expectations, while for others it is insignificant, considering
the expectations at stake and, therefore, for the latter there is
no risk, although also for them the future scenario appears
uncertain.
First, the risk 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
researchers, has a value as it is linked to specific expectations, while for others it is insignificant, considering the
expectations at stake and, therefore, for the latter there is no
risk, although also for they the future scenario presents itself
uncertain.
A future scenario can be considered simply possible or
probable according to whether we can forecast future events
in a rational and credible way. Otherwise, it happens for the
risk—in the meaning just mentioned—an analysis of possibilities or probabilities is not appropriate, but an analysis of
intensity. The risk qualifies, in fact, in addition to the
probable future event, also due to the type of waiting and
damage commensurate with the personal (and patrimonial)
characteristics to which the decision-maker is exposed.
Therefore, the risk always has a subjective connotation as it
qualifies for its intensity of perception. Therefore, the entity
and quality of the sacrifice (considering the patrimonial
solidity of the person making it, the feasible alternatives and
its psychological-affective characteristics) to which is connected the uncertainty of the potential damage that is
expressed in the impossibility to achieve the expectations (of
any kind, not only in economic return), qualify the risk that
always has a well-identified subjective connotation. This
means that if the sacrifice (considering the position of the
investor) is insignificant, the risk to which the actor is
exposed is equally insignificant. Moreover, to the extent that
the investment is recoverable in alternative ways compared
to the bet, the risk is mitigated, since the damage on equal
terms other conditions tends to be lower.
The risk is subjective as it depends on the expectations,
which obviously are personal, and the investment made,
while the uncertainty has a general connotation because it
relates to the future and represents the depersonalized
dimension of the conceptual platform on which the risk is
based.
The distinction between uncertainty and risk makes it
possible to grasp some characteristics of management, particularly those of the capitalist company.
The attention of researchers in the business environment
has focused on the capitalist model. This model has a
well-defined institutional purpose that must be pursued
simultaneously satisfying the expectations and under the
constraint of lasting economic equilibrium. This is an
extremely complex and indefinite goal. The complexity is
due to the difficulty of arriving at a synthesis between aim,
expectations, and economic constraint; the second characteristic is connected to the uncertainty of the future, a context
in which the complex synthesis must be sought. This goal is
a connotation of existence that is continually repeated and,
therefore, can never be judged to be definitively achieved.
A utility function can summarize this notion. In this
utility function, subjective expectations with different natures (psychological, affective, competitive and financial) are
combined that refer to all those involved and who make their
existence possible. In other words, the setup and survival of
the company are not motivated (necessarily) by financial
reasons, which paradoxically can also be missing or have a
marginal role in the desire to start (or continue) the business.
This happens especially when the player is not pressed by
inferior needs, so he can be considered satisfied by the
achievement of relationships. However, the production
players, to satisfy the utility function (i.e., the system of
expectations—expressed or not, with legal relevance or not
—to which the components that together allow production
are linked to each other), must work in compliance with a
lasting economic order, consistent with the target assigned
by the person or those who caused the startup and with the
expectations of those who allow management.
The constancy of the conditions that ensure the economic
order—a founding profile of the company going concern—
in line with the institutional purpose (and with the expectations of the various stakeholders) is not easy to obtain and
this is not due to technical and operational difficulties.
However, it happens for the certainty of changing future
situations (compared to current). These changes continuously require the search for new economic combinations
(technologies/products/markets). Therefore, the uncertainty
of the evolving future of the environment/business relationships results in the uncertainty of obtaining the conditions proper to the economic order which are a guarantee of
going concern. Those conditions however—it must be
specified—are closely connected with the distribution of the
sacrifices/benefits that belong to those who make the survival of the production player possible. It refers to both the
characteristics that distinguish the claiming of resources and
the modalities of their economic reintegration. By managing
the distribution of sacrifices and benefits (and therefore the
composition of the risk of the various expectations), it is
possible to influence the degree of uncertainty of the economic order and, consequently, the going concern.
The future scenarios will obviously have different chances to happen and different effects on the expectations of
those who wish to continue the company over time. In other
words, the possibility that the company ceases to exist as an
independent production center is connected to the circumstance of operating in an inconsistent economic order. This
economic order must be compatible with the expectations of
206
F. Manni and A. Faccia
the expectations at stake and, therefore, for the latter there is
no risk, although also for them the future scenario appears
uncertain.
First, the risk 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
researchers, has a value as it is linked to specific expectations, while for others it is insignificant, considering the
expectations at stake and, therefore, for the latter there is no
risk, although also for they the future scenario presents itself
uncertain.
A future scenario can be considered simply possible or
probable according to whether we can forecast future events
in a rational and credible way. Otherwise, it happens for the
risk—in the meaning just mentioned—an analysis of possibilities or probabilities is not appropriate, but an analysis of
intensity. The risk qualifies, in fact, in addition to the
probable future event, also due to the type of waiting and
damage commensurate with the personal (and patrimonial)
characteristics to which the decision-maker is exposed.
Therefore, the risk always has a subjective connotation as it
qualifies for its intensity of perception. Therefore, the entity
and quality of the sacrifice (considering the patrimonial
solidity of the person making it, the feasible alternatives and
its psychological-affective characteristics) to which is connected the uncertainty of the potential damage that is
expressed in the impossibility to achieve the expectations (of
any kind, not only in economic return), qualify the risk that
always has a well-identified subjective connotation. This
means that if the sacrifice (considering the position of the
investor) is insignificant, the risk to which the actor is
exposed is equally insignificant. Moreover, to the extent that
the investment is recoverable in alternative ways compared
to the bet, the risk is mitigated, since the damage on equal
terms other conditions tends to be lower.
The risk is subjective as it depends on the expectations,
which obviously are personal, and the investment made,
while the uncertainty has a general connotation because it
relates to the future and represents the depersonalized
dimension of the conceptual platform on which the risk is
based.
The distinction between uncertainty and risk makes it
possible to grasp some characteristics of management, particularly those of the capitalist company.
The attention of researchers in the business environment
has focused on the capitalist model. This model has a
well-defined institutional purpose that must be pursued
simultaneously satisfying the expectations and under the
constraint of lasting economic equilibrium. This is an
extremely complex and indefinite goal. The complexity is
due to the difficulty of arriving at a synthesis between aim,
expectations, and economic constraint; the second characteristic is connected to the uncertainty of the future, a context
in which the complex synthesis must be sought. This goal is
a connotation of existence that is continually repeated and,
therefore, can never be judged to be definitively achieved.
A utility function can summarize this notion. In this
utility function, subjective expectations with different natures (psychological, affective, competitive and financial) are
combined that refer to all those involved and who make their
existence possible. In other words, the setup and survival of
the company are not motivated (necessarily) by financial
reasons, which paradoxically can also be missing or have a
marginal role in the desire to start (or continue) the business.
This happens especially when the player is not pressed by
inferior needs, so he can be considered satisfied by the
achievement of relationships. However, the production
players, to satisfy the utility function (i.e., the system of
expectations—expressed or not, with legal relevance or not
—to which the components that together allow production
are linked to each other), must work in compliance with a
lasting economic order, consistent with the target assigned
by the person or those who caused the startup and with the
expectations of those who allow management.
The constancy of the conditions that ensure the economic
order—a founding profile of the company going concern—
in line with the institutional purpose (and with the expectations of the various stakeholders) is not easy to obtain and
this is not due to technical and operational difficulties.
However, it happens for the certainty of changing future
situations (compared to current). These changes continuously require the search for new economic combinations
(technologies/products/markets). Therefore, the uncertainty
of the evolving future of the environment/business relationships results in the uncertainty of obtaining the conditions proper to the economic order which are a guarantee of
going concern. Those conditions however—it must be
specified—are closely connected with the distribution of the
sacrifices/benefits that belong to those who make the survival of the production player possible. It refers to both the
characteristics that distinguish the claiming of resources and
the modalities of their economic reintegration. By managing
the distribution of sacrifices and benefits (and therefore the
composition of the risk of the various expectations), it is
possible to influence the degree of uncertainty of the economic order and, consequently, the going concern.
The future scenarios will obviously have different chances to happen and different effects on the expectations of
those who wish to continue the company over time. In other
words, the possibility that the company ceases to exist as an
independent production center is connected to the circumstance of operating in an inconsistent economic order. This
economic order must be compatible with the expectations of
206
F. Manni and A. Faccia