Smartworking in crisis and return to the office: causes, Eurostat data and silent dismissal of companies

The pandemic six years ago triggered a mass adoption of work remotelyit smartworking. In the first years of application, projections suggested a structural and permanent change towards a flexible and decentralized working model. However, between 2023 and 2025, labor market dynamics showed a progressive trend reversalwith a growing number of companies requiring employees to return to headquarters. Here is an analysis of the phenomenon, supported by current data and the main interpretations of the market.

Data from the Polytechnic University of Milan on smartworking in Italy: the gap between businesses and SMEs

The Italian panorama presents specific characteristics. According to data from the Smart Working Observatory of the Polytechnic University of Milan, in 2025 there will be approximately 3 million and 575 thousandwith a stability that recorded a slight growth (+0.6%) compared to the previous year.

Despite this volume, Italy records very low adoption percentages compared to the continental average. According to Eurostat, only 4.4% of Italian workers do at least half of the week in smart workingagainst a European average of 9% (with peaks like 22% of Finland). This discrepancy is explained by the economic structure of the country: smart working in Italy is an option rooted almost exclusively in large companies in the service sector, mainly located in the North. In Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), the adoption of formal flexibility policies stops at 45%while entire productive and commercial sectors are physiologically excluded from it.

Remote Work Disappears: Global Trend and Business Perspective

Even at an international level, there is a contraction in remote working in favor of in-person work. In the United States, although approx 34 million of people maintain a hybrid or remote regime, the percentage of employees who spend four or more days in the office is doubled from 34% to 68% between 2023 and 2024.

Studies like that of Pew Research Center indicate that the 75% of workers today has theobligation to regularly attend the physical location. On the management side, the83% of global CEOs expect a return to full-time office work by 2027. The main justification provided by management is the need to preserve the “productive contamination”, the corporate culture and the informal exchanges that stimulate innovation, considered complex to replicate via video calls.

Productivity, well-being and control tools

Academic studies on the effects of smart working offer heterogeneous results:

• The advantages: a search for Stanford University of over 1,600 employees highlighted that two days of working from home per week reduces by Voluntary resignation rate is 33%.without negatively impacting productivity or career progression.
• The critical issues: an analysis of 33 million US workers associated working remotely three or more days a week with a significant increase in feelings of isolation.
• Overworking: Italian data from the Polytechnic of Milan indicate that the 35% of smart workers experience phenomena of overworking (work beyond established hours), against 30% of those who work exclusively on site.

Alongside these factors is the theme of monitoring. To manage staff remotely or to enforce return, several multinationals (such as Amazon, Dell, Meta and JPMorgan) have implemented control systemsincluding badge tracking and VPN monitoring.

Between 2024 and 2025, some major global companies have imposed stringent return-to-office directives. Amazon requested the return for five days a week, sparking internal protests and the declaration by 73% of employees that they wanted to evaluate work alternatives. JPMorgan imposed a total return, limiting comments on internal forums in response to complaints from staff. Dell has progressively eliminated hybrid work, linking presence in the office to promotion possibilities.

It is notable that research from the University of Pittsburgh, based on the analysis of millions of company profiles, found no direct correlation between mandating a return to the office and an actual increase in company value or profitability.

The theory of “Quiet Purging”

Faced with the lack of unequivocal data on productivity, many market analysts have put forward a different interpretation for these return mandates: the so-called quiet purging or silent dismissal.

This theory suggests that the requirement to be present five days a week is a managerial tool for reduce the workforce indirectly. By imposing conditions that are difficult to accommodate the new habits of employees (such as those who have moved or need work-life balance), companies push a percentage of staff to resign voluntarilysaving on severance costs and mitigating the image damage resulting from mass layoffs. According to an investigation by ResumeBuilder80% of companies that have mandated a return to headquarters have lost talent, yet 70% of them plan to maintain these policies in 2025.

The current job market appears polarized. Large corporations are pushing for physical re-entry, while a vast network of small-to-medium sized businesses and startups continue to offer flexibility to attract qualified staff.

In Italy, surveys show that three-quarters of smart working workers would be ready to look for a new job in case of total revocation of remote working. To accept a job exclusively in person, Italian professionals would require, on average, a 30% salary increase. Flexibility, in fact, has acquired a precise and measurable economic quantification within the remuneration packages.