IMPRENDITORE. — “An i. is one who professionally carries on an organized economic activity for the purpose of producing or exchanging goods or services” (Civil Code, art. 2082). The figure of the i. may assume different forms: he may be owner, director, and worker all at once, as in the case of the small merchant, the farmer who owns the land and works it with his own means, assisted by his family, or the small artisan. Such persons are therefore called small i. (art. 2083). He may instead be an owner, or a collector of capital, and director of the enterprise in which he makes predominant use of the labor of others; or, as occurs more often in large enterprises, neither owner nor manager, but only the responsible administrator of the capital raised. This is the class of large and medium-sized i.
The i. is the soul of the enterprise. His principal functions are: taking the initiative in establishing the enterprise; gathering its material elements and personnel; regulating its organization; assuming its overall direction and moral and material responsibility. Of these functions, only the last, that is, the assumption of responsibility, is truly essential, since the first may also be provided for through others, as, for example, by means of a stockbroker for raising capital, or by means of an engineer, a director, or a merchant for the technical, administrative, and commercial establishment of the enterprise. One becomes an i. a posteriori, as a result of the actual and professional exercise of an economic activity.
The concrete exercise of such activity presupposes, in addition to an enterprising spirit, special qualities, namely: an exact knowledge of outlets, of the resources available in raw materials and personnel, and of industrial methods; it presupposes knowledge of the men to be selected and the art of directing them; intellectual strength and perseverance in work; and, finally, uncommon powers of foresight and synthesis.
The stimulus to entrepreneurial functions is profit, that is, the aleatory remuneration of the activity and risk of the i. as such.
The legitimacy of profit considered in itself is beyond doubt. It is right, in fact, that the i. too, who is the most active agent of production and assumes the risks of the enterprise, should receive adequate compensation. The theory of Marx and his followers is therefore false, according to which profit is nothing more than misappropriation, unpaid labor, etc. Although profit is legitimate in itself, the severe criticisms directed against it are nevertheless not unfounded when the thirst for gain prevails over the ethical norms that should regulate II.
Immoral profits are, for example, those originating in an activity that is wholly or partly dishonest, such as the organization of prostitution, the opening of certain gambling houses, etc.; or, even in honest enterprises, profits obtained by unjust means, such as the reduction of wages, an excessive selling price, the adulteration of goods, unjustified delay in payment, evasion of obligatory tax payments, breach of contract, unfair competition, etc.
The character of the activities carried out by the i. is predominantly economic; nevertheless, he also has responsibilities toward society and, in particular, toward those who work in his enterprise. In the Civil Code of 1942, the Italian legislator had established (arts. 2085–11) certain specific legal responsibilities of the i. The changed political and trade-union climate, and in particular the abolition of the corporative organization, have caused some of these legal provisions to lapse, while others are in the process of being developed.
The more specific duties of the i. within this new social policy are: competent organization and direction of the enterprise, so as to enable it to provide employment for the greatest possible number of workers and thus help alleviate the serious scourge of unemployment; the judicious selection of personnel, especially managerial personnel; the distribution of work according to the aptitudes of individual employees; care for the physical integrity of the worker through hygienic measures, reduction of working hours, and the granting of rest proportionate to the arduousness of the occupation; respect for contractual conditions; payment of a just wage that takes into account not only the individual but also the family needs of the worker; compliance with legal provisions concerning the various insurance contributions; and defense of the worker’s moral personality through recognition and respect for his moral and spiritual needs.
It is not enough, however, for the i. to comply with the mandatory legal requirements. A more humane and more Christian conception of work first demands the establishment, with the workforce, of relations of mutual esteem and humane coexistence; then, externally, a reform of the structure, so that the worker is guaranteed effective participation both in the management of the enterprise and in the distribution of profits. The technical aspect may vary in form (works councils, profit-sharing, workers’ shareholding, cooperation, etc.) and according to circumstances.
Often individual i. are unable to carry out these reforms on their own, partly because they fear unfair competition from dishonest persons; they could do so more easily if they joined together. Hence the importance of the various associations of i. and managers that are emerging almost everywhere, with the twofold advantage of better meeting the real needs of workers and of curbing excessive political interference in the world of labor (v. CONSIGLI DI GESTIONE; CONTRATTO DI LAVORO; PARTECIPAZIONISMO).