The shock of early 2020 hit the restaurant industry with a speed and force that left analysts scrambling for answers almost as fast as owners scrambled to survive. Streets that once buzzed with activity fell silent. Headlines told part of the story, but policymakers and researchers needed something firmer than anecdotes: actual numbers, mapped in real time. For this, ISIC 5610—covering restaurants and mobile food service activities—became the backbone of any meaningful measurement.
The starting point is straightforward. Most jurisdictions require restaurants to register their operations, and business registries generally assign ISIC codes at incorporation. By tracking the number of active entities coded under ISIC 5610, analysts can quickly establish a pre-pandemic baseline. The method then becomes a matter of comparison: periodic checks of the same registry reveal how many businesses have ceased operation, either through formal deregistration or by falling into inactive status.
But even this data requires careful interpretation. Not all closures are registered promptly—some restaurants simply go dark, their paperwork lingering for months. To account for this lag, cross-referencing with employment records becomes vital. Payroll tax filings, unemployment insurance claims, and social security reports can reveal sudden drops in active employees, sometimes before formal closure is registered. When the number of workers attached to ISIC 5610 entities plummets, it’s often the first sign that closures are outpacing what business registries show.
Tax records offer another, sometimes more nuanced, view. Sales tax remittances, VAT filings, or even point-of-sale transaction data can all hint at a restaurant’s operational status. A sharp, sustained drop in reported turnover is often the final confirmation that a business has shuttered—even if, officially, it still appears on the books.
The full methodology is, in a sense, a triangulation: use business registry data as a starting map, but layer in employment and tax evidence to flesh out the reality behind the numbers. Analysts can create monthly or quarterly snapshots, showing not just how many restaurants closed, but when and where the waves were steepest. This level of detail is essential for designing relief measures, understanding regional impacts, and, eventually, supporting recovery.
Naturally, the numbers are only part of the picture. Not every closure is permanent, and some restaurants pivoted to delivery or takeout, sometimes registering under new or additional codes. Informal eateries, common in many cities, may escape official records entirely. But the discipline of using ISIC 5610—paired with employment and tax cross-checks—provides a framework sturdy enough for urgent analysis, but flexible enough to adapt as more information comes in.
What stands out from this approach isn’t just the scale of the closures, but the way data, when handled carefully, can make a chaotic moment a little more legible. For policymakers, funders, and even the public, that kind of clarity is a crucial ingredient for any recipe of resilience and recovery.