In the last two decades, Quality of Working Life (QWL) has become a core element of the European social model and the European Employment Strategy. “More and better jobs” is a strategic goal promoted within Europe for emphasising the attention in QWL. However, there is a large debate in the literature on the definition of QWL, its dimensions, and consequently on the methods to use for its measurement. To the best of our knowledge, the systematic reviews currently available in the literature on QWL measurement in European organisations investigate only a particular industry and/or working population. Moreover, they do not focus specifically on composite indicators, although they appear promising in facilitating QWL understanding and comparisons for supporting decision-makers and policy makers. To overcome these gaps, we conducted a systematic review to identify composite indicators for measuring QWL in European organisations. The review returned 19 studies that are analysed based on a set of factors related to QWL locutions, index name, geographical area, industry or population, level of analysis, dimensions, type of data, inputs, outputs, and test and/or validation. The results highlight a significant heterogeneity among the indicators, confirming the lack of an agreed upon QWL composite indicator for Europe. Such heterogeneity concerns also QWL dimensions. A critical comparison of the different composite indicators is provided, along with a unifying proposal of QWL macro-dimensions. Several gaps in the literature are pointed out suggesting directions for future research.

Composite Indicators to Measure Quality of Working Life in Europe: A Systematic Review

Stefana E.
;
Marciano F.;Rossi D.;Cocca P.;Tomasoni G.
2021-01-01

Abstract

In the last two decades, Quality of Working Life (QWL) has become a core element of the European social model and the European Employment Strategy. “More and better jobs” is a strategic goal promoted within Europe for emphasising the attention in QWL. However, there is a large debate in the literature on the definition of QWL, its dimensions, and consequently on the methods to use for its measurement. To the best of our knowledge, the systematic reviews currently available in the literature on QWL measurement in European organisations investigate only a particular industry and/or working population. Moreover, they do not focus specifically on composite indicators, although they appear promising in facilitating QWL understanding and comparisons for supporting decision-makers and policy makers. To overcome these gaps, we conducted a systematic review to identify composite indicators for measuring QWL in European organisations. The review returned 19 studies that are analysed based on a set of factors related to QWL locutions, index name, geographical area, industry or population, level of analysis, dimensions, type of data, inputs, outputs, and test and/or validation. The results highlight a significant heterogeneity among the indicators, confirming the lack of an agreed upon QWL composite indicator for Europe. Such heterogeneity concerns also QWL dimensions. A critical comparison of the different composite indicators is provided, along with a unifying proposal of QWL macro-dimensions. Several gaps in the literature are pointed out suggesting directions for future research.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Composite Indicators to Measure Quality of Working Life in Europe A Systematic Review.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Full text
Tipologia: Full Text
Licenza: PUBBLICO - Creative Commons 4.0
Dimensione 1.27 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.27 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11379/544416
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact