valid the wide and coherent literature that determines the
logical propositions, through the innovative reasoning we
reach a coherent conclusion, founded and useful for the
analysis of the survival of the enterprises, therefore to
demonstrate some conditions of going concern that apparently would not be instead justifiable in the absence of
financial return.
4 Analysis: From General Theories
to Analytical Procedures
The topics (and reports) of our focus are the following:
– company;
– uncertainty;
– risk.
The (scientific) notion of a company defined by business
scholars. The researchers identify (conventionally/
instrumentally) the requirements to define the object of
analysis and with respect to this, the paradigm assumes
extensive boundaries.
The system of economic events is always the irradiating
factor of the topic, although scholars have defined the
meaning of the word “company” (Zappa 1957). This word is
the expression of the historical moment and of the development of studies, of the means of research and, of the
scholar’s ability of imagination (Giannessi 1960).
The variances found on this topic are often only expressive and not substantial. Scholars agree on the fundamental
area of the investigation (the systematic production of goods
and services), even if the specific topic “company”, and on
its conceptual boundaries. They are punctually delineated
with the identification of specific elements that tend to
expand or reduce the object of study. The core of scientific
observation is always production (Onida 1986).
The meaning of a company (Amaduzzi 1978), therefore,
is based on that of “production”, that is defined as the systematic production of goods and services and how they are
conducted. The production is put in place to achieve the
goals (of the promoters of the company or of the entities to
which the company belongs), and (simultaneously) the
expectations of the people that gravitate around the production entity (Masini 1979; Capaldo 2013).
There is a substantial difference between the (institutional) goals and expectations. If the goals are not satisfied
(or if they cannot be met in the future), they can compromise
the existence of the company. Failure to achieve the
expected objectives does not usually entail the termination of
production until the company maintains a force of claiming
resources (not necessarily the same). However, the aims and
expectations can be persistently pursued (not the same for
the purposes) only in the presence of conditions of persistence. These conditions can be obtained consistently with the
goals and expectations of achieving the goals of those who,
with their specific expectations together, achieve production
(Bertini 2006).
However, it may happen that the conditions of production
management may not be shared by some who instead wish
to terminate the production center. It can also happen that the
going concern is obtained without having adequately satisfied the aims of the institute (because they are supported
little or nothing at all), or if we want to satisfy other goals,
transforming certain (legitimate) expectations into goals.
The company is imagined by its creator(s). The latter
assigns the purposes to the company—and the company
cannot start, since the conditions of economic functionality
are not met from the planning stage. In other cases, the
uncertainty of the going concern can be considered acceptable and, in this regard, the methods of participation and
claiming of the players to production are obviously not
indifferent.
Economic persistence is the principal depersonalized
condition of (autonomous) existence of the entity, and, when
it ceases, production ceases. It should be added, however,
that economic functionality can be obtained in different
ways, albeit always uncertain, since it is linked to the
claiming of the carriers of those factors that generate production, including users of the outputs. In fact, there is no
doubt that production is always a collective technical–economic process, even when there are inevitable conflicting
behaviors.
The sharing of production choices (in the absence of
defined borders) is clearly considered as an economic fact
which, however, has the practical need to be regulated by the
authority. This regulation is preferable to be established by
public power that responds to the need to define the legal
boundaries of the responsibilities, duties, and rights that
characterize the business practice of the market, starting
from the decision-making process. This requires the presence of instruments of governance that allow to compose the
forces that generate production. In other words, to define the
propulsive decision-making center and, therefore, the organizational apparatus represents a challenge to be faced.
The fluidity of the development of production can be high
and concerns about the ability to define ideas, decisions, and
actions are projected into the future (Bertini 1995). The
fundamental premise is the sharing of the distribution of
sacrifices, of the benefits and risks that characterize them,
besides the uncertainty of going concern. So, more than
anything else, the initial production conditions design the
company in an original way (making its going concern
uncertain). The company can durably serve to satisfy aims,
expectations, and finality (human well-being), placing as its
only constraint the economic functionality, which will
204
F. Manni and A. Faccia
logical propositions, through the innovative reasoning we
reach a coherent conclusion, founded and useful for the
analysis of the survival of the enterprises, therefore to
demonstrate some conditions of going concern that apparently would not be instead justifiable in the absence of
financial return.
4 Analysis: From General Theories
to Analytical Procedures
The topics (and reports) of our focus are the following:
– company;
– uncertainty;
– risk.
The (scientific) notion of a company defined by business
scholars. The researchers identify (conventionally/
instrumentally) the requirements to define the object of
analysis and with respect to this, the paradigm assumes
extensive boundaries.
The system of economic events is always the irradiating
factor of the topic, although scholars have defined the
meaning of the word “company” (Zappa 1957). This word is
the expression of the historical moment and of the development of studies, of the means of research and, of the
scholar’s ability of imagination (Giannessi 1960).
The variances found on this topic are often only expressive and not substantial. Scholars agree on the fundamental
area of the investigation (the systematic production of goods
and services), even if the specific topic “company”, and on
its conceptual boundaries. They are punctually delineated
with the identification of specific elements that tend to
expand or reduce the object of study. The core of scientific
observation is always production (Onida 1986).
The meaning of a company (Amaduzzi 1978), therefore,
is based on that of “production”, that is defined as the systematic production of goods and services and how they are
conducted. The production is put in place to achieve the
goals (of the promoters of the company or of the entities to
which the company belongs), and (simultaneously) the
expectations of the people that gravitate around the production entity (Masini 1979; Capaldo 2013).
There is a substantial difference between the (institutional) goals and expectations. If the goals are not satisfied
(or if they cannot be met in the future), they can compromise
the existence of the company. Failure to achieve the
expected objectives does not usually entail the termination of
production until the company maintains a force of claiming
resources (not necessarily the same). However, the aims and
expectations can be persistently pursued (not the same for
the purposes) only in the presence of conditions of persistence. These conditions can be obtained consistently with the
goals and expectations of achieving the goals of those who,
with their specific expectations together, achieve production
(Bertini 2006).
However, it may happen that the conditions of production
management may not be shared by some who instead wish
to terminate the production center. It can also happen that the
going concern is obtained without having adequately satisfied the aims of the institute (because they are supported
little or nothing at all), or if we want to satisfy other goals,
transforming certain (legitimate) expectations into goals.
The company is imagined by its creator(s). The latter
assigns the purposes to the company—and the company
cannot start, since the conditions of economic functionality
are not met from the planning stage. In other cases, the
uncertainty of the going concern can be considered acceptable and, in this regard, the methods of participation and
claiming of the players to production are obviously not
indifferent.
Economic persistence is the principal depersonalized
condition of (autonomous) existence of the entity, and, when
it ceases, production ceases. It should be added, however,
that economic functionality can be obtained in different
ways, albeit always uncertain, since it is linked to the
claiming of the carriers of those factors that generate production, including users of the outputs. In fact, there is no
doubt that production is always a collective technical–economic process, even when there are inevitable conflicting
behaviors.
The sharing of production choices (in the absence of
defined borders) is clearly considered as an economic fact
which, however, has the practical need to be regulated by the
authority. This regulation is preferable to be established by
public power that responds to the need to define the legal
boundaries of the responsibilities, duties, and rights that
characterize the business practice of the market, starting
from the decision-making process. This requires the presence of instruments of governance that allow to compose the
forces that generate production. In other words, to define the
propulsive decision-making center and, therefore, the organizational apparatus represents a challenge to be faced.
The fluidity of the development of production can be high
and concerns about the ability to define ideas, decisions, and
actions are projected into the future (Bertini 1995). The
fundamental premise is the sharing of the distribution of
sacrifices, of the benefits and risks that characterize them,
besides the uncertainty of going concern. So, more than
anything else, the initial production conditions design the
company in an original way (making its going concern
uncertain). The company can durably serve to satisfy aims,
expectations, and finality (human well-being), placing as its
only constraint the economic functionality, which will
204
F. Manni and A. Faccia