Training ROI by sector: what the data can and cannot tell us

Are there training ROI figures by sector?

Not reliable ones. The ROI of training is calculated programme by programme, from the costs and results of a specific company (see How to measure the ROI of a training plan). No statistical body collects these calculations in a consistent way so that they could be aggregated by sector.

The "average ROI by sector" figures found online usually come from unpublished sources or marketing documents, with no method described. Before reusing such a figure, three questions apply: which study, which sample, which method to isolate the effect of training? Without answers, the figure should not inform a decision.

What we actually know falls into two categories of data: studies on the average effect of training, and statistics on training effort by sector.

What does research say about the effect of training?

The most robust studies use panel data (the same companies or industries followed over time) and econometric methods that limit bias.

Study	Data	Main finding
Dearden, Reed and Van Reenen (2006), Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics	British industries, 1983-1996	A one-point increase in the share of workers trained (for example from 10% to 11%) is associated with about 0.6% more value added per worker and 0.3% higher wages
Konings and Vanormelingen (2015), Review of Economics and Statistics	Belgian firms, 1997-2006	The productivity gain of a trained worker is substantially higher than the wage gain; the working-paper version (IZA, 2010) estimates it at 23% versus 12%
Tharenou, Saks and Moore (2007), Human Resource Management Review	Meta-analysis of 67 studies	Positive link with HR outcomes and organisational performance, very weak link with financial outcomes
Garavan et al. (2021), Human Resource Management Journal	Meta-analysis of 119 studies	Positive, direct link between training and organisational performance, stronger over time

These results are averages. They show that training, in general, improves productivity. They do not say that a given programme will pay off.

Does the sector change the return on training?

This is the most direct question, and the meta-analysis by Garavan and co-authors answers it explicitly. The authors tested three organisational context factors: industry sector, company size and technology intensity. They found no moderating effect of these three factors on the relationship between training and performance. The relationship does vary by country (performance orientation, labour costs) and grows stronger over time.

Tharenou, Saks and Moore (2007) conclude that training is more strongly related to outcomes when it is aligned with the company's strategy and capital intensity. In other words, the fit between training and the organisation's needs matters more than belonging to a particular sector.

What varies by sector in France?

The French employer training survey (EFE-e, the French part of the European Continuing Vocational Training Survey, CVTS), analysed by Céreq (the French centre for research on qualifications), DARES (the labour ministry's statistics department) and France compétences, describes training effort by sector in 2020. The access rates below are the share of employees who attended at least one course in the year (private companies with at least one employee).

Sector	Employees trained through courses (2020)	Average hours per trainee
Financial and insurance activities	75%	n.s.
Manufacturing industry	53%	20 hours
Transport and storage	48%	27 hours
Administrative and support services	33%	n.s.
Construction	27%	55 hours
Arts, entertainment and other services	24%	70 hours
Accommodation and food services	19%	n.s.
Agriculture	14%	n.s.
All sectors	40%	28 hours

Source: Céreq Bref no. 438-439 (2023). "n.s.": value not stated in the text of the publication.

Gaps are just as wide within a sector: in manufacturing, the share of employees trained ranges from 76% in pharmaceuticals to 33% in textiles. Céreq links the high level in finance and insurance to the skills structure of the sector, with a large proportion of managers and intermediate professions, who access training more often.

Mandatory training: a different kind of return

The share of mandatory training in course hours also varies: 34% in manufacturing and 35% in administrative and support services, compared with 24% on average (Céreq, 2023). Céreq attributes this to regulatory constraints in manufacturing and to the certifications required in temporary work (safety, electrical work, operating machinery).

The OECD, in its study of 100 company cases published in 2021, observes that firms' main motivation for training is not performance: it is compliance with legal requirements on health, safety and security.

For such training, "ROI" is not measured in productivity gains. It is measured in risks avoided (accidents, penalties, bans on operating) and business continuity. Comparing its return with that of sales training makes no sense. See Mandatory training in companies: your legal obligations.

How can you estimate ROI in your sector?

Since no reliable sector benchmark exists, the only defensible estimate rests on your own data:

1. Separate mandatory training from development training: they are evaluated differently.
2. Choose a business indicator that is already tracked for each programme evaluated (defect rate, lead times, conversion, complaints, accidents).
3. Plan a comparison: an untrained group, or trend tracking before and after.
4. Convert the isolated effect into money using internal values (cost of an error, an hour, an accident).
5. Present a range rather than a single figure.

What the data does not allow us to say

• That a sector has a training ROI "of X%": no serious public source measures it.
• That a sector that trains a lot gets a better return per euro invested: training effort and its return are two different measures.
• That an average result applies to your company: meta-analyses show average effects, with wide variation from one programme to another.