The Confartigianato Research Department provides a snapshot of the scale of the problem: in 2024, there were 312,959 reports of cybercrimes by businesses, accounting for 33.9 per cent of all offences that could potentially affect business operations. In practice, one in three offences threatening businesses is cyber-related.

The most worrying figure emerges from the long-term analysis: between 2019 and 2024, cybercrime rose by 37.1 per cent. And the trend shows no sign of abating. According to forecasts for 2025, cyber scams and fraud targeting businesses have increased by 4.4 per cent compared with 2024.

The most widespread threat is posed precisely by cyber scams and fraud, which account for 91.4 per cent of reported offences. The remaining 8.6 per cent includes unauthorised access to systems, damage to computer equipment and software, and the unlawful disclosure of access codes.

This risk has now become part of everyday life for businesses. According to a European Commission survey, 78 per cent of Italian workers say they have come across suspicious emails, messages or links at work, a figure higher than the EU average of 74 per cent. Phishing is the most common threat (36 per cent), followed by attempts to steal personal data (17 per cent), malware attacks (17 per cent) and password theft (14 per cent).

Faced with this escalation, businesses are increasingly recognising the importance of cyber security, but there is still a long way to go in strengthening corporate defences. And they must contend with a shortage of specialised professionals. In 2025, 78.8 per cent of the professionals required by businesses – such as system designers and administrators, a category that includes experts, specialists and cybersecurity managers – proved difficult to recruit.

This is an issue that directly affects companies’ ability to prevent attacks and manage any incidents. Without the right expertise, even the most advanced technologies risk not being used to their full potential.

In this context, digital businesses provide significant support to the production system. At the end of the first quarter of 2026, according to figures from Confartigianato, there were 112,287 active businesses in the digital services sector, employing 552,000 people. Of these, 13,089 were craft businesses, employing over 19,000 people, which are also active in providing IT services and support for digitalisation.

In light of the rise in cyberattacks, Confartigianato is calling for an increase in resources allocated to cybersecurity and for concrete support for business investment.

“Investing in digital innovation and cyber security,” says Confartigianato President Marco Granelli, “is a strategic choice for business competitiveness and can no longer be postponed. We need simple, easily accessible incentives for craftspeople and SMEs, which are multi-year in nature and capable of supporting not only the purchase of technology, but also training, consultancy and implementation, with a view to preventing the risk of cyber-attacks against businesses. We cannot allow the digital lag to become a weakness for the Italian business sector.”

The message is clear: cybersecurity must become an integral part of corporate investment. For craftspeople and SMEs, protecting data, systems and production processes means safeguarding their work, their customers and their ability to remain competitive in the market. Digitalisation is an opportunity for growth, but without security it risks becoming a new vulnerability for the entire production system.

In many respects, however, the proposal could be improved. For this reason, it is useful to understand what has been done elsewhere. The closest example has been implemented in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol: from 2025, the region will provide a contribution towards the enrolment of newborns in a supplementary pension scheme. The scheme is simple: an initial payment of 300 euros, followed by 200 euros a year for four years, provided the family makes a supplementary contribution of at least 100 euros each year. The scheme has proved more successful than expected. In the first six months, around 40 per cent of the potentially eligible population had signed up, prompting the region to increase its funding.

This template offers two useful pointers. The first concerns the division of responsibilities. ‘Pensplan’, the regional public company, manages the scheme from an administrative perspective, but not the assets: households are free to choose the pension fund into which to pay their contributions. It is a distinction that would be worth maintaining at national level as well. In the government’s proposal, financial management is currently delegated to CDP, whilst it would be advisable to broaden the range of managers, leaving households free to choose.

The second concerns the possibility that the fund could be financed through a co-funding mechanism in which the public sector’s contribution depends on that of the private sector. This system offers the dual advantage of creating a multiplier effect on savings and of involving households and beneficiaries in decision-making, encouraging them to think about the long term as well. This mechanism could be reintroduced, perhaps with special incentives for less well-off families, who would otherwise be unable to benefit from it.

Finally, one aspect that has not been implemented in Trentino-Alto Adige, but which deserves attention, concerns the possibility of allocating these savings towards education costs as well. The potential use of savings for educational purposes could contribute to young people’s well-being and the sustainability of the public budget at least as much as it does to the pension system. Indeed, a sum used at the age of twenty to fund a university degree, a master’s degree, a vocational course or a period of study abroad can increase one’s income throughout one’s lifetime. A higher income also means higher contributions and, in the long run, a higher pension, with an indirect pension return greater than that obtained by leaving the savings entirely tied up until old age. Furthermore, the greater flexibility may act as an incentive for families to set aside funds in this savings pot.

Moreover, the idea of using long-term savings for education has already been successfully trialled in various contexts. In the United States, Children’s Savings Accounts are widespread; these are accounts intended for children’s education, in which family savings are often supplemented by external contributions. In Italy, the ‘Will – Educare al Futuro’ project, aimed at economically vulnerable families between 2019 and 2023, provided that savings of up to one thousand euros would be quadrupled if used for educational expenses. A randomised evaluation involving 576 families showed not only that almost all of them managed to save – on average around 700 euros – but also that there were positive effects on educational aspirations and academic outcomes, particularly among low-income households.

It may therefore be useful to broaden our perspective, so that we no longer speak merely of a ‘pension piggy bank’, but rather of a future-oriented individual account, which can indeed contribute to the sustainability of the pension system directly, but also indirectly, through investment in human capital, perhaps even helping to revive our dismal productivity.

Federico Boffa and Mirco Tonin, Free University of Bolzano

“A ‘South American-style measure’,” said Carlo Messina, CEO of Intesa Sanpaolo, in very harsh terms. The reference is to Article 37 of the draft bill, which spreads the Superbonus tax credits over ten years: this concerns the final ‘maxi’ instalment, amounting to 20.5 billion euros, which the government has unilaterally decided to pay not in a single year but in ten manageable instalments of around 2 billion each. For the state, the gain is minimal: no impact on the deficit, given that the credits were issued and accounted for in 2023, and therefore no additional margin to spend; but an indirect benefit of 550–600 million in reduced interest expenditure due to the avoidance of issuing 18 billion in debt in 2027. That is not much, considering that interest expenditure in 2027 will amount to 103 billion. The bill is much steeper for creditors – mainly banks – who will have to record a write-down of approximately 3 billion euros on their balance sheets.

This is a very sensitive issue, not only because of the economic consequences for the banks but also because of the reputational implications for the state. In the 3 November edition of Il Foglio, we wrote that this amounted to a ‘debt restructuring’, or in other words, a ‘default’. The Italian Banking Association (ABI), during its hearing on 10 November, aware of the sensitivity of the matter, had been more diplomatic: the measure “would appear to be tantamount to a forced restructuring of government debt”. But evidently the political class failed to grasp this. Thus, during Thursday’s hearing, Messina cut straight to the chase by evoking the scenario of an Italian default: “It is a South American-style debt management measure”. 

“It’s unbelievable,” said the CEO of Intesa Sanpaolo. In the ECB’s terminology, this is called ‘forbearance’; it is a technical measure that will lead banks to classify this as a default, with the risk that this could trigger a cross-default on all Italian government debt.” Messina outlined a scenario of extreme risk for the Treasury, precisely to emphasise that one cannot intervene so brutally on such sensitive matters. Of course, the CEO of Intesa has no interest in raising the spectre of a BTP default, given that Italian banks (and Intesa above all) are the main holders of public debt: undermining the credibility of the state as a debtor means devaluing the 600 billion in government bonds held by the bank as a creditor. The point, therefore, is that “there could have been better solutions for obtaining liquidity”, Messina emphasised.

Presumably, the bricklayer who came up with the ‘Spalma-Superbonus’ must have thought that the scheme worked in a similar way to deferred tax assets (DTAs). In that case too, after all, it involves the suspension until 2027 (in addition to those already established for 2025 and 2026) of tax deductions amounting to 2 billion. In both instances, in short, we are dealing with a state entitlement (deduction or credit) that entitles the holder to avoid paying tax on the corresponding amount. If DTAs can be deferred, then the Superbonus can also be spread out over time.

The problem, however, is that they are by no means the same thing under international accounting standards and the ECB’s supervisory rules to which banks must adhere. These are two different accounting items, with very different consequences. DTAs are classified under ‘taxes’ and their deferral does not imply the recognition of a loss. Whereas Superbonus receivables must be recorded under item 140 of the profit and loss account: ‘Gains/losses from contractual amendments without write-offs’, resulting in a write-down with implications for liquidity and, indeed, the profit and loss account. ‘Someone probably thought the impact was the same as under the rules on DTAs,’ says an expert in the field. But this is by no means the case. The damage is direct for the banks, but it could also be enormous for the state. This is because it is unclear whether accounting standards and EBA/ECB rules require banks to classify the debtor (i.e. the state) as insolvent. And one difference compared to the deferral of DTAs lies in the fact that the latter was established following an agreement with the banks, whilst the Superbonus deferral is a unilateral decision by the debtor.

The ECB was not consulted by the government on this measure. Not that there was any obligation to consult it, but this suggests that whoever drafted the legislation did not fully grasp the sensitivity of the matter and its implications, given that there was no prior consultation with either the banks or the regulatory authorities.

These critical issues had already been highlighted during a parliamentary hearing, in cautious and measured terms, by Marco Elio Rottigni, Director-General of the Italian Banking Association (ABI), but they had evidently not been taken on board. Messina was far more explicit, referring to a ‘South American-style regulation’ that risks leading the country into ‘default’. The issue, framed in these terms, was better understood, not least because it made its way into the international press and onto the radar of investors and rating agencies.

Politicians have also taken notice. “The signal to the financial markets is terrible,” says Antonio Misiani, the PD’s economic spokesperson. “The government must backtrack and scrap this provision.” But even within the government, given what is at stake, the idea of revising the provision is gaining ground. Signs to this effect have come both from Giorgetti and from yesterday’s meeting at Palazzo Chigi with the social partners. Otherwise, the matter will end up before the Constitutional Court, but with the possibility of a more immediate penalty on the markets.

In short, there is a risk that the whole thing could come crashing down. So it is high time that Giorgetti shored up the load-bearing wall before it is too late.

According to the technical report, the savings for the state amount to 1.48 billion gross over the next three years, or 885 million net of the loss of tax revenue. But the most striking figure relates to the past: between 2021 and 2026, pensions exceeding 35,000 euros gross per annum have kept pace with only half of cumulative inflation; the highest pensions have kept pace with just over a third.

But the problem is more widespread. The government’s pension policy does not seem to be addressing the country’s real priorities. Resources are being sought to bring forward the retirement of a minority of workers, whilst two far greater emergencies are being ignored. The first concerns the pensions of those who began working after 1995. In four or five years’ time, the first cohorts entirely subject to the contribution-based system will begin to reach retirement age. For those who have had a stable career and high wages, the problem will be limited. But those who have spent thirty years juggling fixed-term contracts, periods of unemployment, low wages and intermittent contributions risk receiving a very low pension. It is therefore urgent to devise a form of guaranteed minimum pension for those with fragile contribution histories, without penalising those who have paid their contributions regularly.

The second crisis concerns care for elderly people who are unable to look after themselves. Here, the situation is paradoxical, because the reform already exists. It was discussed during the Gentiloni government; the Draghi government included it in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) and approved the enabling bill in 2022, which then became law in March 2023. However, more than three years on, that reform has remained a dead letter.

The aim was to build a national care system that would integrate health and social services, strengthen home care and ensure continuous support. Instead, families continue to be left to fend for themselves. They have to find a carer, pay them, organise care and navigate the maze of local authority and health services, which often fail to communicate with one another. The carer’s allowance provides financial support, but it is not, in itself, a care service.

The issue of care dependency is the story of a reform that was approved and then abandoned. Meanwhile, the number of elderly people in need of care is rising, whilst families are getting smaller, women are working, and there are fewer and fewer relatives available to look after those in need of help free of charge. It is one of the greatest social changes the country is undergoing, and politicians continue to act as if it did not exist. So why not put the 850 million earmarked for early retirement to a different use? Parliament could table an amendment to the Budget Bill that would scrap that fund and allocate the resources to implementing the law on care for the non-self-sufficient.

With those resources, a national programme of continuous home care could be launched, jointly funding both the healthcare and social care components, and setting precise targets for the number of elderly people receiving care and the quality of services. It would not be enough to resolve the issue, but it would mark the start of the implementation of a law that Parliament has already passed. And it would be possible to explain to pensioners facing a reduction in their pension indexation that their sacrifice at least serves a purpose: not to allow someone else to retire earlier, but to guarantee care for those amongst them who can no longer live independently.

The problem with budgetary policy is precisely this: when resources are scarce, choices have to be made. It is not possible to fund all the parties’ pet projects – including the fund for newborns, which is certainly not a priority – whilst at the same time tackling major social issues.

If there is one thing we can be certain of, it is that the current president will do everything in his power to influence the outcome of the election in two years’ time, to ensure that his successor is a friend – and not just politically. At stake is not only his political legacy but also his protection from future legal action. According to analysts, amongst the factors that prompted Democratic voters to turn out in greater numbers than usual – whilst, conversely, many Republicans stayed at home – there are three main concerns, namely: the erosion of purchasing power; immigration control measures deemed too harsh, which have provoked a negative reaction amongst the population of South American origin; and, finally, the political and financial entanglement between the government and the big tech companies.

It is therefore necessary to understand to what extent the president will be willing to acknowledge that some of his past political decisions were at the root of the electoral defeat, and how far he will be prepared to change course. As regards the last two factors – immigration and corruption – the initial signals coming from the White House seem to suggest that no major changes are on the cards over the next two years. The appointment of Stephen Miller – known for his extremist views on issues such as immigration – as Chief of Staff is unlikely to foster reconciliation with ethnic minorities. As for the financial ties between the Administration and large corporations, this will depend primarily on the latter’s choices and their decision as to whether or not to switch allegiances at the next general election.

Turning to economic issues, there is no doubt that the rise in energy prices triggered by the war in Iran has been one of the main causes of inflation. Until last February, inflation stood at just under 2.5 per cent, and rose to over 4 per cent following the outbreak of the conflict. Vice-President Vance has acknowledged that the war in Iran, and its impact on Americans’ purchasing power, was the main cause of the electoral defeat. It is not clear, however, whether this interpretation is shared by the President or whether it might lead to a change in foreign policy. Moreover, the end of the conflict does not depend solely on the United States but, above all, on the willingness of the Iranian government. The most likely scenario appears to be a tacit truce, allowing crude oil exports to return to pre-conflict levels. The fall in prices to around $90 recorded in recent days seems to confirm this scenario, but market volatility remains high.

Another factor affecting consumer prices is the tariffs imposed last year on imports. It is possible that in the coming months attempts will be made to reach a cross-party agreement on a reduction, particularly with regard to imports from Canada, which have affected neighbouring US states.

Finally, US inflation has been fuelled by the high public deficit, a consequence of the Big Beautiful Bill passed in July last year, which pushed the public deficit to around 8 per cent of GDP. In this case, the change in the majority in Congress is unlikely to improve the situation. The Democrats are certainly not going to champion measures to cut public spending or raise taxes in the run-up to an election.

A clash between the President and Congress could arise from the need to raise the public debt ceiling, which was set in July 2025 at 41 trillion dollars (equivalent to approximately 127 per cent of GDP), and is expected to be reached in February 2027, some six months ahead of schedule. In the past, reaching an agreement between the White House and Congress has required lengthy negotiations, often following a partial shutdown of certain public services, which has ultimately led to a further increase in spending.

Overall, the combined effect of the oil price rises recorded in recent months and the high public deficit will continue to keep US inflation above the 2 per cent target. This leaves the central bank with no choice but to raise monetary policy rates further, starting at its next meeting in December. Long-term interest rates in the United States and other advanced economies will be affected. And, sooner or later, economic growth will be affected too.

A reassuring message has been issued via Bloomberg, which has published an analysis of the conflict between the sons and the role of Francesco Milleri, a trusted confidant of Luxottica’s founder and chief executive of EssilorLuxottica, the French group in which Delfin holds a 32.5 per cent stake. The Del Vecchio family’s financial resources “are ready to underpin, over time, a credible industrial project to make Generali bigger and more international,” the article states. “Options could include acquisitions by the insurer, participation in a capital increase, or support for a broader merger or consolidation. The holding company is not preparing a project of its own: for now, it intends to collect dividends, wait and support the right project, if and when it emerges.” However, “it could play a decisive role following the completion of Intesa’s acquisition of Montepaschi, when the new shareholding structure surrounding Generali becomes clearer. All this is conditional on the tensions between the heirs and the pressure from certain family members to reduce financial investments not derailing these plans”.

A conclusion that casts a shadow over the ambitious plan and confirms all the concerns circulating in stock market circles. This climate of opinion is a cause for concern for Romolo Bardin, who, with understandable anxiety, is steering a ship buffeted by Leonardino’s constant outbursts and the irritated reactions of his relatives. A fortune estimated at around 43 billion euros – attributable primarily to the stake in EssilorLuxottica and the market values of Montepaschi, Unicredit and Generali – cannot be thrown to the wind.

Of course, it will then be necessary to understand what the other players’ plans are. Messina insists on rejecting any role other than that of a stabilising force; he does not wish to propose more than three representatives on the board and has no intention of expanding abroad, not even indirectly. But many are wondering whether Intesa Sanpaolo has spent 35 billion euros simply to enter the cage of the Lion of Trieste and act as a guardian. Andrea Orcel, too, has denied wanting to take control of the company, but has spoken of “closer collaboration” both in the insurance market and in asset management. And he said this as if he were already on speaking terms with Philippe Donnet, who has been running Generali for ten years.

It is too early to consider long-term strategies before knowing whether and how Del Vecchio’s company, currently in disarray, will be sorted out. And what role Milleri, whose term expires next spring, will play. EssilorLuxottica has lost 40 per cent of its market value in a year; the board of directors has reaffirmed its confidence in him, but everything is in a state of upheaval.

Moreover, the approaching elections cast doubt on an important stakeholder such as the government, which has sent out two messages in recent years. The first was crystal clear: Generali must remain Italian; no agreements that call into question its national primacy. This was evident in the hostility towards the deal with the French firm Natixis on asset management, which was subsequently scrapped a year ago. The second is more ambiguous because Italian ownership requires strategic certainty. But who can guarantee this at the end of the parliamentary term?

The issue of Donnet, who has been criticised on several occasions by both Leonardo Del Vecchio and Francesco Gaetano Caltagirone, should not be underestimated. Their criticisms all remain valid: a lack of ambition regarding growth through overseas acquisitions; disagreements over the role of Mediobanca (will Intesa now support the capital increases that Mediobanca has been reluctant to approve?); and objections to the business plans and, consequently, to the management team.

Generali’s fate has never been a ‘family affair’, both because it remains the Italians’ piggy bank – even if no longer the only one – and because of the Treasury bills in its portfolio that guarantee its policies and the public debt.

The German crackdown follows similar measures taken by several other countries. As we report here, in Lithuania a 2022 law prohibited defence and critical infrastructure organisations from purchasing Chinese technology, including drones, whilst in the Netherlands, according to a 2021 investigation by the daily newspaper Trouw, the Ministry of Defence reportedly excluded DJI drones from operational use. The US military has done the same, having stopped using DJI drones as early as 2017, citing ‘cyber vulnerabilities’, as has the Australian Defence Force, which in 2023 suspended all DJI products and subsequently decided to permanently dispose of its more than 800 Chinese-made drones. 

In Italy, however, the approach is different. “Our Ministry of Defence opts for Chinese drones, and specifies them in public tenders with precise wording and sometimes even by brand name,” notes Pastorella. Scrolling through the ‘tenders’ section published on the army’s website, one finds direct references to the procurement of models such as the DJI Mini 4 Pro Fly More Combo or the DJI Mavic 3 Pro drone. Drones of this brand were purchased in 2025 by the Cesano Infantry School and, years earlier, also by the local police forces in Genoa and Pisa. The parliamentary question states that “in a recent tender procedure for the supply of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, ed.), the technical documentation expressly identifies models such as the DJI Mavic 3 Pro Fly More Combo and the DJI Mini 5 Pro Fly More Combo”. The same tender documentation, however, refers to the principle of equivalence set out in the Public Contracts Code, allowing, in theory, for the possibility of offering different products provided they are technically equivalent. “It’s like saying: ‘We need an Apple iPhone, or an equivalent’,” observes Pastorella.

The reliance on small Chinese drones is undeniable, notes Marco Gilli, a professor of military strategy and technology in Berlin. “This reduces the government’s room for manoeuvre when it comes to immediate purchases. But what are we doing to solve the problem, in terms of a realistic reduction plan?”, he asks. The risk, if we continue to rely on DJI, “is that the armed forces will become accustomed to a specific technology, and changing it will then become an even bigger problem”.

The sector is growing in Italy. According to data provided by the Drone and Advanced Air Mobility Observatory at the Politecnico di Milano, by 2025 the professional drone market in Italy is set to reach approximately 168 million euros (+5 per cent on 2024), with expectations of further growth over the next three years, according to industry operators. The number of active supply-side companies in Italy in 2025 stands at 675, including manufacturers and operators, marking a slight recovery compared with the previous two years. “Price is key. It is a market in which Beijing competes with superior resources and speed,” says Roberto Bellora, CEO of MavTech, a spin-off from the Polytechnic University of Turin that manufactures UAVs. “Tenders explicitly require Chinese brands. Those issuing the tenders advise us Italian manufacturers to buy drones from China and to participate in the tender as resellers.”

In 2025, the Competition Authority launched an investigation into DJI to ascertain whether, together with its importer in Italy, it had imposed resale prices and warned retailers who deviated from them. “But there is hope,” explains Bellora. “On 22 October, Minister Crosetto organised a session to showcase 400 Italian companies, potential suppliers to the Ministry of Defence, including drone manufacturers. It is a sign of change.”

The legislation spreads the Superbonus tax credits – which banks could have used in 2027 – over ten years, thereby postponing the point at which the credit institutions that purchased those credits can recoup them. In Messina, before the committee of inquiry into the banking system, he had branded it as a South American-style approach to managing debt towards creditors, raising the spectre of debt restructuring and default, and had deemed it inconsistent with the Constitution.

Giorgetti began by saying ‘amusing’, and then conceded to the banker that the measure had been described as ‘South American’, adding: ‘and rightly so’. But he recalled the figures. The debt rescheduling concerns 23–24 billion in loans, whilst a Habsburg-style minister took it upon himself to absorb 140 billion in Superbonuses into the state budget: without that burden, he said, the debt-to-GDP ratio would have fallen to 132 per cent. And so, he concluded, “I stand by the Habsburg-style policy of these past four years”. The reference is to the bureaucracy of the Habsburg Empire, synonymous with rigour and sound financial management.

Giorgetti’s response came on the same day as the fiercest clash, that between Messina and Giorgia Meloni. Speaking at the European Political Community summit in Dublin, the Prime Minister had replied that the measures in the budget were not ‘South American’ in nature, and that the government’s decision was one of justice. Later that evening, Palazzo Chigi clarified that Meloni had understood that Messina was referring to the budget as a whole, and not to the provision on the Superbonus, to which, incidentally, some amendments are currently being made.

Ultimately, the banker and the Minister for the Economy agree on one point: that rule is, in fact, South American. The difference is that, for Giorgetti, it is the price of a Superbonus that he did not want. Tonight, S&P’s assessment of Italy’s credit rating will reveal what the markets think.

“In practice,” says the trade unionist, “it concerns all the crucial aspects of industrial relations: it puts pay packets and the defence of purchasing power back at the centre; it reinforces the national collective agreement as the cornerstone of the system whilst extending decentralised bargaining to local areas and small businesses; it establishes worker participation in business decisions; it recognises training as a universal right; and it strengthens health and safety at work, finally cracking down decisively on ‘pirate’ contracts”.

In her view, there are at least two reasons why this agreement is ‘historic’. ‘The first,’ she says, ‘is that we are reaffirming a fundamental principle of the inter-trade union system: labour rules are drawn up by the social partners, not by politicians through legislation, and remain shielded from political influence and changes in the ruling coalition. ‘The second,’ adds Fumarola, ‘is that we have reached an agreement covering every type of business, establishing rules that apply to all parties and to all contracts in the private sector. It was drawn up by trade unions and businesses entirely independently, following lengthy discussions – by no means easy or a foregone conclusion – whilst the country is becoming polarised on every issue. This is why it is right to describe it as a foundational agreement, just as major inter-confederal agreements in the past were, which pulled the country out of the quicksand. And for us, it is the first chapter of that Pact which we are now calling on politicians to complete.”

The secretary then goes on to explain how the agreement will regulate wage adjustments in line with inflation: “The model,” she says, “is the one already tried and tested by the metalworkers’ union, with an annual review, and by the chemical workers’ union, with a biennial review. Each collective agreement chooses the frequency. At that stage, the parties compare the projected IPCA-NEI (the price index excluding energy goods, ed.), as calculated at the time of renewal, with the figure actually recorded by ISTAT. The difference is applied to the minimum wage (TEM) and reflected in the payslip. This adjustment cannot be absorbed by subsequent renewals, as has happened in some contracts.”

What happens, however, if the renewal is delayed? “In that case,” explains the trade unionist, “mandatory financial compensation linked to inflation is triggered, subject to compliance with the procedures: a platform six months in advance, a response within thirty days, negotiations within two months, and no unilateral action. This is not automatic indexation – which fuels a race between prices and wages – but collective bargaining. Delaying pay rises will no longer be in anyone’s interests.”

Could the agreement also mark a turning point in terms of representation? “Absolutely,” replies Fumarola, “it is one of the pillars of the agreement. As far as the trade unions are concerned, representation is determined by a combination of membership figures and the electoral support gathered through votes cast for the RSUs and RSAs. An important new development concerns the possibility for workers, on the initiative of those who collect signatures from 30 per cent plus one of the workforce, to initiate procedures to establish or vote on company-level RSUs. Furthermore, the aim is to extend representation to smaller companies as well.

“On the employers’ side,” continues the CISL secretary, “strict qualitative criteria are set, such as the organisation’s track record, membership of European representative bodies such as the EESC, and the promotion of contractual welfare schemes, in addition to a quantitative parameter based on the actual number of workers covered by the agreement, as recorded via the Uniemens data flows and the CNEL.”

Fumarola therefore explains why the agreement has delighted Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who, in response to the broad coalition’s minimum wage proposal, has long been advocating for a ‘fair wage’. “The agreement identifies the benchmark contract in each sector, effectively defining the benchmark for a fair wage and combating ‘pirate’ contracts. In fact, every contract must specify its scope of application and its correspondence with the Ateco codes, and an Observatory will monitor any improper extensions or overlaps. The tools are in place. Now the measurement methods must be defined through inter-confederal agreements by December, and that is when we will see how robust the system is,” concludes Fumarola.

Some succeed, while others do not. Over the past two decades, for example, renewables have experienced a veritable boom. However, making a dent in the market share of fossil fuels remains challenging—though not for the demagogic arguments put forward by Guterres. Consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas continues to rise, setting new records every year. This is not due to lobbying, but to the world’s insatiable need for energy, starting with the several billion people living in total or partial energy poverty. Neither renewables nor other energy production systems are keeping pace. According to the latest report from the Energy Institute, the share of energy consumption met by fossil fuels stands at 82 per cent of the global total. This represents a slight percentage decrease, but within an ever-growing pie, meaning absolute figures continue to rise. It is worth noting that the aircraft that carried him from New York to Turkey was itself fuelled by fossil fuels. As UN Secretary-General, Guterres would be better advised to focus on ensuring sufficient and affordable energy for the world’s poor. He might also explain why, after 31 years of global meetings, the agreed targets appear increasingly out of reach; perhaps this is partly due to the dinosaurs who inhabit UN Headquarters.

The breakdown in October, however, did not sever ties between those who were strongly in favour of the agreement. First and foremost, Maurizio Landini, Daniela Fumarola and Pierpaolo Bombardieri, who had been ‘stubbornly united’ on this objective for months. The three trade unions also found substantial support from Confindustria and Confcommercio: vice-presidents Marchesini and Lusetti were equally convinced they could pull it off, so much so that throughout this year of negotiations they attended every meeting, even the most technical ones usually delegated to the ‘sherpas’. From one confidential meeting to the next, a new date was set for 11 November: yet another attempt. And last week, during the CGIL General Assembly at the Brancaccio Theatre, the mood was one of ‘make or break’. In other words: either an agreement is reached, or it’s all over.

An agreement has been reached. An agreement that carries real weight: it rewrites the rules governing industrial relations, establishing that dialogue between the parties, rather than conflict, is the norm; it introduces, for the first time, a system for calculating the representation of trade unions and companies, sidelining the so-called ‘pirates’; it provides for a vote, in all workplaces, on the establishment of RSUs, if requested by at least 30 per cent plus one of the employees. As for contracts and wages, it sets out a system which, in short, works as follows: contracts are renewed upon expiry; proposals are submitted six months in advance, with a response due within one month, and negotiations begin immediately. If prices rise more than expected, the difference is recouped through periodic reviews (annual or biennial) and is retained. When renewal is delayed, a mandatory safeguard linked to inflation adjustment is triggered. The model is that of the metalworkers’ sector, which, as we have said, was one of the obstacles that had long held up an agreement. But in the end, it was passed.

All those involved in the negotiations have reacted enthusiastically. Fumarola speaks of a “groundbreaking agreement” and emphasises: “It was drawn up by trade unions and businesses entirely independently, following a long and at times acrimonious dialogue between different worlds. Whilst Italy is divided on every issue, the worlds of labour and business have established serious and enforceable rules for themselves. It is an act of responsibility towards the country”. Bombardieri remarks: “A revolution in industrial relations”. And Landini, the eternal malcontent, is also jubilant this time, going so far as to state that this agreement “heralds a new era of democracy”. Equally jubilant are the comments from the business world – large and small firms, industry and commerce, craftspeople and co-operatives. But the comment that best captures what happened overnight comes from the president of Confapi, who states: “A new labour constitution has been born.” And perhaps that is exactly the case.

In short, the stronghold of ‘good’ industrial relations is becoming better organised and strengthening the climate of trust between the parties, whilst chaos persists in the weaker sectors (primarily logistics). And for this reason, the former minister and president of the CNEL, Tiziano Treu, when asked to rate the agreement, simply gives it ‘a six-plus’. On the political front, the winners are the incumbent trade union leaders – including Maurizio Landini and the CISL, which has secured an explicit reference to worker participation – but above all Giorgia Meloni, who on last May Day chose to side with the confederal trade unions and ‘good’ contracts against the move towards ‘pirate’ contracts, which was vigorously supported by the League’s undersecretary Claudio Durigon.

And indeed, yesterday the Prime Minister spoke of a ‘historic milestone’ and proudly claimed credit for her government’s role in championing fair wages. Even Confindustria comes out of this looking fairly good, all things considered: the Emilian line taken by the ‘doves’ duo of Orsini and Marchesini has been vindicated in practice and is winning favour with members at a time when the Budget Bill is leaving entrepreneurs high and dry. The Campo Largo, whilst very close to Landini, remains somewhat on the sidelines of the affair but can only applaud, even though Giuseppe Conte has recently begun to associate with representatives of the Cobas. And so it keeps its options open, as the saying goes.

The text of the agreement sets out the so-called ‘perimeters’ in detail; in short, it prevents employers’ organisations from overstepping their remit and choosing, particularly in the service sector, the type of contract to be applied – as in the case of the notorious Multiservizi scheme, which provides for very low wages. It also establishes certain qualitative criteria (long-standing presence, relations with European bodies and welfare institutions) for employer representation, but does not yet quantify these. This is in contrast to the trade unions, where there is even a mandatory requirement to report membership figures. On the sensitive issue of inflation adjustment, the San Martino agreement confirms a 50 per cent adjustment in the event of a delay in contract renewal and, whilst the contract is in force, extends to all workers the IPCA formula provided for and trialled in the metalworkers’ contract. A fair wage is that provided for in the contracts signed by the most representative organisations and which therefore cover the largest number of workers.

The aim is to eliminate ‘pirate’ contracts in this way by excluding them from tax and social security relief and from public funds, in the hope of forcing them to abandon wage dumping. However, to eradicate the practice of discounted contracts entirely, a specific law is needed that extends the principles set out in yesterday’s agreement by applying them erga omnes. Pierpaolo Bombardieri of the UIL hopes the government will take this further step, and Mauro Lusetti (vice-president of Confcommercio) also supports the call. However, Confindustria is not keen on the erga omnes principle; the government seems satisfied for now with the results achieved and has no intention of further extending the crackdown on pirates (who vote for the right anyway); and the broader political spectrum, which might align with Bombardieri’s viewpoint, appears distracted for the time being.

However, the minimum wage proposal so dear to Schlein, Conte and Fratoianni has come off badly. The position of the government and the CNEL has in fact been confirmed (including with the CGIL’s endorsement): to tackle low-paid work, they have always relied on autonomous collective bargaining between the parties, to which San Martino has added the crackdown on ‘pirate’ contracts that we have discussed. The USB, the trade union that fears a curtailment of its scope, is in a gloomy mood: “Under the guise of combating ‘pirate’ contracts, the agreement reinforces the monopoly of the large organisations, entrenches the existing balance of power and reduces the scope for autonomy and industrial action for independent trade unions”.

But the problem, to return to Meloni’s words, is that this dialogue she referred to simply never took place. It is not merely a question of money, but of trust. Messina feels betrayed by a government for which he had acted as the point of contact and, to a certain extent, the guarantor with the banking system of an agreement that has been torn up by this Budget Bill. “Keeping to agreements is essential,” he says. The message to Meloni is unequivocal: something has broken down. “I was the government’s main point of contact throughout this period,” recalls the CEO of Intesa.

It was he, as a major banker, who had backed the agreement with the government on the previous Budget Bill, when the banks had agreed to contribute around 10 billion over three years. A deal that Messina, in patriotic and solidarity-driven terms, had personally defended even before his own international shareholders. 

Now the new budget adds, without any prior consultation, a further 7 billion in levies over the three-year period. It is time to get a few things off one’s chest. Messina responds indirectly to the Minister for the Economy, Giancarlo Giorgetti, who has repeatedly described the banks as beneficiaries of public aid through guarantees.

“If we weigh up the capital losses on government bonds against the benefits gained from guarantees, the result is to the detriment of the banks,” says the CEO of Intesa, emphasising that banks and insurance companies, which hold around 600 billion in government bonds, are “the state’s main creditor, more so than the ECB and the Bank of Italy”. Without their contribution, financing the public debt would be much more difficult. Messina points out that the banks are resisting “pressure from international bodies” calling for them to “reduce their holdings of government bonds”, despite the fact that they are “incurring significant losses”.

Messina also responds regarding profits, which totalled 8.2 billion euros in the first nine months of the year. But of this amount, he says, Intesa has already paid 5.2 billion in tax. Intesa’s tax rate, he adds, was already the highest in Europe before this budget. “The further afield you go, the lower the tax rate. We take pride in being based in Italy, but it is clear that there is a limit,” he says, highlighting the difference compared with other institutions that have already – quite legitimately – focused on internationalisation.

With regard to the dividends paid by Intesa, Messina points out that 3.5 billion went to institutional investors, whilst 2.5 billion went to households and banking foundations, which allocate these funds to social initiatives. In a burst of pride, Messina emphasises the group’s social role: “The greatest supporter of the poor is not the Church, it is Intesa Sanpaolo”. “There are those who try to ‘bully the banks’,” he said, clearly referring to Deputy Prime Minister Salvini’s attitude, “but that doesn’t scare us.”

The harshest criticism, however, concerns the state’s credibility. Messina announces – more explicitly than the Italian Banking Association (ABI) did during its hearing – that Intesa’s shareholders will challenge the new measures before the Constitutional Court. The harshest criticism is directed at the ‘spalma-Superbonus’, a provision which – as reported by Il Foglio on 3 November – is effectively a default on a debt: “A South American-style approach to debt management. It’s unbelievable: ten years without interest.” According to the banker, ECB rules could require these loans to be reclassified as something akin to a technical default, with possible consequences for the state’s other debts. A measure offering minimal benefits for the public finances, but with devastating effects on the Treasury’s credibility: “It is incredible that this provision was not discussed in advance”, because it would have been possible to find alternative solutions to tackle the liquidity problem without exposing Italy to such a reputational risk.

It is precisely the international dimension that makes this rift particularly significant. Messina has kind words to say about the fact that the Meloni government has “gained international esteem and credibility”, but he warns that there is a risk of jeopardising this capital built up over the years: “Mistakes could jeopardise relations not only with the banks, but also with international investors”. The government is driven by a political logic whereby “the more people oppose us, the more votes we get”. But it makes no sense to do all this “just to gain 1 per cent of the vote”, says Messina, especially if “you’ve lost 10 per cent” (the reference is, once again, to Salvini).

On the one hand, for the CEO of Intesa, there is the relationship between the sector and the government: banks can be seen as the ‘cash machine’ of politics, an easy target for winning a bit of support; but there is an economic and reputational cost to consider. On the other hand, however, there is clearly a personal issue concerning the way in which the CEO of Intesa felt he was treated by the government: “I put my reputation on the line for the agreement, risking a liability claim,” he said, emphasising his commitment to convincing his shareholders. Now that the government has breached that agreement, the relationship of trust has been irreparably broken.

Let’s start with the dinosaurs, where Guterres unwittingly declares himself an enemy of biodiversity. The culprit appears to have been an asteroid, whose impact triggered a chain reaction of pollution and climate change. Around 75 per cent of animal species became extinct, though not all dinosaurs – the avian dinosaurs (ancestors of the birds we know today) survived. In literature, we speak of catastrophe and the end of the world; and, in short, equating the end of the fossil era with the end of the dinosaurs does not seem fair either to the dinosaurs or to humanity. The next time this appears in print, replacing ‘dinosaur’ with ‘plague’ might be less ambiguous.

The Secretary-General states that the modern plague (the fossil fuel industry) survives solely due to lobbying. This remark appears to imply that its competitors (renewables, nuclear, etc.) are free of such influence, just as the dinosaurs were. It is unclear on what basis the Secretary-General formed this opinion, but if this is indeed his perspective, it suggests that he may have forgotten how Brussels operates; a considerable amount of time has elapsed since he last engaged with the city as Prime Minister of Portugal, and a brief return visit might be advisable.

“Fossil fuels must disappear”. 2015. COP 21. Paris. Climate agreement. And alongside this, the Pope declaring the climate a global good (much to the dismay of economists) and China declaring its intention to take the lead in the fight against climate change. Given the breadth of the coalition, one might have thought that phasing out fossil fuels would be a triumphant march. 2015–2025. At first glance, it does not seem triumphant, but something does appear to be happening. In 2015, oil accounted for 35.2 per cent of primary energy sources, falling to 33.5 per cent by 2025; natural gas rose from 23.9 to 25.1 per cent; and coal fell from 30 to 27.7 per cent. In percentage terms, at least, the situation is not getting worse. Emissions, however, are measured in volumes, not percentages; and the volumes show that, from Paris to the present day, fossil fuel consumption has actually increased in absolute terms. Rounded off, oil consumption rose from 93 to 103 million barrels per day; natural gas from 3,470 to 4,185 billion cubic metres; and coal from less than eight to more than nine million tonnes. To top it all off, we keep telling ourselves that the future is renewable and (partly for that reason) electric; yet in 2025, coal’s share of global electricity generation was still above 33 per cent.

Are you sure, Mr Secretary-General, that the lobby is to blame? The reality is that, despite mobilising heads of state and popes, over the last decade we have broadly managed to meet the growing global demand for energy with non-fossil fuel sources but (as the figures show) have not managed to make a dent in the fossil fuel stronghold. On a global scale, renewable energy has been an addition rather than a replacement.

If fossil fuels were to disappear tomorrow morning, we would be left without almost 80 per cent of the energy we consume; and we would have to go back to the woods to chop wood (which, in turn, would run out quickly). Decarbonisation must be our primary objective; but let’s move forward, sensibly and as far as we can.

The transition requires capital – and plenty of it; it cannot work without public support; and it requires substantial investment in upgrading the infrastructure. And, by definition, investment in infrastructure ends up on Mrs Gina’s utility bill.

Where the transition requires not only capital but also consensus. Beyond the ford lies the Land of Milk and Honey. Free sun and wind for all. But one must cross the ford; and come to terms with the fact that, during the transition, energy costs tend to rise throughout the crossing, and that Gina is therefore not sure she wants to cross the Red Sea. The transition requires compensatory measures for the most vulnerable groups and a gradual, non-disruptive shift in energy sources and systems. In Brussels, they had not realised this; and they have managed, through their approach to decarbonisation, to generate dissent and, consequently, difficulties in governing.

You, Secretary-General, think that energy is all about lobbying; and I fear we would instead have to talk about politics. I also believe that it is not good policy to leave it in the hands of antiquated institutions.

Massimo Nicolazzi, author of the essay “Elogio del petrolio. Energia e disuguaglianza dal mammut all’auto elettrica” (Feltrinelli)

Businesses must bear the ordinary risk: I am calling for predictability, not immunity from the market. The guarantee already in place against counterparty default must be supplemented by pooling and risk-transfer mechanisms. For systemic shocks, I propose an extraordinary stabilisation mechanism, activated only if gas and electricity prices together exceed objective and persistent thresholds. It must be temporary, progressive, with a cap and a share of the risk always borne by the company. One model worth studying is SIMEST’s experience in stabilising export interest rates. In the meantime, we need production, renewables, storage, grids and faster authorisations. And an integrated and solidarity-based European energy system: the single market cannot coexist with permanent energy disadvantages. Energy independence by 2040 is a strategic objective. But we must reach that point whilst still being able to produce and invest: industrial competitiveness is the prerequisite for achieving this.

Anna Mareschi Danieli, Danieli Group

In the capital, there are 33,823 tourist overnight stays per year for every chauffeur-driven car hire licence: in Madrid the figure is 3,416, and in Paris 1,462. Almost ten times that of the Spanish capital, and over twenty-three times that of the French capital. For Giuricin, the problem affects the whole country, even though the study mainly analyses Lazio and Lombardy: “Taking into account variables such as not only population but also tourism, overnight stays and the economy, it is clear that the shortage of chauffeur-driven car hire services and taxis in Italy is enormous.”

Rome accounts for 53 million overnight stays per year, compared with 33.1 million in the Madrid region and 65.8 million in the Paris area. Between taxis and private hire vehicles, there are 5,177 overnight stays per authorised vehicle in Rome, compared with 1,279 in Madrid and 1,013 in Paris: four and five times as many, respectively. There is one taxi or private hire vehicle for every 410 inhabitants in Rome, one for every 274 in Madrid, and one for every 106 in Paris. This is a vast disparity, indicative of the daily difficulties faced by tourists and residents alike. According to the study, the shortage is not solely due to tourist pressure: it is a structural issue, with potential consequences for the capital’s accessibility and competitiveness, in a sector still governed by legislation dating back to 1992. Furthermore, Rome’s transport needs extend well beyond the city’s boundaries. This is why there is a call for national reform: “Every region or local authority,” continues Giuricin, “could draw up its own laws and principles for granting licences and private hire vehicle authorisations, but the real issue is implementing a national reform that allows for a significant increase.” 

The study refers to the Jubilee, a litmus test for Rome’s transport system, but the issue is not limited to major events: residents and everyday tourists are also calling for greater capacity. “During the Jubilee and the Olympics in Milan, there could have been structural improvements thanks to the events, but it was a missed opportunity. The situation is dire.” The counter-example is Paris 2024: during the Olympics, the VTC system – the French equivalent of private hire vehicles – helped meet the rise in demand, with journeys up by 26 per cent in August, thanks to a model that allows for greater flexibility in supply. “We need structural reform that recognises the complementary roles of taxis and private hire vehicles and allows supply to be adapted to the actual needs of the local area, without pitting the different categories of operators against one another. New licences,” the economist points out, “would create a huge market: but the question is whether to prioritise the interests of twenty thousand taxi drivers or those of millions of tourists and local residents.”

The coalition is calling for a review of the criteria used to set the number of private hire vehicle licences, which are currently based on local authority parameters and historical quotas, taking into account tourists, airport passengers, major events and unmet demand. Finally, regarding the disruption, Giuricin quotes the Competition Authority: "Independent bodies are looking into the matter and attended the presentation of the study. Months ago, the Competition Authority was already reporting one million unmet journeys per month in Rome, a figure that is driving people to use the service less and less.”

The executive criticised several decisions made by the government, chief among them the decision to further increase the taxes and levies imposed on banks. As we wrote a few days ago, this situation highlights one of the government’s paradoxes: on the one hand, it is portrayed as a friend of the banks, yet on the other, it is the very same government that has often treated them as cash machines. The area where this contradiction is most clearly evident is, in fact, the forthcoming budget bill.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni responded to the criticism upon arriving at an intergovernmental summit in Dublin: “I’m sorry that these measures are being regarded as ‘South American’ – they are not.” According to the Prime Minister: “I would have been happier if there had been an agreement, but I think we all realise the situation.” She added: “We are all aware of the difficulties that this particular economic climate poses for many Italian citizens; at the same time, we also realise that there are sectors which have fared well in recent years, and which have done so partly thanks to the government’s measures” and “also thanks to the stability that Italy has guaranteed. So let’s try to help one another out; that is, in a way, the choice the government has made, and I consider it a choice based on fairness.”

“Intesa Sanpaolo’s tax rate is already, even before the new budget law, the highest in Europe. There is no other bank of our size in Europe with a tax rate at this level. The further afield you go, the lower the tax rate becomes,” Messina added. “For us,” he continued, “it has always been a source of pride to be based in Italy. It is a source of pride to have ensured that profits are generated in this country. It is clear, however, that there is a limit.”

“We are the leading investor in government bonds. This gives you an idea of just how closely the bank’s fortunes are linked to the country’s economic performance. As the country’s main creditor, it is in our best interests for the country to do well, but this must be achieved through mutual respect and by honouring the commitments made. We are currently incurring significant losses on government bonds,” he said.

And speaking strictly of the budget: “I believe it is very important that – as in every country in the world – when drafting financial legislation, we do not remain shut away in a backroom, but engage with those who have the expertise to help us.” He also strongly criticised the government’s decisions: “We have proposed,” he added, “measures concerning public property and the creation of Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plans (PNRRs) financed by Intesa. We are willing to reduce public debt and boost growth. Problems must be tackled in the medium and long term, not just for the next three months because there are elections in six months’ time. What is being proposed is not consistent with the Constitution.”

He added: “Without the banks, there would be no financing of public debt, because no one else could raise 600 billion euros. That is why I am convinced that when discussing issues relating to the banking sector, it is essential to consider the actual contribution that each sector makes to the other and the benefits that accrue to the various stakeholders.”