On page 2 they write:

> An elasticity of 1 implies that every 1 percentage point of GDP growth
is associated with a 1 percentage point increase in employment.

I might have a problem with the english language here, but this sounds to me as: if the elasticity is one then if GDPgrowth is 1 percent then emloymentincrease=employmentgrowth is also 1 percent, if GDPgrowth is 2 percent then employmentgrowth is also 2 percent etc. thats why I assumed that for the elasticity they just take the quotient.
A little later they write:

> Box 19b shows that globally, the world’s aggregate employment elasticity was
between 0.32 and 0.37 during the four time periods between 1992 and 2008. This implies
that for every 1 percentage point of additional GDP growth, total employment has grown
between 0.32 and 0.37 percentage points during these periods."

That means if one accept that they take a quotient (?) then the quotient has to be Lgrowth/GDPgrowth and not the other way around.

I am just as you unsure what ILO means with \$GDP_{growth}\$, that was another reason why I wrote "seem". I used \dotG here just as an arbitrary symbol for "the growth of GDP as ever meant by ILO", thats why I wrote Let .... denote the growth of GDP. I should have taken a less ambigous symbol.

You say you would be happy with \$GDP_{growth}=log(GDP(year) - log(GDP(year-1))\$? I could also imagine it could be e.g. \$GDP_{growth}= (GDP(year) - GDP(year-1))/GDP(year-1))\$. I actually meanwhile wrote them again twice an email, begging them for a formula.

The important information was for me however that the GDP grows faster than employment thats why I dared to write further. But of course it is good to know "how" faster.