The reform and unfounded fears regarding the growth of small businesses

The rumours and concerns circulating at present regarding the reform of the framework law on the craft sector warrant clarification as to how things actually stand. In an Italy often accused of entrepreneurial stagnation, we are surprised by the fears surrounding artisans’ legitimate aspiration to grow, become stronger and innovate in order to compete more effectively in the market, without, however, placing a burden on public finances or distorting the rules of competition between businesses.

Let us begin by dispelling the false reports concerning alleged diversion of state resources which, according to Confindustria and certain journalistic analyses, are said to be caused by the reform of the framework law on the craft sector. Anyone familiar with the text of the reform knows that the alarmist estimates of hypothetical impacts exceeding one billion euros on the state coffers are entirely unfounded. In fact, a clause ensuring financial neutrality with regard to social security contributions to INPS is provided for: craft enterprises which, as they grow, exceed the standard thresholds for the number of employees set out in the current framework law on craftsmanship will be subject to the same social security contribution rates as industrial enterprises of a similar size. Furthermore, the extension of the obligation for owners and partners to register with the Special Artisans’ Fund (IVS) will result in an increase in contribution revenue. Moreover, the reform does not create any ‘grey area’ between the craft sector and industry. Contrary to Confindustria’s claims, businesses will have no discretion in choosing whether or not to be classified as craft enterprises, depending on their own interests – which, in any case, are non-existent. In fact, registration in the Register of Craft Enterprises is mandatory in all cases where a business meets the relevant criteria.

Furthermore, the increase in the threshold to 49 employees does not apply to all types of craft businesses, but only to those in the arts and traditional crafts sector, whilst the current differentiation in the maximum number of employees based on the activity carried out is maintained, with a proportional increase in staff numbers.

The alarm over wage dumping or the erosion of protections for an alleged 1.8 million workers is also unfounded. It is well known, in fact, that the legal classification of a ‘craft enterprise’ does not oblige the company to apply a specific collective agreement: a craft enterprise may apply industrial collective agreements and vice versa. This is a situation that already exists in Italy today. In fact, almost all the collective agreements signed by craft organisations are applied well beyond the limits of the 1985 Framework Law on Craft Enterprises. There will therefore be no direct or indirect impact on workers’ wages or on the resulting tax burden. As for employment, it can only be boosted, given that the reform aims to remove the ‘bottleneck’ to employment growth for all those firms that currently risk having to choose between taking on one more employee and losing their legal status as an artisan enterprise.

More generally, the need to revise the current framework law – which is a full 40 years old – as also highlighted by the President of the Republic at the 2024 annual general meeting of Confartigianato, is necessary to enable craft businesses to navigate a constantly evolving market and the major economic and social transformations of our time. In other words, according to Confartigianato, craft enterprise should not be a ‘cage’, but rather a status based on the pre-eminence of the value of work and the entrepreneur’s skills, guaranteed and protected by Article 45 of the Constitution. After all, one need only look beyond our national borders. In countries such as France and Germany, the artisan nature of a business does not limit its size: it is possible to be an artisan whilst employing dozens or even hundreds of staff.

If we all care about the competitiveness of the Italian manufacturing sector, and given that the reform does not provide for preferential treatment that distorts competition between businesses nor for reduced revenue for the public purse, whose interests are served by keeping the craft sector confined within size limits that stifle its growth? One is led to wonder, in short, what exactly is the problem? What is the real reason for such concern on the part of Confindustria? Perhaps competition at the trade association level? In this regard, we are convinced that, as always, it will be the companies themselves that freely decide who best represents and protects their interests, regardless of the reform of the framework law on the craft sector.

Marco Granelli

President of Confartigianato