Business111 - reliable, government-backed information and real-world experience in one simple space.

This is your community space for business help and discussions if you are a client of Menta.org.uk. We have teamed up with our partners - www.business111.com to provide this community forum and all of their curated information to help you 24/7. To take part in the community space please register. It's free.

The Governemnt has announced that it's scrapping the Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill. The reason given is to reduce costs on firms. This programme of refrom has been in the pipeline and kicked into the long grass several times, since the collapse of the big construction company Carillion in 2018. It took thousands of small construction firms with it and the ripples reached out as far as small micro businesses on the sidelines like cafes. This isn't good news and leaves gaps which could mean that future corporate failures have a similar impact. Cutting red tape to boost the growth agenda has consequences and there will be losers.

Speak to any small business owner right now and you’ll hear the same thing. Costs are rising. Pressure is building. And somehow, they’re expected to carry more, with less control. There’s a new player entering UK employment law - The Fair Work Agency On paper, it sounds like a good thing. Fair pay. Fair treatment. Better protections for workers. No one’s arguing with that. But there’s a question sitting underneath all of this that hardly anyone is asking: Fair for who? The system is getting stronger… for employees Let’s be clear, employees are about to become more protected than ever. Under the latest changes, they’ll have: • Enforcement of minimum wage and holiday pay through the state • A legal requirement for employers to inform them of their right to join a union • Greater access to union representation • External bodies stepping directly into workplace disputes This is a system that’s becoming: More active. More structured. More supportive. And again that’s not a bad thing. But it’s only one side of the story. Now let’s talk about the other side The person running the business. The one who: • Pays the wages • Handles compliance • Carries the financial risk • Keeps the whole thing from falling apart Let’s be honest for a second… What does “fairness” look like for them? Because right now, it looks like this: • No minimum income protection • No statutory holiday pay • No sick pay • No enforcement body acting on their behalf If things go wrong, they don’t call for help. They absorb it. Out of their own pocket. “But business owners can join organisations…” Sure. Of course they can. An employee can join a union for £10–£20 a month. A business owner can join something like the Federation of Small Businesses for a similar cost over a year. On the surface, that sounds balanced. But that’s not where the real difference lies. One is built into the system. The other isn’t. Employees: • Are automatically protected by law • Have enforcement bodies acting for them • Are actively informed of their rights • Can access support inside the workplace Business owners: • Have to go looking for support • Have to pay for it themselves • Have no equivalent enforcement body • Have no obligation from the system to support them One is built in. One is left to chance. That’s not a small difference. That’s the whole game. And at the same time… control is shifting Here’s where it gets more complicated. Business owners are still responsible for everything. But they’re not in full control anymore: • Wage floors are set by the government • Taxes are being driven upwards all round • Compliance requirements are expanding fast to reflect incoming legislation • Enforcement is becoming more proactive by the state So the original deal used to be: Take the risk. Keep the control. Now? Take the risk. Share the control. Carry the whole responsibility. That’s a very different equation. The question no one has properly answered What is a “worker”? Because this entire system is being built around protecting workers. But in reality… it’s not protecting all of them. Think about a small business owner. They’re: • Delivering the service • Managing clients • Handling operations • Wearing five different hats • Working long hours just to stay afloat Are they not working? Of course they are. But legally? They’re classified as self-employed or a company director. Which means they sit outside the very protections being created and strengthened across the system. So who represents them? Trade unions exist for employees and they play an important role. But they’re not built for business owners. And there is no equivalent system with the same: • Access • Influence • Enforcement power So what are we left with? A system where: • One side is increasingly supported, protected, and represented • The other is expected to navigate growing complexity and costs alone with no support This is where the imbalance starts to matter Because most small businesses aren’t big corporations. They’re people: People working long hours People taking financial risks People trying to build something sustainable And in many cases? They’re earning less than their own employees, especially in the early years. But none of that shows up in policy. None of it gets protected. And none of it gets supported. So what does “fair” actually mean? If fairness at work is the goal, it can’t just apply in one direction. It has to reflect how modern businesses actually operate. Because right now, a system is being built that recognises one type of worker… And ignores another. The one that makes employment possible in the first place. Final thought The Fair Work Agency may well improve fairness inside businesses. But it raises a bigger question: Who is making sure the system itself is fair? Because if fairness is the goal… It can’t depend on which side of the payslip you sit.

Franchising is not for everyone. That isn’t reverse psychology. It’s protection. For you and for the business you’re joining. I’ve described franchising as a business in a box. But here’s the part people don’t always like hearing: Some people don’t want a box. They want a blank canvas. And that’s fine. Franchising Is Right for People Who Want a Head Start If you like the idea of building something from scratch, designing the brand, testing pricing, rewriting processes repeatedly and learning through expensive mistakes, start independently. If you’d rather open a box that already contains: • Proven pricing • Recruitment frameworks • Marketing rhythms • Compliance systems • Technology • Peer support Then franchising may suit you. The box won’t remove effort. It removes guesswork. That distinction matters. It’s Right for People Who Respect Structure Franchise systems have standards. Reporting. Brand consistency. Operating processes. Some people experience that as control. Others experience it as clarity. The most successful franchisees I’ve observed don’t feel restricted by the system. They use it. They follow it. They improve within it. They don’t constantly fight it. If your instinct is to rewrite everything immediately, franchising may frustrate you. It’s Right for People Who Want Clarity About Where They Stand Franchise systems measure performance. Not to catch you out. Not to police you. Not to keep score. But because most serious business owners want to know where they are. Are enquiries converting? Is marketing consistent? Are margins healthy? Is recruitment on track? A good franchisor is not your keeper. They are not your policeman. They are your strategic partner. They see patterns across multiple territories. They spot warning signs early. They challenge drift. They support recovery. If you like operating in the dark and resisting visibility, you will find that uncomfortable. If you like knowing where you stand and adjusting quickly you will value it. The difference isn’t capability. It’s mindset. It’s Right for People Who Are Willing to Lead, Even When It’s Awkward Franchising does not remove leadership responsibility. You will still need to recruit, market consistently, manage cash flow and handle uncomfortable conversations. In the network I lead, I’ve seen franchisees build businesses that work around school runs, family commitments and long-term lifestyle goals. One franchisee did exactly that. But she didn’t build flexibility by avoiding responsibility. She built it by stepping into ownership fully, then shaping it deliberately. The box provided the structure. She provided the leadership. Franchising Is Probably Not Right for You If… You want passive income. You dislike following established systems. You struggle with long-term contractual commitment. You want total creative control over brand and pricing. You believe buying a franchise removes the need to market consistently. None of those are character flaws. They simply align better with independent entrepreneurship. The Question Most Buyers Avoid When people assess a franchise, they analyse the opportunity. They rarely analyse themselves. Do you want freedom from structure? Or freedom because of structure? Franchising is entrepreneurial. It just operates inside a framework. For the right personality, that framework accelerates growth. For the wrong personality, it feels like a cage. The model isn’t the problem. Misalignment is. The Risk Question Most People Oversimplify People often assume franchising is the “lower risk” option. That’s only partly true. Franchising shifts the category of risk. It doesn’t remove it. It gives you tested pricing, proven systems, operational frameworks and shared experience. But commercial risk still exists. You can follow a system and still need resilience. You can operate within a structure and still need consistent marketing. You can buy a proven model and still face recruitment challenges. The difference isn’t whether risk exists. It’s where the risk sits. If you start independently, your risk sits in designing the model correctly. If you buy a franchise, your risk sits in executing the model consistently. Neither is risk-free. They are different types of risk. So the real question becomes: Do I want to build the system and absorb the risk of getting it wrong? Or do I want to operate within a tested system and accept the responsibility of running it properly? That’s a much more honest comparison. Final Thought Franchising: Reduces guesswork. Does not remove responsibility. Reduces model risk. Does not remove execution risk. The question isn’t whether franchising is safer. It’s whether you prefer to take your risk in creation or in implementation. Alignment creates resilience. Optimism alone does not. Sam Acton is the founder of the Domestic Angels network of small businesses. She is a Member of the BCP Council Audit & Governance Committee and a Trustee of the Healthbus Charity. Sam has over 20 years’ experience building and supporting SMEs and regularly contributes to discussions on employment, governance and sustainable business growth in Westminster. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sam-acton/