Multinational groups rarely think of outsourcing as a labor law question. In most head offices it is a procurement decision: a global facilities contract, an IT managed-services agreement, a regional logistics provider selected through a tender run from another continent. In Peru, however, the moment a contractor’s workers perform services for a local entity, the arrangement is tested against a specific statute, and the test is not about price or service levels. It is about whether the contractor is a real business that delivers a result, or a vehicle that supplies people.
This article explains what Peruvian law requires for a lawful outsourcing, how the authorities assess it, and what changed after the recent court ruling on the so-called “core business” restriction. For the wider map of the topic, see our guide to outsourcing and staffing in Peru.
The legal framework in brief
Peru distinguishes sharply between two models that many jurisdictions treat as variations of the same thing:
- Tercerización (outsourcing), governed by Law 29245, Legislative Decree 1038 and Supreme Decree 006-2008-TR. A contractor takes over a complete activity, service or project and delivers it autonomously.
- Intermediación laboral (labor intermediation, the Peruvian term for staffing agencies), governed by Law 27626 and Supreme Decree 003-2002-TR. An agency places its workers at the client, but only in limited cases: temporary needs, complementary activities or highly specialized work.
The difference matters because each model carries its own conditions, registrations and liability rules. We compare them in detail in outsourcing vs. staffing agencies in Peru. This article focuses on the first.
Legal note
Article 2 of Law 29245 defines outsourcing as the engagement of companies to carry out specialized activities or projects, provided they take on the services at their own account and risk, have their own financial, technical or material resources, are responsible for the results, and keep their workers under their exclusive subordination.
The four core requirements
The statutory definition contains four elements that work together. A contractor that satisfies three but fails the fourth is still at risk.
1. Own account and risk
The contractor must bear the business risk of the service. If costs overrun, if a worker is absent, if equipment fails, the contractor absorbs the consequences within the agreed price. A contract that reimburses the contractor for every hour worked plus a margin, with no exposure to outcomes, points in the opposite direction.
2. Own resources
The contractor must have its own financial, technical or material resources. That does not mean it can never use anything belonging to the client: a facility management provider will inevitably work inside the client’s building. It means that the tools, systems, know-how and capital needed to deliver the service belong to, or are controlled by, the contractor.
3. Responsibility for results
The contractor answers for a defined deliverable: the building is maintained to a standard, the application is supported within agreed response times, the warehouse is operated to a throughput target. If the contract only describes how many people will attend and during which hours, there is no result to answer for.
4. Exclusive subordination of its workers
This is the element most often lost in practice. The contractor’s workers must take instructions, schedules, discipline and evaluation from the contractor alone. The client can specify what it needs and check whether the service meets the standard, but it cannot manage the individuals. We look at where that line falls in managing outsourced personnel without creating employment.
Indicators of autonomy
Beyond the definition, Law 29245 and its regulations list characteristic features that support the conclusion that the contractor is autonomous. They are indicators, not a checklist to be ticked mechanically.
| Indicator | What it suggests | Typical weakness in global vendor models |
|---|---|---|
| Plurality of clients | The contractor operates in the market, not for a single user | Local vehicle created only to serve one group company |
| Own equipment | The contractor supplies the means of production | Staff work exclusively with the client’s laptops, systems and badges |
| Capital investment | The contractor has put its own money at risk | Local entity with minimal capital and no assets |
| Payment by work or service | Price is tied to a deliverable | Monthly invoice calculated as headcount multiplied by a rate |
The regulations accept that plurality of clients is not always required, for instance for a contractor in its first year of activity or where the service by its nature can only be offered to a limited number of clients. The absence of one indicator is therefore not fatal, but a pattern of absences is.
Key point
Peruvian authorities apply the primacy-of-reality principle, which Law 28806 lists expressly among the principles of labor inspection. What the parties do on the ground prevails over what the global contract says.
What the Supreme Court ruling on D.S. 001-2022-TR changed
In February 2022 the Executive issued Supreme Decree 001-2022-TR, which amended the regulations to prohibit outsourcing of the “core” of a company’s business and introduced new grounds for recharacterization and an obligation to adapt existing contracts. For several years, multinationals operating in Peru had to reassess vendor structures around that restriction.
The Supreme Court later declared the decree null in a popular action (acción popular, a constitutional proceeding in which courts review whether a regulation exceeds the law it implements). The court found that the decree went beyond Law 29245. According to the official government newspaper El Peruano, the nullity is total: it covers the core-business prohibition, the criteria used to identify the core, the new recharacterization grounds and the obligation to adapt contracts. The earlier framework of Law 29245, Legislative Decree 1038 and Supreme Decree 006-2008-TR, as it stood before 2022, applies again.
Two points deserve care. First, the date from which the ruling produces general effects depends on its official publication, and sources differ on the exact dates involved, so any structure that relies on the ruling should be checked against its current status. Second, the Constitutional Court had previously held, in an individual amparo case, that the core-business prohibition did not violate freedom of contract. That decision was not a binding precedent, but it shows that the policy debate is not closed.
Watch out
The nullity reopens the possibility of outsourcing core activities. It does not relax the autonomy test. A contractor that simply provides workers for the client to manage remains an unlawful arrangement, whether the activity is core or peripheral.
Registration and information duties
Contractors that work with continuous displacement of staff to the client’s premises must register in the national registry of outsourcing companies kept by the labor authority, under article 8 of Law 29245. Whether the registry procedure was reshaped by the annulled decree, and what exact procedure applies now, should be confirmed at the time of contracting.
Article 6 of the law also requires the contractor to inform its workers and the client about the displacement. In practice, the client should ask for evidence that this was done.
Joint liability of the client
When outsourcing involves continuous displacement of workers, the client company is jointly liable with the contractor for the payment of labor rights, benefits and social security obligations during the displacement. Under article 9 of Law 29245 and Legislative Decree 1038, that liability extends for one year after the displacement ends.
For a multinational, this means that the contractor’s payroll compliance is, in part, the client’s balance-sheet exposure. Unpaid gratificaciones (two statutory bonuses paid in July and December), CTS (a severance fund deposited twice a year into an account in the employee’s name) or EsSalud contributions (the employer-funded public health insurance) can be claimed from the client. The practical steps for controlling that exposure before signing are covered in what to check before hiring an outsourcing provider in Peru.
Illustrative scenario
Illustrative scenario
Illustrative scenario: a European consumer goods group signs a regional facility management framework with a global provider. In Peru, the provider’s local affiliate assigns 25 cleaning and maintenance technicians to the client’s plant. The framework prices the service per square meter maintained and per preventive maintenance plan executed; the affiliate supplies its own tools, consumables and a site supervisor who assigns shifts. The client’s plant manager only reports defects through a ticketing system. This arrangement is structured along the lines Law 29245 expects. If, a year later, the plant manager starts assigning daily tasks to individual technicians, approving their leave and including them in the plant’s attendance system, the same contract begins to look like a supply of personnel.
Common mistakes in multinational structures
- Assuming the global template is enough. Master agreements drafted for other jurisdictions often price by headcount or full-time equivalents, which undermines the “payment by service” indicator.
- Treating the local affiliate as a formality. A newly created Peruvian vehicle with no assets, one client and staff trained and managed by the client’s team is difficult to defend.
- Letting operations drift. Many arrangements are compliant on day one and deteriorate as client managers start to rely on contractor staff as if they were their own. We describe the warning signs in when outsourcing is recharacterized in Peru.
- Ignoring the contractor’s payroll. Joint liability makes the contractor’s compliance a direct risk for the client.
- Relying on the court ruling without checking its status. Decisions based on the nullity of D.S. 001-2022-TR should be confirmed against the current official position.
Consequences of getting it wrong
If the requirements are not met, or the arrangement is a mere supply of personnel, Law 29245 treats the outsourcing as recharacterized: the workers are deemed to have a direct, indefinite-term employment relationship with the client. SUNAFIL, Peru’s national labor inspection authority, may also impose administrative fines. Under Law 28806, the statutory caps are 50 UIT for minor, 100 UIT for serious and 200 UIT for very serious infringements, with an overall ceiling of 300 UIT for all infringements detected; the UIT (tax reference unit) is S/ 5,500 in 2026. Beyond fines, recharacterization can generate claims for pay differences and statutory benefits calculated as if the workers had been the client’s employees from the start, together with the internal disruption of absorbing them.
Preventive recommendations
As a preventive criterion, we recommend that groups with Peruvian operations:
- Map every vendor whose staff work on the Peruvian entity’s premises or systems on a continuous basis.
- Classify each one as outsourcing, staffing or a simple supply of goods or services, and confirm the legal basis for the classification.
- Rewrite pricing and scope for Peruvian contracts so that they describe results, not headcount.
- Designate a single client-side contact who manages the contract, not the contractor’s people.
- Build periodic payroll and registration evidence into the contract, with audit rights.
- Review the arrangement at least once a year, and whenever the scope changes.
Our outsourcing and staffing advisory supports this kind of review for foreign groups.
Key takeaways
Peruvian outsourcing law is less about the label of the activity and more about the real autonomy of the contractor. The court ruling on D.S. 001-2022-TR removed the core-business restriction, but it left intact the test that has always mattered most: own risk, own resources, responsibility for results and exclusive control over the workers. Global procurement models can fit within that test, provided they are adapted to it in the contract and, above all, in daily practice.