The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by an unprecedented global reliance on welfare states, from the expansion of emergency medical care to stimulus controls. While unforeseen, the pandemic would likely have accelerated a global convergence of the welfare state that had already begun. Compared to popular belief, given the significant public resources mobilized for bailouts, the pandemic crisis has highlighted the importance of a multi-stakeholder technique in social coverage systems. In the convergence procedure, we see that many countries are struggling with an ideal balance between various parties: governments, personal corporations, and non-profit organizations.
In a country like the United States, where benefits like physical care and paid time off can be obtained exclusively from your employer, personal insurance marketplaces are looking to fill in the gaps. By contrast, in a country like Italy, those benefits are more universal in nature and granted through institutions, whether at the national or territorial level. More recently, however, personal resources owned by companies and nonprofits are being combined with public systems to fill the gaps left by the Italian welfare state in terms of equality, potency and effectiveness.
We believe that there deserves to be a balance between the benefits provided through personal organizations and those provided through public bodies, because the dangers are too great when a country relies heavily on one for the well-being of all. First, we will briefly introduce welfare states in the United States and Italy, focusing on corporate engagement. We will then talk in more detail about the main considerations similar to the design of a welfare state in a post-2020 world.
The United States relies heavily on private corporations to provide benefits like physical care to workers (and their families). Therefore, Americans themselves choose jobs that offer the benefits they value or need. Historically, only in excessive cases did the government intervene to provide benefits. For example, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 established a minimum wage and overtime benefits, among other employee-focused elements, at the height of the Great Depression.
Since the 1930s, the United States has (relatively) slowly followed a handful of other federally sponsored benefits, such as the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, or Pregnancy Discrimination. prohibits pregnancy-like discrimination in the workplace. In addition, as the U. S. hard labor market becomes more likely to grow. UU. se has diversified over the past 60 years, the demands and diversity of benefits have adapted. In addition to the “standard” of health insurance, vacation and retirement savings or pensions, benefits have been expanded, i. e. flexible operating arrangements such as remote work, gym membership. But again, it is up to employers to offer such benefits and potential staff to seek such companies.
In the 2000s, corporate habits came under more scrutiny than in previous periods of American history. In competitive and highly visual industries (such as generation and finance), corporations compete to attract the most productive applicants through popular perks (e. g. , unlimited free time). ). Yet those generous benefits apply to an incredibly small percentage of U. S. personnel. For example, according to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the U. S. , in 2022, about 47% of personal sector personnel participated in physical care plans, a stark contrast to the universal one. Fitness systems are the main ones in OECD countries such as Italy. While universal access is largely nonexistent in the United States at the federal level, some cities and states have legislation in place to address local staff demands. For example, California was the first state to put into effect in 2005 a paid medical and family leave program; As of 2026, only 12 states (out of 50) will have similar policies in place, representing about 0. 33 percent of the U. S. workforce.
Another important aspect to consider in the benefits of the U. S. UU. es that most staff will need to be classified full-time to qualify for benefits. While the difference between part-time staff and full-time staff depends on the company, there are other protocols in place according to the state ( (for example, less than 30 hours in New York are considered part-time), the maximum of US employers does not grant the same benefits to part-time staff and full-time staff. 19 has highlighted a demand for flexible painting arrangements, which employers typically give to employees who do not work full-time (no full-time benefits). Not surprisingly, if more people opt for flexible paint options, we may see an increase in the number of employees who are not entitled to social benefits from their employers and pressure on the few existing government programs, plus a further pushback in favor of new universal public programs.
Since the twentieth century, several Italian marketing professionals have followed a way of doing business in which the well-being of staff and, in general, the well-being of others are prioritized along with productivity, in full compliance with existing sustainability challenges. Adriano Olivetti An enterprising and humanistic attitude is an exemplary case of this alternative. Investments for staff and their families include a library within the Olivetti plant, several on-site cultural events, a full trial payment of salaries for staff on leave for health reasons, parenting packages, dental care and other specialized services.
More recently, Italian companies have opted for social coverage projects to promote the well-being of their employees, adding flexible operating modalities, complementary health care, non-vocational training, sports activities, network markets and office laundries, in addition to corporate nurseries or paid nurseries. Internships. for the daughters and sons of employees. Business well-being has even taken a step forward, especially as a reaction to the COVID-19 emergency: for the first time, more than 50% of companies have actively implemented corporate welfare measures, while 79% have shown projects already underway and 28% have brought new projects or strengthened existing ones (as highlighted in Generali’s report on social provision through Italian SMEs).
Furthermore, a favorable regulatory environment in Italy has supported business methods aimed at the well-being of its employees and greater and shared benefits. Since the 2016 finance law, favorable fiscal measures have been adopted for the social coverage system of companies, such as production bonuses, which are “tax-exempt” in the form of advantages than financial credits. The business welfare advantages for companies, especially if they are grouped in fast networks, are multiple: reducing the costs of hard work, obtaining tax advantages or higher productivity. For their part, staff largely say they value corporations’ social projects and need to offload as many social benefits as possible. In addition, public establishments obtain advantages from corporate social coverage plans, even for newly acquired ones. resources in times of relief and recalibration of social assistance. Corporate welfare can then be perceived as a win-win game.
However, the social coverage reports of Italian corporations leave open at least two problematic fronts: the dualism between the personnel of large and small corporations, and that of the communities of northern and southern Italy. More specifically, the staff of giant companies are better protected through national social policies. policies and education more through social assistance of companies, while the staff of small businesses are less protected through establishments and are left without additional resources within the company. In addition, staff and related communities in southern Italy cannot depend on effective social policies at the territorial level. , much less in the social projects of corporations.
The threat is therefore to propose provisions that lead to further distortions of the Italian welfare state. Perhaps the danger will be to spread in Italy a leopard edition of American social capitalism. In this case, the challenge is to inspire more and more corporations to advertise social policies. Coverage plans that affect your entire network while supporting the public good so no one is left behind.
The convergence of the welfare state analyzed here is unique to the United States and Italy; rather, we use those two countries as an example of what appears to be a broader global trend, regardless of a country’s conception of the welfare state before the COVID-19 crisis.
Even if the reports from both countries are unique, the dangers are similar and both countries expand balanced welfare states, taking advantage of the merits of existing public and personal systems. The disorders related to a welfare state consisting of a single establishment are evident in the case of the United States and Italy, where neither system succeeds in ensuring that mandatory benefits are available to all.
When it comes to opportunities, on the other hand, both contexts can amplify corporate strategies that align with worker satisfaction initiatives, sustainability goals, and corporate social responsibility plans. These aspects are somewhat distant, they are synergistic. In fact, workers are as much part of corporations as they are of a family, a network, and a society. Your well-being extends beyond company barriers and extends to your home or city.
Indeed, corporate welfare can be combined with a revision of business models, towards participatory capitalism, in which corporations are geared towards serving the interests of all their stakeholders (rather than just shareholders), or towards a civil economy that believes in choice. And it still discovers answers to economic, social and environmental disorders in the market.