arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

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

Colin Pilbeam et al.

Policy and Practice in Health and Safety2020https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2020.1787701article
AJG 1
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

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 2 × 2 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.

11 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2020.1787701

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{colin2020,
  title        = {{Safety risk factors in two different types of routine outsourced work: a systematic literature review}},
  author       = {Colin Pilbeam et al.},
  journal      = {Policy and Practice in Health and Safety},
  year         = {2020},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2020.1787701},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

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

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.39 × 0.4 = 0.16
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.