Temporary agency work (TAW) is increasingly common. In Finland, 2.4% of employees worked through agencies in 2024 (Eurostat 2025). Between 2010 and 2019, temporary workers’ accident rates exceeded the national average and in 2021, approximately 5,000 recorded workplace accidents were recorded (Finnish Workers’ Compensation Center 2022; Statistics Finland).
TAW is characterised by a triangular employment relationship involving the agency, the agency worker, and the user company. The structure offers flexibility for user companies but often creates confusion over responsibilities for workers’ well-being (ILO 2009 & 2016; Hopkins 2017; Howes 2011; Menger-Ogle 2023).
Agency workers are formally employed by the agency but work under the user company’s supervision (Directive 2008/104/EC). Both parties share obligations for working time and occupational safety and health (OSH) according to Finnish legislation (Työaikalaki 872/2019; Työturvallisuuslaki 738/2002). Agencies must also provide occupational health care (OHC) and accident insurance to their workers (Työterveyshuoltolaki 1383/2001; Työtapaturma- ja ammattitautilaki 459/2015). Consequently, agency workers’ well-being is shaped by both agency and user company practices (Imhof & Andresen 2018).
Although the European Framework Directive (89/391/EEC) requires employers to ensure safe work environments and adequate instructions, TAW arrangements can lead to inequality between agency and permanent staff (Felfe et al. 2008; Håkansson & Isidorsson 2012). TAW positions are often low-skilled and extended employment in such arrangements may increase job insecurity and health risks (Forde & Slater 2005; Chambel & Sobral 2019; Hünefeld et al. 2020). However, TAW may also function as a pathway to permanent employment (Hopp et al. 2016).
Previous studies have reported deficiencies in OSH responsibilities and practices, including inadequate training, unclear division of responsibilities, and insufficient protective equipment, which may exacerbate risks (Hopkins 2017; Knox 2018; Lippel et al. 2011; Santiago et al. 2020; Underhill & Quinlan 2011).
This study is part of the ESF (European Social Fund) Sustainable Gig Work project with an aim to enhance productivity and well-being at work. The project is coordinated by Metropolia UAS and conducted together with Tampere University, University of Oulu and Satakunta UAS. The study sought to extend knowledge about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to OSH and well-being in Finnish TAW by applying the SWOT framework.
The research question was:
What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to OSH and well‑being of agency workers from the perspective of temporary work agencies and a pension insurance company?
This qualitative descriptive study was conducted using purposive sampling. Twenty managers from 11 temporary work agencies representing multiple sectors and one expert from a pension insurance company known for its pioneering role in work ability management in Finland took part. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, following the ethical principles of voluntary participation, the right to withdraw, anonymity, and confidentiality, as stipulated by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK (Kohonen et al. 2019) and the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR (EU 2016/679).
Semi-structured interviews explored participants’ views on the strengths and development needs of TAW, particularly concerning OSH and well-being practices, communication, and legal awareness. The data were analysed using inductive content analysis leading to the establishment of four main categories: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats concerning OSH and well-being in TAW.
Strengths related to OSH and well‑being in temporary agency work
Key TAW strengths in promoting agency workers’ OSH and well-being lie in responsible management practices both in agencies and user companies, agencies’ recruitment expertise and extensive networks, and their resources in supporting user companies’ risk management. Key strengths for workers were working time autonomy and a variety of job opportunities.
User companies had an interest in agencies’ accident rates and OSH measures. Agencies inspected workplace safety in user companies and raised an agency worker’s case if there were safety concerns in the workplace. Furthermore, agencies organised safety orientation for their workers, while user companies had their own orientation practices. Agencies had an automated system to monitor their workers’ working hours to prevent excessive workloads.
Agencies’ recruitment competence, networks and knowledge of labour legislation and collective agreements were described. Agencies had market knowledge and in-depth understanding of the user companies. As a result, agencies could quickly respond to user companies’ changing workforce needs from their job applicant pools.
The agency is also a good partner for a jobseeker, who needs to address a job application only to the agency, which then contacts possible user companies. Agencies can provide work in different regions of Finland. TAW promoted employment when, for example, a summer job was extended or part-time work in several user companies composed full-time employment. TAW offered employment possibilities for people with partial work ability. Agencies recruited workers from abroad and assisted them with work permits and accommodation. They also supported dismissed workers by transitioning them into new jobs. Agencies know their client companies and are professionals in assessing job applicants’ competence.
Agencies know the hidden vacancies on the labour market, and job applicants benefit from this silent knowledge. If an agency worker is not satisfied with their current workplace, the agency can offer an alternative. Agency workers are not dependent on a single user company if that company cannot provide continued employment. TAW offers work opportunities for retired people and students, and individuals in full-time jobs can take on extra work through TAW.
Agencies help user companies manage their personnel costs and risks, including OSH, more effectively. The agency guarantees the user company the necessary agency worker at an agreed price, and the user company only pays for the time the worker works. Thus, the agency bears the risk in case of the worker’s illness. The agency also covers employment management costs and provides workwear.
Moreover, the agency offers its expertise in OSH and other employment matters, as one interviewee stated:
There could be situations where a user company does not have the competence to offer quality occupational safety services. Then an agency can help and develop the process.
Agency workers have the freedom to control their work in terms of where to work, what kind of work to do, and when and how much to work. They can achieve better work‑life balance due to their high degree of working time autonomy. Agency managers also emphasised their possibilities to offer their workers opportunities to gain experience in various jobs, helping them maintain and develop diverse professional skills.
Key strengths:
- Responsible management practices of the OSH and well-being in the agencies and user companies
- Agencies’ recruitment competence and networks
- Agencies’ resources to support risk management in user companies
- Working time autonomy
- Variety of job opportunities
Weaknesses also persist
Deficiencies within agencies and user companies, and in the terms of TAW, were identified as weakening agency workers’ OSH and well-being. These were observed in areas such as integration and equality, cooperation and communication in OSH processes, orientation, compliance with legislation, responsibility allocation, and the nature of contingent work.
According to the interviewees, agency workers were not always well integrated into the user company’s work community. This could stem from a poor working atmosphere, where workers were divided into permanent and agency staff. Permanent workers might perceive agency workers as a burden, due to lack of common language, for example. Additionally, agency workers were not always well integrated into their own agency. Agency workers were described as outsiders, especially in cases where they had minimal contact with the agency after starting work at the user company. One interviewee stated:
The basic dilemma is that many agencies have only a minimal connection with their own worker. After a light recruitment process, the worker goes to the user company and is in a kind of ‘no-man’s land’. The worker is not accepted by the work community in the user company and is like an outsider there.
Sometimes agency workers were treated differently compared to user companies’ own employees. Some user companies wanted agency workers to be visually distinguishable, for example, by using agency-branded clothing. Agency managers also described inequality in layoff situations.
Cooperation and communication between agencies, agency workers, and the user companies need improvement. Agency workers sometimes received conflicting instructions from the agency and the user company. Agencies recognised the need for tailored communication strategies for each user company due to their varying needs and expectations. Communication from user companies to agencies was also insufficient. Agencies were often unable to monitor agency workers’ workloads in real time, and they also expressed a wish to receive feedback that user companies gave to agency workers. Contrarily, feedback about agency workers was sometimes shared with the agency but not with the workers themselves.
Communication between agencies and agency workers could be hindered by workers’ poor IT skills and the lack of an effective communication channel. Lack of cooperation and communication with the OHC provider was also noted. Despite their important role in supporting workers’ work ability, OHC providers do not always act proactively. According to the interviewees, improved collaboration with the OHC provider would enhance cost predictability and content of services. Agency managers also expressed the need for more active cooperation with user companies regarding workers’ coping at work.
The need to improve OSH processes in TAW was described. Agencies sometimes lacked knowledge of the risks related to agency workers’ tasks and work environments, and systematic risk assessments were not always conducted. Agency workers might not report hazards, incidents or positive safety observations, as one interviewee described:
The problem is that… we do not necessarily know about them [hazards and incidents]… although we emphasise that everything must be reported, because back pain can occur first after two weeks and cause work disability.
OSH management in user companies was sometimes inadequate, and agencies were not always aware of this. OSH representatives employed by agencies may lack access to user companies. Agencies had limited opportunities to intervene in the OSH practices of user companies and ensure OSH of their workers, despite being responsible for their accident-related costs. Industrial plant shutdowns also posed OSH risks due to long shifts, unfamiliar environments, and large numbers of workers operating simultaneously under time pressure.
Insufficiencies in orientation were also experienced. In user companies, orientation was sometimes deficient and unsystematic. User companies might lack appropriate instructions and processes, and designated personnel. Lack of common language might impede orientation. In agencies, urgency to send workers to user companies hindered company-specific orientation. Additionally, the large number of agency workers and high labour turnover posed challenges to maintain effective orientation and to keep workers up to date on OSH matters.
Deficiencies in complying with the legislation related to occupational health and OSH in TAW were also described. Distribution of responsibilities was sometimes unclear for the agencies, agency workers and user companies, and they were unsure of the legislation and their rights and responsibilities. Some user companies were reported to intentionally misinterpret collective agreements. Agencies did not always comply with legislation either, due to lack of competence or competitive pressures.
Contingent work, characterised by short-duration assignments offered at short notice, could cause uncertainty and stress for agency workers. They are required to integrate into new workplaces and work communities, and to learn the rules and instructions in a limited amount of time.
Key weaknesses:
- Integration and equality
- Cooperation and communication
- OSH processes
- Orientation of new employees
- Complying with legislation and distribution of responsibilities
- Contingent work in TAW
External factors create opportunities
External factors that can enhance TAW employment as well as OSH and well-being of agency workers include labour market globalisation, temporary work as an opportunity for people with partial work ability, growing interest from user companies in OSH processes, and digitalisation.
Interviews highlighted networking on the global labour market. As the full potential of immigrant workforce has not yet been fully realised, international recruitment could be expanded. One interviewee stated:
We would like to have more agency workers with an immigrant background… but they are only a small percentage of our Finnish employees… but those who we have, they have good competence.
TAW could be an opportunity for job seekers with partial work ability. In the future, work ability could be considered even more effectively during recruitment to reduce the risk of work disability. Agencies are well placed to consider the needs of both job seekers and user companies, and there is a growing awareness of the importance of early-career work ability risk assessments.
Placing greater emphasis on assessing work ability in relation to job demands was considered essential for managing future risks. As one interviewee noted:
At the recruitment stage, we should be aware of any weaknesses or vulnerabilities the worker may have, in terms of ability to work. Then we could assess what kind of work the person is capable of doing, and manage the risks.
According to the interviewees, user companies are increasingly interested in the effectiveness of their own orientation processes. Agencies can act as external facilitators and help improve these processes. Digitalisation also offers new development opportunities in recruitment, orientation, communication, and OSH promotion. Time saved by digital means could be redirected to strengthen human interaction.
Key opportunities:
- Labour market globalisation
- TAW as an opportunity for people with partial work ability
- Increasing interest in OSH of agency workers in user companies
- Digitalisation
Threats are linked to various factors
External factors threatening agency workers’ OSH and well-being include the shortage of manpower, sector-related high OSH risks, incomprehension of the transformation of work, obsolete OSH legislation and collective agreements, lack of objective information in media and external guidance on the implementation of OSH and well-being in TAW, and global pandemics.
A lack of competent manpower is currently faced in professions requiring specific skills and expertise. In particular, the restaurant industry faces OSH risks due to insufficient orientation during the hectic first work shifts in user companies. Also, high OSH risks in construction industry and manufacturing threaten workers’ OSH and well-being. For some agencies, it is more attractive to focus on industries with lower OSH risks.
The interviewees also mentioned incomprehension of the transformation of work. For example, some municipal employment offices may consider agencies as competitors instead of partners with a shared goal of facilitating employment. Trade unions may see TAW as a threat rather than a pathway to employment. Currently, the terms for receiving unemployment benefits do not encourage TAW, and some collective agreements even restrict its use. This may lead to situations where a permanent contract of employment with the agency is replaced by a fixed-term one with a user company, which is not always in the best interests of the worker.
The current OSH legislation does not seem to fit well with TAW. Agency workers face difficulties in choosing an OSH representative because they often do not know each other and work across diverse sectors. Although agencies are responsible for the accident-related costs of agency workers, they have limited ability to protect them as they are working in user companies’ premises.
According to the interviewees, OSH and well-being related to TAW have not yet been discussed in the media to the extent they should, nor have they been included in the OSH guidance. Lastly, global pandemics may cause layoffs, dismissals, and psychological stress among agency workers.
Key threats:
- Labour shortages
- Sector-related high OSH risks
- Incomprehension of the transformation of work
- Obsolete OSH legislation and collective agreements
- Lack of objective information on the implementation of OSH and well-being in TAW
- Global pandemics
Lessons learned and the way forward
Agency workers’ OSH and well-being are influenced by both internal organisational practices and external conditions. This study revealed a complex OSH landscape in TAW, where significant strengths coexist with notable challenges, while opportunities must be balanced against threats.
Agencies and user companies promote OSH and well-being of temporary agency workers, especially through responsible management, effective job-worker matching, their extensive networks and professional risk management. For agency workers, TAW offers work-life flexibility and opportunities to broaden their skill sets.
The study also confirms several weaknesses, as identified in previous studies as well: agency workers often face poor integration and unequal treatment (see Chambel & Sobral 2019; Hopkins 2017; Hünefeld et al. 2020 Håkansson & Isidorsson 2012; Menger-Ogle et al. 2023) and greater workloads compared to permanent staff. Other challenges include poor orientation, unclear division of responsibilities, conflicting instructions, insufficient communication, and fear of reporting safety incidents (Hopkins 2017; Hünefeld et al. 2020; Knox 2018; Menger-Ogle et al. 2023; Underhill & Quinlan 2011). Developing OSH processes and communication and cooperation between the agency, the user company, and the agency worker is needed.
Furthermore, our study revealed that identification and assessment of workplace hazards and risks were insufficient. All parties’ awareness of their legal rights and obligations should be enhanced. Issues related to job insecurity and non-compliance with legislation and the division of responsibilities persist, as found in earlier research (Chambel & Sobral 2019; Hopkins 2017; Hünefeld et al. 2020; Knox 2018; Underhill & Quinlan 2011).
Despite these shortcomings, notable opportunities exist – especially in use of the global labour market, growing attention to agency worker OSH in user companies, employing those with partial work ability and leveraging digitalisation for better orientation and communication. For these benefits to materialise, agencies and user companies must act responsibly and proactively (Knox 2018).
Identified threats include labour shortages, high OSH risks in some sectors, challenges posed by outdated OSH legislation and collective agreements, and global pandemics. Accident frequency remains a concern (Tapaturmavakuutuskeskus 2025). Structural issues, such as misunderstanding the changing working life and insufficient information on TAW-related OSH, also pose risks.
In conclusion, to meet the evolving needs of working life, attention should be paid to workforce diversity and the potential of digitalisation. The global labour market can help address future labour shortages. Increasing interest towards OSH can be leveraged to tackle sector-specific OSH risks, with adequate OSH competence. Particular focus should be put on improving the integration and equality of agency workers, enhancing cooperation and communication within the triangular TAW relationship, and involving OHC providers. Addressing these challenges requires stronger collaboration, updated regulatory frameworks, and broader societal commitment to supporting agency workers’ OSH. Future research should incorporate the perspectives of agency workers and user companies and evaluate interventions to improve OSH practices in TAW.
Authors
-
Riitta Kärkkäinen
Senior Lecturer at SAMK, Master of Public Health (MPH), M.Sc. Ergonomics, Occupational Physiotherapist, PhDPhD, Senior Lecturer Riitta Kärkkäinen works at Satakunta University of Applied Sciences and, as a member of the national Sustainable Gig Work team, has explored health, safety and well-being in gig work. Her research interests focus on work ability, well-being, and ways to extend the working careers of ageing employees.
About the author -
Kati Ylikahri
Senior Lecturer at Metropolia UAS, Master of Public Health (MPH), Public Health NurseSenior Lecturer Kati Ylikahri has worked as a project manager in the national Sustainable Gig Work project, where she studied and developed approaches to improve health, safety and well-being in gig work. Her research interests include sustainable work, occupational health and safety, and promoting well-being at work.
About the author -
Niko Cajander
Researcher, PhD in Industrial Engineering and Management, M. Ed. in Educational PsychologyIn his research projects, Niko Cajander focuses on labour markets, talent management and corporate social responsibility, with a particular interest in how workforce strategies and organisational practices influence sustainable and responsible business development.
About the author -
Susanna Mattila
Doctoral Researcher, M.Sc. (Tech)Susanna Mattila, M.Sc. (Tech), works at Tampere University. She has studied and developed health, safety and well-being in gig work in the Sustainable Gig Work project. She is interested in sustainability, occupational health and safety, safety of technologies, and promoting well-being.
About the author -
Sari Tappura
D.Sc. (Tech.) in Safety ManagementSari Tappura, D.Sc. (Tech.) Sari Tappura, D.Sc. (Tech.) in Safety Management, holds a title of docent in Occupational Safety (University of Oulu) and Safety Management and Leadership (Tampere University). Her research focuses on managing occupational health and safety. In the national Sustainable Gig Work project she studied and developed approaches to improve health, safety and well-being in gig work.
About the author
References
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14.
Chambel, M.J. & Sobral, F. (2019). When temporary agency work is not so temporary. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 40(2), 238–256.
Chermack, T. J. & Kasshanna, B. K. (2007). The use and misuse of SWOT analysis and implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 383–399.
Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (89/391/EEC).
Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107–115.
Eurostat 2025. Temporary employment agency workers by sex, age and NACE Rev. 2 activity. Accessed 18 June 2025.
Felfe, J., Schmook, R., Schyns, B., & Six, B. (2008). Does the form of employment make a difference? – Commitment of traditional, temporary, and self-employed workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 81–94.
Finnish Workers’ Compensation Center (2022). Pakki [database]. The number of accidents at work occurring during temporary agency work has doubled within 15 years. Accessed 18 June 2025.
Forde, C., & Slater, G. (2005). Agency working in Britain: Character, consequences and regulation. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(2), 249–271.
General Data Protection Regulation GDPR (EU 2016/679)
Gürel, E. & Tat, M. (2017). SWOT analysis: a theoretical review. The Journal of International Social Research, 10(51), 994-1006.
Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now?: A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215–251.
Howes, V. (2011). Who is responsible for health and safety of temporary workers? EU and UK perspectives. European Labour Law Journal 2(4): 379–400.
Hopkins, B. (2017). Occupational health and safety of temporary and agency workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 38(4), 609–628.
Hopp, C., Minten, A., & Toporova, N. (2016). Signaling, selection and transition: empirical evidence on stepping-stones and vicious cycles in temporary agency work. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(5), 527–547.
Hünefeld, L., Gerstenberg, S., Hüffmeier, J. (2020). Job satisfaction and mental health of temporary agency workers in Europe: a systematic review and research agenda. Work Stress 34(1), 82-110.
Håkansson, K., & Isidorsson, T. (2012). Work organizational outcomes of the use of temporary agency workers. Organization Studies, 33(4), 487–505.
Imhof, S., & Andresen, M. (2018). Unhappy with well-being research in the temporary work context: mapping review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(1), 127-164.
International Labour Organization, Sectoral Activities Programme. (2009). Private employment agencies, temporary agency workers and their contribution to the labour market: Issues paper for discussion at the Workshop to promote ratification of the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181), 20–21October 2009. International Labour Office. Geneva.
International Labour Organization. (2016). Non-standard employment around the world: Understanding challenges, shaping prospects. International Labour Office. Geneva.
Knox, A. (2018). Regulatory avoidance in the temporary work agency industry: Evidence from Australia. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 29(2), 190–206.
Kohonen, I., Kuula-Luumi, A. & Spoof, S-K. (Eds.). (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland: Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 2019. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK.
Lippel, K., Ellen, M., Ron, S., Werhun, N., Agnieszka, K., Liz, M., Carrasco, C. & Pugliese, D. (2011). Legal protections governing the occupational safety and health and workers’ compensation of temporary employment agency workers in Canada: reflections on regulatory effectiveness. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 9(2), 69-90.
Menger-Ogle, L. M., Baker, D., Guerin, R.J. & Cunningham, T. R. (2023). A staffing perspective on barriers to and facilitators of temporary worker safety and health. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 66(9), 736–749.
Nikolaou, I. E., & Evangelinos, K. I. (2010). A SWOT analysis of environmental management practices in Greek Mining and Mineral Industry. Resources Policy, 35(3), 226–234.
Santiago, K., Yang, X., Ruano-Herreria, E. C., Chalmers, J., Cavicchia, P., & Caban-Martinez, A. J. (2020). Characterising near misses and injuries in the temporary agency construction workforce: qualitative study approach. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 77(2), 94–99.
Tapaturmavakuutuskeskus. (2025). Työtapaturmien lukumäärä kasvoi ja taajuustaso nousi vuonna 2024. [The number of occupational accidents increased and the frequency rate rose in 2024]. Accessed 18 June 2025.
Työaikalaki 872/2019 [Working Time Act].
Työtapaturma- ja ammattitautilaki 459/2015 [Workers’ Compensation Act].
Työterveyshuoltolaki 1383/2001 [Occupational Health Care Act].
Työturvallisuuslaki 738/2002 [Occupational Safety And Health Act].
Underhill, E., & Quinlan, M. (2011). Beyond statutory enforcement – alternative approaches to improving OSH in the temporary agency sector. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 9(2), 109–131.