obviously depend precisely on the planned conditions and
developments. In other words, the methodological approach
to the construction of the company would start by examining
the ends for which production takes place and the conditions
that make it possible and convenient. It then identifies which
organizational structures can contribute to its realization,
gratifying at the same time goals and expectations, in respect
of an economic system that is projected with reasonable
possibilities to last in the future.
Uncertainty is a connotation of the economic function
(and, therefore, of the going concern) of the factors of production. Usually, uncertainty is considered a threat, but in
some cases, uncertainty is a strength, the basic elements of
production.
Uncertainty as a characteristic of the future (due to
inevitable change) is a factor in the persistence of production
factors. All players expect and trust in the possibility that the
future is different from the present (without neglecting the
fact that many productions are based on the uncertainty
connected to the manifestation of future events). In short,
uncertainty (even for a production player) is simultaneously
a disturbing factor, but also a fundamental element of the
going concern.
The uncertainty management, in order to ensure the going
concern of the factors of production, is the essence of governance action. Governance choices are linked—in different
situations—to the attitude toward the future. Two different
approaches are observed: fatalistic (intuitive) attitude, and
rational behavior.
Human decisions are based on the rational component of
the analysis of past events—already known—and on the
reasoned prefiguration of future scenarios.
The level of knowledge distinguishes the human attitude
with respect to a past context object of analysis. The past, as
it has already occurred, is not uncertain but only known in
depth. Otherwise, the future scenario (as it will still have to
happen) is uncertain in the forms it will assume, but it is also
partially orientable because current decisions will help to
shape it. Therefore, when making decisions, people consider
a well-known past and formulate simulations about the
future which, as a whole, will be the result of acts (deliberately and/or involuntarily put in place by people) and
natural events.
The intuitive component, if considered as the sensitivity
to interpret the phenomena and their evolutions, goes
beyond formal analysis, and sometimes completely disregards the data (“rationally” obtained) privileging intuitions.
Past experiences and technical analyzes determine the
intuitions.
The decision-makers in their rational dimension—judged
as such based on information from the past, appropriately
projected into the future—operate in such a way as to create
the conditions for conducting the events most suited to them.
Naturally, things can evolve in such a way as to define
totally or partially unexpected results, due to circumstances
not captured by decision-makers.
The change (in which the root of uncertainty must be
identified) may be due to human behave—voluntarily or
accidentally—and/or caused by natural events. The increase
in knowledge regarding the ability to interpret the current
situation and its future developments and the agreement
among decision-makers in defining future scenarios tends to
mitigate the uncertainty of the future. In other words, if the
state of uncertainty regards phenomena attributable to
human decisions, it will always be possible to reduce the
uncertainty by increasing the knowledge with reference to
the decisions taken. Otherwise, for the events caused by
humans behave in an unintentional way the state of uncertainty cannot diminish by increasing knowledge, but it can
be reduced by thinking over the historical experience and
examining the probability with which accidental facts can be
manifested on a case-by-case basis. For many natural events
—not attributable to human behavior—this is exactly what
happens: where it is possible to reduce uncertainty with the
help of the tools offered by scientific progress regarding the
occurrence/nonoccurrence of an event. Of course, formulating perspectives on the future is different from solving the
consequent damage or—more rarely—deriving an advantage
from the random event. The ability to manage uncertainty is
a fundamental quality to ensure the company’s persistence
(even if sometimes it may not be enough) and, consequently,
reduce the riskiness to which the goals and expectations of
those operating to realize the production are exposed.
The risk is connected to a deliberate act that regards an
expectation projected into the future (uncertain) and that,
therefore, can (what is expected) does not manifest itself in
the desired terms. In essence, the decision is taken by the
actor with the hope of changing the personal sphere (assets
and/or affective), with effects that he considers convenient
for himself (otherwise the choice would not have a rational
sense) but which may occur in unfavorable way for the
combined effect of other people’s acts (deliberated or not)
and natural events. Thus, the concept of risk is revealed by
simultaneously considering three issues: the uncertainty of
the future; the deliberate action that requires a sacrifice that
is borne in expectation of a utility; the eventuality that the
expected outcomes do not occur to the extent necessary to
repay as desired for the effort endured. These are interrelated
issues and, therefore, the risk is the conceptual platform that
connects them.
Uncertainty is not enough to bring out the “risk” and,
therefore, these are distinct concepts.
The risk, in the first place, is a bridge that links the
uncertainty of the future with the rationally formulated
expectation that triggered the decision. In other words,
uncertainty for some takes on value as it is linked to specific
The Business Going Concern: Financial Return …
205
developments. In other words, the methodological approach
to the construction of the company would start by examining
the ends for which production takes place and the conditions
that make it possible and convenient. It then identifies which
organizational structures can contribute to its realization,
gratifying at the same time goals and expectations, in respect
of an economic system that is projected with reasonable
possibilities to last in the future.
Uncertainty is a connotation of the economic function
(and, therefore, of the going concern) of the factors of production. Usually, uncertainty is considered a threat, but in
some cases, uncertainty is a strength, the basic elements of
production.
Uncertainty as a characteristic of the future (due to
inevitable change) is a factor in the persistence of production
factors. All players expect and trust in the possibility that the
future is different from the present (without neglecting the
fact that many productions are based on the uncertainty
connected to the manifestation of future events). In short,
uncertainty (even for a production player) is simultaneously
a disturbing factor, but also a fundamental element of the
going concern.
The uncertainty management, in order to ensure the going
concern of the factors of production, is the essence of governance action. Governance choices are linked—in different
situations—to the attitude toward the future. Two different
approaches are observed: fatalistic (intuitive) attitude, and
rational behavior.
Human decisions are based on the rational component of
the analysis of past events—already known—and on the
reasoned prefiguration of future scenarios.
The level of knowledge distinguishes the human attitude
with respect to a past context object of analysis. The past, as
it has already occurred, is not uncertain but only known in
depth. Otherwise, the future scenario (as it will still have to
happen) is uncertain in the forms it will assume, but it is also
partially orientable because current decisions will help to
shape it. Therefore, when making decisions, people consider
a well-known past and formulate simulations about the
future which, as a whole, will be the result of acts (deliberately and/or involuntarily put in place by people) and
natural events.
The intuitive component, if considered as the sensitivity
to interpret the phenomena and their evolutions, goes
beyond formal analysis, and sometimes completely disregards the data (“rationally” obtained) privileging intuitions.
Past experiences and technical analyzes determine the
intuitions.
The decision-makers in their rational dimension—judged
as such based on information from the past, appropriately
projected into the future—operate in such a way as to create
the conditions for conducting the events most suited to them.
Naturally, things can evolve in such a way as to define
totally or partially unexpected results, due to circumstances
not captured by decision-makers.
The change (in which the root of uncertainty must be
identified) may be due to human behave—voluntarily or
accidentally—and/or caused by natural events. The increase
in knowledge regarding the ability to interpret the current
situation and its future developments and the agreement
among decision-makers in defining future scenarios tends to
mitigate the uncertainty of the future. In other words, if the
state of uncertainty regards phenomena attributable to
human decisions, it will always be possible to reduce the
uncertainty by increasing the knowledge with reference to
the decisions taken. Otherwise, for the events caused by
humans behave in an unintentional way the state of uncertainty cannot diminish by increasing knowledge, but it can
be reduced by thinking over the historical experience and
examining the probability with which accidental facts can be
manifested on a case-by-case basis. For many natural events
—not attributable to human behavior—this is exactly what
happens: where it is possible to reduce uncertainty with the
help of the tools offered by scientific progress regarding the
occurrence/nonoccurrence of an event. Of course, formulating perspectives on the future is different from solving the
consequent damage or—more rarely—deriving an advantage
from the random event. The ability to manage uncertainty is
a fundamental quality to ensure the company’s persistence
(even if sometimes it may not be enough) and, consequently,
reduce the riskiness to which the goals and expectations of
those operating to realize the production are exposed.
The risk is connected to a deliberate act that regards an
expectation projected into the future (uncertain) and that,
therefore, can (what is expected) does not manifest itself in
the desired terms. In essence, the decision is taken by the
actor with the hope of changing the personal sphere (assets
and/or affective), with effects that he considers convenient
for himself (otherwise the choice would not have a rational
sense) but which may occur in unfavorable way for the
combined effect of other people’s acts (deliberated or not)
and natural events. Thus, the concept of risk is revealed by
simultaneously considering three issues: the uncertainty of
the future; the deliberate action that requires a sacrifice that
is borne in expectation of a utility; the eventuality that the
expected outcomes do not occur to the extent necessary to
repay as desired for the effort endured. These are interrelated
issues and, therefore, the risk is the conceptual platform that
connects them.
Uncertainty is not enough to bring out the “risk” and,
therefore, these are distinct concepts.
The risk, in the first place, is a bridge that links the
uncertainty of the future with the rationally formulated
expectation that triggered the decision. In other words,
uncertainty for some takes on value as it is linked to specific
The Business Going Concern: Financial Return …
205