Understanding and Job Quality: Measuring

Research report
Part 2 – Indicators of Job Quality

January 2018
Understanding
measuring
and
job quality
The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people
development. The not-for-profit organisation champions
better work and working lives and has been setting the
benchmark for excellence in people and organisation
development for more than 100 years. It has more than
145,000 members across the world, provides thought
leadership through independent research on the world of
work, and offers professional training and accreditation for
those working in HR and learning and development.
Understanding and measuring job quality
Research report
Part 2 – Indicators of Job Quality
Contents
Foreword 2
Executive summary 3
Introduction 5
1 Data sources 6
2 Methodological issues 14
3 International indexes to measure job quality comparatively 18
4 Indicators mapped to key dimensions of job quality 20
Concluding remarks 23
References 26
Websites for data sources 30
Acknowledgements
This report was written by Sally Wright, Chris Warhurst, Clare Lyonette and Sudipa Sarkar,
from the Institute for Employment Research, the University of Warwick.
1 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Foreword
Gross domestic product and This is especially important in a

related factors, such as growth world of clamour, fads, fake news
and productivity, remain standard and competing views, in which
measures of an economy. Yet it is clear thinking can be a challenge.
not contentious to state that, in Second, it is necessary to
themselves, they are inadequate galvanise action. As the old adage
gauges of a truly healthy economy. goes, what gets measured gets
Indeed, even if we include more attention, and hopefully gets done.
socially oriented measures, such as
the Gini coefficient of inequality, The CIPD summarises its purpose
unemployment rates and real wage as championing better work and
growth, we get a picture that is working lives. In Part 1 of this
fuller, but still not wholly adequate. research the authors review the
academic literature on job quality,
To fully understand the to both flesh out what we can
interrelationships between our understand by this strapline and
economies and societies, we need propose a usable and meaningful
to include a broader conception approach to measuring job quality.
of good quality work and In this report, Part 2, the authors
employment. The raw figures of review existing measures of job
how many jobs there are and what quality, highlighting strengths
financial value they produce are and weaknesses. Together, these
quite simply not enough. two reports build on the 2017
Taylor Review commissioned by
An obvious starting point to the UK Government and make an
expanding this view is well-being important contribution in thought
at work, considering not leadership for a fundamental
only objective aspects, such as aspect of working life.
rates of accidents or absence,
but also subjective aspects like Jonny Gifford
pressure and stress that vary from Senior Adviser, Organisational
person to person. We can also Behaviour
look at employees’ opportunities CIPD
to progress and develop as
professionals, job complexity and
skills used, as well as employee
voice. All these factors and more can
be hugely influential in our working
lives and must not be ignored.
There is a strong imperative to

comprehensively and consistently
describe job quality and to
measure it robustly. First,
it’s necessary to develop our
understanding of work and
employment, building a cohesive
body of knowledge.

Executive summary
Introduction
This report maps indicators which,
Methodological issues
Additionally, there are at least six
‘There have been a
alongside other measures, might methodological issues to consider number of efforts
be used to inform an index of when aiming to operationalise a
job quality. Current and potential conceptually sound measure of to measure job
future measures and indicators of job quality: (1) focusing on what
job quality are investigated and is to be measured; (2) deciding
quality at the
evaluated. The report identifies a
number of appropriate international
on the approach to take; (3)
choosing whether to develop a set
international
and UK datasets which might of indicators or a composite index; level and using
help to map trends in job quality (4) deciding whether to construct
longitudinally, assesses the quality a measure of job quality at either a indicators that,
and availability of this data for macro or micro level; (5) deciding
comparative purposes and makes whether any set of indicators in principle,
suggestions for the development of
an index of job quality.
or index of job quality needs to
include a dynamic dimension;
could allow
and (6) choosing whether, and if cross-national
Development of an index of so, how, to assign weights to the
job quality raises a number of dimensions and indicators. comparisons.’
challenges. At a practical level, the
development of indexes tends to International indexes
be driven by pragmatism, most to measure job quality
notably the availability of data. comparatively
What is conceived as job quality There have been a number of
is therefore based on what can efforts to measure job quality at
be feasibly measured, and any the international level and using
measure of job quality is limited indicators that, in principle, could
to operationalisation via the set of allow cross-national comparisons.
available indicators. Most of the existing indexes tend
to rely on numerous indicators
Data sources of a different nature. There is an
Eight cross-national data sources issue about the comparability of
and four UK-specific data sources these indicators across countries,
are reviewed. For each data socio-demographic groups and
source, a brief outline is provided, time, as well as their adequacy for
indicating their origin, purpose, policy purposes.
periodicity, access/availability,
country coverage, contents, level Two job quality indexes are
or unit of analysis, and respective of particular relevance, both
strengths and weaknesses. None created using European data but
of the data sources were solely or differing in terms of the data and
specifically designed to measure weightings used, the number
job quality and none alone cover of dimensions captured, and
the full range of aspects of work whether a single index or set of
and employment that comprise sub-indexes were constructed. The
jobs which would enable the first is Leschke et al’s ETUI-REHS
construction of a desirable Job Quality Index; the second
measure of job quality. is Muñoz de Bustillo et al’s Job

‘We suggest a Quality Index. The construction of
both indexes, it should be noted, is
gained by evaluating existing
indicators and indexes. Although
bespoke set of driven – and limited – by reliance we show how the recommended
on the availability of existing data. multi-dimensional measure of job
indicators which quality might be supported by
Indicators mapped to key
draws from the dimensions of job quality
a range of international and UK
data sources, turning this data
best existing Part 1 of this review (Warhurst
et al 2017) identified six key
into an index will require further
methodological work.
indicators found dimensions of job quality from
the literature that are relevant to A window of opportunity currently
in other surveys, the construction of a job quality exists to develop a new index of
index for the UK: pay and other job quality. We suggest a bespoke
combined with ... rewards; intrinsic characteristics of set of indicators which draws
new measures to work; terms of employment; health
and safety; work–life balance;
from the best existing indicators
found in other surveys, combined
plug gaps.’ and representation and voice. with the introduction of new
An overall assessment is made measures/indicators to plug gaps
in this report of the quality and in measurement coverage. The
availability of indicators found in 11 resulting multi-dimensional index
existing cross-national comparative will generate important new
data sources against these six key insights and will have genuine
dimensions of job quality. None policy utility that will impact the
of the data sources is perfect but shaping of better working lives in
some provide better opportunities the UK.
than others. We suggest that the
best dataset is provided by the
European Working Conditions
Survey (EWCS), although the
EWCS is not without its limitations.
Concluding remarks
There is no dataset dedicated
to measuring job quality, either
in the UK or internationally.
Nonetheless, there are a number
of data sources which can be
drawn upon to create an index
(or set of indicators). Efforts to
operationalise indexes of job
quality have all, to a greater or
lesser degree, been hampered
by the availability and content
of suitable data. Important
methodological insights are

Introduction
The CIPD is committed to help map trends in job quality existing datasets. From the scope
supporting better working lives. longitudinally. It also assesses of the contents of those datasets,
Work and employment can be the quality and availability of this indicators are selected and
transformative for individuals, data for comparative purposes. information pertaining to those
their families, their employers and Drawing on this information, indicators input into the model
for society as a whole. A number the report makes suggestions for through the dimensions.
of recent changes to work and the development of an index of
employment, and concerns about job quality. This report follows this logic.
sustainable economic growth in The next section identifies and
the UK, have triggered debate Development of an index of job evaluates appropriate sources
about job quality in the UK and quality raises both conceptual of international and UK datasets
possible interventions to improve and practical challenges. Part 1 which could be used to map
it. Indeed, in signing the Ankara (ibid) outlined the conceptual trends in job quality and related
Declaration in 2015, the UK is now dynamism and outlined the factors in the UK. The following
formally committed to improving family of concepts associated section sets out a number
job quality (see Warhurst 2017). with job quality. Given that the of methodological issues in
UK and other leading economies developing an index. The third
As yet, however, there is no have committed to improving provides examples of international
consensus amongst academics job quality while no concept indexes that attempt to measure
or policy-makers about the agreement exists, it is hard to job quality comparatively.
definition, operationalisation and then develop indexes with models Evaluating the key available
measurement of job quality either of measurement. There is a need datasets, the final section maps
in the UK or internationally (Wright to address this problem. indicators to the six dimensions
2015). The aim of the CIPD’s of job quality recommended in
feasibility study on job quality is A useful step would be the Part 1 of this review (Warhurst et
twofold: first, and undertaken in organisation of a national or al 2017). The concluding section
Part 1 of this review (Warhurst et international workshop or even outlines a number of options for
al 2017), to increase understanding summit of policy-makers, the CIPD in its deliberations about
and inform the CIPD’s position practitioners and academics further work on developing an
about what good job quality committed to developing index of job quality.
looks like; in turn, to inform media agreement of the definition,
discussion, policy-making, research operationalisation and
and actual people management in measurement of job quality. This
organisations; and second, to map task is one for the future. In the
indicators which, alongside other meantime, on a practical level, the
measures, can be used to inform development of indexes that
an index of job quality. involve the definition,
operationalisation and
This report furthers the CIPD’s measurement of job quality tend
second aim and builds on the to be driven by pragmatism, most
dimensions of job quality outlined notably the availability of data
in Part 1 (ibid). It investigates (Muñoz de Bustillo et al 2011).
measures or indicators of job What is conceived as job quality is
quality, evaluating current therefore based on what can be
indicators and considering future feasibly measured. The logic
potential indicators. It also driving the modelling and
identifies appropriate UK and measurement of job quality is first
international datasets which might determined by the contents of

1 Data sources
Nationally representative social Labour Force Survey (EU LFS)

surveys offer a potentially and the European Structure of
insightful way of capturing the Earnings Survey (EU SES). There
empirical aspects of job quality. are also UK-specific data sources
A number of data sources exist that might be considered, if again
which include variables or lacking comprehensive cover:
indicators of various aspects of the Workplace Employment
job quality. In this section, the Relations Survey (WERS), the
main data sources are reviewed, Skills and Employment Surveys
with commentary on their relative (UK SES), the Employer Skills
strengths and weaknesses. Survey (UKCES ESS) and the
Understanding Society dataset,
Following Hauff and Kirchner also known as the UK Household
(2014) and the OECD (www.stats. Longitudinal Study (UKHLS).
oecd.org), there are a number
of key data sources that have These datasets, which are
been drawn upon to model and reviewed below, all contain at
measure aspects of job quality least some indicators that can be
internationally: the European used to construct a job quality
Working Conditions Surveys index for the UK. A brief outline of
(EWCS), the European Quality each is provided, indicating their
of Life Surveys (EQLS) and origin, purpose, periodicity, access/
the International Social Survey availability, country coverage,
Programme (ISSP). In addition, a contents, level or unit of analysis,
useful European comparative data and respective strengths and
source has been provided recently weaknesses (see Table 1).
by the EU QuInnE project. There
are also a number of other EU data
sources which also have useful,
if again partial, data, such as the
European Social Surveys (ESS),
the European Union Statistics on
Income and Living Conditions
(EU-SILC), the European Union

Table 1: Review of data sources
Source: European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS)
Origin Conducted by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
(Eurofound), an agency of the European Commission.
Purpose A cross-sectional survey which focuses on working conditions and the quality of work of employees and the
self-employed.
Periodicity Administered every five years; the sixth and latest wave conducted in 2015 (with 5th in 2010; 4th in 2005;
3rd in 2000; 2nd in 1995/96; and 1st in 1990/91).
Access/ All six waves of data are publicly available.

availability
Country Number and type of countries covered has expanded with each wave. Latest survey covers workers in the
coverage EU28, Norway, Switzerland, Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and
Turkey.
Contents Scope of the questionnaire has widened substantially since its first edition. Themes now include
employment status, working time duration and organisation, work organisation, learning and training,
physical and psychosocial risk factors, health and safety, work–life balance, worker participation, earnings
and financial security, as well as work and health.
Level or unit of Micro-level (that is, individual worker) which can be aggregated to national level and disaggregated by
analysis groups of workers (that is, gender, industry, and so on).
Strengths/ The strength of the EWCS is that it offers detailed indicators to measure job quality at the micro level.
weaknesses Its main weaknesses are that it is only conducted every five years, some questions are not held constant
in successive surveys, there are small sample sizes for individual countries, and there are incomplete
indicators for some dimensions (that is, voice and representation). In addition, wages are not adequately
covered (data are missing for many countries or the sample counts are too small for meaningful analysis).
Importantly, it is not clear at this time if ongoing UK participation will occur post-Brexit.
Source: European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS)
Origin Conducted by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
(Eurofound), an agency of the European Commission.
Purpose Aims to examine both the objective and subjective circumstances of European citizens’ lives and how they
feel about those circumstances and their lives in general.
Periodicity Every four years, 2003, 2007, 2011–12, 2017 (forthcoming). In addition, a number of questions from 2nd
EQLS were asked as part of Eurobarometer survey in 2009 (study of trends in quality of life in the EU:
2003–09).
Access/ Questionnaires and datasets freely available to the public. Survey datasets are made available not later than
availability two years after fieldwork completion. Online and available through UK Data Service.
Country 28 EU member countries plus all five candidate countries (that is, Albania, former Yugoslav Republic of
coverage Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey).
Contents The survey examines a range of issues including employment, income, education, housing, family, health,
work–life balance. It also looks at subjective topics such as people’s levels of happiness, how satisfied
they are with their lives, and how they perceive the quality of their societies. Includes sets of indicators to
complement traditional indicators of economic growth and living standards, such as GDP and income.
Level or unit of Micro-level individual (worker) data.

analysis
Strengths/ High-quality cross-national comparative data for European countries, multiple waves enabling trend
weaknesses analysis, online data visualisation tools. Importantly, it is not clear at this time if ongoing UK participation
will occur post-Brexit.

Table 1: Review of data sources (continued)
Source: International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)
Origin Run by a self-funded association established in 1984. Institutional members, each representing one nation,
consist of academic organisations, universities or survey agencies. The National Centre for Social Research
(NatCen) is a founding member of the ISSP and the UK’s investigator. The UK survey that feeds into the
ISSP is the British Social Attitudes Survey.
Purpose An annual programme of cross-national collaboration on surveys with rotating thematic modules on a
range of topics related to social sciences. The topics covered are: role of government, social networks, social
inequality, family and changing gender roles, religion, environment, national identity, citizenship, health care
and work orientations.
Periodicity Established in 1984. Since 1985, an ISSP module has been included in the British Social Attitudes Survey. The
Work Orientation Module is only conducted every ten years (I- 1989, II- 1997, III- 2005 (BSA 33), IV- 2015, due for
release in July 2017). In 2012, Family, Work and Gender Roles (BSA 30, Qs 1a–33) was chosen as an ad hoc topic.
Access/ Archived in the Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (GEISS) data archive. GEISS provides the data, its
availability documentation and support for external users. Datasets are also available at various national archives. The
UK Data Service holds data for the UK.
Country Currently 47 countries are members of the ISSP, including the UK.
coverage
Contents The work orientations module has four topic areas: working conditions, labour relations/conflict,
unemployment and employment.
Level or unit of Micro-level (that is, individual worker) which can be aggregated to national level and disaggregated by
analysis groups of workers (that is, gender, industry, and so on).
Strengths/ Work Orientation Module is only conducted every 10 years (I- 1989, II- 1997, III- 2005, IV- 2015).
weaknesses
Source: EU QuInnE (Quality of Jobs and Innovation Generated Employment Outcomes)
Origin Quality of Jobs and Innovation Generated Employment Outcomes (QuInnE) is a pan-European project funded
by the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme. Six countries are represented: Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain,
Sweden and the UK. The UK team is led by the Institute for Employment Research at Warwick University.
Purpose Using EWCS and EU LFS data, with additional data from the EU Structure of Earnings Survey and the
European Statistics on Accidents at Work, QuInnE has produced an online map of job quality (as well as
innovation and employment outcomes) for 22 EU countries.
Periodicity The QuInnE map draws on various data sources (EWCS 2010; Structure of Earnings Survey 2012; EU LFS 2012,
2013; OECD 2012; European Statistics on Accidents at Work 2012). No plan yet for regular updating of data.
Access/ There is open access to the map.

availability
Country 22 EU countries, including the UK.

coverage
Contents Brings together data from various sources into a synthetic index of job quality. Nested structure of 19 indicators of job
quality across 6 dimensions: wages, employment quality, education and training, working conditions, work–life balance
and gender equality, and collective interest representation. Job quality is measured through objective and subjective
indicators (relying on workers’ perceptions). Wages are expressed in euros for cross-national comparability. Three
classifications (or clusters) of job quality have been developed and applied to data for the 22 countries.
Level or unit Macro-level. Possible to graphically chart individual indicators for a selected country and visually compare them
of analysis with other EU countries as well as EU maxima/minima/averages.
Strengths/ Underpinned by new data analysis, the online mapping tool allows classification of job quality (as well as innovation
weaknesses and employment outcomes) into ‘job quality clusters’ based on a country’s relative position in their cluster. Useful
data source with analysis based on a definition of job quality aligning with existing literature and with job quality
measured through objective as well as subjective indicators. Easy-to-use mixture of online visual and textual data.
Sample limited to 22 EU countries for two reasons: first, missing data within country datasets; and, second, to aid
comparability. It is also aggregate-level data so not possible to compare job quality among different groups of
workers. It is also a static, single snapshot analysis, with no plan yet for regular updating of data.

Source: European Social Surveys (EU ESS)
Origin Directed by a Core Scientific Team led by City University, London, alongside six other partner institutions.
Purpose A cross-national survey measuring a wide range of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours consisting of a collection
of questions that can be classified into two main parts: a core section and a rotating section.
Periodicity Every two years since 2001.
Access/ NSD (Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway) manages the data archive and distribution of ESS data.
availability The data are available without restrictions for not-for-profit purposes.
Country 36 countries across Europe, including the UK.

coverage
Contents Measures a wide range of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of respondents. Of particular relevance to job
quality is rotating module on Family, work and well-being (ESS2 in 2004 & ESS5 in 2010). This module aims to
contribute to measurement of both the quality of jobs and social inclusion. It includes objective indicators for
measuring job characteristics, family structure and welfare with indicators of attitudes and life satisfaction in
order to measure how European citizens experience their jobs, families, and lives in the context of their values
and preferences.
Level or unit Household and individual-level micro data.

of analysis
Strengths/ High-quality cross-national comparative data for European countries; separate study of working life and
weaknesses family and how these areas interact (that is, work–life balance). Includes indicators for atypical work and skill
upgrading. The main weakness is infrequency of data collection.
Source: European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)
Origin Eurostat
Purpose The EU-SILC is the main source for the EU statistics on income, social inclusion and living conditions. It also
collects micro data on income, poverty, social exclusion, housing, labour market, education and training, and
health.
Periodicity Annual harmonised cross-sectional micro-data from 2004 – latest release 2014. Harmonised longitudinal
datasets released 2013. Special module on well-being in 2013.
Access/ Access to Eurostat microdata (including EU-SILC) is restricted and granted for scientific purposes only to
availability recognised research entities such as universities, research institutions or research departments in a public
administration, bank or statistical institute. Cross-sectional data for the UK is available.
Country EU countries plus Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland and Turkey.
coverage
Contents Cross-sectional data for variables on income, poverty, social inclusion and other living conditions, and
longitudinal data on individual-level changes observed over a four-year period.
Level or unit of Micro data where the sampling design varies, depending on the participating countries (dwelling, address,
analysis household or individuals used as sampling units).
Strengths/ Contains data for monthly earnings for men and women. Contains cross-sectional and longitudinal micro
weaknesses data. Sampling unit varies between countries. Not as timely as EU-LFS data and currently a number of EU
countries only provide net (not gross) figures on monthly earnings.

Source: European Union Labour Force Survey (EU LFS)
Origin LFS surveys collected by national statistics institutes across Europe, centrally processed by Eurostat.
Purpose The EU LFS is a large household sample survey that is the main source for statistics on employment and
unemployment.
Periodicity Quarterly with yearly data for many indicators, 1983 onwards.
Access/ Access to Eurostat micro data (including EU-SILC) is restricted and granted for scientific purposes only to
availability recognised research entities such as universities, research institutions or research departments in a public
administration, bank or statistical institute.
Country 33 countries including EU 28 countries (plus 3 EFTA countries of Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, and 2 EU
coverage candidate countries of the Former Yugloslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey).
Contents Includes data on population, employment, working time, permanency of the job, professional status, and
the data is broken down by age, sex, education level, economic activity and occupation (where applicable).
Level or unit of Micro data (available for 1983–2015).

analysis
Strengths/ Timely release; results are harmonised, making comparability between EU countries easier; data are
weaknesses disaggregated by gender, covers all industries and occupations.
Source: European Structure of Earnings Survey (EU SES)
Origin Eurostat
Purpose To provide accurate and harmonised data on earnings in EU member states, candidate countries and EFTA
countries for policy-making and research purposes.
Periodicity Four-yearly (2002, 2006 and 2010; 1995 micro data for 6 countries, not including the UK).
Access/ Access to Eurostat micro data is restricted and granted for scientific purposes only to recognised research
availability entities such as universities, research institutions or research departments in a public administration, bank
or statistical institute.
Country 33 countries including EU 28 countries (plus 3 EFTA countries of Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, and 2 EU
coverage candidate countries of the Former Yugloslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey).
Contents Indicators for occupation, type of pay agreement, tenure, working time arrangements, type of employment
contract, earnings, overtime, bonus arrangements, payment-in-kind, shift penalties, social contribution by
employer, taxes and average gross earnings.
Level or unit of Micro data at establishment level for enterprises with at least 10 employees. Excludes public administration.
analysis
Strengths/ Timely release; results are harmonised, making comparability between EU countries easier; data are
weaknesses disaggregated by gender, covers all industries and occupations. Excludes enterprises with fewer than 10
employees and public administration.

Source: Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS)
Origin Jointly run by Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), the Economic and Social Research
Council (ESRC), the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) and the UK Commission for
Employment and Skills (UKCES).
Purpose Nationally representative survey of British workplaces with at least 5 employees. Aims to map workplace
employment relations in Britain and examine changes over time for a broad range of employment
practices across most sectors of the UK economy; inform policy development and practice and provide a
comprehensive dataset on British workplace employment relations.
Periodicity No set periodicity. Frequent but not regular starting from 1980 (1980, 1984, 1990, 1998, 2004 and 2011).
Cross-section data (1990–98), panel data (1990–98) and time series data (1980–2011). High-involvement
management, employee well-being and organisational performance data (2004).
Access/ Data have been made publicly available. Six rounds of datasets available: 1980, 1984, 1990, 1998, 2004 and 2011.
availability
Country Britain
coverage
Contents Includes an employer survey but of most interest is the Survey of Employees Questionnaire (SEQ) which
is administered to up to 25 staff at each workplace on topics including intrinsic characteristics, terms of
employment, work–life balance and voice/representation. The Employee Profile Questionnaire (EPQ) contains
a total of 16 questions which collect key information about the size and structure of the workforce. The Worker
Representative Questionnaire (WRQ) covers representation at the workplace and employee involvement.
Level or unit of Linked employer–employee representative–employee micro data. Up to 25 randomly selected employees
analysis are administered the SEQ at each workplace.
Strengths/ Data are available for several years from 1980 in cross-sectional, panel and linked formats but sampling
weaknesses does not include workplaces with fewer than 5 employees and excludes agriculture, the hunting and fishing
industry, and mining and quarrying industries. Regardless of organisation’s size, a maximum of up to 25
employees are surveyed at each establishment. Number of other countries emulated variant of survey but
WERS only covers Britain. Given its single-country focus, cross-national comparisons are limited. There
is no set periodicity. Moreover, responsibility for skills has now shifted from BIS into the Department for
Education, and UKCES closed in March 2017. At this time, it is not clear if (and if so, when) there will be
further waves of the survey.
Source: Skills and Employment Survey (UK SES)
Origin School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University.
Purpose The primary objective is to provide information on skills and measure 10 generic skills in addition to
computing skills along with issues such as quality of work, training and skills development, and terms and
conditions of employment.
Periodicity Every 4–6 years (1986, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2006 and 2012).
Access/ The six surveys are all available separately from the UK Data Archive. A special licence access version of the
availability study may become available in the future.
Country Great Britain (except 2006, which covers the UK).

coverage
Contents The main topics include skills at work, quality of work, training and skills development, and terms and
conditions of employment.
Level or unit of Individual level (job-holder) micro-level data.

analysis
Strengths/ Good coverage of indicators for several key dimensions of job quality. Although not originally planned as
weaknesses part of a series and had different funding sources, continuity in questionnaire design has meant the surveys
provide a nationally representative picture of change in British workplaces as reported by individual job-
holders. Whether, and if so when, the next wave of the survey might be run is not known.

Source: Employer Skills Survey (UKCES ESS)
Origin Closure of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) in March 2017 saw responsibility for
running the survey shift to the Department for Education (DfE).
Purpose To provide a comprehensive picture of skills needs and training investment including vacancies and skill
shortages, employee skill gaps and the recruitment of education leavers and young people.
Periodicity Every two years since 2011 (1st ESS 2011; 2nd ESS 2013; 3rd ESS 2015; 4th 2017 – due for release in 2018).
Access/ Data available with special licence access under the Open Government Licence via the UK Data Service.
availability
Country UK (prior to 2010, each nation in the UK gathered their own labour market intelligence; now aligned into
coverage one UK-wide survey).
Contents Topics covered include establishment characteristics; recruitment vacancies; demand for skills and skills
gaps; hard-to-fill vacancies; workforce development and training; skills utilisation and high-performance
working; and business strategy and structure.
Level or unit of Establishment-level micro data (that is, employer survey).

analysis
Strengths/ Provides an employer perspective on several aspects of job quality and includes indicators aimed at
weaknesses measuring high-performance working by sector, size and geography and related to training activity, skill
deficiencies and product market strategies. Does not include establishments with fewer than 2 employees.
Source: Understanding Society dataset, or UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS)
Origin Conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), Essex University.
Purpose Multi-topic panel study of UK households aimed at understanding twenty-first-century UK life and how it
is changing at the individual and household level. Primarily, data collected are used to produce research to
inform social, economic and health policy and practice in the UK and abroad.
Periodicity Annual, beginning 1991 (in 2009 it replaced British Household Panel Study).
Access/ Waves 1–6 (2009–15) available.

availability
Country UK
coverage
Contents The survey covers a wide range of themes including employment status, income, job satisfaction,
employment history, health, well-being, family, education and finance.
Level or unit of Individual- and household-level micro data.

analysis
Strengths/ Timely annual survey, although not specifically designed to measure job quality. Britain’s ethnic and
weaknesses immigrant groups are fully represented in the study.

It needs to be emphasised that • partial or missing indicators for
none of the large-scale surveys important dimensions of job
cited in Table 1 were designed quality
to measure job quality. They • low data availability
were created for other and/or • problems with comparability
general purposes. None alone • irregular frequency of data
covers the full range of aspects collection
of work and employment that • fragmentation of existing
comprise jobs and hence would information among various
enable construction of a desirable sources (and ad hoc modules)
measure of job quality. Instead, • difficulty in bringing together
any analysis of job quality will the information at the level
necessarily be limited to the of the individual worker in a
contents of the datasets. Gaps in consistent manner.
necessary data therefore exist both
within and across the sources. No single dataset therefore
exists for a comprehensive and
In this respect, as Cazes et al (2015) consistent measure of job quality
have noted about existing datasets, in the UK that is also guaranteed
they have a number of challenges to exist in the coming years
that affect their utility, including: post-Brexit.

2 Methodological issues
Putting aside practical constraints job quality indicators has proven 2 The second is described as ‘an
with the existing datasets, there to be extremely detrimental to intermediate option’ in which
are, in addition, a number of the relevance and usefulness of workers are asked what they
methodological issues to consider indicators,’ they state. consider as being important
when aiming to operationalise a for job quality, and then using
conceptually sound measure of job To this end, Muñoz de Bustillo et their answers to model job
quality. These include: al (2011) argue strongly for strictly quality. An advantage to this
limiting indicators to those aspects approach is that most surveys
1 focusing on what is to be of the job that have a clear and include questions about the
measured direct impact on the well-being desirability of specific job
2 deciding on the approach to take of workers. Their concept of job attributes. As a consequence,
3 the use of objective or subjective quality includes the characteristics there is a significant volume of
indicators of the work performed and its data drawn from workers that
4 whether to use a set of indicators environment (which they call the is available for analysis. While
or a composite index ‘work’ dimension, including among this approach gives workers a
5 deciding whether to construct a other things the level of autonomy voice in the definition of what
measure of job quality at either a at work, as well as its social and makes a good job, it requires
macro or micro level physical environment). It also presenting workers with a
6 deciding whether any set of includes the characteristics of the predefined set of options
indicators or index of job quality contractual conditions under which (attributes to be ranked).
needs to include a dynamic the work is undertaken (which they However, the identification of
dimension call the ‘employment’ dimension, the elements to be included in
7 whether, and if so how, to assign and includes pay, contractual the list is almost as tricky as the
weights to the dimensions and stability and development model of job quality itself, and
indicators. opportunities, among other things). leaving out important elements
can have a ‘disastrous effect
Each of these issues is briefly Approaches on the modelling of job quality’
discussed in turn below. There are three main approaches (Muñoz de Bustillo et al 2009,
to measuring job quality. p13).
Focus
As we noted in Part 1 of this 1 The first is described by Muñoz 3 The third approach, and the
review (Warhurst et al 2017), the de Bustillo et al (2009) as a one advocated by Muñoz de
measurement of job quality by ‘shortcut’ approach that focuses Bustillo et al, draws on the
some researchers has included on an overall indicator of job many different perspectives
dimensions and indicators that are quality. Instead of focusing on and approaches in the social
not strictly properties of the job. the characteristics of the job to sciences’ literature on how
For example, certain dimensions assess job quality, attention is work and employment affects
are concerned with labour market paid to measuring the output – the well-being of workers. This
conditions, organisational context the well-being of the worker in literature is then used as the
and with outcomes at the individual the job. With this approach, job initial driver for developing the
level (for example job satisfaction, satisfaction is used as an overall model, with this model then
engagement, life satisfaction) and indicator or proxy for job quality. being used as the background
at the organisational level (for While it is a simple approach, for any indicator/s of job quality
example economic performance, job satisfaction serves as a ‘very (p13). In other words, it is an
productivity). Muñoz de Bustillo et unsatisfactory indicator of job evidence- and conceptually-
al (2009, p25) call for a ‘purging’ quality’ (p12) because there are based approach. Because it
of variables that do not directly many other variables not related offers evidential and conceptual
affect job quality: ‘the practice of to job quality that can affect the legitimacy, it is this approach
“anything goes” in constructing level of job satisfaction. that we recommend.

Objective versus subjective
indicators
properties of the variables to make
sure they are measuring the same
‘If the main aim
Indicators (or measures) of job underlying concepts. Once it is of the index is
quality can be either objective or reasonably established that the
subjective. A composite index can subjective indicators load onto the to report on the
be constructed by using objective objective indicators for the relevant
indicators, subjective indicators or dimension, a decision can be made quality of aspects
a combination of both objective
and subjective indicators. If the
to attach higher weights to the
objective indicators. In addition,
of “jobs” rather
main aim of the index is to report within each dimension it may than perceptions of
on the quality of aspects of ‘jobs’ prove useful to combine the two
rather than perceptions of these types of indicators at the highest these aspects held
aspects held by the job-holder, it possible stage in the aggregation
is preferable to restrict the index process. Combination at this point by the job-holder,
to objective indicators. In reality,
however, most indexes incorporate
will make it easier to see the
respective contribution of both
it is preferable
a combination of both objective types of variables on the eventual to restrict the
and subjective indicators. The score within each dimension (and
main reason is that a full set of overall). index to objective
objective indicators is not always
available. In particular, it is difficult Set of indicators or indicators.’
to objectively capture via survey composite indexes
instruments some aspects of job From their analysis of the literature,
quality (such as autonomy and Muñoz de Bustillo et al (2009)
work intensification). Typically, recommend a multi-dimensional
surveys ask workers to self- concept of job quality – an
report on the perceived level approach that has gained much
of autonomy or work intensity. traction amongst researchers of job
While largely unavoidable, these quality, particularly in Europe (for
types of questions introduce example Davoine et al 2008, Erhel
blurring between the ‘job’ and the et al 2012). A multi-dimensional
opinions, attitudes and individual concept of job quality can be
circumstances of the ‘job-holder’. operationalised by either a set
of separate indicators or via a
If it is not possible to restrict composite index. In both cases,
the index to a set of objective the goal is the same: to simplify
indicators, attention needs to a complex and multi-dimensional
be given to how the mixture of construct in order to better
objective and subjective indicators understand.
are combined or aggregated. If
there is a sufficient number of With separate indicators, a
objective indicators to measure coherent and inter-related set of
one dimension, we recommend measures of the different attributes
dropping any subjective indicators of job quality is developed. Three
from the index. That is, less is more examples of sets of indicators for
in this instance. However, if some job quality have been produced at
gaps in the conceptual model the supra-national level: the Laeken
appear if the index is restricted indicators at the European level
to the available set of objective (European Commission 2008); the
indicators, and potentially relative ILO’s indicators of decent work
subjective indicators are found in (Anker et al 2003, Bescond et al
the dataset, we offer a number 2003, Bonnet et al 2003) and the
of recommendations. In the first OECD’s indicators of the quality of
instance, we recommend careful jobs (Cazes et al 2015). Both the
interrogation of the statistical European Commission’s Laeken

indicators and the ILO’s indicators (www.stats.oecd.org). However, make in their jobs and identification
of decent work are relatively not every indicator is available for of the determinant factors of
broad. Each of these supra- every country and there are large some job quality dimensions. For
national indicators of job quality gaps because of differences in this reason, a multi-dimensional
was developed in the context of the periodicity of underlying data approach is often used when
a particular policy agenda and collection. considering job quality from the
designed to monitor progress micro perspective. Indexes can be
towards specific targets. For this With the second approach – used to compare changes in job
reason, their utility for the UK is constructing a composite index quality across countries (at one
limited unless similar targets are – a single aggregate measure or more points in time) as well as
adopted and pursued. is devised to synthesise all the within countries (at more than one
different attributes. When a set point in time) (for example Muñoz
Of greater potential utility is the of indicators is used, the process de Bustillo et al 2011).
OECD’s (2016) framework to ends once there are scores for
measure and assess the quality each of the indicators. When sub- The feasibility of operationalising
of jobs. The OECD’s framework indexes are used, the process either a macro- or micro-level
considers three objective ends when there is an aggregated index is dependent upon the
dimensions of job quality: earnings score for each sub-index. When a availability of suitable data. First,
quality, labour market security, and composite index is developed, all the sample size of the data needs
quality of the working environment. the dimensions are aggregated to to be large enough to be able to
The framework includes 13 give one overall index with a single construct a valid index. Second,
indicators that are used to provide measure (Muñoz de Bustillo et al the data needs to include the right
data on these three dimensions 2009). set of indicators of job quality.
of job quality. Earnings quality Furthermore, if the aim is to track
is measured by combining two Level of construction changes in job quality over time,
indicators that account for both Depending on the intended use periodicity becomes an important
the level of earnings and their of the indicator, it is possible consideration. In this respect, job
distribution across the workforce to construct a measure of job quality can be measured at one
into an index. Labour market quality at either the macro point in time, that is, static, or
security is measured by three level or micro level. Macro-level at more than one point in time,
indicators. The first measures indicators that select macro- that is, dynamic. Using a dynamic
labour market insecurity and is economic measures for the set of approach to measuring job quality
defined in terms of expected dimensions for characterising job requires a suitable micro-level
loss of earnings associated with quality have been developed at longitudinal dataset (Wright
unemployment. The second the international, European and forthcoming).
measures unemployment national levels (for example Erhel
risk by estimating the risk of and Guergoat-Larivière 2016). Static or dynamic
unemployment multiplied by an Labour market transitions have
estimated average duration of Micro-level indicators are based received increasing attention over
unemployment in order to show on definitions of job quality that the past few decades, with the
the proportion of time a working are worker focused and consider dynamic a potential key ingredient
person can expect to spend, on the characteristics of the job of job quality. This inclusion
average, in unemployment. The (that is, objective dimensions) as arises because the implications
third measures unemployment well as dimensions related to the and consequences of a particular
insurance by calculating coverage job–worker relationship (that is, employment status – for example
and replacement rate of public subjective dimensions) (Crespo temporary work – might vary if
transfers received by the et al 2013). While some research such a state persists over time.
unemployed. Quality of the working using micro-level indicators also Certainly it has been argued that
environment is measured by seven aims to provide a macro-level there is a continuing ‘bad jobs
indicators for the incidence of measurement, the motivations trap’ in the UK, as workers enter
job strain, which is a combination behind creating micro-level and become trapped in insecure
of high job demands and limited indicators are more comprehensive, or poor quality work (Booth and
job resources. Where available, including evaluating how the Snower 1996, Warhurst 2016).
indicators for each OECD country dimensional indices influence the However, if the focus of research is
are available in an online database overall assessment that workers on job quality, analysis should be

restricted to the ‘job’ rather than overall score has been criticised.
the ‘job-holder’ (that is, person). If By using this method, a high score
a worker moves from a low-quality on one dimension will compensate
job to a high-quality job but both for a low score on one or more
jobs already exist in the economy, other dimensions. For example, if a
nothing changes from the point worker’s pay is extremely high yet
of view of the existing quality in their work–life balance is very poor,
the stock of jobs in the economy. using an arithmetic mean to add
Based on this reasoning, a set of together the scores from the two
indicators or index of job quality dimensions may result in a high
does not require consideration of overall score for an unbalanced
any dynamic dimension as such. job. To partly address this problem
of substitutability, a weighted
It may be useful, however, to geometric average – typically at
include variables that sit outside the final stage of aggregation
the index and which capture (that is, the overall score) – is
data on such factors as spells of favoured because it rewards a
unemployment, job change, job more balanced combination of job
tenure and/or occupational tenure. attributes.
If this additional information is to
be gathered, we suggest ensuring Regardless of which weighting
that the key function of the index method is used, weights are
is retained – measuring the quality essentially value judgements and
of the job and its constituent work should be used to make explicit
and employment. the underlying objectives of the
construction of a composite (COIN,
Weighting and aggregation Composite Indicators Research
The aggregation of different Group). Regardless of what
indicators within a composite choices are made for weighting
index involves two steps: first, and aggregation, it is crucial to
aggregating the indicators within be transparent, explaining and
each dimension and, second, justifying the decisions made
summing all of the dimensions (Anand and Sen 1997).
together into a total (in this case,
an overall total score for job
quality). Weights can be built into
the index at both steps in the
aggregation process. Deciding
on how to weight the different
dimensions in an index is important
because it builds in trade-offs
(substitutability) among the various
dimensions. Weights also implicitly
imply a specific view on what
‘good’ job quality should look like
(Decancq and Lugo 2010, Billaut et
al 2010, Munda and Nardo 2009,
Paruolo et al 2013).
When aggregating into a single

score the sub-totals from each of
the different dimensions, simple
arithmetic means are often used.
This approach of using arithmetic
means for aggregation into an

3 I nternational indexes to measure job
quality comparatively
There have been a number of and sometimes over time. At the and collective interest
efforts to measure job quality international level, macro-level representation and participation
at the international level and to indexes have been produced (for (Leschke and Watt 2008).
collect indicators that, in principle, example Standing 2002, Bonnet
could allow cross-national et al 2003, Ghai 2003). Similarly, It was developed for the 27 EU
comparisons (Cazes et al 2015). there are indexes that have used countries and was operationalised
However, further efforts are still data from EU27 countries (for using 2005 and 2006 data from
needed to design an operational example Curatarelli et al 2014, multiple sources. This method of
framework to assess and monitor Hurley et al 2012, Leschke and coupling together various sources
job quality which is flexible enough Watt 2008, Leschke et al 2008, of data is known as a synthetic
to be applied in various contexts, Erhel et al 2012). In addition, index. The index is compiled on the
while maintaining the fundamental indexes have been developed basis of six sub-indices. In terms
principles and key dimensions using data from one country (for of weights, Leschke et al (2008)
and allow disaggregation to take example Berglund 2014, Gallie assigned their own normative
account of distributional issues, as 2013, Vidal 2013, Osterman and weights to items with equal
many of the existing international Shulman 2011, Kalleberg 2011, weighting applied to each of the
efforts only provide aggregate Holzer et al 2011) or several six dimensions when aggregated
measures (for example ILO, countries (for example Cloutier- into an overall index of job quality.
UNECE, ETUI and so on). Villeneuve 2012, Olsen et al 2010, The ETUI-REHS JQI was updated
Gallie 2007, Clark 2005). in 2010, allowing for a comparison
In addition, most of the existing of job quality before and after
indexes tend to rely on numerous Two job quality indexes are of the global financial crisis (GFC)
indicators of different nature particular relevance. Both are (Leskhke et al 2012).
(for example Leschke and Watt created using European data but
2008). A question then arises they differ in terms of the data While separate results are produced
about the comparability of these used (that is, macro- or micro-level for women, men and overall,
indicators across countries, socio- data), the number of dimensions because this index uses macro-level
demographic groups and time, captured, the use of a single index data, it does not allow for a detailed
as well as their adequacy for or set of sub-indexes and the analysis of the distribution of job
policy purposes. In the case of importance placed on the different quality within each country (Muñoz
the ILO and UNECE frameworks, dimensions (that is, weights). The de Bustillo et al 2009).
both have very wide scope construction and merits of each
and combine measures of both index are discussed below. Muñoz de Bustillo et al’s Job
outcomes of job quality (such Quality Index
as earnings) and drivers of job The European Trade Union Stating that none of the existing
quality (such as characteristics of Institute for Research, indexes had been accepted as
the industrial relations system). At Education and Health and standard measures of job quality,
the same time, some important Safety (ETUI-REHS) Job Muñoz de Bustillo et al (2011)
attributes of job quality, such as Quality Index used the EWCS to construct
lack of autonomy at work and The ETUI-REHS Job Quality Index their Job Quality Index. The
representation/voice, are either is a macro-level index created construction of the index is based
not covered or not fully covered, to compare job quality between on selecting dimensions according
often because of a lack of data countries. The underlying model to a theoretical model based on
availability or a lack of comparative captures six dimensions of job empirical research. The model is
information (Cazes et al 2015). quality: wages, non-standard restricted to information about
forms of employment, work–life the attributes of jobs, not of the
A number of job quality indexes balance and working time, working workers who hold these jobs, and
have been developed that enable conditions and job security, access it does not include any contextual
comparisons between countries to training and career advancement, information. The dimensions

and indicators of job quality are main compensating mechanism averaging the five dimensions
organised using a transparent, for the ‘disagreeableness of work’ into the overall index score. This
logical structure. There are five (that is, the four dimensions). The approach means that the Index
dimensions: pay and amenities; index is calculated at the level of assumes decreasing returns for the
intrinsic characteristics of work; the individual worker in order to different dimensions and imperfect
terms of employment; health and allow analysis of the situation of substitutability among the different
safety; and work–life balance. specific groups of workers. The dimensions with penalisation for
indicators within the dimensions significant imbalances between
The five main dimensions of job are – wherever possible – restricted them. The weights are shown in
quality are split into two categories: to objective measures. Figure 1 in brackets next to each
pay and amenities. This split is, in dimension and indicator.
part, derived from the theory of The nested structure of the
compensating wage differentials Job Quality Index is set out in Sitting outside the JQI are
which was originally proposed by Figure 1. Aggregation of the additional job features including
Adam Smith and which remains information within each dimension those for well-being, gender and
important in orthodox economics is done by arithmetically averaging socio-economic variables such as
(Rafferty and Bryan 2015). the scores of the individual level of education, age, occupation,
Based on this approach, pay is variables, while aggregation of industry, sector, ownership type,
given a special function in the information at the highest level establishment size and type of
determination of job quality as the is carried out by geometrically employment.
The construction of both of these

Figure 1: Muñoz de Bustillo et al’s Job Quality Index job quality indexes, it should be
noted, are driven – and limited –
by reliance on the availability of
Intrinsic characteristics (20%) existing data, as the authors readily
• Objective (10%) accept. In other words, what is
measured is that for which data
• Skills (5%)
already exists.
• Autonomy (5%)
• Subjective (10%)
• Powerfulness (2.5%)
• Meaningfulness (2.5%)
Amenities (80%)
• Social support (2.5%)
• Self-fulfilment (2.5%)
Terms of employment (20%)

• Contractual stability (10%) Job quality
• Development opportunities (10%)
Health and safety (20%)

• Physical risks (15%)
• Psychosocial risks (5%) Pay and benefits
(20%)
Work–life balance (20%)

• Working time (15%)
• Work intensity (5%)
Source: Antón et al (2012, p28)

4 I ndicators mapped to key dimensions
of job quality
The multi-dimensional nature • terms of employment:

of job quality makes the including objective aspects
development of a set of indicators (such as contractual stability
or single index or system of and opportunities for training,
indicators difficult because it is development and progression)
necessary to define what aspects and subjective aspects (such as
should be taken into consideration perception of job security)
and their overall impact on job • health and safety: including
quality. Ideally, the selection of physical and psycho-social risks
dimensions and indicators should • work–life balance: including
be guided by evidence. working time arrangements
such as duration, scheduling
Reviewing the literature (see Part 1 and flexibility, as well as work
of this review; Warhurst et al 2017), intensity
it is apparent that while there is no • representation and voice:
agreed measure, once extraneous including employee consultation,
characteristics are removed, six trade union representation
key dimensions of job quality and employee involvement in
emerge that are relevant to the decision-making.
construction of a job quality index
for the UK: In Table 2 is an assessment of the
quality and availability of indicators
• pay and other rewards: found in existing cross-national
including objective aspects comparative data against the six
such as wage level, type of key dimensions of job quality set
payment (for example, fixed out above.
salary, performance pay) and
non-wage fringe benefits (such
as employer-provided pension
and health cover) and subjective
aspects (such as satisfaction
with pay)
• intrinsic characteristics of work:
including objective aspects
(such as skills, autonomy,
control, variety, work effort)
and subjective aspects (such as
meaningfulness, fulfilment, social
support and powerfulness)

Table 2: Mapping of indicators in key data sources to the six key dimensions of job quality
Orientation (2015)
Society (UKHLS)
Earnings Survey
Understanding
UK SES (2015)
EWCS (2015,
WERS (2011)
EES5 (2010)
EQLS (2016,
Structure of
ISSP Work
4th wave)
6th wave)
EU-SILC
EU-LFS
QuInnE
Dimensions
Pay and other rewards
Objective         ()  
Subjective (for example pay
satisfaction)           
Non-wage rewards           
Intrinsic characteristics of work
Objective (for example skills, autonomy,

control, variety, work effort)  ()  ()    ()   ()
Subjective (for example
meaningfulness, social support)  ()         
Terms of employment
Contract stability           
Opportunities for training and
development, progression  ()         
Perception of job security          
Health and safety
Physical risk     ()      

Psycho-social risk         
Work–life balance
Scheduling     ()      
Working time arrangements     ()      
() 
2004,
Flexibility         2010 and
forthcoming
Work intensity   ()  ()      

Representation and voice
Representation   ()        
Involvement in decision-making           
Key 1: EWCS: European Working Conditions Surveys; EQWL: European Quality of Working Life Surveys; ISSP: International Social Survey Programme; QuInnE:
Quality of Jobs and Innovation Generated Employment Outcomes; EU ESS: European Social Survey; EU-SILC: European Union Statistics on Income and Living
Conditions; EU LFS: European Union Labour Force Survey; WERS: Workplace Employment Relations Survey; UK SES: Survey of Employment & Skills; UKHLS: UK
Household Longitudinal Study (Understanding Society).
Key 2: = relevant indicator/s;  = no indicators; () = some indicators/partial coverage of dimension.
Note 1: Most recent version of survey questionnaire mapped above. Certain indicators may be available in one country but not in another or may only be available
in particular waves of the respective survey.
Note 2: The UK ESS (Employer Skills Survey) is not included in this table because it is an employer survey. It does have some indicators for high-performance
work systems that could be reworded for employees.

Table 3 provides an overall Each of the data sources outlined
assessment of the feasibility of in Table 3 has been rated for its
using each data source to support feasible use. None is perfect but
the development of the proposed some provide better opportunities
multi-dimensional index of job than others. We suggest that the
quality. best dataset is provided by the
EWCS. Note, however, that the
EWCS is not without its limitations
(see Table 1).
Table 3: Overview of the feasibility of using the key existing data sources
Orientation (2015)
Society (UKHLS)
Earnings Survey
Understanding
UK SES (2015)
EWCS (2015,
WERS (2011)
EES5 (2010)
EQLS (2016,
Structure of
ISSP Work
4th wave)
6th wave)
EU-SILC
EU-LFS
QuInnE
Dimensions
Micro or macro data micro micro micro micro micro micro micro micro micro micro micro
individual individual individual national household individual household firm individual individual household
Sample unit of worker worker worker and worker worker and worker worker worker and
analysis individual
worker
5 years 5 years every n/a 2 years 1 year quarterly annual 4–5 years 2 years annual
10 years after and but Funding
Periodicity survey annual unknown ends soon.
year if Unknown
ongoing if ongoing
Adequate coverage
of set of indicators
for all dimensions
 partial    partial partial partial   
Trend analysis over
time    ?     ? ? 
International
comparability           
Overall rating of Suitable for macro synthetic index
8/10 6/10 7/10 7/10 Feasible only – index only if combine data 6/10 7/10 3/10
feasibility from multiple sources

Concluding remarks
As part of a broader feasibility

study undertaken by the CIPD,
Not surprisingly, efforts to
operationalise indexes of job
‘...efforts to
this report has examined quality have all, to a greater or operationalise
the conceptual challenges, lesser degree, been hampered
international and UK data sources, by the availability and content of indexes of job
and measurement issues in suitable existing data. The two
developing an index of job quality. examples of job quality indexes quality have all,
It has indicated potential data
sources to support the multi-
that are highlighted in this report
– the ETUI-REHS Job Quality Index
to a greater or
dimensional measure of job quality (Leschke and Watt 2008) and lesser degree, been
proposed in Part 1 of this review Muñoz de Bustillo et al’s (2011) Job
(Warhurst et al 2017) and further Quality Index – are both limited by hampered
outlined in this report. The report data availability. Both initiatives do,
has also provided examples of however, recognise the importance by the availability
indexes that attempt to compare
job quality within and/or across
of drawing on other contextual
factors for the worker (such as
and content of
countries. A clear message to
come out of this report is that, in
gender, socio-economic variables
such as level of education, age and
suitable existing
seeking to develop an index of job occupation) and organisation (such data.’
quality for the UK, it is important as industry, sector, ownership type,
to learn from the experiences and establishment size and location).
challenges of previous attempts to These contextual factors are
measure job quality. necessary but should sit outside
any indices of job quality. Inclusion
In operationalising any measure, in any dataset of these additional
other challenges exist. It needs variables enables comparison
to be appreciated that there is no of results among and between
dataset dedicated to measuring different groups – and is an
job quality either in the UK or approach that should be adopted in
internationally. Nonetheless, there developing a job quality index. Such
are a number of data sources that an approach ensures that indicators
can be drawn on to create an of job quality are not confused with
index (Hauff and Kirchner 2014; outcomes of job quality.
www.stats.oecd.org). There are
reasonably good UK data sources, There are a number of other
though, for some surveys, there methodological issues to be
is uncertainty about their future considered (Wright 2015). There
continuation. Although still not has to be clarity on what is to be
currently sufficient in themselves, measured and the measurement
there are good EU data sources approach. Decisions have to be
but for which periodicity is made about: whether to include
an issue. Moreover, there is a objective and/or subjective
reasonable possibility that Brexit indicators; whether to use a set
will impact negatively on the UK’s of indicators or a composite
participation in collecting the index; at what level to pitch the
data underpinning these EU data analysis – macro or micro; and
sources. whether the analysis should be

‘...the overall static or needs to be dynamic.
Finally, a practical but important
use ineffective. It should be kept in
mind that the overall goal should
goal should be decision has to be made about
how to weight any dimensions
be to simplify a complex and
multi-dimensional construct to
to simplify and indicators. Again, important better understand and be able to
methodological insights can be improve job quality. In this respect,
a complex and gained from evaluating existing we recommend adopting a
multi-dimensional indicators and indexes. Although
we show how the recommended
conceptual framework that focuses
on a robust yet manageable
construct to better multi-dimensional model of job
quality might be supported by
number of key dimensions,
each with a number of possible
understand and a range of international and UK indicators.
data sources, turning this data
be able to improve into an index will require further Significantly, with the information
methodological work. in this report and the policy space
job quality.’ for debate about job quality and
One task will be to establish the interventions to improve it being
validity and reliability of any widened even further in the
indicators that will be used to UK by the recent Taylor Review
construct an index. The contents (2017) and its recommendations,
of 11 data sources were reviewed in a window of opportunity currently
this report to identify the presence exists to develop a new index of
(or absence) of indicators for job quality with which to influence
the six main dimensions of public policy. To do so, we suggest
job quality for the proposed a bespoke set of indicators that
measure. While all of these data draws from the best existing
sources are highly reputable, it is indicators found in other surveys
beyond the scope of this report combined with the introduction
to provide an assessment of the of new measures/indicators to
validity and reliability of individual plug gaps in model coverage.
indicators. Once a decision has The resulting multi-dimensional
been made about whether to index will generate important new
construct an index that draws insights into working lives in the
on an existing data source or UK and will have genuine policy
based on data generated from an utility that will impact the shaping
in-house bespoke survey, it will of better working lives in the UK.
be necessary to carefully consider
the validity and reliability of all On the basis of this report, and
of the indicators selected for in part drawing on the overview
inclusion in the index, as well as presented in Table 3, three options
the robustness of the method used exist for developing this new
to combine the indicators into a multi-dimensional index of job
composite measure of job quality. quality:
Going forward, any approach 1 To complement the new six-

to measuring and reporting job dimension measure, there could
quality is well advised to keep be the generation of a new UK
its approach simple and fit for data source using a new job-
purpose. Clarity is always needed quality-specific survey for the
on terms such as ‘better working UK. This option gives some
lives’, both in how they align and/ insurance against Brexit should
or differ from other concepts the UK no longer contribute
and perhaps, more importantly, to relevant EU surveys and
by consciously avoiding any datasets. Its use in comparative
ambiguities that may render their studies, though, would be

limited, it would take longer to quality could then be developed.
deliver and would also be the With a number of very different
more expensive option, with trajectories of job quality possible
considerable funding needing to (see Carré et al 2012), job quality in
be sourced. the UK could be monitored using a
regularly updated index to enable
2 The six dimensions can be trend analysis and the identification
supported by indicators and data of any necessary further
drawn from existing UK-specific interventions. Too often debate
surveys. Again, this option about job quality centres on taking
gives some insurance against remedial action (cf. Toynbee 2003,
Brexit should the UK no longer Taylor Review 2017). The aspiration
contribute to relevant EU surveys should be to shift from remedial
and datasets. Its weaknesses to developmental interventions to
rest on the periodicity of existing create workplaces that offer better
UK surveys and the current working and take the benefits of
uncertainty about the status of good job quality seriously. This
some of these surveys would report lays the groundwork for
need to be considered. Moreover, this future research and policy
once again, it would have limited development.
utility for comparative purposes.
Compared with option 1 its cost
would be less.
3 To support the six-dimension

model, indicators and data
can be drawn from existing
international data sources. This
option has the merits of being
able to draw on good data that
also offers trend analysis and
international comparability. That
comparability would disappear
if the data sources used were
EU-only and if Brexit resulted in
the UK no longer contributing to
relevant EU surveys. Potentially
there are other reasonably
good non-EU international data
sources. Compared with option 1
its cost would be less.
Option 3 would be the most

expedient if international
comparisons are required.
Development of the index would
enable the measurement and
reporting of job quality in the
UK. This map would be able to
highlight where better jobs exist
and, with that information, identify
the conditions under which better
work occurs in UK workplaces.
Appropriate ideas for policy
interventions for improving job

References
ANAND, S. and SEN, A. (1997) BOOTH, A. and SNOWER, D. (1996) CRESPO, N., SIMÕES, N. and
Concepts of human development The low-skill, bad-job trap. In: PINTO, J.C. (2013) Determinant
and poverty: a multidimensional SNOWER, D.J. and BOOTH, A. factors of job quality in Europe.
perspective. Human Development (eds) Acquiring skills. Cambridge: Lisbon, Portugal, Working Paper
Papers 1997. New York: Human Cambridge University Press. 13-01, Business Research Unit,
Development Report Office. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa.
CARRÉ, F., FINDLAY, P., TILLY, C.
ANKER, R., CHERNYSHEV, I., and WARHURST, C. (2012) Job CROMPTON, R. and LYONETTE, C.
EGGER, P., MEHRAN, F. and quality: scenarios, analysis and (2006) Some issues in cross-
RITTER, J. (2003) Measuring interventions. In: WARHURST, C., national comparative research on
decent work with indicators. FINDLAY, P., TILLY, C. and CARRÉ, women’s employment: a
International Labour Review. F. (eds) Are bad jobs inevitable? comparison of Britain and
Vol 142, No 2. pp147–77. Trends, determinants and Portugal. Work, Employment and
responses to job quality in the Society. Vol 20, No 2. pp389–400.
ANTÓN, J., FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS, twenty-first century. London:
E. and MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, R. Palgrave Macmillan. CURTARELLI, M., FRIC, K., VARGAS,
(2012) Identifying bad jobs across O. and WELZ, C. (2014) Job
Europe. In: WARHURST, C., CARRÉ, CAZES, S., HIJZEN, A. and SAINT- quality, industrial relations and the
F., FINDLAY, P. and TILLY, C. (eds) MARTIN, A. (2015) Measuring and crisis in Europe. International
Are bad jobs inevitable? Trends, assessing job quality: the OECD job Review of Sociology. Vol 24, No 2.
determinants and responses to job quality framework. OECD Social, pp225–40.
quality in the twenty-first century. Employment and Migration
London: Palgrave Macmillan. Working Papers No 174. Paris: DAVOINE, L., ERHEL, C. and
OECD. GUERGOAT-LARIVIÈRE, M. (2008)
BERGLUND, T. (2014) Crisis and Monitoring quality in work:
quality of work in the Nordic CLARK, A.E. (2005) Your money or European employment strategy
employment regime. International your life: changing job quality in indicators and beyond.
Review of Sociology. Vol 24, No 2. OECD countries. British Journal of International Labour Review.
pp259–69. Industrial Relations. Vol 43, No 3. Vol 147, No 2–3. pp163–98.
pp377–400.
BESCOND, D., CHÂTAIGNIER, A. DECANCQ, K. and LUGO. M. (2010)
and FARHAD MEHRAN, F. (2003) CLOUTIER-VILLENEUVE, L. (2012) Weights in multidimensional indices
Seven indicators to measure Job quality in Quebec and the of well-being: an overview. OPHI
decent work: an international United Kingdom: trends by sex and Working Paper No 18. Oxford:
comparison. International Labour family status, 1998–2008. Oxford Poverty & Human
Review. Vol 142, No 2. pp179–211. International Labour Review. Vol Development Initiative (OPHI),
151, No 1–2. pp61–84. Oxford Department of International
BILLAUT, J.C., BOUYSSOU, D. and Development, University of Oxford.
VINCKE, P. (2010) Should you COIN – Composite Indicators Available at: www.ophi.org.uk/
believe in the Shanghai ranking? Research Group, Joint Research wp-content/uploads/OPHI-wp18.
Scientometrics. Vol 84. pp237–63. Group (JRG) of the European pdf
Commission, online forum. Found
BONNET, F., FIGUEIREDO, J.B. and at: https://composite-indicators.jrc.
STANDING, G. (2003) A family of ec.europa.eu/
decent work indexes. International
Labour Review. Vol 142, No 2.
pp213–38.

DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS, FELSTEAD, A., GALLIE, D., GREEN, HURLEY, J., FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS,
INNOVATION AND SKILLS, F. and INANC, H. (2014) Skills and E. and MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, R.
ADVISORY, CONCILIATION AND employment surveys series dataset, (2012) Assessing recent
ARBITRATION SERVICE and 1986, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2006 and employment shifts in Europe using
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 2012. [data collection]. 2nd edition. a multidimensional job quality
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL Colchester: UK Data Service. SN: indicator. In: FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS,
RESEARCH. (2015) Workplace 7467. Available at: http://doi. E., HURLEY, J. and STORRIE, D.
employee relations survey 2011. org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7467-2 (eds) Transformation of the
Available at: http://doi.org/10.5255/ employment structure in the EU and
UKDA-SN-7226-7. FINDLAY, P., KALLEBERG, A. and USA, 1995–2007. pp147–79. London:
WARHURST, C. (2013) The Palgrave Macmillan.
ERHEL, C. and GUERGOAT- challenge of job quality. Human
LARIVIÈRE, M. (2016) Innovation Relations. Vol 66, No 4. pp441–51. HURLEY, J., FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS,
and job quality regimes: a joint E., ANTÓN, J., MUÑOZ DE
typology for the EU. QuInnE GALLIE, D. (ed.) (2007) BUSTILLO LLORENTE, R., ANXO, D.,
Working Paper 5.2. Available at: Employment regimes and the FRANZ, C., et al. (2015) Upgrading
www.quinne.eu/ quality of work. Oxford: Oxford or polarisation? Long-term and
University Press. global shifts in the employment
ERHEL, C., GUERGOAT-LARIVIÈRE, structure: European jobs monitor
M., LESCHKE, J. and WATT, A. GALLIE, D. (ed.) (2013) Economic 2015. Dublin: Eurofound.
(2012) Trends in job quality during crisis, quality of work & social
the great recession: a comparative integration. Oxford: Oxford ILO. (2015) A market systems
approach for the EU. Document de University Press. approach to decent work. Available
travail du CEE, no 161-1, in at: www.ilo.org/empent/Projects/
association with ETUI. GHAI, D. (2003) Decent work: the-lab/WCMS_537328/lang--en/
concept and indicators. index.htm
ESS ROUND 2: EUROPEAN SOCIAL International Labour Review.
SURVEY ROUND 2 DATA. (2004) Vol 142, No 2. pp113–45. ISSP RESEARCH GROUP. (1991)
Data file edition 3.5. Norway: NSD – International social survey
Norwegian Centre for Research GREEN, F. (2009) Job quality in programme: work orientations I –
Data. Britain. Praxis No 1. Wath-upon- ISSP 1989. Cologne: GESIS Data
Dearne: UKCES. Archive. ZA1840 Data file Version
ESS ROUND 5: EUROPEAN SOCIAL 1.0.0. doi: 10.4232/1.1840
SURVEY ROUND 5 DATA. (2010) GROTE, G. and GUEST, D. (2017)
Data file edition 3.3. Norway: NSD – The case for reinvigorating quality ISSP RESEARCH GROUP. (1999)
Norwegian Centre for Research of working life research. Human International social survey
Data. Relations. Vol 70, No 2. pp149–67. programme: work orientations II –
ISSP 1997. Cologne: GESIS Data
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC). HAUFF, S. and KIRCHNER, S. (2014) Archive.
(2001) Employment in Europe 2001: Cross-national differences and
recent trends and prospects. trends in job quality: a literature ISSP RESEARCH GROUP. (2013)
Brussels: European Commission. review and research agenda. International social survey
Number 13. University of Hamburg. programme: work orientations III –
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC). ISSP 2005. Cologne: GESIS Data
(2008) Employment in Europe HOLZER, H., LANE, J., Archive.
2008. Luxembourg: Office for ROSENBLUM, D. and ANDERSSON,
Official Publications of the F. (2011) Where are all the good ISSP RESEARCH GROUP. (2017)
European Communities. jobs going? New York: Russell Sage International social survey
Foundation. programme: work orientations IV –
EUROFOUND. (2012) Trends in job ISSP 2015. Cologne: GESIS Data
quality in Europe. Dublin: European Archive.
Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions.

KALLEBERG, A. (2011) Good jobs, OECD Inventory of Survey STANDING, G. (2002) From
bad jobs: the rise of polarized and Questions on the Quality of the people’s security surveys to a
precarious employment systems in Working Environment. Available at: decent work index. International
the United States, 1970s to 2000s. http://stats.oecd.org/Index. Labour Review. Vol 141, No 4.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. aspx?DataSetCode=JOBQ_I pp441–54.
LESCHKE, J. and WATT, A. (2008) OLSEN, K., KALLEBERG, A. and STANDING, G. (2011) The precariat.
Job quality in Europe. ETUI-REHS NESHEIM, T. (2010) Perceived job London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Research Department Working quality in the United States, Great
Paper 2008.07. Brussels: European Britain, Norway and West Germany, TAYLOR, M. (2017) Good work: the
Trade Union Institute. 1989–2005. European Journal of Taylor review of modern working
Industrial Relations. Vol 16, No 3. practices. London: Department for
LESCHKE, J., WATT, A. and FINN, M. pp221–40. Business, Energy and Industrial
(2008) Putting a number on job Strategy. Available at: www.gov.uk/
quality? Constructing a European OSTERMAN, P. and SHULMAN, B. government/uploads/system/
job quality index. ETUI-REHS (2011) Good jobs in America: making uploads/attachment_data/
Working Paper No 2008/03. work better for everyone. New York: file/626772/good-work-taylor-
Brussels: European Trade Union Russell Sage Foundation. review-modern-working-practices.
Institute. pdf
PARK, A., CLERY, E., CURTICE, J.,
LESCHKE, J., WATT, A. and FINN, M. PHILLIPS, M. and UTTING, D. (eds) TOYNBEE, P. (2003) Hard work.
(2012) Job quality in the crisis – an (2012) British social attitudes: the London: Bloomsbury.
update of the job quality index 29th report. London: NatCen Social
(JQI). ETUI-REHS Research Research. UK COMMISSION FOR
Department Working Paper No EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS. (2017)
2012.07. Brussels: European Trade PARUOLO, P., SAISANA, M. and Employer skills survey, 2015: special
Union Institute. SALTELLI, A. (2013) Ratings and licence access. [data collection].
rankings: voodoo or science? 2nd edition. Colchester: UK Data
MUNDA, G. and NARDO, M. (2009) Journal of the Royal Statistical Service. SN: 7997. http://doi.
Non-compensatory/non-linear Society A. Vol 176, No 3. pp603–34. org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7997-2
composite indicators for ranking
countries: a defensible setting. POLLERT, A. (1988) The ‘flexible UNECE. (2015) Handbook on
Applied Economics. Vol 41. pp1513– firm’: fixation or fact? Work, measuring quality of employment:
23. Employment and Society. Vol 2, a statistical framework. Prepared
No 3. pp281–316. by the Expert Group on Measuring
MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, R., Quality of Employment. New York
FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS, E., ANTÓN, J. QUALITY OF JOBS AND and Geneva: United Nations.
and ESTEVE, F. (2009) Indicators of INNOVATION GENERATED
job quality in the European Union. EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX, INSTITUTE
Study prepared for the European (QuInnE). (n.d.) Available at: http:// FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
Parliament. Brussels: Department of tools.quinne.eu/quinnemap/ RESEARCH, NATCEN SOCIAL
Employment and Social Affairs. RESEARCH and KANTAR PUBLIC.
RAFFERTY, M. AND BRYAN, D. (2016) Understanding society:
MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, R., (2015) Beyond the necessary, waves 1–6, 2009–2015. [data
FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS, E., ESTEVE, (utilitarian) and mundane? The collection]. 8th edition. Colchester:
F. and ANTÓN, J (2011) Measuring economics of job quality. In: KNOX, UK Data Service. SN: 6614. http://
more than money: the social A. and WARHURST, C. (eds) Job doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-9
economics of job quality. quality in Australia: perspectives,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. problems and proposals. VALLAS, S. and PRENER, C. (2012)
Annandale: Federation Press. Dualism, polarization, and the
OECD. (2016) How good is your job? social construction of precarious
Measuring and assessing job quality. work. Work and Occupations.
Paris: OECD Vol 39, No 4. pp339–53.

VIDAL, M. (2013) Low-autonomy WOOD, S. (2011) Additional scales
work and bad jobs in post-Fordist on high involvement management,
capitalism. Human Relations. Vol family-friendly management and
66, No 4. pp587–612. lean production from the workplace
employee relations survey 2004.
WARHURST, C. (2016) Accidental [data collection]. Colchester: UK
tourists: Brexit and its toxic Data Service. SN: 6649. http://doi.
employment underpinnings. Socio- org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6649-1
Economic Review. Vol 14, No 4.
pp819–25. WRIGHT, S. (2015) Challenges in
researching job quality. In: KNOX,
WARHURST, C. (2017) Developing A. and WARHURST, C. (eds) Job
effective policy to improve job quality in Australia. Annandale,
quality. Poverty. Vol 156. pp4–17. NSW: Federation Press.
WARHURST, C., WRIGHT, S. and WRIGHT, S. (forthcoming)

LYONETTE, C. (2017) Understanding Conceptualising and
and measuring job quality: Part 1 – operationalising job quality in
thematic literature review. London: Australia. Doctoral thesis. University
Chartered Institute of Personnel of Warwick.
and Development. Available at:
www.cipd.co.uk/jobquality

Websites for data sources
European Working Conditions Surveys (EWCS)

www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)

www.issp.org/menu-top/home/
www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk
https://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/?q=ISSP&sf=Data+catalogue&searchType=data#7259
European Quality of Working Life Surveys (EQWL)

www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-quality-of-life-surveys
https://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/series/?sn=200013
Quality of Jobs and Innovation Generated Employment Outcomes (QuInnE)

http://tools.quinne.eu/quinnemap
http://tools.quinne.eu/static/quant_app/WP5_2_25112016_final.pdf
European Social Surveys (ESS)

www.europeansocialsurvey.org
www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=5
www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=2
European Community Household Panel (ECHP)

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-community-household-panel
European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-statistics-on-income-and-living-conditions
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data/database
European Union Labour Force Survey (EU LFS)

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-labour-force-survey
European Structure of Earnings Survey (EU SES)

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/structure-of-earnings-survey
(UK) Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS)

https://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/series/?sn=2000058
(UK) Skills and Employment Surveys (UK SES)

www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/explore/find-a-project/view/117804-skills-and-employment-survey-2012
https://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/?sn=7467
UKCES Employer Skills Survey (UKCES ESS)

www.skillssurvey.co.uk/
https://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/?sn=7997
www.gov.uk/government/publications/employer-skills-survey-high-performance-working

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 8612 6200 F +44 (0)20 8612 6201
E [email protected] W cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter
Registered as a charity in England and Wales (1079797) and Scotland (SC045154)
Issued: January 2018 Reference: 7620 © CIPD 2018

Understanding and Job Quality: Measuring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding and Job Quality: Measuring

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding and Job Quality: Measuring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research report

Part 2 – Indicators of Job Quality

1 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Gross domestic product and This is especially important in a

There is a strong imperative to

2 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

3 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

4 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

5 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Nationally representative social Labour Force Survey (EU LFS)

6 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Source: European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS)

Access/ All six waves of data are publicly available.

Source: European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS)

Level or unit of Micro-level individual (worker) data.

7 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Source: International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)

Source: EU QuInnE (Quality of Jobs and Innovation Generated Employment Outcomes)

Access/ There is open access to the map.

Country 22 EU countries, including the UK.

8 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Source: European Social Surveys (EU ESS)

Periodicity Every two years since 2001.

Country 36 countries across Europe, including the UK.

Level or unit Household and individual-level micro data.

Source: European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)

9 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Source: European Union Labour Force Survey (EU LFS)

Level or unit of Micro data (available for 1983–2015).

Source: European Structure of Earnings Survey (EU SES)

10 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Source: Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS)

Source: Skills and Employment Survey (UK SES)

Origin School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University.

Country Great Britain (except 2006, which covers the UK).

Level or unit of Individual level (job-holder) micro-level data.

11 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Source: Employer Skills Survey (UKCES ESS)

Level or unit of Establishment-level micro data (that is, employer survey).

Source: Understanding Society dataset, or UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS)

Access/ Waves 1–6 (2009–15) available.

Level or unit of Individual- and household-level micro data.

12 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

13 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

14 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

15 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

16 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

When aggregating into a single

17 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

18 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

The construction of both of these

Terms of employment (20%)

Health and safety (20%)

Work–life balance (20%)

Source: Antón et al (2012, p28)

19 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

The multi-dimensional nature • terms of employment:

20 Understanding and measuring job quality – Indicators of job quality

Pay and other rewards