Question 18 in the "questions" document:
Should a division 50 for the trade and repair of automobiles be maintained? The ISIC structure questionnaire did not provide a conclusive answer to this question. In addition, following the new developments, the question would have to supplemented by:
a) Is there a big enough percentage of units only selling cars to businesses or households?
b) Is there a big enough percentage of units only selling or repairing?
This concerns the homogeneity of such potential categories, i.e. it refers to classifying units, not turnover or value added considerations.
Irrespective of the answers to the questions listed, it is proposed to move the retail sale of automotive fuel to retail trade.
Do you support the structure that is shown in the ISIC structure draft, or do you support maintaining a category more similar to the previous division 50?
Summary of responses to question 18
Replies were sent in by 48 countries, 32 support a division 50, 16 support the draft ISIC structure.
Arguments to support 50: - Combination in the same unit of sale and repair;
- Difficulty to separate retail sale and wholesale;
- Frequent change of codes;
- Change of the "new" 50 without economic changes;
- Heterogeneity.
Arguments to support the draft ISIC structure:
- There are clear wholesale and retail markets (import = wholesale, no customer distinction);
- There are sufficient numbers of dealers and specialised repair facilities.
Other questions:
a) Is there a big enough percentage of units only selling cars to businesses or households?
ABS&NZ, Philippines - Yes
Brazil - Usually the same unit sells to businesses and households
Mexico: passenger cars --> retail trade
trucks --> wholesale
b) Is there a big enough percentage of units only selling or repairing?
ABS&NZ, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Mexico - Yes
Irrespective of the answers to the questions listed, it is proposed to move the retail sale of automotive fuel to retail trade.
ABS&NZ, Germany, Italy, Afristat, France - Yes