A new return-to-work playbook for micro, small and medium enterprises is putting a practical question before India’s employers: can businesses convert career breaks from an automatic penalty into a manageable recruitment and workforce-planning issue? The guide, unveiled at a symposium in Kolkata by the Bengal chapter of the Confederation of Indian Industry’s Indian Women Network, offers MSMEs a framework to recruit, onboard and retain women returning after breaks linked to childcare, health, education and other reasons.
The intervention matters because the employment problem described at the symposium is not simply a question of individual confidence or employability. It is also a problem of how organisations evaluate experience. The playbook cites research indicating that a candidate with a career break is 24 percentage points less likely to receive a callback than an otherwise identical candidate without a break. That gap points to a hiring system in which the absence of recent formal employment can outweigh a candidate’s earlier skills, experience and potential fit.
For women in cities, the consequences of that system extend beyond the workplace. A career break can affect household income, professional identity, access to social security and the ability to remain connected to formal employment. When a large number of people with prior work experience remain outside the labour market, the impact is also felt by urban businesses that struggle to find skilled workers. The CII initiative frames this as a mismatch between available talent and the way MSMEs structure jobs and recruitment.
The playbook’s focus on MSMEs is significant. Large companies may have dedicated human resource teams, formal returnship programmes and the capacity to redesign roles. Smaller businesses often operate with fewer layers of management and less specialised administrative capacity. Hiring decisions may be made directly by founders or small HR teams, while onboarding, training and performance management are handled alongside daily operations. A framework designed for MSMEs therefore has to translate inclusion from a broad corporate commitment into processes that smaller employers can use.
The report does not provide the full contents of the playbook, so it is not possible to assess the precise recommendations, targets or monitoring system it proposes. Its stated structure, however, covers three stages: recruitment, onboarding and retention. That sequence is important. Bringing a woman back into employment is not only a matter of finding candidates. It also requires employers to decide how career breaks are treated during screening, how returning workers are introduced to changed systems and expectations, and what conditions make it possible for them to remain in the job.
The first barrier is visible in the callback figure cited at the symposium. If a career break reduces the probability of receiving an interview, interventions that begin only after hiring will miss the point at which many candidates are excluded. Recruitment practices, including job descriptions, screening criteria and interview processes, can determine whether prior experience is considered relevant or whether the break becomes the dominant fact in a candidate’s application.
This is especially relevant for MSMEs, where a vacancy may be written around an immediate operational need rather than a clearly defined skills profile. The statement by Swagata Guha Mustafi, chairperson of CII IWN West Bengal, referred to identifying fragmented roles and mapping them against MSME talent needs. That approach suggests a possible institutional bridge between two groups: women seeking a route back into work and small businesses that may have work requirements that can be organised into accessible roles.
The idea of fragmented roles deserves attention because a career break does not necessarily mean a complete loss of professional capability. Skills may become outdated, but the extent of that change differs by sector and job. Some work can be reorganised into part-time, project-based, hybrid or phased arrangements; other roles may require structured retraining or a more conventional full-time return. The source report does not establish which arrangements the playbook recommends, and no claims about their effectiveness can be made from the symposium alone. It does establish that the organisers are treating job design as part of the return-to-work question rather than focusing only on candidate motivation.
Onboarding is the second test. A returning professional may need support in understanding changed technology, processes, reporting structures or workplace expectations. A long absence can also create uncertainty about how previous experience will be valued. The symposium brought together corporate leaders, HR professionals, entrepreneurs and women who have returned to work after career breaks, allowing the discussion to connect employer concerns with the experiences of people who have already navigated the transition.
The participation of established organisations was intended to provide a contrast with the practical constraints of smaller firms. Radhika Singh Banerjee of Tata Steel and Navneet Damani of ITC took part in a fireside conversation moderated by PwC India’s Vishnupriya Sengupta. The discussion, according to the report, linked the experience of large organisations with the challenges facing MSMEs. That exchange is useful, but it should not be mistaken for evidence that practices from large companies can be transferred directly to smaller businesses. Differences in staffing, cash flow, managerial capacity and operational risk can significantly change what an employer is able to implement.
Retention is the third and perhaps most decisive stage. A recruitment campaign can produce new hires without changing the underlying conditions that caused workers to leave or prevented them from returning. The report identifies childcare, health and education among the reasons women may take a career break. These reasons are not interchangeable, and a single workplace intervention may not address all of them. The playbook’s value will therefore depend on whether it helps employers distinguish between different needs rather than treating returning women as a uniform category.
The wider institutional question is who is responsible for making a return to work possible. Employers control recruitment, job design and workplace practices. Industry bodies can create guidance and peer-learning platforms. Professional networks can connect candidates with firms. Families and public services also influence whether paid work is feasible, particularly when care responsibilities are involved. The symposium itself cannot resolve those responsibilities, but its format reflects an attempt to bring several parts of the employment system into one conversation.
The panel included representatives from healthcare, artificial intelligence, publishing, consulting, recruitment and mining. That range indicates that the issue cuts across sectors rather than belonging to one narrow occupation. It also points to a challenge for implementation: a return-to-work pathway may need to be adapted to different forms of work, from clinical and technical roles to professional services and small-business operations. The report does not provide sector-specific outcomes, so the effectiveness of a common framework remains to be tested.
For urban economies, the central issue is not merely whether one group receives better access to jobs. It is whether cities and businesses are using the skills already present in their labour markets. The CII IWN statement described the loss of women’s talent to caregiving as an economic loss. That argument shifts the discussion from a welfare-oriented model, in which women are seen primarily as beneficiaries of workplace support, to a productivity and talent-management model, in which exclusion also creates a cost for employers.
That framing can broaden the constituency for reform, particularly among MSMEs. Yet it also needs to be matched by evidence. The 24-percentage-point callback gap cited in the playbook shows a barrier at the screening stage, but the supplied report does not provide the study’s sample, geography, sector coverage or methodology. Nor does it establish how many women the new guide is expected to reach, how many MSMEs will adopt it, or whether participating firms will report hiring and retention outcomes. These are important measures for judging whether the initiative moves beyond a symposium and a guidance document.
The next phase will therefore determine the playbook’s significance. Its stated promise is to provide a step-by-step framework, but the available account does not identify an implementation timetable, participating employers or a public system for tracking results. Those details will show whether the initiative becomes a practical tool for smaller businesses or remains primarily an awareness exercise.
What the Kolkata symposium confirms is that career breaks remain an institutional barrier in recruitment, and that MSMEs are being identified as a crucial part of the response. What remains uncertain is whether the proposed framework can change hiring behaviour, adapt to different sectors and support women beyond the point of re-entry. The most consequential evidence will come from adoption, callback rates, hires and retention—not from the launch of the playbook alone.
