arbiter
JournalsAccount

The hidden costs of flexibility: A comparative study of OHS outcomes in using temporary agency work

Pille Strauss-Raats & Dragoș Adăscăliței

Economic and Industrial Democracy: an international journal2025https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x251332174article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.37

Abstract

This article addresses a gap in comparative research regarding the role of organisational factors in shaping occupational health and safety (OHS) outcomes when using temporary agency work (TAW). Using the Economic Pressures–Work Disorganisation–Regulatory Failure (PDR) framework, the article applies a comparative case study approach to analyse OHS outcomes in two sites of one multinational company. The findings reveal how differences in organisational practices embedded in different institutional contexts shape TAW use, influencing exposure to work-related injuries and exhaustion. These effects are particularly evident in the context of workforce segmentation, where trade-offs and unintended consequences emerge for the user firm.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x251332174

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{pille2025,
  title        = {{The hidden costs of flexibility: A comparative study of OHS outcomes in using temporary agency work}},
  author       = {Pille Strauss-Raats & Dragoș Adăscăliței},
  journal      = {Economic and Industrial Democracy: an international journal},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x251332174},
}

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

Flag this paper

The hidden costs of flexibility: A comparative study of OHS outcomes in using temporary agency work

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

Evidence weight

0.37

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

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
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.