Safety risk factors in two different types of routine outsourced work: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Outsourcing generates risks for client firms but these vary according to the contracted task. This systematic literature review reports on 50 empirical studies that investigate the safety risk factors associated with outsourcing aligning them with the three categories of safety risk factors identified by Underhill and Quinlan in their PDR-Model. By using a 2x2 framework based on the strategic value of the task to the client firm (core or peripheral) and its level of complexity (complex or routine) we could combine studies of outsourced relationships between firms with those between firms and individuals. This demonstrated that there is little empirical evidence available for the safety risk factors associated with complex outsourced tasks. It also showed that routine tasks core to the client business contained risk factors associated with both economic and reward pressure and disorganization. Finally, safety risk factors associated with routine peripheral tasks were mainly due to economic and reward pressures in firm-to-individual contracting, but due to disorganization in firm-to-firm contracting.

Temporary safety. Regulating working conditions in temporary agency work

“…Causal pathways and connections within and between the three dimensions are exemplified in Quinlan et al (2001) and later applications (Bohle et al, 2015, Underhill & Quinlan, 2011. While OHS risks have been indirectly referenced as being a function of legislative requirements (Pilbeam et al, 2020, Quinlan & Bohle, 2009, with Underhill and Quinlan (2011) suggesting this dimension to partly underlie the other two factors, the hierarchical structure of the model has not been explicitly elaborated on.…”

“…At a conceptual level, the model places precarious employment practices at the centre (or in the background) of all three dimensions at different levels of impact, showing their effect on workers but also how they challenge work organization, existing regulatory frameworks and stakeholders outside employment relationships (for example labour inspectorates or occupational health service providers). Applying the model in a literature review on OHS of outsourced work, Pilbeam et al (2020) found that the three dimensions were applicable to analyse both firm-individual as well as firm-firm relationships.…”

“…In a recent literature review on OHS in outsourcing relationships, Pilbeam et al (2020) found that while economic pressures dominated risks in outsourcing from firms to individuals, work disorganization was the key dimension in firm-to-firm relationships.…”

“…In general, while regulatory and institutional approaches in addressing job quality are under active debate (Contouris et al, 2016, Lee & McCann, 2011, Leka & Jain, 2014, Rubery et al, 2018, exploring regulatory effects at workplace level in the context of OHS is less common (Pilbeam et al, 2020). This can be attributed to disciplinary boundaries (Quinlan & Bohle, 2009) as well as data availability, with a high degree of contextual diversity making it difficult to isolate particular impact mechanisms in policy assessments (Landsbergis et al, 2014, Quinlan et al, 2010.…”

“…Dimensions of risks associated with precarious employment as presented in Quinlan et al (2001:345). Over time, the PDR model has gained increasing research attention, emerging from a "hopefully useful crude typology of risk factors" (a compilation of the authors' own words in Quinlan et al, 2001) to a promising framework to shed light on mechanisms behind work-related health in atypical labour (Bohle et al, 2015, Hünefeld et al, 2020, Pilbeam et al, 2020. The PDR model was recently specifically pointed out as a framework that has the potential to advance understanding of the association between TAW and work-related health (Hünefeld et al, 2020).…”