AZIENDA. – An organic combination of the factors of production undertaken for the purpose of producing goods or providing services in the most economical manner. The term enterprise has as its synonym that of undertaking; however, there is a formal difference between the two: the enterprise is a technical-organizational unit, whereas the undertaking 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 relate more to the undertaking than to the enterprise. Authors, however, often use the two terms interchangeably. The enterprise is usually divided according to various criteria; thus, for example, it may be:
1) individual or collective, according to whether responsibility for it is assumed by a single individual or by several individuals bound together by a corporate relationship (joint-stock company);
2) private or public, according to whether it directly pursues private or public interests;
3) agricultural, industrial, commercial, transport, credit, insurance, etc., according to the nature of the good it produces or the quality of the service it provides;
4) small, medium-sized, large, according to its size, although in practice it is almost impossible to establish the boundaries between one and the other;
5) simple or complex, according to whether the factors of production are concentrated in a single subject (craft production, entrepreneurial ownership), or are divided among several distinct subjects (workers, entrepreneurs, capitalists).
These distinctions, as is easy to observe, have no absolute value. They are markedly empirical in character, and one may resolve into another. It is obvious, for example, that a simple enterprise is also individual, and therefore small and almost certainly private; although an enterprise with a cooperative structure may likewise be classified as simple rather than complex, since its members are, or may be, simultaneously capitalists, entrepreneurs, and workers.
Modern economy is distinguished from medieval economy by the clear predominance of medium-sized and large enterprises in the manufacturing sector; whereas in agriculture the small enterprise still continues to predominate.
Among the many aspects presented by the modern enterprise (medium-sized or large), consideration is given here to that which is of greatest interest from the standpoint of Christian social doctrine, namely: once the hierarchical distinction within the modern enterprise between entrepreneur-capitalists on the one hand and workers on the other has been established, what criterion should be followed in evaluating human labor? Leo XIII affirms: 1) that labor is not a commodity, but a conscious and free activity, inseparably joined to the person who performs it; therefore, labor that causes harm either to the body or to the spirit can never be demanded (encyclical Rerum novarum, no. 33); 2) that remuneration for labor must be sufficient for the worker’s human sustenance. The reason is clear. Almost all people derive the means of subsistence from work: remuneration therefore cannot be left entirely to the play of supply and demand in the labor market, but must correspond to the necessities of life. A labor agreement establishing remuneration below the minimum required for subsistence, even if concluded by mutual agreement between workers and entrepreneurs, is invalid, because it is contrary to natural justice (ibid., no. 34). V. SALARIO; 3) that relations of collaboration must exist between labor and capital; this is demanded by their very nature: capital without labor remains sterile, while labor without capital loses almost all its effectiveness (ibid., no. 15); 4) that among its duties the State also has that of making its vigilant presence felt in enterprises, above all through wise social legislation, without obstructing their life, for the purpose of safeguarding the sanctity of the race and defending spiritual values (ibid., no. 20). V. LEGISLAZIONE SOCIALE.
In Quadragesimo anno, Pius XI reaffirms the doctrine of Leo XIII, but develops certain of its themes. He teaches explicitly: 1) that, in determining wages, social justice requires attention to be paid to the worker’s family responsibilities (encyclical Quadragesimo anno, no. 32); 2) that, in determining wages, the conditions of the enterprise must be taken into account (ibid., no. 33); 3) that the level of wages must be adjusted to the public economic good, which above all requires that workers be able to escape a condition of possessing nothing and not be forced into involuntary unemployment (ibid., no. 34); 4) that the historical moment has arrived when it is appropriate to begin, wherever possible, structural changes in inter-enterprise human relations: that is, it is held that employees should be admitted to active participation in the life of the enterprise, tempering the labor contract with a contract of partnership (ibid., no. 30).
Pius XII, in his social messages, develops this last theme at considerable length. He advocates a socioeconomic order in which the person who works also possesses the instrument and the material of labor; and when this is not possible, because the requirements of production still do not permit it, he not only urges that the labor contract be tempered with a contract of partnership, but teaches that this is a duty (Radio message of 1 September 1944). And in his address to the leaders of the A.C.L.I. on 11 March 1945, he also affirmed that employees should be called upon to assume their own responsibility in the productive process.
From the brief account given above, it is clear that the teaching of the pontiffs has increasingly emphasized that labor within the enterprise must be considered and treated as a subject, not as an object. Labor is a human activity; it therefore cannot be evaluated as a commodity; it is inseparably joined to the person who performs it; it must therefore be protected, especially through appropriate social legislation and timely inspections; for almost all people it is the natural source of subsistence: its remuneration must consequently be measured with regard to the needs and requirements of workers and their respective families; labor and capital mutually strengthen one another in production: by its nature, a well-understood and fruitful relationship of collaboration must prevail between them; even in production, labor has a position of primacy with respect to capital: insofar as possible, employees must be integrated into the enterprise’s organization, take an active part in its life, and the wage system must increasingly be tempered by associative relationships.
Pontifical teaching unfolds in the light of Revelation and sound reason, but it is also in harmony with the historical development of the last century; in the contemporary age, in fact, one witnesses a progressive advancement of labor within the enterprise: from being a mere instrument of production and object of law, it is on the way to becoming the preeminent subject of duties and rights; and it also seems that progress is already being made toward overcoming the wage system in order to establish a more human and more fruitful socioeconomic order: Christianity, through its doctrine and its manifold influences, has certainly contributed, and continues to contribute, to this profound progressive transformation, even if its contribution is not always easily identifiable because it operates above all in the realm of the spirit (v. CONSIGLI DI GESTIONE; DOTTRINA SOCIALE CRISTIANA; LEGISLAZIONE SOCIALE; SALARIO).
BIBLI: G. B. Valente, Il revine associativo delle a., Rome 1921; G. Broglia, Biblioteca della professione in economia e commercio, Turin 1932; S. Panunzio, L'economia mista, Milan 1936; P. della Penna, Le forme aziendali, Rome 1943; M. Permetti, L'impresa industriale, Rome-Trieste 1945; S. Lebret-Ch. Desrosches, La communauté Boimondau, Paris 1945; L. Maire, Au-delà du salariat, there 1945; Transformations sociales et libération de la personne, 3ᵉ session des Semaines Sociales, Toulouse 1945; A. Dubois, Pour une structure nouvelle dans l'entreprise, Paris 1945; M. Nigro, Democrazia dell'a., Rome 1946; A. Magnies, La participation du personnel à la gestion des entreprises, Siray 1946; G. Martin-P. Simon, Le chef d'entreprises, Paris 1946; Ph. Boyart, Comité d'entreprises, there 1947; M. Pesenti, L'impresa economica nella rilevanza costituzionale, in Atti della commissione per la costituzione, II, Rome 1947, pp. 109-112; P. Dominedo, L'ordinamento dell'impresa, ibid., pp. 113-16.