The quest for gender equity in the workforce is often discussed in broad, national terms. But beneath the surface, patterns of female participation diverge sharply by sector—sometimes with persistent, even stubborn, gaps. To make sense of these disparities and design effective interventions, researchers and policymakers have increasingly turned to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) system. By providing a standardized, sectoral map of economic activity, ISIC codes make it possible to disaggregate labor data by both gender and industry, revealing the nuanced geography of gender inequality.
The methodology is deceptively simple. Labor force surveys and employer reports, coded by ISIC, track the gender composition of the workforce across hundreds of industry categories. This segmentation provides a powerful diagnostic tool: where are women making inroads, and where do they remain significantly underrepresented? It’s a question that cannot be answered with national averages alone.
Consider the case of heavy manufacturing—codes such as ISIC 2410 (basic iron and steel manufacturing) or ISIC 2511 (manufacture of structural metal products). In almost every region, female participation remains low. Even as women’s overall share of the labor force rises, these industries tend to lag, reflecting both traditional barriers (perceptions of “men’s work,” workplace culture) and practical ones (shift patterns, required certifications, lack of targeted recruitment). Conversely, in sectors coded as education (ISIC 8510), healthcare (ISIC 8610), or certain service industries, women’s representation is often high—sometimes exceeding parity.
This data-driven approach allows for a more precise understanding of where interventions are needed. For example, if labor force statistics reveal that only 8% of employees in ISIC 2710 (manufacture of electric motors) are female, but neighboring countries report double or triple that share, it suggests untapped potential. Policymakers might respond by launching vocational training programs tailored for women, providing scholarships or apprenticeships, or incentivizing companies to adopt inclusive hiring and workplace practices.
It is not just a matter of fairness. The economic rationale for addressing these gaps is increasingly strong. As populations age and labor shortages intensify, maximizing the productive potential of the entire workforce becomes not just desirable but necessary. A sector that draws talent from only half the population risks falling behind in both innovation and output. ISIC-based analysis shines a light on where these opportunities exist and where structural impediments may be holding back progress.
Beyond public policy, the implications for corporate strategy are significant. Multinational firms seeking to improve diversity in their supply chains can use ISIC codes to benchmark gender participation rates—both within their own operations and across suppliers. A company might discover, for instance, that its logistics partners (ISIC 4923) are mostly male-staffed, while its retail divisions (ISIC 4711) have achieved a more balanced workforce. Armed with this information, management can set more targeted goals, launch mentoring programs, or prioritize suppliers that demonstrate commitment to gender inclusion.
Of course, challenges remain. One is data quality. Not all labor market information systems are equipped to disaggregate by both ISIC code and gender, particularly in developing economies. Surveys may underreport informal employment, where women are often disproportionately represented. There is also the perennial challenge of translating data into action. Sectoral gender gaps are shaped by a tangle of factors—education pipelines, access to capital, cultural attitudes—that require a multi-pronged response.
A more subtle issue is that some industries, even as they attract more women, tend to do so in roles that are lower paid or less secure. For example, in healthcare (ISIC 8610), women may dominate nursing and administrative roles, while remaining underrepresented in senior medical or management positions. ISIC-based data can reveal this vertical segregation by cross-referencing occupation codes within sectors, pointing to the need for policies that address advancement as well as access.
Yet for all these caveats, the use of ISIC classification is a significant step forward. It allows for benchmarking not just across time, but across countries and regions, fostering learning about what works. For example, targeted vocational programs in Southeast Asia, designed after careful analysis of ISIC-coded employment data, have boosted female participation in electronics manufacturing (ISIC 2610)—a trend now being studied for replication elsewhere.
Corporate diversity initiatives are also benefitting from this granular view. Firms now design recruitment, training, and advancement programs around ISIC-coded segments where gender gaps are largest, and many now report progress publicly by sector rather than just in aggregate. This transparency, while not a panacea, encourages accountability and competition for improvement.
Disaggregating workforce data by gender and ISIC code is more than a statistical exercise. It’s a way of making visible the subtle and persistent patterns that shape women’s economic participation. It guides smart policy, targeted programs, and forward-looking business strategy—moving the conversation from aspiration to action. While progress is uneven and challenges remain, the use of ISIC data offers a clearer, more actionable map for those seeking to build a truly inclusive labor market.