In our recent dealings with a prominent Middle Eastern consulting firm, we encountered a bewildering “benchmark requirement” that was purportedly designed to ensure top‐quality industry classification. The brief required consultants to base their entire ISIC‐code benchmarking exercise on “standards” from the following institutions:

  1. The World Economic Forum (WEF)

  2. The World Bank Group – Global Indicators and Analytics Unit (GIA)

  3. The International Institute for Management Development (IMD)

  4. Other “global institutions issuing relevant classification standards”

On its face, this directive appears respectable—until you examine precisely what each of these organizations does (and, crucially, what none of them does). In fact, requiring ISIC benchmarking to align with WEF, World Bank GIA, and IMD guidelines is not merely misguided—it is an outright absurdity that detracts from the rigor and credibility of any serious classification study. Below, we unpack each institution’s actual mandate, explain why none of them produce valid ISIC standards, and demonstrate how including such “requirements” amounts to noise rather than value.

1. The World Economic Forum (WEF)

  • What WEF Actually Does:
    The WEF is a Geneva‐based non‐profit renowned for its annual Davos conference and its Global Competitiveness Reports. These country‐level reports assess macroeconomic performance, infrastructure, innovation ecosystems, and other broad indices of competitiveness.

  • Why It Fails as an ISIC Benchmark:
    WEF does not publish any industry classification schemas. Its Global Competitiveness Report offers rankings and qualitative assessments of nations, not detailed sectoral breakdowns. Thus, asking teams to “benchmark ISIC codes” against WEF rankings is like asking a neurobiologist to calibrate their microscopes based on the Foreign Exchange market indices: the two simply do not speak the same language.

3. The International Institute for Management Development (IMD)

  • What IMD Actually Is:
    IMD is a private business school in Lausanne, Switzerland (website: https://www.imd.org) that offers executive education programs and publishes the annual IMD World Competitiveness Ranking. In short, IMD’s expertise lies in leadership training, MBA courses, and analyzing how countries perform economically.

  • Why It’s Entirely Irrelevant:
    IMD is not a standards‐setting body for industry classification. It does not maintain classification codes, update sector definitions, or issue guidelines on how to assign businesses to ISIC categories. Their competitiveness ranking measures aspects like productivity, education, and business efficiency across countries—nothing to do with granular, firm‐level coding. Including IMD as a “benchmark institution” for an ISIC study is therefore laughable: it’s akin to citing a Michelin‐star restaurant guide when evaluating geological surveys. IMD’s mission is executive education and competitiveness indices, not defining or validating global industry codes.

4. “Other Global Institutions Issuing Relevant Classification Standards”

  • What Those Should Be:
    In a well‐structured ISIC benchmarking exercise, this category properly refers to bodies that actually do publish classification standards—namely:

    • The United Nations Statistics Division (the creator and steward of the ISIC system itself)

    • The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which publishes related frameworks (e.g., ISO 3166 for country codes, which sometimes aligns with trade data)

    • The OECD, which occasionally issues guidance on productivity and sectoral definitions that dovetail with ISIC code updates

  • Why It’s the Only Valid Category:
    When you benchmark a study of industry classifications, you look to organizations whose core competence is publishing and maintaining those classifications. If “other global institutions” truly means “UN ISIC, ISO, and OECD,” then you have a legitimate starting point. By contrast, invoking WEF or IMD in this same context muddles the purpose: classification guidelines should flow from the rule‐makers (UN’s ISIC revision committees, ISO’s technical subcommittees), not from economic think tanks or business schools.

The Absurdity and Its Consequences

When a consulting brief insists on “standards established by WEF, World Bank GIA, and IMD,” it betrays two fatal flaws:

  1. It Undermines Credibility and Focus:
    Analysts and researchers spend precious hours tracking down WEF reports and IMD rankings—time that should be dedicated to consulting actual ISIC revision notes or ISO technical bulletins. In practice, this demand is a red herring diverting attention away from the real work: aligning local data sources with the UN’s ISIC structure.

  2. It Introduces Incoherence into Methodology:
    If one were truly to try to measure a company’s ISIC code assignments against WEF’s country‐level pillars (e.g., “Innovation Ecosystem”) or IMD’s competitiveness tables, what would that even mean? How does “Ease of Doing Business in Latvia” translate into “assign firm X to ISIC 5410 (Publishing of books, periodicals, and other publishing activities) rather than ISIC 5813 (Publishing of journals and periodicals)?” No sane, defensible procedure exists. Such demands reduce the exercise to little more than a bureaucratic checkbox—“Yes, we referenced WEF and IMD”—with zero impact on classification accuracy.

A Shameful Diversion from Rigor

Including WEF, World Bank GIA, and IMD as “benchmarks” for ISIC competency is shameful for several reasons:

  • It Demonstrates a Lack of Respect for the Discipline: Experts in statistical classification spend years refining code definitions, consulting national statistical offices, and integrating feedback from member states. Suggesting that a WEF global competitiveness index or an IMD business school ranking could substitute for that detailed labor constitutes a slap in the face to professional statisticians and economists.

  • It Wastes Stakeholder Time and Resources: Government officials, industry associations, and companies themselves rely on accurate classification to determine tax codes, regulatory categories, and eligibility for support programs. If consultants present irrelevant “benchmarks,” clients end up paying for meaningless analyses that must be redone or corrected later.

  • It Obscures True Accountability: Real benchmarking should hold up against organizations whose mission is networked with classification—namely, the United Nations (ISIC maintenance), ISO (technical standardization), and the OECD (policy guidelines tied to sector definitions). By contrast, WEF’s and IMD’s roles are promotional and educational—never codification. When consultants cite them as authorities, they blur the line between substantive standard‐setting and mere commentary.

How to Keep Benchmarking Legitimate

If you are ever asked to “benchmark a study” based on WEF or IMD directives, push back. Real clarity comes from organizations that explicitly define, update, and publish industry classification standards:

  • Refer Directly to ISIC Revisions: Consult the latest ISIC revision notes from the United Nations Statistics Division. These documents explain code changes, mergers, splits, and guidelines for assigning activities to codes.

  • Use ISO’s Frameworks: If you need a complementary classification system—especially when dealing with technology or service sectors—look to ISO’s relevant standards (e.g., ISO/TC 154 or ISO 8000 for data quality).

  • Leverage OECD Guidance: Where policy analysis intersects with industry codes (for instance, assessing productivity in manufacturing), the OECD’s publications often include sector definitions that align with ISIC codes.

By keeping your focus on these organizations, you ensure that your methodology—whether for economic policy, tax administration, or market analysis—stands on a foundation of genuine classification expertise.

Requiring ISIC benchmarking to rest on WEF, World Bank GIA, or IMD benchmarks is not simply misguided; it is an outright affront to the principles of rigorous classification work. Such “requirements” distract from the actual tasks—consulting ISIC revision materials, coordinating with national statistical offices, and aligning local data sets to internationally recognized codes. Any consultant or client who truly values reliable, defensible industry classification should insist on benchmarks issued by the United Nations, ISO, or OECD—not a business school in Switzerland or a global competitiveness report. After all, when it comes to defining how economic activity is categorized, spending time on genuine standards is both more efficient and far more credible than chasing irrelevant “best practices.”