If there’s one thing the pandemic made unmistakably clear, it’s that the way people work has changed—maybe for good. Telecommuting, once a niche arrangement or a perk reserved for a select few, became the norm for whole sectors almost overnight. But now, as the dust settles, the challenge for analysts and policymakers is figuring out which parts of this new reality are here to stay. ISIC codes, while perhaps not the first thing that comes to mind in conversations about remote work, turn out to be a surprisingly useful starting point.
The logic is simple: certain sectors are inherently more “telecommutable” than others. ISIC 6201, covering computer programming and related activities, is a prime example. ISIC 6311—data processing, hosting, and related services—is another. By tracking the number of new firm registrations in these codes, especially when compared to pre-pandemic baselines, analysts can get an early signal of where remote work is taking root, and how quickly.
But firm entry data alone only tells part of the story. Telecommuting isn’t just about where companies are incorporated; it’s about where people are actually working. To round out the picture, it makes sense to layer in other types of information—corporate office vacancy rates, for instance. In cities where new ISIC 6201 firms are rising but downtown office space sits empty, the link is hard to ignore. Similarly, a sustained increase in home broadband subscriptions is another clue: as more households upgrade their connections, the infrastructure for telecommuting quietly expands.
And then there’s the negative space—the data that shows what’s missing. Declines in commuter traffic, particularly during peak hours, can often be traced back to remote work trends. In regions where traditional commuter corridors are quieter, but registrations in ISIC codes associated with digital and tech services are up, it’s a sign that new patterns are emerging—not just in employment, but in the lived geography of work itself.
Integrating these datasets isn’t just a technical exercise; it’s an opportunity to surface new questions. Are remote-first firms spreading into suburban or rural areas where office space was never a factor? Do regions with lagging broadband access see a slower rise in telecommuting, even within “digital” ISIC codes? Where are new collaborations—between local governments, telecoms, and tech companies—making a difference in bridging these gaps?
It’s worth noting that, as with all things pandemic-related, the data remains unsettled. Some firms may have registered under a digital code as a stopgap, only to return to traditional offices when circumstances allowed. Others might be experimenting with hybrid models that don’t fit cleanly into old categories. And, as always, not all remote work is formally registered; freelance arrangements, side gigs, and informal partnerships often slip through the cracks.
Still, the move to analyze telecommuting trends through the lens of ISIC-coded firm registrations, supported by office, broadband, and mobility data, is a step toward clarity. It helps policymakers see which sectors and regions are adapting, which are being left behind, and where investments in infrastructure or skills might be needed next.
In the end, telecommuting isn’t just about technology or even about jobs—it’s about the fabric of daily life, and how it’s shifting, sometimes quietly, sometimes in full view. ISIC codes won’t tell the whole story, but they offer a structure for seeing change as it happens, sector by sector, city by city, home by home.