ENTREPRENEUR. — “An entrepreneur is one who professionally carries out the production or exchange of goods or services” (Civil Code, art. 2082). The figure of the entrepreneur can assume various forms: he may be at once owner, manager, and worker, as in the case of the small trader, the farmer who owns and works his land with his own means, assisted by family members, or the small artisan. These are then called small entrepreneurs (art. 2083). Alternatively, he may be an owner or collector of capital and director of an enterprise in which he primarily employs the labor of others; or, as often happens in large enterprises, he may be neither owner nor manager but merely the responsible manager of the capital entrusted to him. This is the class of large and medium-sized entrepreneurs.
The entrepreneur is the soul of the enterprise. His principal functions are: to take the initiative in founding the enterprise; to assemble the material elements and personnel; to regulate its organization; and to assume ultimate managerial and moral as well as material responsibility. Of these functions, only the last—the assumption of responsibility—is truly essential, since the others can be discharged by others, for example, by a stockbroker for capital acquisition, by an engineer, a manager, or a merchant for technical, administrative, and commercial setup. One becomes an entrepreneur a posteriori through the actual and professional exercise of an economic activity.
The concrete exercise of such an activity presupposes, besides a spirit of initiative, special qualities: exact knowledge of markets, of available resources in raw materials and personnel, and of industrial methods; the ability to select and direct people; intellectual strength and tenacity in work; and, finally, uncommon powers of foresight and synthesis.
The incentive to entrepreneurial functions is profit, that is, the contingent remuneration of the entrepreneur’s activity and risk.
The legitimacy of profit in itself is beyond doubt. It is right that the entrepreneur, who is the most active agent of production and who assumes the risks of the enterprise, should receive adequate compensation. Therefore, the theory of Marx and his followers, according to which profit is nothing but an unjust appropriation, unpaid labor, etc., is false. Although profit is legitimate in itself, the severe criticisms leveled against it are not without foundation when the thirst for gain prevails over the ethical norms that should regulate II.
Immoral profits are, for example, those derived from activities that are wholly or partly dishonest, such as the organization of prostitution or the operation of certain gambling houses; or, in honest enterprises, profits obtained by unjust means, such as wage reduction, excessive selling prices, falsification of goods, unjustified delay in payment, tax evasion, breach of contract, unfair competition, etc.
The nature of the activities carried out by the entrepreneur is predominantly economic; yet he also bears responsibilities toward society and, in particular, toward those who work in his enterprise. The Italian legislator in the 1942 Civil Code had specified (arts. 2085–11) certain legal responsibilities of the entrepreneur. The changed political and labor climate, and in particular the abolition of the corporatist organization, have caused some of these legal provisions to lapse, while others are in the process of maturing.
In this new social policy, the entrepreneur’s more specific tasks include: competent organization and management of the enterprise so as to provide employment for the greatest possible number of workers and thus help alleviate the grave scourge of unemployment; wise selection of personnel, especially managerial staff; assignment of work according to the aptitudes of individual employees; care for the physical integrity of labor through hygienic measures, reduction of working hours, and granting of relief proportional to the severity of the occupation; respect for contractual conditions; payment of a just wage that takes into account not only the individual needs of the worker but also those of his family; compliance with legal provisions regarding various insurance contributions; and defense of the worker’s moral personality through recognition and respect for his moral and spiritual needs.
Yet it is not enough for the entrepreneur merely to comply with strict legal prescriptions. A more humane and more Christian conception of labor demands first the establishment of relations of mutual esteem and human coexistence with the workforce; then, externally, a reform in structure so that the worker is guaranteed effective participation both in the management of the enterprise and in the division of profits. The technical aspect may vary in form (works councils, profit-sharing, worker shareholding, cooperatives, etc.) and according to circumstances.
Often individual entrepreneurs are unable to implement these reforms alone, even for fear of unfair competition from the dishonest, but they could do so more easily if associated. Hence the importance of the various associations of entrepreneurs and managers that are springing up everywhere, with the double advantage of better meeting the real needs of workers and of curbing excessive political interference in the world of labor (see also: CONSIGLI DI GESTIONE; CONTRATTI DI LAVORO; PARTECIPAZIONISMO).