A truism: what organizations do varies wildly. Aside from government entitities and not-for-profits, even among the welter of profit-seeking organizations (companies and partnerships) the idiosyncracies of their activities often make it difficult to pigeon-hole the them as part of a single “industry”. Yet in the face of such “blooming buzzing confusion,” law-firm surveys request their participants to self-describe their unitary industry (aka sector). Making the mishmash worse, law firms lack standardized names for industries 1 so the terminology they present in their reports’ demographic profiles wanders all over.
To sample this dispersion of industry terms I looked at 14 surveys that were released in 2017. 2
I chose that set in part to bound the research and in part because the latest surveys might reflect whatever standardization of industry names has diffused through those firms. 3
As discussed before, disclosures regarding industries of participants varies from none at all to careful breakdowns and percentages. In this group, only four listed their participants’ industries with their respective percentages. To get an average percent by industry, I converted several of the industry names in the report to standardized names. The first column of the table contains the industry name used in a report (and to save space sometimes from two reports) while the second column contains the industry to which I assigned it. Other report names matched my standard names exactly or closely.
A profile of participants by industry not only credentializes the report but also allows firms to analyze their data by industry. Readers also welcome industry designations so that they can focus on data pertaining to their own industry, if the analysis proceeds to that level.
The plot shows the 12 standard industry names where at least two reports included both the industry (as standardized) and a percentage of all respondents in it. As can be seen from the number labels, most of the industries had only two values. The dots align on the bottom axis with the average of the two or more values for each industry. Thus, Finance appeared in various forms in all four surveys and averaged 28% of all their respondents.
Interpreted broadly on this small data set, the more often surveys identify a particular industry, the higher its percentage of respondents. This makes sense. Larger industries are more likely to be recognized, identified, and represented.
- We pass over whether any enterprise can realistically be summarized in a single term. ↩
- CARLTON FIELDS JORDAN BURT, THE 2017 CARLTON FIELDS CLASS ACTION SURVEY: BEST PRACTICES IN REDUCING COST AND MANAGING RISK IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION (2017); CLIFFORD CHANCE, INSIGHTS INTO ASIA PACIFIC M&A (2016); DLA PIPER, DLA PIPER’S 2017 COMPLIANCE & RISK REPORT: COMPLIANCE GROWS UP INCREASING BUDGETS AND BOARD ACCESS POINT TOWARD GREATER PROMINENCE, INDEPENDENCE (2017); HAYNES AND BOONE, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP BORROWING BASE REDETERMINATIONS SURVEY: FALL 2017 (2017); HOGAN LOVELLS, BREXOMETER (2017); K&L GATES, GENERAL COUNSEL IN THE AGE OF DISRUPTION (2017); LITTLER MENDELSON, THE LITTLER ANNUAL EMPLOYER SURVEY (2017); MORRISON \& FOERSTER, M+A SEMI-ANNUAL LEADERS SURVEY (2017); NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT, 2017 LITIGATION TRENDS ANNUAL SURVEY: PERSPECTIVES FROM CORPORATE COUNSEL (2017); NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT, REPUTATIONAL RISK AUSTRALIA (2017); PROSKAUER, VALUE INSIGHTS: DELIVERING VALUE IN LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW — A SURVEY OF IN-HOUSE DECISION-MAKERS ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT MATTERS (2017); ROPES & GRAY, RISKY BUSINESS: MITIGATING EXPOSURE THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE RISK MANAGEMENT (2017); SEYFARTH SHAW, 2017 REAL ESTATE MARKET SENTIMENT SURVEY (2017); and WHITE & CASE, MINING & METALS 2017: A TENTATIVE RETURN TO FORM (2017). ↩
- More surveys from 2017 almost certainly exist, and I would welcome hearing from any reader about any not listed in the footnote. I also omitted one 2017 survey because it had no industry data and two other surveys by another firm because I included a third from that firm. ↩