Expanding manufacturing employment and attracting displaced factories from China necessitates the convergence of regulatory regimes governing factories and service employers. In his enlightening work, “Behemoth,” Joshua Freeman traces the pivotal role of factories in shaping the modern world, from producing essential goods like medicines and clothing to revolutionizing transportation and communication. The discourse on factories, spanning from the critiques of Marx and Engels to the visionary insights of figures like Henry Ford and Joseph Stalin, underscores their profound impact on society, as has been depicted by artists and writers throughout history.
China’s ascendancy as a manufacturing powerhouse has been a dominant narrative in recent decades. However, shifts in Chinese policies, advancements in robotics, and the pervasive influence of digitization present an opportunity for India’s manufacturing sector to thrive. To realize this potential, addressing the regulatory disparities between manufacturing and service industries is paramount.
The dichotomy in regulatory frameworks between manufacturing and services serves as a compelling case study illustrating how well-intentioned regulations can inadvertently stifle growth. Despite accounting for only 11% of the labor force, manufacturing in India faces a cumbersome regulatory burden compared to its service sector counterparts. The archaic Factories Act of 1948, coupled with state-specific regulations, imposes a labyrinth of compliance requirements on manufacturing enterprises, such as Tata Steel, contrasting sharply with the relatively lighter regulatory touch experienced by service-oriented firms like TCS operating under the Shops and Establishments Act.
A detailed comparison reveals the disparity in compliance obligations between a software firm with 10,000 employees and a manufacturing facility with 100 employees in Maharashtra. While the former is subject to 98 compliances and maintains just two registers, the latter must contend with a staggering 348 compliances and maintain nine registers, alongside numerous event-based filings.
The onerous burden of compliance under the Factories Act extends beyond paperwork, presenting practical challenges for manufacturing enterprises. From maintaining records of maintenance activities to ensuring hygiene standards, ventilation, and safety protocols, the regulatory landscape imposes a myriad of operational constraints. Moreover, requirements concerning health and welfare provisions, including medical examinations, creche facilities, and dining arrangements, further escalate the compliance burden for manufacturers.
Recognizing the inherent differences between factories and service establishments, it is imperative to tailor regulations to the unique needs of each sector. However, the current regulatory asymmetry not only stifles manufacturing growth but also perpetuates inefficiencies and corruption. As the adage goes, “the dose makes the poison,” highlighting the dual nature of regulations as both facilitators and inhibitors of economic progress.
The Factories Act, in its current form, undermines India’s aspirations for manufacturing-led growth by fostering a climate of regulatory overreach and administrative burdens. To unleash the full potential of India’s manufacturing sector and capitalize on opportunities arising from global shifts in production, a holistic reform agenda is imperative. This includes harmonizing regulatory frameworks, streamlining compliance processes, and fostering an enabling environment for innovation and investment in manufacturing. Only then can India emerge as a global manufacturing hub, driving sustainable economic growth and employment generation.
