts remained anonymous with respect to each other throughout the process. </p>
<h1>Applying the weights, normalization and default scores</h1>
<p>The raw coding uses the letters &#x201C;a&#x201D; through &#x201C;g&#x201D; (with each letter corresponding to one of the seven textual sources) to represent coded violations of FACB rights for each evaluation criteria, yielding a column of 180 cells for any given country and year. In order to apply the weights, any cell containing one or more letters is assigned a value of 1 and any blank cell for which there are no coded violations is assigned a value of 0, creating a binary coding column. The number of letters in a cell does not affect the construction of the binary coding column, in order to avoid double-counting given that the textual sources commonly reference each other. The cells of the column of weights are then multiplied by corresponding cells of the binary coding column and summing across the cells of the resultant column yields a weighted non-normalized score for any given country and year. </p>
<p>To normalize the indicators over time, 95 is assigned as the maximum weighted non-normalized score for the indicator. This roughly equals to the maximum weighted non-normalized score of one-half of the countries having the most coded violations of FACB rights of workers and their organizations for the years 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2012. The highest weighted non-normalized score for several countries hovered around 80. On this basis, the non-normalized score for any given country and year is normalized to range in value from 0 to 10, the best and worst possible scores respectively. In the future, if any country should receive a non-normalized score of greater than 95, this will be capped at 95, yielding a normalized score of 10.^{^{<a href="#footnote-7" id="footnote-ref-7">[6]</a>}}</p>
<p>In addition, the method applies the notion that general prohibitions in law imply general prohibitions in practice (though not vice versa). In terms of coding, this means that &#x2013; both for workers and employers -the direct coding of &#x201C;General prohibition of the right to establish and join organizations&#x201D; in law automatically triggers the coding of &#x201C;General prohibition of the development of independent organizations&#x201D; in practice; the direct coding of &#x201C;General prohibition of the right to collective bargaining&#x201D; in law automatically triggers the coding of the &#x201C;General prohibition of collective bargaining&#x201D; in practice ; and, finally, for workers, the direct coding of &#x201C;General prohibition of the right to strike&#x201D; in law automatically triggers the coding of the &#x201C;General prohibition of strikes&#x201D; in practice . </p>
<p>Based on the decisions adopted by the tripartite technical committee set up to further address refinements to the methodology, in addition to the above normalization rules, a &#x201C;load&#x201D; of 3.5 will be added to the normalized score of the country in cases of all-encompassing violations of FACB rights, that is, for &#x201C;General prohibition of the right to establish and join organizations&#x201D; in law, &#x201C;General prohibition of the development of independent organizations&#x201D; in practice, &#x201C;General prohibition of the right to collective bargaining&#x201D; in law, and &#x201C;General prohibition of collective bargaining&#x201D; in practice. </p>
<p><strong>Table 1. Hypothetical Example of Coding and Indicator Construction (for a Single Country and Year)</strong></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p><strong>Evaluation Criteria</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Textual coding</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Binary coding</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Weights</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Binary coding x Weights</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Ia. Fundamental civil liberties in law</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>2</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Infringements of trade unionists&apos; basic freedoms </p>
</td>
<td>
<p>a</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,93</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,93</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Ib. Fundamental civil liberties in practice</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>6</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Killing or disappearance of trade unionists in relation to their trade union activities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>af</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>2,00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>2,00</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Other violent actions against trade unionists in relation to their trade union activities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>af</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,82</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,82</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>12</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Arrest, detention, imprisonment, charging and fining of trade unionists in relation to their trade union activities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>af</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,95</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,95</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>IIa. Right of workers to establish and join organizations in law</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>24</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Exclusion of workers from the right to establish and join organizations</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>a</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,86</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,86</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lack of adequate legal guarantees against anti-union discriminatory measures</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>a</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,75</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,75</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>33</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Infringements of the right to establish and join federations/confederations/international organizations</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>abf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,73</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,73</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>IIb. Right of workers to establish and join organizations in practice</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>37</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Previous authorization requirements</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>af</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,70</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,70</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>42</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Committed against trade union officials re violation no. 41</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>f</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,89</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,89</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>43</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lack of guarantee of due process and/or justice re violation no. 41</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>f</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,80</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,80</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>IIIa. Other union activities in law</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>49</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Infringements of the right to freely elect representatives</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>a</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,80</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,80</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>50</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Infringements of the right to freely organize and control financial administration</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ab</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,59</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,59</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>52</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Prohibition of all political activities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ab</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,73</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,73</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>IVa. Right to collective bargaining in law</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>66</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Acts of interference in collective bargaining</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>a</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,66</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,66</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p><strong>IVb. Right to collective bargaining in practice</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>72</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Exclusion of workers from the right to collective bargaining</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>a</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,84</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>1,84</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Sum (non-normalized score)</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p>15</p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p>27,05</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Normalized score (0 = best, 10 = worst)¹</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>2,85</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="6">
<p>¹ The formula used is: (x*10/95), where x = the weighted non-normalized score for a given country and year and is capped at 95. </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-7">6</sup><p>The formula is thus: (x*10/95), where x = the weighted non-normalized score for a given country and year and is capped at 95. <a href="#footnote-ref-7">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>