Hubbry Logo
Body shoppingBody shoppingMain
Open search
Body shopping
Community hub
Body shopping
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Body shopping
Body shopping
Body shopping
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Body shopping is the practice of consultancy firms recruiting workers (generally in the information technology sector) to contract their services out on a tactical short- to mid-term basis. IT services companies that practice body shopping assert that they provide real services (such as software development) rather than the "sham" of merely farming out professionals to overseas companies.[1][neutrality is disputed]

History and origin

[edit]

Body shopping in IT originated during the mid-1990s when there was a huge demand for people with mainframe, COBOL and related technology skills to prevent systems being affected by the Y2K bug.

Most specialist Y2K consulting companies operating in the US, Europe, the Middle East, Japan and Australia outsourced their technical manpower requirements to companies operating in India.

During 1996–97, such companies based in India responded to the heavy demand by recruiting and training local Indian graduates specifically for Y2K. Their consultants either worked onshore or offshore at high use rates, generating huge profit margins and cash reserves. The high profit margin during this period resulted in fast growth and sufficient assets to invest and expand operations to other IT related business segments after Y2K.

Modern era

[edit]

In the modern era of IT off-shoring, outsourcing, and cloud computing, it is widely accepted that IT service companies' strategy (especially for those operating with a huge technical manpower base in India) still continue to focus on similar lines. The companies that do body shopping are renowned for training and developing technical skills for a wide range of client base that is of current demand. Researchers point out that many Indian companies focus heavily on developing a large pool of human resources with technical skills creating a marketplace to 'buy' technical skills on an hourly or daily basis.

This led to significant market developments in two areas in the early 2000s:

  1. Fierce competition amongst IT service companies from India competing on a global level to win 'time and material and labor tenders' from multinational giants for their IT needs. Such a strategy, though heavily linked to procurement needs of the end-customer, enables IT companies operating from offshore (in particular India) to forecast demand for technical and managerial competencies based on IT-skills-market trends to position themselves competitively.[2]
  2. Technology and consulting companies operating mainly in western markets during the 1990s (e.g. Accenture, IBM, Hewlett-Packard) were forced to open offices in southeast Asia and move their manpower base there to compete with traditional manpower providers operated from India (e.g. Infosys, Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services) on large global-level IT bids.

According to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services report to Congress, for fiscal year 2012, 59 percent of H-1B visas went to computer-related occupations. The same report also cited that 64 percent of the H-1B visa petitions granted were given to workers originating from India.[3][4]

Revenue model

[edit]

Body shopping companies mainly recruit off-shore and provide training to their employees using their off-shore facilities.

Employment costs (both short-term and permanent) are generally offset by the highly profitable billing ratio, especially for on-site assignments abroad. Most companies boast a use rate of 80%[citation needed], which also takes into account the potentially long 'bench period', where an employee is not billable or when their skills are not in demand.

Indian body shopping networks

[edit]

In India, traditional body shopping has evolved in its due course post-Y2K era to create strong networking and collaboration between competing Indian body shops working abroad. All body shops claim to have the ability to place Indian workers in almost any country using the resources and services of other Indian body shops operating in the target country.[5]

In one documented case study deemed as a typical example, a body shop in Hyderabad was able to win a 360 man-month deal with a U.S. company that urgently needed 40 IT workers with a very "specific" skill on a 9-month project. Although the Indian body shop company could easily find lower paid workers in India for the job, the H-1B visa process would take too long to bring them into the United States to work. Thus, the Indian firm forwarded a request to its associates' network to locate 40 Indian temporary workers in the United States. A search was undertaken by the network for available Indian H-1B workers, resulting in a list of recently laid-off Indian H-1B workers in the US. Sponsorship for the laid-off Indian H-1B workers was reassigned to a body shop and a portion of the newly employed worker's salary was given as commission to the peer body shop that helped to locate the laid off H-1B workers in their associated peer network of Indian body shops. This process of quickly recruiting available H-1B holders is what is referred to as "body shopping".[5]

Offshoring and nearshoring

[edit]

A similar "offshoring" practice started appearing more and more in the 2010 timeframe and which was a practice known as "nearshoring". Nearshoring was the practice of hiring mostly IT professionals from Mexico. The outward appearance being the advantage of "nearshoring" personnel being within a 2-hour or less time difference to continental U.S. companies opting to use these nearshoring services.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Body shopping

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Body shopping is a labor intermediation model prevalent in the global information technology industry, in which specialized recruitment firms, largely based in India, hire skilled software engineers and IT professionals to contract them out on a tactical, short- to medium-term basis to client companies in developed economies such as the United States and the United Kingdom, typically leveraging temporary work visas like the H-1B to capitalize on international wage arbitrage. This system emerged prominently in the late 1990s, driven by surging demand for IT labor during the Y2K remediation and dot-com expansion, allowing clients to access flexible, cost-effective talent pools without long-term commitments or internal hiring overheads. Key features include the role of body-shopping agencies as brokers who manage recruitment, visa processing, and placement, often retaining a significant margin from the differential between client billing rates and worker compensation, which sustains a niche ecosystem of high worker mobility and project-based deployment. While enabling rapid scaling for IT projects and generating substantial remittances for origin countries, the practice has drawn scrutiny for fostering precarious employment conditions, including dependency on agency sponsorship that curtails worker autonomy, potential underpayment relative to local standards, and challenges in knowledge transfer due to transient staffing. Empirical analyses highlight how this model constructs labor market flexibility through human agency but perpetuates uncertainty for migrants, who face risks of contract non-renewal, geographic dislocation, and limited career progression amid opaque agency practices.

Definition and Core Mechanics

Conceptual Foundation

Body shopping refers to a staffing model in the information technology sector wherein intermediary firms recruit skilled professionals, primarily software engineers, and deploy them on temporary contracts to client organizations for project-specific needs, treating labor as a modular resource akin to equipment rental. This approach, distinct from full project outsourcing, emphasizes providing individual or small-team "bodies" to augment client workforces on-site, often in high-demand markets like the United States, without transferring ownership of intellectual property or long-term employment obligations. The model emerged as a response to fluctuating demand for specialized IT skills, enabling clients to scale operations flexibly while avoiding the fixed costs of permanent hires. At its core, body shopping exploits international disparities and migration pathways to achieve labor cost : firms from lower- countries, such as , source talent at reduced domestic salaries, secure visas like the U.S. H-1B, and place workers at premium U.S. client rates, pocketing the margin between billing and compensation. This creates a where the intermediary maintains a bench of visa-dependent professionals, ready for rapid deployment, which minimizes client recruitment risks and timelines but ties worker mobility to the firm's contracts. Economically, it aligns with principles of efficient in , as firms avoid capital-intensive investments and leverage global talent pools to meet just-in-time project demands, though it has drawn scrutiny for potential suppression in host markets due to the influx of lower-cost labor. Empirical data from the early onward shows Indian IT firms deriving up to 70% of U.S. revenues from such on-site placements, underscoring the model's profitability through volume and markup on . The conceptual viability rests on visa regimes that permit temporary, employer-sponsored entry, facilitating a transnational labor market detached from permanent pathways. Without such mechanisms, body shopping would revert to pure ; instead, it hybridizes remote and on-site work, driven by clients' preferences for direct oversight in sensitive projects. This structure incentivizes scale: larger intermediaries build networks of thousands of engineers, amortizing and relocation costs across multiple assignments, while smaller operators focus on niche s. Critically, the model's hinges on sustained skill shortages in host countries and lax enforcement of parity rules, as evidenced by U.S. Department of Labor reports on H-1B compliance gaps in the .

Operational Workflow

The operational workflow of body shopping commences with aggressive recruitment drives by intermediary IT staffing firms, predominantly targeting engineering graduates and mid-level professionals in India, where firms promise lucrative US-based placements and long-term career opportunities to secure talent. These firms, often smaller consultancies, conduct campus hiring and online campaigns, vetting candidates through basic technical assessments to build a pool of workers certified in skills like programming and database management. Following recruitment, firms initiate the visa sponsorship process, primarily leveraging the H-1B program, which caps at 65,000 visas annually plus 20,000 for advanced degree holders; petitions require filing a (LCA) attesting to payment and no adverse impact on workers. To navigate the lottery system, some body shops submit multiple registrations per worker or use affiliated entities to boost odds, a practice highlighted in analyses of over 300,000 H-1B approvals from 2018-2023 where staffing firms dominated filings despite lacking end-clients at registration. Approved workers, typically arriving without immediate assignments, are relocated to the , often housed in firm-maintained guesthouses holding 8-10 individuals to minimize costs. Placement then occurs through sales and networking efforts, where firms "shop" workers to clients—such as tech giants or enterprises—via proposals emphasizing cost savings from offshore-sourced labor; contracts are short-term (3-12 months), with workers deployed on-site or remotely under client direction but remaining on the staffing firm's payroll. The firm bills clients at rates of $60-100 per hour, retaining 30-50% margins after paying workers $20-40 hourly, far below averages for similar roles. Unplaced workers enter "bench" status, legally required to receive prevailing wages (e.g., $60,000+ annually for entry-level IT roles per Department of Labor data), though gaps have enabled non-payment or illegal deductions, contributing to fraud cases like the 2013 $34 million settlement for systemic visa and wage violations. Contract execution involves minimal firm oversight, with workers handling client-specified tasks like or development, while the staffing firm manages administrative compliance, such as I-9 forms and . Upon project completion, workers cycle back to the firm's pool for reassignment, extending visas via extensions tied to new LCAs, or face return if unplaced; this rotational model sustains supply chains but exposes workers to job insecurity and dependency on firm goodwill for sponsorships, which are rarely fulfilled. High turnover—often exceeding 20% annually in such arrangements—stems from these dynamics, alongside ethical concerns over worker treatment akin to indentured labor.

Historical Evolution

Early Origins in Western Markets

The practice of body shopping in the Indian information technology sector originated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when nascent software firms began exporting services to the by recruiting Indian engineers and dispatching them to work on-site at American client locations. This model arose amid limited offshore capabilities in , prompting companies to leverage lower domestic labor costs while fulfilling U.S. demand for programming expertise in areas such as mainframe systems and legacy technologies. Indian firms typically handled and basic , while multinational corporations or clients sponsored temporary work visas—initially under the H-1 category predating the 1990 H-1B program—to enable short-term placements, often lasting months to a few years. By 1980, body shopping dominated the nascent Indian software industry, with firms acting as intermediaries to supply personnel for tactical projects rather than developing full-scale offshore operations. Throughout the 1980s, body shopping solidified as the primary export mechanism, accounting for approximately 75% of Indian software earnings by the late decade, as firms like , established in 1968, scaled on-site deployments to U.S. clients for cost-efficient execution of maintenance and development tasks. In 1988, an average of 65% of export contracts were performed entirely at client sites, reflecting the model's reliance on physical presence to build trust and address skill gaps in the U.S. market during the era's computing expansion. This approach generated modest revenues—Indian software exports totaled around $12 million in 1980, rising gradually—but faced challenges including dependencies, cultural adjustments for workers, and perceptions of Indian firms as mere labor brokers rather than strategic partners. Pioneering entities innovated by focusing on high-volume recruitment from graduates, enabling rapid scaling amid U.S. labor shortages in specialized coding. The model's entrenchment in Western markets, particularly the U.S., was catalyzed by policy shifts like India's liberalization of software exports and U.S. openness to skilled , though it drew early critiques for prioritizing temporary placements over or long-term . By the end of the decade, over 700 Indian firms engaged in on-site services, with 80% of exports involving body-shopped personnel, laying groundwork for the surge tied to Y2K demands and H-1B expansions. This phase underscored body shopping's role as a low-barrier entry for Indian participation in global IT, fostering networks but also exposing vulnerabilities to visa policy fluctuations and client-site dependencies.

Rise of Indian-Dominated Networks

The practice of body shopping emerged prominently in India's IT sector during the late , when U.S. demand for programmers spilled over to Indian firms, leading to a model where engineers were recruited domestically and dispatched onsite to client locations under temporary visas. At that time, approximately 75% of Indian software export earnings derived from such bodyshopping activities, which involved short-term placements emphasizing low-cost labor over complex development. By 1988, nearly 90% of software revenues came from onsite work, with firms like (TCS) pioneering contracts for U.S. and European clients by leveraging India's growing pool of engineering graduates. This established early networks of recruiters, trainers, and visa sponsors centered in Indian hubs like and Bangalore, facilitating the export of rather than products. India's in marked a pivotal acceleration, dismantling licensing restrictions and export controls that had previously hampered IT growth, thereby enabling firms to scale operations and access foreign markets more freely. Software exports, which stood at around $50 million in the late , expanded to $200 million by 1993, growing at 30% annually, as bodyshopping networks formalized supply chains linking Indian talent to Western demand. By 1990, over 700 Indian software firms engaged in onsite and bodyshopping services, with 80% of revenues from the U.S., where H-1B visas—capped at 65,000 annually following the 1990 Immigration Act—provided the legal conduit for placements. Companies such as and emulated TCS's approach, building interconnected ecosystems of subcontractors and agents to handle recruitment, visa processing, and client matchmaking, solidifying Indian control over this model. The Year 2000 (Y2K) remediation crisis in the mid-to-late 1990s further entrenched Indian dominance, generating acute global demand for code remediation that Indian networks fulfilled through H-1B-sponsored onsite deployments. Firms like TCS, , and secured major contracts for Y2K compliance, dispatching thousands of engineers to U.S. sites and establishing benching practices—where idle workers awaited assignments—to maintain supply flexibility. This period saw Indian IT exports surge, with bodyshopping networks evolving into sophisticated operations that captured a disproportionate share of H-1B approvals for IT roles, driven by India's emphasis producing cost-competitive talent. By the early 2000s, these networks had transformed from placements into entrenched systems, though pressures to shift toward began emerging as U.S. clients sought cost reductions beyond visa-dependent models.

Post-Millennium Shifts and Adaptations

The dot-com bust from 2000 to 2002 curtailed U.S. IT spending, diminishing demand for onsite placements central to body shopping and exposing vulnerabilities in visa-reliant models. The September 11, 2001 attacks exacerbated this by imposing security-driven delays in processing, creating backlogs that persisted for years and disrupted worker deployments. Indian IT firms, facing these constraints, accelerated a transition from predominantly onsite "body shopping" to , wherein substantial work shifted to low-cost facilities in . This adaptation hinged on maturing infrastructure, including broadband connectivity and standardized processes like (CMMI) certifications, enabling remote execution of coding, testing, and maintenance tasks previously requiring physical presence. Firms restructured contracts into "global delivery models," typically allocating 70-80% of effort offshore and limiting onsite roles to coordination and , thereby reducing visa exposure while preserving margins through labor arbitrage. By 2005, offshore revenue constituted over 60% of exports for major players, up from negligible shares pre-2000, as evidenced by data tracking the sector's pivot. The Reform Act of 2004 further catalyzed change by raising the annual cap to 65,000 (plus 20,000 for U.S. holders), imposing higher fees, and mandating enhanced documentation to curb fraud, which disproportionately affected low-wage body shops. These measures elevated compliance costs, prompting firms to prioritize scalable offshore operations over transient placements and to invest in capability-building, such as R&D centers and acquisitions of Western consultancies for localized expertise. Leading conglomerates like expanded Indian headcounts from approximately 30,000 in 2000 to over 150,000 by 2010, underscoring the offshore scaling. Subsequent adaptations included hybrid models integrating body shopping as a minor onsite element within end-to-end service agreements, alongside diversification into and higher-end consulting to navigate persistent regulatory scrutiny, including U.S. Department of Justice probes into visa misuse during the mid-2000s. This evolution mitigated risks from visa caps and geopolitical tensions but drew criticism for enabling wage undercutting, as Department of Labor audits revealed prevalent wage violations in H-1B-dependent placements. By the , reduced relative reliance on H-1B s—dropping from peak usage amid gains—reflected a matured less tethered to physical labor .

Business and Economic Framework

Revenue Generation Strategies

Body shopping firms primarily generate through markups on the billable rates charged to client organizations for placing workers at sites. Clients are billed an hourly or fixed monthly rate that exceeds the compensation disbursed to the workers, with the differential funding , visa administration, overhead, and profits. For temporary IT placements, markups commonly range from 20% to 75% of the worker's pay rate, enabling firms to capture significant margins while providing clients access to specialized labor at competitive costs. This model leverages cost between low offshore recruitment and training expenses—often conducted in countries like , where labor and facilities are inexpensive—and higher onshore client rates. Firms minimize direct costs by sourcing talent from regions with lower wage baselines, providing initial skill enhancement offsite, and then deploying workers via visas such as the H-1B, which binds labor to the sponsoring entity. The resulting allows for scalable placement volumes, with revenue scaling directly with logged by placed consultants. To maximize revenue, body shopping operations emphasize high-volume visa acquisitions, including strategic applications in the H-1B lottery to build a larger pool of deployable workers, thereby increasing placement capacity and reducing downtime risks. Firms also pursue long-term client contracts to ensure steady billing streams and diversify across sectors like banking and , where demand for short- to mid-term IT expertise persists. Ancillary income may arise from visa maintenance fees or transitions to higher-value project-based engagements, though the core profitability hinges on maintaining elevated markups amid competitive pressures.

Recruitment, Visa Logistics, and Supply Chain

Recruitment in body shopping primarily targets software engineers and IT professionals from India, drawing from a vast pool of engineering graduates produced by the country's technical education system, which graduates over 1.5 million engineers annually. Firms such as Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Infosys conduct mass hiring through campus recruitment drives at institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and regional engineering colleges, as well as via online job portals and third-party consultancies. Candidates are often entry-level or mid-career workers enticed by promises of skill development, competitive starting salaries in India (typically ₹3-6 lakh per annum for freshers), and opportunities for U.S. onsite assignments, though initial contracts emphasize offshore work with deferred international relocation. Visa logistics center on the U.S. H-1B program, which body shopping firms exploit to import workers for client placements. Sponsoring employers must first obtain certification via a (LCA) from the Department of Labor, certifying that the proffered wage meets or exceeds the prevailing rate for the occupation and location, and that hiring will not adversely affect U.S. workers' wages or conditions. This is followed by filing with U.S. and Services (USCIS), subject to an annual cap of 65,000 visas plus 20,000 for holders of U.S. master's degrees or higher, triggering a random lottery when registrations exceed the limit—over 470,000 in 2025. Indian IT firms dominate approvals, with securing 2,004 H-1B visas and 1,523 in the first half of 2025 alone, enabling deployment to U.S. client sites amid high demand from sectors like technology and finance. Extensions beyond the initial three-year term (up to six years total) are common, sustaining the workforce pipeline. The operates as a tiered model, where body shopping firms serve as intermediaries between recruited talent and end-clients, often through subcontracting layers that amplify margins via . Workers are trained minimally in —focusing on client-specific technologies—before visa processing and deployment, forming a "just-in-time" staffing pool. Prime contractors (e.g., large U.S. tech firms) engage body shops or their subcontractors to fulfill project needs, billing clients at rates of $100-150 per hour while compensating H-1B workers at LCA-mandated levels, frequently 20-40% below U.S. citizen medians for equivalent roles, as evidenced by Department of Labor data. This structure, prevalent since the , relies on high-volume H-1B filings to offset lottery risks and includes "benching" practices—temporarily idling unplaced workers at reduced pay—despite regulatory prohibitions under H-1B rules requiring full wages during non-productive periods. Multi-tier subcontracting, sometimes involving five or more layers, extracts value at each step but introduces coordination inefficiencies and dependency on visa renewals.

Key Actors and Global Networks

Prominent Indian IT Conglomerates

, , , and HCL Technologies represent the leading Indian IT conglomerates in body shopping operations, which involve recruiting engineers in and deploying them onsite at foreign client locations via visas such as the H-1B. These firms scaled their models in the 1990s and 2000s by leveraging 's engineering talent pool to provide cost-competitive staffing for Western corporations, often prioritizing volume placements over specialized . TCS, the largest by workforce and revenue, has historically dominated this space, with onsite deployments forming a core revenue stream from U.S. clients in sectors like banking and . In recent years, these conglomerates secured substantial H-1B approvals to sustain body shopping, though usage has declined amid U.S. policy shifts and local hiring pushes. For instance, in early fiscal year 2025, TCS led with 5,505 approvals, followed by at 2,004, at 1,807, and HCL America at 1,728; also ranked prominently among Indian sponsors. Over the prior five years, top firms including TCS, , , and HCL reduced H-1B sponsorships by 46% and approvals by 44%, reflecting adaptations like U.S.-based to counter visa lottery constraints and fees.
CompanyApproximate H-1B Approvals (Early FY2025)
TCS5,505
2,004
1,807
HCL America1,728
This table illustrates ongoing reliance, with Indian IT firms comprising about 20% of total approvals despite the downturn. and have similarly emphasized hybrid models blending body shopping with nearshore capabilities, while HCL focuses on niche placements. These practices enable clients to fill skill gaps at lower costs—often 30-50% below local rates—but expose firms to benching risks, where unplaced workers strain margins during project lulls.

International Extensions and Competitors

The body shopping model, originating prominently in the US-India corridor, extended to during the late 1990s and early , where Indian recruitment agencies and IT firms leveraged temporary skilled migration s, such as the subclass 457 visa, to deploy engineers onsite for client projects in sectors like banking and telecommunications. This adaptation capitalized on Australia's demand for IT skills amid local shortages, enabling firms to arbitrage wage differences similar to H-1B practices, though on a smaller scale with annual approvals peaking at around 5,000-7,000 Indian IT workers in the mid- before visa reforms tightened scrutiny in 2018. In , extensions materialized through mechanisms like the UK's Skilled Worker visa (formerly Tier 2) and Germany's EU Blue Card, allowing Indian conglomerates such as and to place personnel onsite, often via intra-company transfers under L-1 equivalents to bypass quota limits. By the 2010s, these operations supported onsite staffing for EU clients in automotive and finance, with Indian firms securing over 20,000 skilled migrant approvals annually across select European markets by 2019, though and post-2020 mobility pacts introduced variability. A 2025 UK-India further facilitated this by exempting Indian IT workers from contributions for three years, enhancing competitiveness against local labor. Direct competitors to Indian-dominated body shopping remain limited due to the model's reliance on English-proficient, scalable talent pools and established visa networks, but alternatives emerged from Eastern European providers like those in Poland and , offering nearshore onsite or hybrid staffing via free movement, which avoids third-country visa delays and appeals to clients prioritizing time-zone alignment over cost alone. Philippine firms, while dominant in with over 1.3 million agents by 2023, have ventured into IT staffing using similar temporary work visas in and the , though their scale in high-skill software body shopping lags behind India's, capturing under 10% of comparable placements. Chinese IT staffing entities face geopolitical barriers, limiting extensions to markets like , where they compete indirectly through domestic rather than visa arbitrage.

Societal and Labor Market Impacts

Contributions to Innovation and Cost Efficiency

Body shopping enables client firms in Western markets to realize substantial cost efficiencies by leveraging a global of IT professionals, often from , at billing rates 20-40% lower than equivalent domestic hires after accounting for agency margins and visa logistics. This stems from wage arbitrage, where workers receive salaries aligned with Indian benchmarks—typically 50,000−50,000-80,000 annually for mid-level engineers on U.S. sites—while clients pay 100,000−100,000-150,000 per head, inclusive of the firm's markup but still below full U.S. compensation packages that include benefits and higher base pay averaging 120,000−120,000-160,000. Such reductions in effective labor costs, documented at up to 36% for tech roles through H-1B-dependent , allow firms to undertake large-scale projects like system integrations or maintenance without inflating fixed payrolls, thereby improving profit margins and enabling reinvestment in core operations. In terms of innovation, body shopping facilitates rapid access to specialized skills in high-demand areas such as and , where domestic shortages persist; H-1B workers, comprising a key component of this model, filled 28% of U.S. programming positions by the late 1990s and have since contributed disproportionately to patent outputs in and sectors. Empirical analyses link this talent infusion to elevated productivity and rates in IT firms, as foreign engineers complement native teams by accelerating development cycles and introducing practices honed in volume-driven environments like India's IT hubs. Overall, these dynamics have boosted sector-wide growth, with H-1B-linked activities adding an estimated $86 billion annually to the U.S. economy through enhanced output and tax contributions, underscoring the model's role in sustaining technological edge amid escalating global competition.

Drawbacks for Domestic Workforces and Wage Dynamics

The practice of body shopping, particularly through H-1B visa placements by Indian IT firms, enables employers to access labor at effective costs below market rates for equivalent domestic skills, exerting downward pressure on wages in the U.S. IT sector. Economic analyses indicate that H-1B workers, often sourced from lower-wage economies, accept compensation packages that undercut prevailing rates; for instance, a 2021 Economic Policy Institute report documented cases where subcontractors paid H-1B workers salaries significantly below those of U.S. counterparts in identical roles, such as Oracle database experts earning up to 20-30% less after accounting for visa dependencies and deferred benefits. This wage arbitrage arises from systemic violations of prevailing wage requirements, with data showing over 80% of H-1B approvals in certain occupations certified at levels below the local median, allowing firms to suppress overall payroll expenses. Empirical studies further substantiate wage stagnation linked to H-1B inflows facilitated by body shopping networks. Research using H-1B lottery outcomes as a natural experiment found that firms receiving additional visas experienced reduced average employee earnings by approximately 2-5% in the short term, alongside higher profits, suggesting substitution effects where foreign labor displaces higher-cost domestic hires. In the IT industry, where body shops dominate H-1B sponsorships (accounting for over 70% of approvals in some years), this has contributed to stagnant real wage growth for software developers and engineers, with median salaries plateauing around 110,000−110,000-120,000 from 2010-2020 despite productivity gains, as foreign worker availability diminished incentives for wage competition. Domestic workforces face direct displacement risks, as body shopping models prioritize visa-dependent contractors over permanent U.S. hires, leading to documented layoffs followed by H-1B replacements. High-profile cases, such as Disney's 2015 outsourcing of IT roles where 250 American workers were terminated and required to train lower-paid H-1B successors, illustrate how these practices erode for mid-career domestic employees. Government oversight reports highlight inadequate enforcement against such substitutions, with the Department of Labor certifying placements despite evidence of adverse effects on U.S. workers' employment conditions. Over time, this fosters a bifurcated labor market, where reliance on imported talent discourages investment in domestic skill development and perpetuates cycles of for native-born professionals.

Controversies and Regulatory Battles

Allegations of Exploitation and Ethical Lapses

Critics have alleged that body shopping practices exploit holders by imposing substantial upfront recruitment and visa fees, often ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 per worker, paid to Indian staffing agencies and sub-agents, effectively creating that binds workers to employers under threat of financial ruin or visa revocation. U.S. Department of Labor regulations prohibit employers from charging such fees for H-1B sponsorship, yet enforcement gaps allow intermediaries to shift costs to workers, who then endure below-market wages—sometimes 15-20% lower than prevailing rates for comparable U.S. roles—to recoup debts. From 2000 to 2013, the Department of Labor documented $29.7 million in illegally withheld wages from approximately 4,400 H-1B tech workers supplied by labor brokers, highlighting systemic wage theft in the chain. Workers placed through body shops frequently face "benching," where they receive minimal or no pay during periods without client assignments, despite remaining tethered to the sponsoring firm via visa restrictions that limit job mobility and discourage complaints. Investigations have revealed intimidation tactics, including threats of , in , or physical , to enforce compliance and suppress efforts among these migrant workers. A 2014 joint probe by , involving interviews with thousands of Indian H-1B holders, exposed an underground economy where body shops, often subcontractors to major U.S. firms like and , treat workers as interchangeable commodities, prioritizing rapid placement over skill-matching or fair treatment. Ethical concerns extend to visa program manipulation, with body shops accused of inflating H-1B lottery entries through shell entities to secure visas for underqualified or generic IT roles, displacing skilled applicants and undermining the program's intent for "specialty occupations." In one documented case, firms exploited lottery flaws to capture up to 40% of approvals despite employing few workers directly, routing them to clients at markups that suppress overall sector wages. Class-action lawsuits, such as those against firms like , have alleged discriminatory hiring favoring H-1B workers from while exploiting them through substandard conditions, culminating in a 2024 California jury finding of discrimination against non-Indian applicants but underscoring broader H-1B dependency issues. These practices have prompted bipartisan inquiries in 2015 into flagrant H-1B abuses by firms, though regulatory responses have been limited by industry lobbying.

National Security and Sovereignty Concerns

Body shopping in the IT sector, particularly through H-1B visas sponsored by Indian firms, has elicited concerns over foreign workers' access to proprietary and sensitive data within U.S. client organizations. Outsourcing models enable temporary placement of non-citizen employees in roles involving , cybersecurity, and infrastructure management, raising risks of exfiltration or inadvertent data leaks due to varying oversight standards abroad. For instance, India's data privacy frameworks lag behind U.S. equivalents, amplifying vulnerabilities in cross-border operations where client codebases and algorithms are shared onsite. Critics, including U.S. policymakers, highlight how such practices contribute to insider threats, as foreign nationals from firms like and —top H-1B sponsors accounting for a significant share of approvals—gain physical and digital proximity to critical systems without equivalent vetting to U.S. personnel. While empirical cases of tied directly to body shopping are sparse compared to state-sponsored threats from adversaries like , documented breaches in outsourced environments underscore potential for economic , with U.S. firms reporting heightened IP theft risks from offshore partners. Recent analyses warn that delegating cybersecurity functions to Indian entities could compromise national defenses, given enforcement gaps in foreign jurisdictions. On grounds, body shopping fosters structural dependence on imported labor, eroding domestic control over skilled workforce development and innovation capacity in strategic sectors. Over 70% of H-1B recipients being Indian nationals exacerbates this, as preferential visa use by intermediaries displaces U.S. training investments and hollows out native talent pipelines in STEM fields essential for and economic resilience. U.S. executive actions in September 2025 explicitly framed H-1B program abuses as a threat, arguing they deter Americans from critical careers and enable foreign dominance in tech supply chains. This reliance challenges labor market sovereignty by prioritizing short-term cost efficiencies over long-term self-sufficiency, potentially leaving host nations vulnerable to geopolitical leverage or supply disruptions during visa policy shifts. Proponents of reform contend that unchecked body shopping undermines causal links between immigration policy and national competitiveness, as evidenced by stalled domestic upskilling amid visa-driven wage suppression in tech hubs. In 2013, settled civil allegations of systemic with the U.S. Department of and and for a record $34 million, stemming from the misuse of B-1 business visitor visas to perform H-1B-level work and false statements in Labor Condition Applications to underpay workers and displace U.S. employees. The company admitted to paperwork violations but denied intentional fraud or competitive misuse of visas, while critics argued the practices exemplified body shopping's incentives to skirt wage protections and prioritize low-cost labor imports over domestic hiring. Similar scrutiny extended to other Indian IT firms, with U.S. authorities probing patterns of visa abuse that enabled staffing agencies to flood client sites with temporary workers at below-market rates, often evading requirements. Policy responses intensified under the Trump administration's 2017 "Buy American, Hire American" , which directed stricter enforcement of H-1B regulations to prioritize U.S. workers, raise wage floors, and curb via body shopping by mandating full recruitment of Americans before visa sponsorship. This led to increased denial rates for H-1B petitions from consulting firms, which dominated approvals (e.g., over 70% of visas going to entities in prior years), as USCIS heightened scrutiny on end-client letters and job portability to prevent "benchings" and rapid placements characteristic of body shopping models. In 2020, temporary suspensions of H-1B entries amid further disrupted operations, exposing vulnerabilities in visa-dependent staffing chains. The Biden administration proposed H-1B reforms in 2023, shifting to beneficiary-centric lottery selection to reduce gaming by body shops submitting multiple entries per worker, alongside stricter definitions of specialty occupations to disqualify routine IT support roles often body-shopped. These aimed to address fraud where firms like Indian conglomerates secured disproportionate approvals (e.g., and historically claiming thousands annually) by limiting bulk filings and enhancing site visits for compliance. However, implementation faced delays amid industry pushback claiming talent shortages, though data showed such visas frequently supported displaceable coding tasks rather than irreplaceable innovation. In September 2025, President Trump imposed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions via executive proclamation, explicitly targeting abuse by body shops and consulting firms that treat visas as low-cost labor pipelines, exempting extensions and status changes but prohibiting fees for high-wage roles to favor genuine skill imports. This reform, projected to slash approvals for outsourcing-heavy applicants (who comprised over 80% of low-wage H-1Bs), drew immediate legal challenges from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, arguing it harms businesses reliant on foreign talent without congressional authority. Proponents, including labor advocates, hailed it as a deterrent to wage suppression, citing empirical evidence that body shopping depresses U.S. IT salaries by 10-20% in affected metros, while opponents like Nasscom warned of disrupted operations for Indian exporters. Ongoing litigation and potential congressional overrides underscore tensions between protecting domestic labor markets and global talent flows.

Adaptation to Visa Restrictions (2020s)

In response to escalating U.S. visa restrictions, particularly the H-1B program's annual cap, heightened scrutiny, and a new $100,000 annual fee introduced in September 2025, Indian IT firms significantly curtailed their reliance on body shopping practices that depended on importing workers for onsite client placements. These measures, building on earlier Trump-era executive orders and Biden administration reforms aimed at curbing perceived abuses like multiple filings by body shops, prompted a 46% reduction in H-1B visa issuances by India's top six IT firms (TCS, Infosys, HCLTech, Wipro, Tech Mahindra, and LTIMindtree) from fiscal year 2020 to 2025, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data. Firms adapted by prioritizing local U.S. hiring, with over 50% of their American workforce now comprising U.S. nationals or holders, thereby minimizing visa dependencies while meeting client demands for onsite presence. For instance, TCS issued 5,505 H-1B visas in fiscal year 2025, down from higher volumes earlier in the decade, supplemented by expanded recruitment of domestic talent. Parallel investments in and further diminished the need for large-scale onsite deployments, as generative AI tools enabled remote code generation and process optimization, disrupting traditional models. A pivotal shift involved accelerating and the establishment of Global Capability Centers (GCCs) in , where U.S. clients and Indian service providers relocated higher-value work such as AI development, cybersecurity, and to avoid visa bottlenecks. By 2025, hosted over 1,600 GCCs employing 1.7 million professionals, with projections for 60% growth in the next 2-3 years and a market size reaching $105 billion by 2030. This insourcing trend, exemplified by halved H-1B approvals for firms like TCS (from 3,062 in 2021), effectively supplanted body shopping by enabling end-to-end delivery from . Additional measures included leveraging alternative visas like L-1 for intra-company transfers, expanding capabilities post-COVID-19, and exploring nearshoring to locations such as or for time-zone alignment. These adaptations preserved operational continuity amid policy volatility, though they strained margins for visa-heavy models and prompted to warn of disruptions to India's $283 billion IT sector, which contributes 8% to national GDP.

Transition Toward Offshoring and Internalization

The dominance of body shopping in the Indian IT sector during the and early relied heavily on onsite deployments, where professionals were physically sent to client locations abroad to handle software exports through direct labor provision. This approach constituted the primary mode of service delivery, as rudimentary telecommunications infrastructure precluded efficient , necessitating physical presence for tasks like systems installation and maintenance. Indian firms such as TCS and initially built their export models around this "physical transfer" of personnel, often under H-1B visas, to meet U.S. demand during the pre-Y2K era. A pivotal transition to accelerated in the mid-, driven by improvements in satellite links, connectivity, and tools that enabled high-quality remote development from . Economic pressures further propelled this shift, including escalating onsite costs—encompassing visa fees, travel, and salary premiums equivalent to 2-3 times offshore rates—and U.S. policy constraints like the H-1B annual cap of 65,000 visas (with a supplemental 20,000 for advanced degrees since ), which created bottlenecks amid rising denials and lotteries. Indian suppliers responded by prioritizing offshored work over bodyshopping when feasible, as empirical of firm-level data showed a preference for domestic operations yielding higher margins and scalability, reducing the onsite-offshore ratio from over 70% onsite in the to under 30% by the . This model allowed clients to achieve 40-60% cost reductions while mitigating visa dependencies. Concurrently, internalization gained prominence as multinational corporations established wholly owned captive centers in , bypassing third-party body shops and vendors for greater operational control. Early adopters like launched captives in the 1990s, but adoption surged post-2000 amid 's maturation, with over 1,200 such centers operational by 2020, employing millions and focusing on core IT functions. Unlike vendor offshoring, captives internalized processes to safeguard , ensure compliance, and customize talent pipelines, though requiring substantial upfront investments—often $10-50 million—compared to outsourcing's lower entry barriers. This evolution reflected a strategic pivot from transient labor to embedded global delivery ecosystems, diminishing body shopping's role to niche, short-term onsite needs.

Emerging Alternatives and Market Pressures

In response to escalating U.S. restrictions, Indian IT firms reliant on body shopping have faced intensified market pressures, including a proposed $100,000 annual fee per application announced in September 2025, which threatens to raise operational costs and disrupt onsite staffing models. This policy, coupled with higher visa denial rates and a potential 25% tax on payments, has prompted companies like to commit to hiring more U.S. locals, reducing dependence on imported labor. Such measures aim to prioritize domestic but have triggered stock declines for firms like and TCS, with analysts estimating disproportionate impacts on mid-tier providers heavily reliant on H-1B workers. Emerging alternatives include accelerated offshoring to India via Global Capability Centers (GCCs), which numbered over 1,600 by 2025 and generated $60 billion in revenue, allowing clients to access talent without visa hurdles while leveraging cost advantages—offshore rates often 40-60% lower than U.S. onsite equivalents. These centers focus on end-to-end project delivery rather than individual placements, shifting from commoditized body shopping to integrated services, as evidenced by a 20% annual growth in GCC hiring since 2020. H-1B constraints have further incentivized this model, with U.S. firms outsourcing routine development tasks to avoid fees and delays. Automation represents another disruptive alternative, with 14% of large staffing buyers replacing contingent workers with AI and by 2025, particularly for repetitive coding and testing roles central to body shopping. Tools like low-code platforms and generative AI have reduced demand for entry-level onsite programmers by up to 30% in engineering staffing segments, pressuring firms to pivot toward higher-value consulting amid client demands for efficiency. This trend favors over human for cost-sensitive tasks, as deployment costs can undercut even low-wage labor within 1-2 years. Nearshoring to regions like and has gained traction as a hybrid alternative, offering time-zone alignment and cultural proximity without U.S. visa complexities, with U.S. firms increasing nearshore contracts by 25% since 2022. Combined with domestic upskilling initiatives—such as U.S. tech giants investing $1 billion annually in training programs—these options mitigate wage suppression from body shopping, fostering specialized roles less vulnerable to displacement. Market dynamics thus compel a transition from visa-dependent placements to resilient, technology-augmented models.

References

  1. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691118529/global-body-shopping
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35728106_Global_Body_Shopping_A_New_International_Labour_System_in_the_Information_Technology_Industry
  3. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/36319
  4. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/silicon-valleys-body-shop-secret/78781/
  5. https://mohasoftware.com/blog/what-is-bodyshopping-the-definition-of-the-new-it-centric-model
  6. https://swyply.com/blog/staff-augmentation-vs-body-shopping-whats-the-difference
  7. https://www.nilebits.com/blog/2022/08/outsourcing-vs-body-shopping-vs-consulting/
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225476046_Bodyshopping_versus_offshoring_among_Indian_software_and_information_technology_firms
  9. https://www.southasiainvestor.com/2023/10/us-proposes-h-1b-visa-changes-to-stop.html
  10. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-staffing-firms-game-h1b-visa-lottery-system/
  11. https://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article030101.html
  12. https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/long-revolution-birth-and-growth-indias-it-industry
  13. https://faculty.washington.edu/karyiu/confer/seoul06/papers/mathur.pdf
  14. https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/gdi/publications/workingpapers/di/di_wp03.pdf
  15. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=318781
  16. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/india-s-it-industry-and-industrial-policy
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265758514_The_Dynamics_of_the_Indian_Information_Technology_Industry
  18. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID722522_code279272.pdf?abstractid=318781
  19. https://www.mercatus.org/research/essays/economic-reforms-1991-how-india-went-crisis-consensus
  20. https://economics.ucr.edu/pacdev/pacdev-papers/the_IT_boom.pdf
  21. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-immigration-h1b-visas-perm-tech-jobs-recruitment
  22. https://m.economictimes.com/tech/software/information-technology-the-wonder-decade/articleshow/5397719.cms
  23. https://m.economictimes.com/nri/work/the-real-reason-indians-have-always-dominated-americas-h-1b-visa-draw/articleshow/122105326.cms
  24. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy/usacm/intellectual-property/reports-and-white-papers/full_final1.pdf
  25. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-h1b-rules-take-hit-indian-zerodha-vhcfc
  26. https://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/institut-ipe/Dokumente/Working_Papers/ipe_working_paper_134.pdf
  27. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=scjilb
  28. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1380&context=jpl
  29. https://faculty.washington.edu/karyiu/confer/GJ06/papers/mathur.pdf
  30. https://www.epi.org/publication/new-evidence-widespread-wage-theft-in-the-h-1b-program/
  31. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/indian-it-firms-invested-1bn-in-us-talent-training-nasscom/articleshow/124055526.cms
  32. https://www.advancepartners.com/calculate-how-to-price-your-staffing-services/
  33. https://relyworkforce.com/what-is-markup-and-how-does-it-work-in-staffing/
  34. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-h1b-visa-middlemen-cheap-labor-for-us-banks/
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342106666_Conceptual_Framework_of_Body_Shopping_in_The_Indian_Context
  36. https://m.economictimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/tech-firms-sometimes-known-as-body-shops/articleshow/6362603.cms
  37. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-specialty-occupations
  38. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/h-1b-visa-rules-tightening-outsourcing-and-staffing-companies
  39. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/abhatnagar19_amazon-tcs-microsoft-activity-7375155362737561600-TbmU
  40. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2827789
  41. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/body-shopping-vs-outsourcing-consulting-giri-nair
  42. https://www.adb.org/publications/basic-characteristics-skills-and-organizational-capabilities-indian-software-industry
  43. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/trumps-h-1b-visa-crackdown-upends-indian-it-industrys-playbook-2025-09-21/
  44. https://www.news18.com/business/economy/indian-tech-companies-secure-13-of-h-1b-visas-in-fy25-so-far-which-one-topped-the-list-ws-l-9584683.html
  45. https://www.financialexpress.com/business/industry-indian-it-firms-slash-h-1b-usage-by-46-sponsorships-down-44nbspin-5-years-3974167/
  46. https://www.kotakmf.com/Information/blogs/h1b-visas-indian-it_
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289454970_Global_body_shopping_An_Indian_labor_system_in_the_information_technology_industry
  48. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366623525/UK-hands-Indian-IT-suppliers-competitive-boost-in-trade-deal
  49. https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=50c89aa1-c68c-e1fd-6bff-e68a2729c9bd&groupId=252038
  50. https://neontri.com/blog/outsourcing-eastern-europe/
  51. https://www.outsourceaccelerator.com/articles/outsourcing-to-eastern-europe-vs-asia/
  52. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/
  53. https://www.nber.org/digest/apr17/winners-and-losers-h-1b-visa-program
  54. https://itif.org/publications/2025/01/13/h1b-visa-workers-contribute-number-issued-patents-united-states/
  55. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/he_h-1b_visa_program_and_its_impact_on_the_u.s._economy_102024.pdf
  56. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3yy58lj79o
  57. https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/rethinking-the-h-1b-visa-program-data-driven-look-structural-failures-and
  58. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pdf
  59. https://www.science.org/content/article/economists-h-1b-visas-suppress-wages
  60. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=jetlaw
  61. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-26
  62. https://www.compactmag.com/article/no-there-arent-good-h-1b-visas/
  63. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/28/-sp-jobs-brokers-entrap-indian-tech-workers
  64. https://www.wired.com/2014/11/investigation-reveals-silicon-valleys-abuse-immigrant-tech-workers/
  65. https://spectrum.ieee.org/migrant-tech-workers-abused-by-contract-labor-firms-investigation-shows
  66. https://cis.org/Miano/Look-Behind-Curtain-One-H1B-Body-Shop
  67. https://www.epi.org/blog/10-senators-join-in-bipartisan-call-to-investigate-h-1b-abuse/
  68. https://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/6/2/offshore-outsourcing-india-us-and-eu-companies
  69. https://ttms.com/it-outsourcing-to-india-8-key-challenges-and-how-to-solve-them/
  70. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/draft-policy-brief-national-security-risks-michael-vaughan-iewxe
  71. https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/IP_Commission_Report.pdf
  72. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/trump-100000-fee-h1b-visa/
  73. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/09/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-suspends-the-entry-of-certain-alien-nonimmigrant-workers/
  74. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/new-us-h-1b-visa-fee-could-disrupt-indian-it-operations-says-industry-body-2025-09-20/
  75. https://www.cfr.org/article/trumps-h-1b-visa-change-what-know
  76. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/indian-corporation-pays-record-34-million-fine-settle-allegations-systemic-visa-fraud
  77. https://www.infosys.com/newsroom/press-releases/2013/company-statement-official.html
  78. https://www.heritage.org/border-security/commentary/trumps-h-1b-visa-reform-plan-needs-put-americans-first
  79. https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/guest-worker-visas-the-h-1b-and-l-1
  80. http://www.riazhaq.com/2023/10/us-proposes-h-1b-visa-changes-to-stop.html
  81. https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/u-s-chamber-files-lawsuit-to-support-businesses-use-of-h-1b-visas
  82. https://fortune.com/2025/10/01/why-trump-hib-visa-is-good-thing-immigrant-ceo-harry-singh/
  83. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/trump-visa-curbs-push-us-firms-consider-shifting-more-work-india-2025-09-30/
  84. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/information-tech/indian-it-cuts-h-1b-reliance-to-get-the-jobs-done-in-us/articleshow/123815639.cms
  85. https://terratern.com/news/indian-it-firms-reduce-h1b-visa-dependency-amid-us-policy-changes/
  86. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/25/cnbc-inside-india-newsletter-from-american-dream-to-indian-dream-h1b-visa-gcc.html
  87. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-global-centre-market-grow-105-billion-by-2030-says-nasscom-zinnov-report-2024-09-11/
  88. https://www.globalvaluechains.org/wp-content/uploads/2011-11-11_CGGC_Offshore-Services-Global-Value-Chain-2.pdf
  89. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s10799-010-0081-2
  90. https://valenta.io/captive-center-vs-outsourcing/
  91. https://www.cio.com/article/1309580/captive-centers-are-back-is-diy-offshoring-right-for-you.html
  92. https://www.auxis.com/outsourcing-vs-captive-shared-services-which-model-is-right-for-you/
  93. https://www.ssonetwork.com/global-business-services/articles/offshoring-support-services-outsourced-or-captive
  94. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/indias-tata-tech-hire-more-034523561.html
  95. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/harshadshah1953_impact-of-h1b-crackdown-on-indian-it-stocks-activity-7375065433999048704-ZmxN
  96. https://m.economictimes.com/nri/work/h1b-visa-100k-fee-gcc-opportunity-trump-may-have-just-dealt-india-60-billion-industry-a-winning-hand/articleshow/124062572.cms
  97. https://scopicsoftware.com/blog/h1b-visa-changes/
  98. https://www.staffingindustry.com/news/global-daily-news/automation-replaces-contingent-workers-at-14-of-firms
  99. https://www.staffingindustry.com/news/global-daily-news/automation-offshoring-put-pressure-on-engineering-staffing
  100. https://www.spixii.com/blog/the-growing-adoption-of-automation-over-offshoring
  101. https://www.webcreek.com/en/blog/business/tech-talent-without-borders-offshoring-nearshoring-it-hiring-across-the-u-s-in-2025/
  102. https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2025/06/upskill-reskill-or-outsource-different-approaches-with-similar-goals-for-companies
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.