ENTERPRISE. – An organic combination of the factors of production, implemented for the purpose of producing goods or providing services in the most economical manner. The term *a.* has as its synonym that of *impresa* [firm]; however, there is a formal difference between the two: the *a.* is a technical-organizational unit, while the *impresa* is an economic unit. The former concerns the organization of the factors of wealth, the latter the purpose for which wealth is produced. Risk and profit pertain more to the *impresa* than to the *a.* Nevertheless, authors often use the two terms interchangeably. The *a.* is usually classified according to various criteria; for example, it may be:
1) individual or collective, depending on whether responsibility is assumed by a single individual or by several individuals bound by a corporate agreement (joint-stock company);
2) private or public, depending on whether it directly pursues private or public interests;
3) agricultural, industrial, commercial, transport, credit, insurance, etc., depending on the nature of the good it produces or the type of service it provides;
4) small, medium, or large, depending on its size, although in practice it is almost impossible to draw clear boundaries between them;
5) simple or complex, depending on whether the factors of production are concentrated in a single entity (craftsmanship, entrepreneurial ownership) or divided among distinct subjects (workers, entrepreneurs, capitalists).
As can easily be observed, these distinctions do not have absolute value. They are markedly empirical in character, and one may resolve into another. It is obvious, for instance, that a simple *a.* is also individual; hence, small and almost certainly private; although a cooperative-structured *a.* may also be described as simple rather than complex, since its members can simultaneously be capitalists, entrepreneurs, and workers.
Modern economics, in contrast to medieval economics, is characterized by the clear predominance of medium and large *a.* in the manufacturing sector, while small *a.* continue to prevail in agriculture.
Among the many aspects presented by the modern *a.* (medium or large), the one that is of greatest interest from the perspective of Christian social doctrine is considered here: given the hierarchical distinction within the modern *a.* between capitalist-entrepreneurs on the one hand and workers on the other, what criterion should be followed in evaluating human labor? Encyclical *Rerum Novarum* (n. 33) states:
1) that labor is not a commodity but a conscious and free activity, inseparably united with the person who performs it; therefore, one can never demand labor that harms either body or spirit;
2) that wages must be sufficient for a worker’s human sustenance. The reason is clear: nearly all men derive the means of subsistence from labor. Wages cannot therefore be left entirely to the play of supply and demand in the labor market; they must meet the necessities of life. A labor contract that sets wages below the minimum required for subsistence, even if freely agreed upon by workers and employers, is invalid because it is contrary to natural justice (ibid., n. 34). *V. SALARY;*
3) that labor and capital must maintain relations of collaboration; this is demanded by their very nature: capital without labor remains sterile, while labor without capital loses nearly all its efficacy (ibid., n. 15);
4) that among its duties, the State must ensure—especially through wise social legislation—that it vigilantly oversees *a.*, without hindering their operations, for the purpose of safeguarding the sanctity of the family and defending spiritual values (ibid., n. 20). *V. SOCIAL LEGISLATION.*
Pius XI, in *Quadragesimo Anno*, reaffirms the doctrine of Leo XIII but develops certain aspects further. He explicitly teaches:
1) that in determining wages, social justice requires consideration of the worker’s family responsibilities (enc. *Quadragesimo Anno*, n. 32);
2) that wages must also take into account the conditions of the *a.* (ibid., n. 33);
3) that the level of wages must be balanced with the public economic good, which above all requires that workers be able to escape destitution and not be forced into involuntary unemployment (ibid., n. 34);
4) that the historical moment has arrived in which it is appropriate, where possible, to initiate structural changes in inter-company human relations: that is, it is held that workers should be admitted to take an active part in the life of the *a.*, tempering the labor contract with a partnership contract (ibid., n. 30).
Pius XII, in his social messages, greatly expands on this last point. He advocates a socio-economic order in which those who work also possess the tools and materials of labor; and where this is not yet possible due to the demands of modern production, he not only urges tempering the labor contract with a partnership contract but teaches that this is a duty (*Radiosaggio*, September 1, 1944). In his address to the leaders of the Italian Catholic Workers’ Associations (A.C.L.I.) on March 11, 1945, he further stated that workers should be called to assume responsibility in the production process.
From the above brief exposition, it is clear that the teaching of the popes has increasingly emphasized that labor within the *a.* must be regarded and treated as a subject, not an object. Labor is a human activity; it cannot therefore be valued as a commodity. It is inseparably united with the person who performs it; hence, it must be protected, particularly through appropriate social legislation and timely oversight. For most men, it is the natural source of sustenance; thus, its remuneration must be measured with regard to the needs and requirements of workers and their families. Labor and capital mutually reinforce each other in production; nature demands that they maintain a relationship of well-understood and fruitful collaboration. Labor, even in production, holds a position of primacy in relation to capital. Where possible, workers must be integrated into the corporate structure, take an active part in its life, and the wage system must increasingly be tempered by associative relations.
The papal teaching unfolds in the light of Revelation and sound reason, yet it is also in harmony with the historical evolution of the past century. In the contemporary age, one witnesses a progressive elevation of labor within the *a.*: from a mere instrument of production and object of rights, it is becoming the preeminent subject of duties and rights. It seems that the path toward overcoming the wage system is already being taken, leading to the establishment of a more humane and fruitful socio-economic order. Christianity, through its doctrine and manifold influences, has certainly contributed—and continues to contribute—to this profound transformation, even if its impact is not always easily discernible, as it operates especially in the realm of the spirit. *V. WORKERS’ COUNCILS; CHRISTIAN SOCIAL DOCTRINE; SOCIAL LEGISLATION; SALARY.*