The current status of statistical units delineated by OECD Member countries is summarized below in Table 2.

3.1. Delineation of ‘Enterprises’

EU Council Regulation defines that the enterprise is the smallest combination of legal units that is an organizational unit producing goods or services, which benefits from a certain degree of autonomy in decision-making, especially for the allocation of its current resources. An enterprise carries out one or more activities at one or more locations. An enterprise may be a sole legal unit.

With regard to “enterprises”, only three Member countries do not appear to delineate the enterprise unit in their business registers/frames. All remaining 27 countries delineate this unit. However, the method of delineation is not uniform across OECD Member countries. Specifically, Member countries can be categorized into the following three groups.

The first group defines single legal units as equal to enterprises. This group currently comprises:

Ø        Austria - enterprise as the legal unit,
Ø        Czech Republic - not confirmed,
Ø        Finland - 1:1 with the legal unit,
Ø        France - SIREN number,
Ø        Germany - 1:1 with the legal unit at the moment. Germany has developed a concept for reconstructing enterprises that shall be implemented in the near future,
Ø        Greece - legal unit = enterprise assumed,
Ø        Hungary  - 1:1 with the legal unit,
Ø        Iceland - it is assumed that there is 1:1 relationship with the legal unit,
Ø        Italy - legal unit = enterprise assumed. However, the most important enterprise groups are delineated through profiling,
Ø        Portugal - the relationship between enterprises and the associated legal units have not yet been identified by 2001. However, legal unit = enterprise assumed,
Ø        Slovak Republic  - not confirmed.

The second group includes those countries that combine legal units to form complex enterprises and use a bottom-up or a top-down approach for the delineation of such enterprises. Specifically, these countries are again divided into the following three sub-groups.

Countries using a bottom-up approach:
-          Belgium - enterprises are delineated mainly on the basis of administrative sources,
-          Luxembourg – it is thought that the enterprise is the legal unit liable to VAT in Luxembourg,
-          Spain - the enterprise concept is not well developed in Spain. However, enterprises are delineated using a bottom-up approach,
-          Sweden - enterprises are delineated using a bottom-up approach. However, the normal case is found to be one legal unit – one enterprise.

Countries using a top-down approach:
-          Denmark - only a few enterprise units consist of more than one legal unit, which means that the enterprise unit level by and large equals the legal unit in practice in Denmark,
-          Netherlands - enterprises are delineated through a reliable and structural linkage between statistical units and the administrative units in the Netherlands,
-          UK - enterprises are delineated on the basis of the Annual Register Inquiry, several other surveys and information from Companies House, and a profiling team.

Countries where the specific method of delineation is not known:
 -          Canada - specifically designed questionnaires and telephone interviews, and periodic review for large enterprises by face-to-face interviews,
-          United States - Company Organization Survey and data from tax records provided by the IRS,
-          Australia  - a combination of personal and mail profiling and unit survey activity,
-          Japan - the Statistics Bureau of Japan treats incorporated companies only as the enterprises at the moment,
-          New Zealand - Annual Frame Update Survey, and other sources including surveys and media reports,
-          Ireland - VAT, a statutory register survey, and returns from existing surveys on a four-year rotating basis,
-          Norway - the register is updated daily using all available sources,
-          Poland - enterprises are delineated according to algorithm. The register is updated monthly,
-          Switzerland - various administrative sources and quarterly surveys. 

The third group includes those countries that have not developed the enterprise statistical unit:
-          Mexico - in principle, the Business Directory of INEGI is based on the economic censuses. Thus, INEGI has made considerable   effort to use administrative registers of some institutions in improving the Directory,
-          Korea – the Korean NSO has been making efforts to delineate the enterprise unit  in its business survey frame. Currently, the establishment unit is used in most business surveys and censuses conducted by the NSO,
-          Turkey - in principle, the Statistical Business Register is based on the economic censuses. Thus, SIS has been making efforts to use the administrative registers of some institutions in improving its register.   

There are a number of issues with regard to the enterprise.

First, there are two different groups of countries that delineate the enterprise. One group comprises countries that have adopted the legal unit as the enterprise. The other are those who delineate enterprises through profiling on the basis of legal units involved in statistical surveys. This implies that there is a comparison problem of data between the two groups.

In this regard,  the treatment of legal units as single enterprises may cause some statistical problems. For example, it could lead to an extraordinarily high number of new enterprises in the service sector and a decrease of fixed capital formation especially in the manufacturing sector. This is the result of the creation of company property units and sales units and the inclusion of regional affiliates as a legal unit under the same ownership[5].

Second, an issue is the franchise form of doing business. Franchising is an important and controversial form of vertical integration. The franchisee purchases a legal right to sell a good or service from the franchiser. There are advantages of franchising for the business owner. Among these are: 1) risk reduction, 2) ongoing professional management support, training and professional assistance, 3) cost savings for supplies and equipment. Etc. However, there are negatives as follows: 1) loss of independence, 2) limited control over product line and pricing, 2) ongoing revenue-splitting with the franchise company, etc. Thus, it needs to think about whether the franchisee meets the conditions (a certain degree of autonomy in decision-making, control of functions to carry out its production activities) of enterprise or not. Otherwise, it will be treated as an establishment (or local unit).          

Third, there are some countries (Japan, Korea), which do not cover the non-incorporated businesses (sole proprietorships) in their statistics on enterprises. These countries cover only the incorporated enterprises in their business survey frames. Main reasons are due to no accessibility of micro taxation data as well as the shortage of personnel at the office in profiling the enterprises.

Fourth, although an in-depth study has not been done, it seems that the method of production of statistics on business demography (births and deaths of enterprises) and on size class has not yet been harmonized. Table 4 presents enterprises by size groups for 12 OECD Member countries. As seen from this table, size classes between countries are not uniform. In addition, the criterion of size classes is different between countries. The number of employees is used in the US, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and UK, while the number of persons employed is used in Korea and Austria.

3.2 Delineation of ‘Enterprise group’

The enterprise group is defined as an association of enterprises bound together by legal and/or financial links. A group of enterprises can have more than one decision-center, especially for policy on production, sales and profits. It may centralize certain aspects of financial management and taxation. It constitutes an economic entity which is empowered to make choices, particularly concerning the units it comprises. 

This unit is gaining importance with increasing globalization. This unit will be the unit of observation of the Statistics on Finances of Enterprises. Statistics presented on an enterprise group basis are also of importance in studying aspects of competition and concentration. However, there are some difficulties in the use of this unit for statistical purposes in particular because of the problems of identifying and keeping track of the unstable links between enterprises. 

Half of the OECD Member countries appear to delineate the enterprise group unit. These countries and any special features are summarized below:

-          Canada - it seems that the term “enterprise group” has not been used. Meanwhile, it is known that there are about 10,000 complex enterprises and about 2,500 Corporate Families in Canada,
-          United States – it appears that the term “enterprise group” has not been used. Meanwhile, it is known that there are 181,223 multi-unit enterprises in the US,
-          Australia - delineation is undertaken through a combination of personal and mail profiling and unit survey activity. There are about 8,000 enterprise groups in Australia,
-          Japan - it is not clear whether or not the Statistics Bureau of Japan currently delineates the enterprise group. Meanwhile, it is revealed that there are 210,008 multi-unit enterprises in Japan, 
-          New Zealand - it seems that Statistics New Zealand delineates the enterprise group. However, the number of enterprise groups is not known,
-          Denmark - it seems that Statistics Denmark delineates the enterprise group. However, the number of enterprise groups is not known,
-          Finland  - there are 920 enterprise groups with 15,500 affiliated companies in Finland,
-          France - a study shows that there are 28,962 enterprise groups in France as of 1 Jan.2002. Out of them, micro groups are 27,139, small groups are 1,356, medium groups are 383, and large groups are 84, respectively.  
-          Ireland - it seems that the Irish CSO delineates the enterprise group. The most recent data shows that there are 200 enterprise groups in Ireland.
-          Italy - ISTAT has undertaken a study to delineate the enterprise group. It has profiled 19 enterprise groups, which were found to have 1,372 affiliated legal units,
-          Netherlands - it is shown that there are about 90,000 enterprise groups,
-          Portugal - it seems that the INE delineates the enterprise group. However, the number of enterprise groups is not known,
-          Spain  - it is shown that there are about 21,654 enterprise groups, 
-          Sweden - it is shown that there are about 26,000 enterprise groups,
-          United Kingdom - it is shown that there are about 100,000 enterprise groups.

The Netherlands delineates the enterprise group using shareholder information (information on control). Legal units are then combined into a Cluster of Control (direct or indirect control of more than 50%). This Cluster of Control forms the basis for the delineation of the enterprise group unit.

In the case of Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics introduced the concept of sector (in terms of the institutional sector) boundaries to delineate the enterprise group. Enterprise groups are often supposed to cross sector (in term of the institutional sector) boundaries (with the exception of a mixture of government and private sectors) and consequently are not used to compile sector statistics. Meanwhile, in Australia, the enterprise is defined as an institutional unit comprising: (1) a single legal entity; or (2) more than one legal entity within the same enterprise group and in the same institutional sector.  

From the above analysis, it is possible to identify the following issues with respect to the enterprise group unit.

First, some non-European countries such as the US and Canada do not appear to use the term ‘enterprise group’.  Instead, these countries use terms such as ‘large and complex enterprises (or conglomerates)’ in the US and ‘Corporate Families’ in Canada[6].

In the US, a conglomerate (large and complex enterprise) is generally defined as a corporate enterprise made up of a number of different companies, or legal entities, that operate in diversified fields[7]. In the meantime, Statistics Canada defines the complex enterprise as an enterprise with establishments either operating in more than one province or more than one industry or with more than one legal entity[8]. On the other hand, Eurostat’s Methodological Manual of Short-term Indicators gives the definition of the complex enterprise as “all those with more than 100 employees in secondary activities”. These imply that the relationship between complex enterprises and enterprise groups is not well pronounced.

Second, the number of enterprise groups available in various countries  where provided (and as shown in Table 3 below) are not comparable. For example, the number of enterprise groups is shown to be 2,500 Corporate Families in Canada, 8,000 in Australia, 920 in Finland, 28,962 in Spain, 90,000 in Netherlands, 21,654 in France, 200 in Ireland 26,000 in Sweden and 100,000 in the UK, respectively. This implies that the method of delineation and the concept for the enterprise group is different between countries.

Third, as in the case of France, it needs to think about splitting the enterprise groups into micro, small, medium and large enterprise groups. One of the criteria will be the number of employment such as 0~499(micro), 500~1,999(small), 2000~9,999(medium), and more than 10,000(large groups).

Fourth, as regards the multi-national enterprise groups, it seems that there is no guideline to compile business statistics on variables such as employment, value of production, the employment costs and operating surplus, etc.

3.3 Delineation of ‘Local unit’

The local unit is an enterprise or part thereof (e.g. a workshop, factory, warehouse, office, mine or depot) situated in a geographically identified place. At or from this place economic activity is carried out for which – save for certain exceptions – one or more persons work (even if only part-time) for one and the same enterprise.

Most OECD Member countries delineate local units or establishments in their business registers/frames. Only Luxembourg is observed not to delineate the local unit. There are two main issues with regard to the local unit.

First, terminology has not been harmonized. The term ‘establishment’ is generally used in non-European countries, for example in Canada, Mexico, United States, Japan and Korea. The term ‘location’ is used in Canada and Australia, and the term ‘geographical units’ in New Zealand. Meanwhile, the term ‘local unit’ is generally used in European countries (but Statistics Denmark uses the terminology ‘establishment’). This issue leads to a question about the relationship between a local unit (or a location) and an establishment. Whether are they same in term of the concept or not?

Second, the term ‘local unit’ is not easily interpreted. This may be one of the reasons why Statistics Denmark interprets the local unit as same as the establishment. Another example is the case of Austria. Statistics Austria regards the establishment as same as the kind-of-activity unit[9]. These imply that the distinguishing features for the local unit, the establishment and the kind of activity unit are not clear or well enunciated in international standards. 

3.4 Delineation of ‘Kind of activity unit’

The kind-of-activity unit groups all the parts of an enterprise contributing to the performance of an activity at class level (four digits) of NACE Rev.1 and corresponds to one or more operational subdivisions of the enterprise. The enterprise’s information system must be capable of indicating or calculating for each KAU at least the value of production, intermediate consumption, manpower costs, the operating surplus and employment and gross fixed capital formation. 

Only a few countries appear to delineate the kind of activity unit (KAU) in their business registers/frames. These include Australia (type of activity unit), New Zealand, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Sweden and the UK.  The Eurostat paper[10] on national practices also mentioned additional countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) who are believed to delineate KAUs. However, this needs to be further clarified.

The delineation of the KAU is undertaken by one of the following methods: 1) constructed as an operational part of the enterprise (Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal); 2) by profiling the enterprise (Belgium and UK); 3) by aggregating local units (Italy); 4) by aggregating Local KAUs (Denmark and Spain); 5) through a combination of various methods (Austria and Sweden).

There are three main issues with regard to the KAU:

First, it is not easy to understand the differences in the above-mentioned methods.

Second, it is not easy to delineate the KAU from the enterprise, although there is a clear distinction between the KAU and the enterprise[11]. For example,secondary activities and/or branches are interpreted as KAUs in some countries (e.g., Finland), while the enterprise/local unit is assumed to be equal to the KAU/LKAU in other countries (e.g., Germany and Netherlands). To say, in the German and Dutch business register, there is no unit on KAU, but the KAU is treated as the same as the enterprise[12]. 

Third, terminology is not harmonized. For example, Australia uses the term ‘type of activity unit’ instead of the ‘KAU’. Statistics Austria also treats the establishment as the same as the kind-of-activity unit.           

3.5 Delineation of ‘Local KAU’

The local kind-of-activity unit is the part of a KAU, which corresponds to a local unit. 

Only three countries appear to delineate the local KAU – Denmark, Finland and Sweden[13]. There is an issue worthwhile mentioning in connection to this unit. Such   countries as Denmark and Germany assume that the local unit is equal to the local KAUs.

4. Legal units

The legal unit is an administrative unit and not a statistical unit. Therefore, it does not belong to the list of statistical units of EEC Council Regulation No.696/93. However, it is important to take this unit into consideration. In the construction of the statistical units, the administrative units are the building blocks in many countries.

The EEC Council Regulation on the statistical units states that legal units include: 1) legal persons whose existence is recognized by law independently of the individuals or institutions which may own them or are members of them, 2) natural persons who are engaged in an economic activity in their own right.

Only six countries (Mexico, Japan, Korea, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey) of the 30 OECD Member countries do not contain legal units in their business registers/frames.

All other Member countries delineate contain legal units in their frames, the units so identified in principle being based on VAT registers and other relevant administrative sources. 

5. Concluding remarks and observations

It is possible to draw the following general conclusions about the statistical units delineated in OECD Member countries from the above analysis.

First, taking into consideration of various issues in previous sections, especially from the viewpoint of statistical units models and the elaboration of specific units within such models by different countries, there is a need for further enterprise studies in connection with[14]:
-          ownership - such as autonomous enterprises, partner enterprises, and linked enterprises;
-          diversity[15] - such as single business, vertically integrated, linked, and un-related enterprises;
-          size  - such as micro, small, medium, and large enterprises (or enterprise groups); and
-          legal form - such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, franchises, etc.

Second, within individual countries statistical units used in different surveys for individual sectors of the economy are also not well harmonized. This implies that statistical unit models are either not well developed or used consistently by some Member countries. A preliminary study on this application of statistical units to business surveys is provided in a paper (Reference List of Statistical Units used in Business Survey) presented at the 17th Roundtable. Thus, there is a need for further studies on national practices and on how each country has applied the statistical units model in their short-term and structural business statistics.

Table 2: Status of Statistical Units delineated in Business Registers/Frames by OECD Member Countries

	Enterprise group	Enterprise	Local unit (establishment)	KAU	Local KAU	Legal unit
Canada 1)	X	X	X (location)			X
Mexico			X
USA 1)	X	X	X			X
Australia	X	X	X (location)	X (TAU)		X
Japan			X
Korea			X
New Zealand	X	X	X (geographical unit)	X		X
Austria		X	X	* 3)		X
Belgium		X	X	*		X
Czech Republic		X	X	X		X
Denmark	X	X		*	X	X
Finland	X	X	X	*		X
France	X 2)	X	X			X
Germany		X	X			X
Greece		X	X			X
Hungary		X	X			X
Iceland		X	X			X
Ireland	X	X	X	X
Italy	X	X	X	*		X
Luxembourg		X		X		X
Netherlands	X	X	X			X
Norway		X	X			X
Poland		X	X			X
Portugal	X	X	X	*
Slovak Republic		X	X			X
Spain	X	X	X	*		X
Sweden	X	X	X	X	X	X
Switzerland		X	X			X
Turkey			X
UK	X	X	X	X	X	X

Notes:

1) Other statistical units are found in Canada (i.e., Corporate Families, Company) in the US (e.g. EIN entity, Alternative Reporting Unit and Firm).
2) France seems not to contain the unit on enterprise group in its business register. However, studies have been done to show the number of enterprise groups. 
3) Those countries marked with the asterisk (*) are countries which are believed to delineate the unit in KAU in their business registers/frames. However, this needs to be further clarified. For example, In the Dutch business register there is no unit on KAU, but the enterprise and the KAU are the same unit.

Table 3: Number of statistical units by OECD member countries, where data are available

	Enterprise  groups	Enterprises	Local units (establishments)	Legal units
Canada (4th Q 2004)	2,500	1,016,300 employer businesses (100,000 complex enterprises)
Mexico			3,200,000
USA (2000)		22,182,499 (181,223 multi-unit)	23,600,003
Australia	8,000			3,700,000
Japan		218,008 incorporated multi-unit enterprises	6,350,101
Korea (as the end of 2002)		186,252 incorporated enterprises (19,911 incorporated multi-unit)	3,131,963	3,963,454 (liable to VAT)
New Zealand (Feb.2003)		294,954 (non-farming businesses)	323,839
Austria(2001)		213,983 (in C – K)	215,874
Belgium		686,857 (as of 2000).
Czech Republic				2,100,000
Denmark		279,037	297,585	40% are dormant.
Finland	920	317,000	343,000	317,000
France	28,962	2,447,000 (in industry, commerce & services)	2,803,522	5,659,500 (35% are inactive)
Germany		2,926,570 (Tax payers)		3,400,000
Greece
Hungary			938,000
Iceland
Ireland(2004)	200	235,880 (5,191 multi-unit)	247,786	235,884 KAUs
Italy	19	4,049,389
Luxembourg		30,000~45,000		160,000
Netherlands (2001)	90,000	714,600	1,000,000	1.5 million (30% are inactive)
Norway		395,482	442,325	540,696
Poland			4,233,743	3,776,791
Portugal
Slovak Republic		366,333		93,072
Spain	21,654	2,645,317	2,920,503	2,710,389
Sweden	26,000	845,623	922,659	800,000
Switzerland		288,171 (as of 1995).	372,796
Turkey
UK	100,000	3,800,000		3.8 million (2.1 million are on the IDBR)

Notes for Table 3:

1) In Australia, the number of legal units included businesses which had been issued with an Australian Business Number but had no active tax obligations to the Australian Taxation Office.
2) The Statistics Bureau of Japan regards the incorporated companies only as the enterprises. Thus, those enterprises such as individual proprietorships and un-incorporated companies are excluded in counting the number of enterprises.
3) In Korea, big conglomerates (48 as of 2004) are required to prepare the consolidated accounts according to the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies. Financial data for such big conglomerates are available from the Financial Supervisory Commission. Financial statistics on public listed companies or incorporated enterprises are also available from such organizations as the Bank of Korea, the Korea Development Bank, the Korea Chamber of Commerce (http://www.korchambiz.net), and the Financial Supervisory Commission (http://dart.fss.or.kr), etc.
4) In New Zealand, enterprises are generally defined as enterprises with greater than NZ$ 30,000 annual GST expenses or sales or enterprises in a GST-exempt industry. These figures exclude figures for parts of the agricultural industry and some areas within the business, community, recreational and personal services industries.
5) Enterprises are delineated by the bottom-up approach in such countries as Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden.
6) Enterprises are delineated by the top-down approach in such countries as Denmark and UK.
7) In France, major enterprise groups having more than 10,000 employees are 87 as of 1999.
8) In Germany, the enterprise data shown in this table are part of turnover tax statistics. Not covered are enterprises below some thresholds and those attaining almost only non-taxable turnovers or not paying turnover tax because of special regulations (e.g., physicians and dentists working in private practice and without laboratory, public authorities, insurance agents, agricultural holdings)
9) In Poland, in addition to enterprises and local units, the concept of companies was also introduced.
10) In Portugal, the software application supporting Enterprise Group Module is available since July 2003. The information obtained from the survey 2002 is available.
11) Statistics Sweden has decided to count the number of enterprises with several locations, enterprises with one local unit, complex enterprises, local units divided into local KAU and the number of enterprises divided into KAU.

Table 4: Enterprises by size groups of persons employed/employees by OECD Member Countries

	Total	0	1~4	5~9	10~19	20~49	50~99	100~ 249	250~ 499	500~ 999	1000~ 4,999	5,000~ 9,999	10,000 +
USA - Firm	5,657,774	703,837	2,697,839	1,019,105	616,064	393,298	124,960	85,304		8,572	6,931	934	930
Japan - Enterprise Establishment	1,617,600	829,625		329,998	218,962	148,216	48,144	39,809
	6,350,101		3,867,570	1,214,145	678,174	404,149	102,975	50,417
Korea – Enterprise Establishment	186,252		49,442	54,451	38,315	27,663	8,815	5,634		573	407	51	33
	3,131,963		2,635,372	281,309	119,272	65,799	18,926	10,176		739	370
New Zealand - Enterprise Establishment	294,954	253,655		19,286	12,704	6,350	1,610	1,349 (100+ FTE persons engaged)
	323,839	271,629		23,662	16,165	8,552	2,356	1,475
Austria	213,983		145,853	34,597	18,256	9,690	2,856	1,770	556	248 (1,000+ persons employed)
France - Establishment Enterprise group	2,909,381	1,447,596	1,218,420		241,557					1,808
	28,962	27,139								1,356			84
Finland	226,593	210,484			13,237		2,303			259 (500+ personnel)
Netherlands	689,625	625,205			57,160			7,265 (100+ employees)
Norway	425,879	261,901	86,928	34,516	22,084	13,826	4,390	2,734 (100+ employees)
Sweden - Enterprise Establishment	856,517	641,820	146,049	33,748	17,934	10,522	3,156	2,426		386	390	65	21
	933,446	642,567	171,451	50,725	33,303	22,443	7,753	4,697		331	162	12	2
Switzerland	288,171	87.9%			10.1%		1.8%		0.3% (250+ employees)
UK	3,800,000	3,768,000					26,000		6,000

Sources:
1) Bureau of the Census, Statistics about Business Size,
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html.
2) Statistics New Zealand,
http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/Response/Business+Statistics+Tables.
3) Statistics Bureau of Japan, Results of 2001 Establishment and Enterprise Census
4) Korea National Statistical Office, Results of 2002 Annual Census on Basic Characteristics of Establishments and internal data.
5) Statistics Austria, 2001 Structural Business Statistics,
http://www.statistik.at/englisch/results/business/structural_tab1.shtml.
6) Statistics Finland, Enterprises 2002,
http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/taskue_yritykset.html.
7) INSEE Results, Economy Series No.13, December 2003
8) INSEE, Number of Establishments,
http://www.insee.fr/fr/region/tabcomp/RGENT001.htm.
9)StatisticalYearbookoftheNetherlands2004,
http://www.cbs.nl/en/publications/articles/general/statistical-yearbook/a-3-2004.pdf
10) Statistics Norway, Establishments by size groups,
http://www.ssb.no/english/yearbook/tab/t-1001-368.html
11) Statistics Sweden, Statistics 2003,
http://www.scb.se/templates/Standard____34547.asp
12) Swiss Statistics,
http://www.statistik.admin.ch/stat_ch/ber03/eu0304.htm.
13) Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Statistics for the UK – Methodology and Accuracy,
http://www.sbs.gov.uk/content/analytical/statistics/smestats2003meth.pdf

Notes:
1) In the US, nearly three quarters of all US business firms have no payroll. This indicates that most are self-employed persons operating un-incorporated businesses.
2) In New Zealand, almost one in four businesses are individual proprietorships, owned by a single person. There are 5,450 businesses with 50% or more foreign ownership. 
3) In Japan and in Korea, the enterprise data refer to the number of incorporated enterprises

Appendix:

 

Outline of Statistical/Legal Units delineated in Business Register/Frame by OECD Member Countries

Country	Statistical units					Legal units
	Enterprise group	Enterprise	Local unit (establishment)	KAU	Local KAU	Use of legal units to set up BR/BF	Sources for legal units	Sources of updating or delineating statistical units from legal units
Canada	N.A (It is known that there are 2,500 Corporate Families)	Yes (1 million incorporated, 2 million un-incorporated,  10,000 complex enterprises)	Yes (Establishment)			Yes	-Tax returns of corporations   and individuals - Payroll Deduction accounts	- Specifically designed   questionnaires and   telephone interviews. - Periodic review for   large size enterprises    by face-to-face interviews.
Mexico		Yes (3.2 million  businesses)				Not yet.	- Returns of quinquennial   Economic Censuses.	- The same as the left - Various sample surveys. - Newspaper' articles.
USA (as of 2000)		Yes (181,223 multi-unit, 5,471,321 single- unit, 16,529,955 non-employer enterprises)	Yes (1,598,727  affiliated establishments by 181,223 multi-unit enterprises)			Yes	- EIN entity set up by   the IRS for tax reporting   purposes. - Other routine sources   including the Bureau's   current surveys and the   economic and agricultural   censuses.	- Company Organization   Survey. - Payroll tax records and   receipts data from tax   records provided by   the IRS.
Australia	Yes (8,000 as of Jan.2002)	Yes	Yes (Locations)	Yes (Type of Activity units. 50,000)		Yes (3.7 million as of Jan.2001)	Australian Taxation Office maintained population	A combination of personal and mail profiling, and unit survey activity.
Japan (as of 1 Oct.2001)	No  (Under development)	Yes (1,617,600, the number of multi- unit enterprise are 210,008)	Yes (6,350,101)	No	No	Not yet	- Quinquennial   Establishment and   Enterprise Censuses.	Information on enterprises from a credit inquiry company.
Korea	No	No (As the end of 2002, KNSO estimated that   the number of incorporated enterprises are 186,252. Of which, 19,911 are multi-unit enterprises).	Yes (3,131,963 as the end of 2002)	No	No	Not yet.	- Annual Census on the   Basic Characteristics   of Establishments.	- Korea NSO has made   efforts to obtain data   from the National Tax   Services, the Financial   Supervisory Commission   and Korea Labor   Welfare Corporation - KNSO also has a plan   to profile the enterprises   through conducting   Company Organization   Survey.
New Zealand	Yes (but not confirmed)	Yes (294,954 non-farming businesses as of Feb.2003)	(Geographic units, 323,839 with GST turnover NZ$ 30,000 per year)	Yes		Yes	The Goods and Services Tax registrations supplied by the Inland Revenue Department	- Annual Frame Update   Survey - Other sources including   surveys and media   reports.
Austria	NO (under development)	Yes (ss the legal unit)	Yes	No	No	No from the Taxation Office	- Various statistical   surveys - Data from the Chamber   of Industry and   Commerce.	The same as the left.
Belgium	No (Planned)	Yes (usually 1:1 with a legal unit)	Yes	No	No	Yes	- Vat register - Employment register - Data from the National   Bank	- Data on income and   corporate taxation will   be utilized in the future.
Czech Republic	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes (2.1 million)	- Trade registers and   professional registers - The Commercial courts - Several censuses and   surveys - Information from the   social security system.	- The same as the left. - The profiling activity.
Denmark	Yes, but not confirmed	Yes (279,037 as of Nov. 1999). The legal unit is treated as the enterprise.	No	No	Yes (297,585)	Yes (40% are dormant).	- The CVR is updated    in common by four   institutions namely the   Tax and Customs   Authority, the Companies   House, the Factories   Inspectorate and Statistics   Denmark.	- The same as the left.
Finland (2000)	Yes (920 with 15,500 affiliated  companies)	317,000 as of 2000 (1:1 with a legal unit).	Yes (343,000)	No	Yes (363,000)	Yes (317,000 as of 2000)	From the general legal register, jointly maintained by the National Board of Patents and the National Board of Taxes.	- Annual inquiries are   made for existing legal   units. - Data from the private   data providers
France	Yes (28,962 as of 1 jan.2002)	Yes (2,447,000 in industry, commerce & services as of Jan 2001)	Yes (2,803,522 as of Jan.2001)	No	No	Yes (5,659,500 as of Jan. 2001, 35% are inactive)	- Administrative declarations - Annual declarations of   social data - Surveys on enterprises,   etc.	- The same as the left. - Annual survey on the   complex groups

 

Germany	No (Under development)	Yes (1:1 with a legal unit)	Yes	No	No	Yes (3.4 million as of 2002)	- Statistical address files - Files from the tax   authorities, the Federal   Institute for   Employment, etc.	- The same as the left. - Register surveys.
Greece	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	- Data from the Ministry   of Economy &   Finance - Statistical surveys	- The same as the left.
Hungary	No (Under development)	Yes (1:1 with a legal unit)	Yes (938,000 economic units as of 1997)	Yes	No	Yes	- Various sources   including the legal units
Iceland	N.A.	Yes (It is assumed that 1:1 with a legal unit)	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Yes	- VAT Register - Register of Wang Payers - Data from corporate &   income taxes.	- The same as the left.
Ireland (2004)	Yes (200)	Yes (235,880 as of July 2004. Of which, 5,191 are multi-unit)	Yes (247,786)	Yes (235,884)	No	No	- VAT administrative records, etc.	- Business Register   Survey, etc.
Italy	Yes (19 with 1,372 legal units)	Yes (4,409,389 as of Oct, 2001)	Yes	No	No	Yes	- Various sources	- Various sources - A specific activity of   profiling for most   important enterprise   groups.
Luxem- bourg	No	Yes (30,000 ~ 45,000)	N.A.	Yes	N.A.	Yes (160,000)	- VAT Register - Social security data, etc.	- The same as the left.

Nether- lands	Yes (90,000)	Yes (714,600 as of 2001)	Yes (1 million, 85% of the enterprises  had got a linkage with a legal unit)	No	No	Yes (1.5 million, of which 1.1 million are active)	Chambers of Commerce and/or other administrative sources such as the tax and the social security administration.	- Profiling. - Automatic deduction   rules.
Norway	N.A.	Yes (395,482)	Yes (442,325)	N.A.	N.A.	Yes (540,696)	- Several registers - Statistical surveys - Other contact with   enterprises	- The same as the left. - Update from all   sources are made daily.
Poland	N.A.	Yes	Yes (4,233,743)	N.A.	N.A.	Yes (3,776,791)	- National Register of   National Economic   Units	- The same as the left. - The register is updated   monthly.
Portugal	Yes (Developed on July, 2003)	Yes	Yes	No	No	No, due to legal constraints	- Statistical surveys - Register of Names and   Addresses	- The same as the left. - Update Survey of the   Register
Slovak Republic (as the end of 2001)	No	Yes (62,827 and 303,506 small entrepreneurs)	Yes  (of enterprises with 20 & more employees)	No	No	Yes (93,072)	- Various administrative   sources	- The same as the left
Spain (as of 1 Jan.2002)	Yes (21,654)	Yes (2,645,317 as of Jan.2002)	Yes (2,920,503)	No	No	Yes (2,710,389)	- Various administrative &   statistical sources.	- The same as the left. - External and internal   sources.
Sweden (as of April 2003)	Yes (26,000)	Yes (845,623, Most of the enterprises are formed 1:1 with a legal unit)	Yes (922,659)	Yes	Yes	Yes (800,000)	- National Patent and   Registration Office	- Inquiries on the   business register - Other internal   questionnaires - A maintenance group. - Data from Dun &   Bradstreet.
Switzerland	No (Planned)	Yes (288,171 as of 1995)	Yes (372,796 as of 1995)	No	No	Yes (900,000 of which the active is 400,000)	- Various administrative &   statistical sources.	- The same as the left. - Quarterly survey.
Turkey	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	- General Census of Industry   and Establishments.	- A Register Inventory   Study was conducted in   May 2001.
UK (Jan.2003)	Yes (100,000)	Yes (3.8 million, of which the number of businesses with no employees is 2.9 million)	Yes	Yes (for complex businesses)	No	Yes  (There are 3.8 million businesses, of which 2.1 million are on the IDBR)	- Traders for VAT and   Inland Revenue. - Employers operating a   Pay As You Earn   scheme.	- Annual Register Inquiry - Several other surveys   and information from   Companies House. - A profiling team.

Notes
[1] Korea National Statistical Offic
[2] Statistics Directorate of OEC
[3] Peter Struijs (Eurostat), International Harmonization of Statistical Units, Paper presented at 10th Roundtable on Business Survey Frames, 1996
[4] Eurostat Manual of Business Statistics, available at 
http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/dsis/bmethods/info/data/new/embs/embs1_3.html
[5] The Interpretation of the Enterprise in Business Statistics and the BR – Theoretical and practical aspects, Paper presented at the16th International Roundtable on Business Survey Frames, 2002.
[6] Similar concept of Canadian Corporate Families is also found in such countries as Japan (Zaibatsu and Keiretsu), Korea, France,Italy and Sweden.
[7] Office of Thrift Supervision, Holding Companies Handbook Update, Section: Large and Complex Enterprises (Conglomerates), Nov.2003, http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/7/74089.pdf.
[8] Carey Olineck, Examining the Coherence between Enterprise and Establishment Data: A Canadian Perspective, Aug.2002, http://www.icis.dk/ICIS_papers/B2_3_2.pdf.
[9] 2001 Structural Business Statistics, http://www.statistik.at/englisch/results/business/structural_tab1.shtml.
[10] Source: National Practices – Overview, Paper presented at the Eurostat Task Force meeting on Statistical Units, 26 April 2001(for European countries). 
[11] The enterprise is closer to the administrative world than the KAU in that it consists of entire administrative units, namely legal units,while the KAU is defined in terms of its purpose, that is in terms of homogeneity (Eurostat’ Methodological Manual of Short-term  Indicators, p.19, 1996).
[12] Annemarie Stoelinga, The Enterprise Group – a comparison with Eurostat methodology and with the UK and Sweden, Statistics Netherlands, p.12, Sep.2002.
[13] Among the OECD member countries, Sweden is observed to delineate all kinds of statistical units such as the enterprise group,the enterprise, the local unit/establishment, the KAU and the local KAU.
[14] Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/decision_sme_en.pdf.
[15] The method of calculation on the diversification is shown in the paper of Mahesh N. Rajan, available at http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/2000/mrajan-paper.pdf.