EUROPEAN COMMISSION – EUROSTAT
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE
STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS – PHASE 1 (2014 – 2016)
MBGA N° 11172.2013.007-2014.329
Deliverable No A3.1
Recommendations for a
Perennial System for Profiling
Task:
WP3, Block 2
Author:
Maryse Fesseau, INSEE France
Date:
April 2016
ESSNET ON A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF INTEROPERABLE STATISTICAL BUSINESS REGISTERS (ESBRS) – PHASE 1
WORK PACKAGE 3, BLOCK 2 – STABILISING PROFILING
Recommendations for a
perennial system for profiling
ESSnet ESBRs - Deliverable A3.1.
Version 3.0
Revision History
Date
Version
Description
Author
10 March 2016
0.0
Preliminary draft
8 April 2016
1.0
20 April 2016
2.0
28 April 2016
3.0
Revised draft including comments received from
FR, UK, NL, IT and additional developments
Revised draft including comments received at the
WP3 coordination meeting (Paris, 11th of April)
and by emails on version 1.0.
Final draft including final comments received in
writing from all participants to the review
Maryse
Fesseau
Maryse
Fesseau
Maryse
Fesseau
Participants
to the review
FR, UK, NL,
IT
FR, UK, NL,
IT, AT
FR, UK, NL,
IT, AT
Maryse
Fesseau
Content
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.1
Purpose and context................................................................................................................. 2
1.2
Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3
References ............................................................................................................................... 3
2. “EUROPEAN PROFILING APPROACH” - AS IS STATE.......................................................... 3
2.1
European Profiling (as is state) - basic principles ................................................................... 3
2.2
Lessons learned from testing experience................................................................................. 5
2.3
Conditions to make the current European Profiling viable ..................................................... 6
2.4
Conclusions on the “As is state” ............................................................................................. 7
3. EUROPEAN PROFILING ORGANISATIONAL MODEL AT CENTRAL LEVEL ................... 8
3.1
Actors ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2
Responsibilities and tasks ........................................................................................................ 8
3.3
Organisation of the tasks ....................................................................................................... 11
4. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 14
1.
A project funded by the European Union
MBGA No.: 11172.2013.007-2014.329
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
INTRODUCTION
1.
1.1
Purpose and context
As requested, in the ESSnet grant agreement, the purpose of this deliverable is to provide
input for the “settlement of a perennial system for performing European profiling” (Task A3).
More precisely the grant states that the paper should present “scenarios to settle down a
perennial system for profiling, detailing the tasks that should be performed on a regular basis
at a central level and the organisation to perform these tasks with the description of the
potential players of this system, including a centre of competence (and a centre of training).
The tasks to be described should be the central ones that are necessary in order for the
overall system to work and be efficient.”
While drafting this paper the ESSnet ESBRs faced two issues:

Uncertainty on the European profiling methodology.
o There is no full consensus between NSIs on all aspects of the current European
profiling methodology, in particular on NSIs responsibilities and on the
collaborative work process. The divergence in opinions among NSIs is reinforced
as:
- No evaluation has been conducted so far on the manual profiling activities
performed by NSIs through individual grants that were aiming at testing the
methodology;
- The methodology has never been subject to formal approval by the BSDG or
WGBRSU;
- The cost of doing European profiling has not been estimated and decisions on
who should bear that cost are not obvious;
- Neither FRIBS nor the operational rules attached to the definition of the
enterprise units do define sufficiently precisely the Global ENterprise (GEN)
unit on which the current methodology is based. Neither Eurostat nor NSIs
have engaged in producing statistics at GEN level.
o A consequence of this lack of consensus is that the current European profiling
methodology is still under discussion and might be revised in the medium/long
term. In this context, Eurostat is planning to set up a Task Force with the task to
review and analyse the European Profiling methodology.

Launch of Centre of Excellence on Profiling.
Eurostat has already launched a call for proposal to establish a Centre of Excellence on
European Profiling of Global Enterprise Groups. The technical specifications included
in the call of the proposal already detail the objectives and tasks to be pursued at
central level by the Centre of Excellence. There is a risk of overlap and a risk of
inconsistencies between this paper and the Eurostat plan.
In this context it was a major challenge for the ESSnet ESBRs partners to draft this paper. For
that reason the scope of the paper was carefully discussed and agreed between partners in an
attempt to produce a deliverable that both answers the grant agreement request and that can be
of any use given the current context.
Version of April 2016
page 2
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
1.2
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Scope
This paper makes suggestions for the short-term since the long term cannot be forecast yet
given the previous remarks (§1.1). More precisely,

Part 2 of the paper describes the “European profiling” as-is-state (as currently under
testing); presents some lessons learned from the ESSnet coaching experience; and lists
the preconditions that would make the current European profiling methodology viable.

Part 3 presents recommendations for an organisational model at central level
describing the actors and their responsibilities, and detailing some of the tasks that
should be performed on a regular basis at a central level, given the “European
profiling” as-is-state.

Part 4 concludes and finishes by providing last overall recommendations.
Note - Making suggestions for adjusting the current European profiling methodology in the
medium and long term is out of scope of this deliverable.
1.3
References
Ref.
01
Document
ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverable A2.8 “Coaching report –
Final report on profiling coaching activities carried out by the
ESSnet ESBRs - Phase 1”.
Eurostat grant for 2016 - MBGA Centre of Excellence on
European Profiling of Global Enterprise Groups
ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverable A2.1. “Guidelines on
Manual European Profiling”
Final Minutes of the 4th meeting of the ESBRs Steering
Group (Luxembourg, March 2015)
ESSnet ESBRs WP3 deliverable A3.7. “Forum for questions
and answers on profiling”
02
03
04
05
2.
Date
03/2016
Author
ESSnet ESBRs
WP3
02/2016
Eurostat
04/2016
ESSnet ESBRs
WP3
Eurostat
03/2015
12/2015
ESSnet ESBRs
WP3
“EUROPEAN PROFILING APPROACH” – AS-IS-STATE
2.1
European Profiling (as-is-state) - basic principles
The “as-is-state” describes the European profiling approach as defined by the ESSnet on
Profiling (2009-2013) and clarified on some specific points by the ESSnet ESBRs - Phase 1
(2014-2016). This approach has been tested by NSIs through individual grants financed by
Eurostat for several years.
Stakeholders call it “European profiling methodology” but actually it mixes elements of:
-
a methodology (also called top-down method);
-
shared roles and responsibilities.
-
a collaborative-coordinated work process;
Version of April 2016
page 3
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
a - European profiling - from a “pure” methodology perspective
European profiling of GEGs’ starting point is to analyse the GEGs regardless borders, with a
top-down approach resulting in Global Enterprises (GENs) as first results. These GENs have
pure national parts, which are named Truncated Enterprises (TENs).
Box 1 - European profiling - Unit Definition [Ref 03]
Global Enterprise Group (GEG): The global enterprise group is a set of legal units under common
direct or indirect control. It mostly appears as a combination of legal units bound together by legal
and/or financial links. A global enterprise group is to be constituted regardless of national borders.
Global Enterprise (GEN): The global enterprise is a single legal unit (including a natural person), an
enterprise group as a set of legal units under common control, if the group includes no autonomous
parts or a part of an enterprise group, producing goods or services, benefiting from a certain degree of
autonomy in decision-making, especially for the allocation of its current resources. The global
enterprise will often appear as an organisational unit that can provide meaningful data for statistics.
The GEN is to be considered as an actual (trans)actor in the process of production in the economy. A
GEN is an autonomous unit by definition but irrespective of the national boundaries.
Truncated Enterprise (TEN): The truncated enterprise is the national part of the global enterprise. It
is important to mention here that national parts of GENs are not necessarily autonomous.
Till now the European profiling has aimed at gathering data on three main economic variables
(namely NACE, turnover and employment) on those units with their characteristics (reference
year, consolidated or not for the turnover, currency of turnover, type of employment, sources).
b - European profiling - coordinated work process, shared roles and responsibilities
The European profiling work process is a coordinated work process involving several actors:
a GDC profiler and NSIs partners. All actors in the European profiling process have to work
according to a coordinated timetable. Each actor is in charge of part of the work as described
in Figure 1.
The European profiling process is under the ownership and responsibility of the GDC profiler
that is responsible for starting the process, creating the unit and providing information on
GEG, GEN and TEN; sending data to partner countries; analysing the answer from the
partners; and completing the process for all units (GEG, GEN, TEN). The partner NSI can
propose change requests, but the partner NSI is not the one taking the final decision (see
Figure 1). The GDC profiler takes the final decision.
In the initial European profiling methodology described by the ESSnet on Profiling (20092013) the GDC profiler is expected to create the TEN unit and to collect data at TEN level for
the three economic variables analysed so far in European profiling (see Figure 1). The final
aim was to set up a work process allowing for central data collection. The ESBRs Steering
Group has however decided at its 4th meeting (March 2015) that central data collection was
not anymore a priority [Ref 04] and that it should not be investigated further in the short-term.
Version of April 2016
page 4
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Figure 1. European profiling work process
GDC Profiler Work
Prepare
input for
profiling
Review of
GEG
Start
Check
the
LEUs
Compare
with a list of
LEUs from
the GEG
Check/
Fill info
on GEG
Complete
GDC
profiling
Send data to
partnering
NSIs
Prepare counter
proposal
Stop
Complete
profiling
2.2
Final call
from GDC
Partnering NSI Profiler work
Start GDC
profiling
Creation
of the
GENs and
fill info
Creation
of the
TEN and
fill info
Receive data
Check LEUS
and fill/add
LEUsLEUs
information
Start partnering
profiling exercise
Check the
relevancy
of TEN to
be used
ENT
Fill
TEN
info
Send to
partnering
NSIs
Receive
updated
data
Send partnering
NSI data to GDC
NSI – propose
change request
Complete
partnering NSI
profiling
Review data from
partnering NSI
Lessons learned from testing experience
As mentioned in the introduction no thorough evaluation has been conducted so far on the
manual profiling activities performed by NSIs through individual grants that were aiming at
testing the profiling methodology. Three actors could contribute to such an evaluation: i) the
NSIs that have been and are still testing the methodology under individual grants contracts; ii)
the members of the ESSnets that have been supporting the NSIs in their profiling activities;
and iii) Eurostat that is financing the individual grants and storing data and gathering the
results report provided by NSIs.
Such an evaluation should be conducted as part of the evaluation of the ESBRs project that
will be undertaken by end 2016, as requested by members of the ESBRs Steering Group and
of the Vision Implementation Group. As advised by some Steering Group members, the
evaluation would be best done by an independent member other than one of the three actors
mentioned above (an independent member preferably with expertise on the topic and
statistical business registers). Also, the evaluation could usefully cover an assessment of the
central tool used by profilers, namely the Interactive Profiling Tool.
As concerns the ESSnets, the coaching and training activities from the ESSnet on Profiling
(2009-2013) and from the ESSnet ESBRs (2014-2016) were good opportunities to gather
lessons from experience on what works and what does no work. In this respect, Box 2
presents the view of the ESSnet partners on what they think are the outcomes of the testing
phase. Although it cannot be considered as a thorough evaluation of European profiling the
ESSnet partners’ feedback shows that the current European profiling methodology presents
benefits and challenges.
Version of April 2016
page 5
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Box 2 - European profiling: Benefits and challenges - feedback from ESSnet partners
First, the box lists the main benefits that ESSnet ESBRs partners could identify when supporting NSIs
in their European profiling activities. Then, it lists the main difficulties identified by ESSnet partners
of which they think they are challenging the current methodology.
1 - Benefits:
- Set up a network of European profilers;
- Help for national profiling;
- Harmonisation of practices (based on discussion of concrete cases on which NSIs work together);
- Detect quality issues in the EGR.
2 - Difficulties:
- No ambition and no legal regulation to produce European statistics at GEN level making a lot of
NSIs wondering whether the cost of implementing European profiling is worth it;
- Most of the countries hosting the Global Decision Centres (GDC) of a big number of very large
multinational groups are not taking part in the common European Profiling efforts (huge workload
for NSIs hosting the GDC; and participation not mandatory). Given the current methodology this
may imply that a large number of big multinational groups will not be profiled.
- The methodology is not finalised on some major aspects, for instance difficulty in gathering data;
uncertainty on who will take responsibility for non-European GEG; no decision on the frequency for
follow-up; no clear rules on timing and reference year.
As concerns the NSIs participating in testing European profiling, it should be mentioned that
they recently answered a survey launched by the ESSnet ESBRs. The survey aimed to assess
the ESSnet support activities and pick up new ideas for improvement. The results of the
survey are detailed in the ESSnet ESBRs Coaching Report [Ref 01]. Although the survey was
not aimed at collecting NSIs views on the pros and cons of the current European profiling
methodology still it gathers some comments that are consistent with the ESSnet partners
views presented in Box 2.
As concerns Eurostat, the ESSnet would very much advise that a detailed analysis is produced
using the reports provided by NSIs as part of their individual grants. Lessons could be learned
from them.
2.3
Conditions to make the current European Profiling viable
To get European profiling (as it currently exists) successful several conditions should be met.
The major ones are listed below.
-
A clear ambition for European profiling from Eurostat and NSIs in direction of the
production of European statistics at GEN level; and clear and shared views on who is
responsible for maintaining and producing statistics at GEN level.
Version of April 2016
page 6
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Rationale - developing European profiling with aiming only at harmonising the
delineation of ENT (through the use of the technical unit TEN) is not enough to justify
the cost involved by the implementation of European Profiling.
-
A consensus between NSIs and Eurostat on a complete European profiling
methodology and ways of reconciling different views on a given enterprise group
including;
o Acceptance from both NSIs and Eurostat that TEN and ENT might be different
in terms of activity and delineation;
o Agreement on rules (including timing) on how to complete a profiling case;
o Agreement on rules about the frequency of the follow-up;
o Agreement on continuity rules;
o Agreement on responsibilities/sharing tasks for profiling non-EU GEGs and
how to do so;
o Agreement on timing and reference year;
o Agreement on rules and methodologies on how to perform automatic European
profiling at GEN level;
o Agreement on how and when to integrate the data flow in EGR.
Rationale - besides disagreement on the current European Methodology developed,
another important issue is that the methodology is not fully finalised. Some major
points are not matured enough to consider the methodology stabilized.
2.4
-
Funding made available by Eurostat (individual grants and Centre of Excellence)
Rationale - European profiling (as a collaborative process and as it demands to
collect additional information on global structures such as GEN of no major interest
at national level) implies extra cost that must be financed.
-
Commitment of NSIs to be involved in implementing the agreed European Profiling
methodology. A minimum commitment from the countries hosting the Global
Decision Centres (GDC) of a big number of very large multinational groups (namely
UK, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Switzerland) is needed. Those NSIs must
have staff available to do so.
-
A sufficient quality of EGR data (as input for the profiling process);
-
A sufficient quality of profiling data (to be integrated to EGR);
-
A collaborative tool available and easily usable to share information and data between
NSI profilers and adapted to exchange data with EGR.
Conclusions on the “As-is-state”
Lessons learned from testing experience (§2.2) show that some major preconditions (§2.3) for
making the current European profiling methodology successful are not met. This is the reason
why ESSnet partners think that adjustments to the current European profiling methodology
are needed so that European profiling can be viable in the long term. Adjustments are
currently under consideration as part of the work on the ESBRs Business Architecture.
Version of April 2016
page 7
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
3.
3.1
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
EUROPEAN PROFILING ORGANISATIONAL MODEL AT CENTRAL LEVEL
Actors
At central level the key actors are:
•
•
•
•
•
Eurostat team;
Centre of Excellence on European Profiling (previously ESSnets);
Governance bodies (role of the BSDG, BRWGSU);
Task Force on profiling methodology;
NSIs - GDC profilers and partner NSIs (see note below).
Note - Identifying NSIs as a key actor performing tasks at the central level may be questioned,
in particular as central data collection has been put out of scope in the short-term (see
§2.1.b). As the testing activities performed by NSIs as part of the European profiling activities
involves work and tasks that are of no direct use at national level it has been decided to
include them in the list above.
3.2
Responsibilities and tasks
The roles and responsibilities associated with each actor detailed in Table 1 have been based
upon the conclusions that can be drawn from the experience of the ESSnet Profiling and the
ESSnet ESBRs Phase 1 in coaching countries testing European Profiling and in working on
the methodology of European profiling.
Table 1 - Responsibilities and tasks of the key actors at central level
Actor
Responsibilities and tasks
Eurostat
Suggested responsibilities should include:
1. Owner of the European profiling methodology (including process, central
software allowing NSIs to implement European profiling and
documentation); should cover manual and automatic profiling.
2. Producer of European statistics at GEN level.
Tasks will include:
Regarding responsibility n°1:
Version of April 2016
-
Propose a multi-annual work program, including a target for European
profiling (and follow-ups thereof) and a detailed year-by-year work plan
to reach it.
-
Finance individual grants for the implementation of European profiling
activities as described in the work plan.
-
Maintain and develop the profiling central software (IPT and Q&A
Forum-Wiki) needed to perform European profiling.
-
Update the methodological documentation and training material to take
into account the proposals for changes from the Task Force on profiling
methodology once endorsed by governance bodies (the latter can be
delegated to the Centre of Excellence).
page 8
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
Actor
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Responsibilities and tasks
-
Organise discussion, approval and commitment of relevant bodies
(NSIs, Centre of Excellence, Task Force on Profiling Methodology) on
the European profiling methodology and on the work plan proposed to
ensure that European profiling is viable. Include setting-up the Task
Force.
-
Produce and present regular reports on progress made towards the target
including a quality assessment.
Regarding responsibility n°2:
-
Produce European statistics at GEN level (on an experimental basis at
first).
Tasks will not include:
-
Making decisions on methodology changes (this is the responsibility of
the Task Force and the governance bodies - see below).
Link with other bodies:
Centre of
Excellence (CoE)
-
Ensure the link between the Task Force and the CoE.
-
Set-up the Task Force when considered relevant or requested by
relevant bodies.
Suggested responsibilities should include:
1. Give support and guidance to the NSIs in the implementation of
European profiling.
Note - The CoE is an advisory body that has no decision power. The CoE is
a temporary partnership.
Tasks will include:
-
Organising training seminars, coaching visits and assistance through
helpdesk.
-
Collect from NSIs implementing European profiling the methodological
issues encountered, consolidate and transmit to Eurostat.
-
Propose suggestions or best practices on improving the profiling
methodology based on observation from coaching; may include
proposal for setting up a Task Force on Profiling Methodology to
review/scrutinize some specific topics.
Note - The CoE is not responsible for updating the methodology.
-
Collect from NSIs implementing European profiling, consolidate and
transmit to Eurostat the software bugs.
-
If delegated by Eurostat, update the training materials to take into
account the proposals for changes from the Task Force on profiling
methodology once endorsed by governance bodies.
Who is involved in the CoE:
-
A pool of NSIs is in charge of managing the CoE.
Link with other bodies:
-
Version of April 2016
Eurostat is not involved in the work of the CoE.
page 9
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
Actor
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Responsibilities and tasks
-
The CoE gives advice to the Task Force on profiling methodology if
requested.
Governance bodies Suggested responsibilities should include:
(BSDG and BRWG)
1. Decision maker on European profiling methodology.
Note - Governance bodies are decision bodies.
Tasks will include:
Task Force on
European profiling
methodology
-
Approve/endorse the mandate of the Task Force.
-
Approve/endorse (any changes to) the European profiling methodology
proposed by the Task Force.
-
Approve the Eurostat multi-annual work plan proposal on European
profiling, including commitment on implementation of the work plan.
-
Comment on the regular report/assessment from Eurostat.
-
Request (when needed) the setting-up of a Task Force on Profiling
methodology to review/scrutinize some specific topics.
Suggested responsibilities should include:
1. Making proposals for changes to the European profiling methodology
(may cover automatic and manual profiling).
Note: The Task Force is organized at Eurostat request and has a temporary
function (see §3.3). It is an advisory body.
Tasks will include:
-
Produce documents for decision on changes/adjustments to the
European profiling methodology (to be endorsed by governance bodies)
taking into account the methodological issues and proposals made by
the CoE.
Who is involved in the Task Force:
-
A pool of NSIs experts, possibly from different fields (Business
Register, Profiling, National Accounts …) depending on the topics to be
scrutinized/revised.
NSI - GDC profiler
As described in §2.1. of this paper and in more detail in the Guidelines for
European Profiling [Ref 03; chapters 9 and 10].
NSI - Partner NSIs
As described in §2.1. of this paper and in more detail in the Guidelines for
European Profiling [Ref 03; chapters 9 and 10].
Regarding roles and responsibilities one remaining issue identified concerns the actors that
will take responsibility for profiling non-European GEG. For the first time the profiling of
non-EU groups has been tested in 2015. The topic is not mature enough, however, to come to
a conclusion, reason why the responsibility for non-EU GEG is not mentioned in the above
table. This issue will have to be investigated further in the coming years.
Version of April 2016
page 10
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
3.3
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Organisation of the tasks
This part focuses on making proposals on how some specific tasks listed in Table 1 should be
organised. Those tasks have been chosen for further analysis and development because it is
considered of utmost importance to have them put in place in the short-term.
3.3.1. Procedure for adjusting the European Profiling Methodology
As explained in the paragraphs above there is still a need for adjusting and finalising the
current European profiling methodology so it can be successful and viable.
Figure 2 pictures the ESSnet proposal for an adjustment procedure detailing the actors
involved and their respective responsibilities.
Figure 2 - Adjustment procedure for the European profiling methodology - actors
involved, roles and responsibilities.
NSIs
Contract Individual Grant
Eurostat
Approval
procedure
Deliver data and report
Support
Feedback
Feedback and report
(incl possible request
for setting-up TF)
CoE
Request for
setting-up
TF
Set-up TF
Advice
procedure
Document
for decision
Governance
bodies
(BSDG
BRWG)
Task Force on
European Profiling
Methodology
The proposed organisation of the task for adjusting the European profiling methodology is the
following:
1. Set-up of the Task Force
-
Eurostat is officially in charge of setting-up the Task Force on European Profiling
Methodology. When setting-up the Task Force Eurostat will have to define its
mandate, its duration and the type of experts expected to take part in the Task Force.
-
Eurostat can launch a Task Force on its own initiative but also at the request of the
governance bodies or of the CoE.
Version of April 2016
page 11
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
2. Methodological work on adjustment:
-
Once set-up the Task Force works towards producing a document for decision.
-
While working on the document the Task Force can contact the CoE for advice on
proposals (“Advice procedure” in Figure 2).
-
Once the document is finalised it is sent to Eurostat.
3. Decision on adjustment:
-
Eurostat organises the formal approval/endorsement of the proposed adjustment by
governance bodies (“Approval procedure” in Figure 2).
4. Implementation of the adjustments:
-
Based on the documents endorsed Eurostat is in charge of updating the
methodological guidelines and training material accordingly. The updating of the
training material can be delegated to the CoE.
3.3.2. Eurostat annual assessment report
This paragraph gives more details on one of the tasks imputed to Eurostat in Table 1:
“Produce and present regular reports on progress made towards the target including a quality
assessment”.
At this stage the proposal from the ESSnet is that Eurostat produces an annual report to be
presented at the relevant governance bodies, to NSIs profilers and to the members of the CoE.
The annual report should include the following components:
-
Testing activities during the year - Taking stock of what happened:
Information available to Eurostat:
o Number and list of NSIs involved in individual grant activities;
Information from the CoE:
o Summary of the (methodological and software) issues encountered;
o Proposals for adjustments from the CoE (if any).
-
Testing activities during the year - Statistical analysis on data received:
Information available to Eurostat:
o Results analysis (e.g. number of profiling cases - including follow-ups completed with agreement; extent to which data on economic variables could
be gathered; number of countries committing to use TEN as their ENT
(statistical unit), statistical impact of profiling on European aggregates looking
at NACE, employment and turnover data …);
o Presents statistics on GEN unit (as an exploratory exercise at first) and
comparing them with the current official statistics.
Version of April 2016
page 12
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
-
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
Beyond the activities of the year - past and future:
Information available to Eurostat
o Taking stock over years - Present progress towards the target over years; lists
success and challenges;
o Looking forward - present the work plan for the coming years covering manual
and automatic European profiling activities; possible proposal for setting-up
Task Force and topics proposed; Target to be reached; Information on
individual grants launched…
Note - the above list is not exhaustive. It presents a first proposal for an annual report.
Following the comments received from governance bodies and NSI profilers the content of the
annual report may have to be adjusted.
3.3.3 - Centre of Excellence - Activities and tools
The ESSnet ESBRs has produced several deliverables that deal with the issue of how the
Centre of Excellence could work, based on the experience of the support provided by the
ESSnet on Profiling and the ESSnet ESBRs to NSIs in the last years.
This paragraph does not aim at repeating the content of those deliverables. It aims at
emphasizing again the importance of two particular aspects in the context of setting-up a
successful system on European profiling in the short-term, namely:
-
Having a profiling Q&A forum or a profiling Wiki made available by Eurostat
In this respect, the ESSnet ESBRs has provided a detailed description of the needs and
a concrete proposal in its deliverable [Ref 05]. This deliverable discusses the need for
and reflects a possible realization of a forum that can be seen as a store of questions
and answers on profiling and on recommendations for solving practical problems
faced in profiling. The forum aims at offering immediate, easy-to-access, consistent
help to all actors undertaking profiling in their NSIs. According to ESSnet partners the
forum would facilitate a smooth, interactive problem-solving throughout profiling
processes of real cases. The forum could also be a one-stop shop for the most recent
versions of profiling support material such as Methodological Report, Guidelines,
Newsletters, IFRS News, and all other published documents on specific topics relating
to profiling.
The ESSnet proposal for such a tool under the format of a forum or a Wiki is highly
supported by NSIs who participated in testing activities in the last years (see results
from the survey assessing coaching activities that was launched by the ESSnet ESBRs
- [Ref 01]).
-
Having enough resources to organise coaching visits and training seminars
In this respect the ESSnet ESBRs provided feedback and advice in deliverable A2.8
“Final report on profiling coaching activities carried out by the ESSnet ESBRs - Phase
1”. In particular, the A2.8 deliverable includes evaluation of the training seminars and
coaching visits that took place in 2014-15, and feedbacks and proposals from NSIs on
how to improve support regarding those meetings (usefulness; duration; frequency).
Version of April 2016
page 13
ESSNET ON ESBRS – PHASE 1 (2014-2016)
4.
PERENNIAL SYSTEM FOR PROFILING
CONCLUSIONS
As mentioned in the introduction, given the current context and the uncertainty on what will
be the medium/long term European Profiling methodology it has been a major challenge for
the ESSnet ESBRs partners to draft this paper and make proposals for a short-term
organisational model. As a consequence, the content of this deliverable should be understood
as a first proposal from the ESSnet.
One advice from ESSnet partners would then be that Eurostat together with the Centre of
Excellence look carefully at the proposals made and evaluate them taking into account what
will be happening in the coming months regarding the European profiling methodology
(experience from individual grants; follow-up of the ESBRs Business Architecture; set up of
the Task Force on European Profiling Methodology). In particular, the ESSnet partners think
that there is a need to reflect on a list of agreed criteria that would define what would make
European Profiling successful.
Version of April 2016
page 14