the benefit of those who allow corporate survival thanks to
their sacrifices.
When the conditions with which the players managing
the production are changed, the overall scenario changes.
The economic morphology and all that makes the going
concern probable are also modified, in the interest of all the
players (assuming the risk of the company) with different
expectations in the project of activities to be conducted.
The company is a unique and continuous production
project that spreads in time and space, although it consists of
various parts that make it autonomously. A multiplicity of
resources/expectations converges on it, putting a common
expectation in going concern. In the absence of going concern, all expectations would be compromised. Every
expectation has its own peculiar riskiness, and all together
are subject to the uncertainty of the going concern of the
economic order of the company.
The “common risk” is a conceptual bridge between the
uncertainty of the future scenario (in which the production
project will be implemented) and the desired common
expectation of a virtuous economic order, expression of a
common interest in maintaining the going concern (also if
the particular interests are of different importance for the
respective “owners” and not necessarily all the subjects that
gravitate in the production orbit wish the going concern of
the production in progress).
The various actors differently feel a common risk, it is
different from the risks’ specific assumptions taken individually by those who make the production, even if it
remains connected to the latter. Even with the same intensity, many alternatives can be imagined in the distribution of
specific risks. The specific risks characterize the uncertainty
of the going concern and, consequently, the intensity of the
common risk.
The common risk—conceptual synthesis of specific risks
for the remunerative-monetary component only—is linked to
the possibility of lack of going concern (eventuality that
when it manifests transforms the specific risks into negative
contingencies with different weights according to the subjects affected, but for some subjects we can also imagine
positive consequences deriving from the cessation of specific
production).
To mitigate the intensity of the common risk, it is necessary to devise the organizational models of production in
line with the company’s survival conditions. In other words,
some initiatives according to certain production models can
be judged to be of low common risk, while they would be
impracticable according to other models due to the uncertainty that would characterize their going concern. The
choice of the institutional profile is fundamental so that the
production center can perform its functions durably and
consistently with the function for which it was created. It is
evident that there will be legal problems to be resolved (both
legislative and contractual) but this does not constitute a
serious obstacle to the creation of freely imagined production
initiatives (there has already been an empirical finding)
(Zamagni 2013).
Therefore, let us highlight the theme of going concern
and the common risk governance and the need to define the
institutional model of reference (and, therefore, governance).
It also analyzes the organizational efficiency understood,
which acts as a link for the identification of the most convenient business program and the related financial coverage.
Naturally, these three elements
– institutional formula;
– suitable business size;
– efficiency;
influence each other in determining the going concern,
which must be considered a common objective of the “forces” that are favorable to making the company last.
5 Findings: Results and Related
Considerations
5.1 The Cornerstones of Economic Functionality
The overall functionality of the company (its ability to create
value, i.e., its ability to realize shared utilities) is an indispensable condition for the going concern of production, at
least in terms of rational decisions that affect the prolonged
survival of the company. However, it should be added that
this functionality—in a market economy largely based on
monetary exchanges—must first and foremost be confirmed
by a lasting economic equilibrium. This extremely complicated balance to be defined, its boundaries are narrower than
those that define simple economic survival, this is, in fact,
the condition of autonomous existence of the company—
understood as a center of production with an indefinite
duration. The constraint is represented by the enduring
gratification of the institutional purpose and expectations of
all kinds, defining its contingent humanistic–environmental
synthesis in the distribution of benefits, sacrifices, and,
therefore, of “risk.”
Economic equilibrium (monetarily weighted by the
“market” and durable) is based on a social contract. The
production program and the efficiency with which production is carried out, strictly depend on the underlying
humanistic and environmental profiles.
By preferring the expository clarity, the aforementioned
questions will be considered in sequence, although empirically the problems to be addressed are not linear. The setup
of the company that you intend to start to achieve the desired
goals and expectations requires continuous adjustments to
The Business Going Concern: Financial Return …
207
their sacrifices.
When the conditions with which the players managing
the production are changed, the overall scenario changes.
The economic morphology and all that makes the going
concern probable are also modified, in the interest of all the
players (assuming the risk of the company) with different
expectations in the project of activities to be conducted.
The company is a unique and continuous production
project that spreads in time and space, although it consists of
various parts that make it autonomously. A multiplicity of
resources/expectations converges on it, putting a common
expectation in going concern. In the absence of going concern, all expectations would be compromised. Every
expectation has its own peculiar riskiness, and all together
are subject to the uncertainty of the going concern of the
economic order of the company.
The “common risk” is a conceptual bridge between the
uncertainty of the future scenario (in which the production
project will be implemented) and the desired common
expectation of a virtuous economic order, expression of a
common interest in maintaining the going concern (also if
the particular interests are of different importance for the
respective “owners” and not necessarily all the subjects that
gravitate in the production orbit wish the going concern of
the production in progress).
The various actors differently feel a common risk, it is
different from the risks’ specific assumptions taken individually by those who make the production, even if it
remains connected to the latter. Even with the same intensity, many alternatives can be imagined in the distribution of
specific risks. The specific risks characterize the uncertainty
of the going concern and, consequently, the intensity of the
common risk.
The common risk—conceptual synthesis of specific risks
for the remunerative-monetary component only—is linked to
the possibility of lack of going concern (eventuality that
when it manifests transforms the specific risks into negative
contingencies with different weights according to the subjects affected, but for some subjects we can also imagine
positive consequences deriving from the cessation of specific
production).
To mitigate the intensity of the common risk, it is necessary to devise the organizational models of production in
line with the company’s survival conditions. In other words,
some initiatives according to certain production models can
be judged to be of low common risk, while they would be
impracticable according to other models due to the uncertainty that would characterize their going concern. The
choice of the institutional profile is fundamental so that the
production center can perform its functions durably and
consistently with the function for which it was created. It is
evident that there will be legal problems to be resolved (both
legislative and contractual) but this does not constitute a
serious obstacle to the creation of freely imagined production
initiatives (there has already been an empirical finding)
(Zamagni 2013).
Therefore, let us highlight the theme of going concern
and the common risk governance and the need to define the
institutional model of reference (and, therefore, governance).
It also analyzes the organizational efficiency understood,
which acts as a link for the identification of the most convenient business program and the related financial coverage.
Naturally, these three elements
– institutional formula;
– suitable business size;
– efficiency;
influence each other in determining the going concern,
which must be considered a common objective of the “forces” that are favorable to making the company last.
5 Findings: Results and Related
Considerations
5.1 The Cornerstones of Economic Functionality
The overall functionality of the company (its ability to create
value, i.e., its ability to realize shared utilities) is an indispensable condition for the going concern of production, at
least in terms of rational decisions that affect the prolonged
survival of the company. However, it should be added that
this functionality—in a market economy largely based on
monetary exchanges—must first and foremost be confirmed
by a lasting economic equilibrium. This extremely complicated balance to be defined, its boundaries are narrower than
those that define simple economic survival, this is, in fact,
the condition of autonomous existence of the company—
understood as a center of production with an indefinite
duration. The constraint is represented by the enduring
gratification of the institutional purpose and expectations of
all kinds, defining its contingent humanistic–environmental
synthesis in the distribution of benefits, sacrifices, and,
therefore, of “risk.”
Economic equilibrium (monetarily weighted by the
“market” and durable) is based on a social contract. The
production program and the efficiency with which production is carried out, strictly depend on the underlying
humanistic and environmental profiles.
By preferring the expository clarity, the aforementioned
questions will be considered in sequence, although empirically the problems to be addressed are not linear. The setup
of the company that you intend to start to achieve the desired
goals and expectations requires continuous adjustments to
The Business Going Concern: Financial Return …
207