CC BY
9
УДК 334.02
ПРОБЛЕМА КОЛЕБАНИЙ МЕЖДУ ПРЕДПРИНИМАТЕЛЬСТВОМ И МЕНЕДЖЕРИЗМОМ: НОВЫЕ ВЫЗОВЫ В ТЕОРИИ И ПРАКТИКЕ
М.-Г. Бальдарелли
Болонский университет;
Университет институт Софии
М. Дель Бальдо
Урбинский университет, Италия
Признание этических и социальных аспектов деловой активности основано на обширном корпусе исследований и различных теориях, таких как инструментальная, политическая, этическая и интегративная. Последнее из этих теоретических направлений акцентируется на этических требованиях, цементирующих отношения между бизнесом и обществом, и правильном пути для достижения справедливого общества. Исходя из этого фокусом работы является рефлексия над балансом между предпринимательством и менеджеризмом, интерпретированная и выраженнная в свете Католического Социального Союза (КБТ). Авторы подчеркивают необходимость баланса между управленческой и предпринимательской деятельностью.
Ключевые слова: предпринимательство, католическая социальная мысль, экономика общественных предприятий, менеджеризм.
THE QUESTION OF PENDULUM BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MANAGERIALISM: NEW CHALLENGES IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
INTRODUCTION
The recognition of an ethical and social dimension of business activity is founded on a vast corpus of studies (Votaw, 1972; Carrol,
Maria-Gabriella Baldarelli,
University of Bologna, Bologna-Italy, and University Institute of Sophia
[email protected]. Mara Del Baldo
University of Urbino, Urbino-Italy,
2000; Trevino & Weaver, 1994; Cassel, 2001; Freeman et. al., 2010). Different groups of theories — instrumental, political, integrative and ethical theories — correspond to different
approaches, focused on one of the following aspects of the social context: economics, politics, social integration and ethics (Garriga & Melé, 2004). The latter of these theories focuses on the ethical requirement that cements the relationship between business and society, and the right way to achieve an equitable society. It includes the stakeholder normative theory (Freeman, 1994; Donaldson & Preston, 1995), as well as universal rights (UN Global Compact, 1999), sustainable development (WCED, 1987) and approaches to the common good (Velasquez, 1992; Carey, 2001; Alio rd & Naughton, 2002; Giovanni Paolo II, 1991; Benedetto XVI, 2009; Argandoña, 1998; Zamagni, 1995).
The common good approach, which maintains that business has to contribute to the common good, because it is a part of society (Melé, 2002), is assumed into the Catholic Social Though (CST) as a key reference for business ethics. A central concept of CST is community. This point of view is connected to the anthropological view, in particular the idea that the human being is conceived as an individual and as a person (Maritain, 1947) and the idea that the person becomes itself in relation with others. The CST holds that authentically human social relationships, friendship and sociability, subsidiarity and reciprocity coexist in economic activity since the economic sphere of human activity belongs to human and must be structured ethically (Baldarelli, 2006). Such principles take form in the mission and in the governance of the companies belonging to the project of the Economy of Communion (EoC) that have launched this challenge. But how the EoC companies apply these principles in their daily work? How they change the choices of owners and managers? We believe that the answer to these
questions can be given by going to search for the authentic roots and purposes of the values that inspire the entrepreneurial and managerial skills and behaviors which lays on the charisma of communion which characterizes the EoC companies and on the pillars upon which they are founded: dialogue, trust and reciprocity (Argiolas et al., 2010).
Starting from this conceptual framework, the focus of this work is to propose some reflections on the balance between entrepre-neurship and managerialism, interpreted and expressed in the light of the Catholic Social Thought seeks to take in (Cortright & Naughton, 2002).
Thus, the research question posed as the basis of this study can be summarized in these terms: "How to equilibrate entrepreneurship and managerialism with CST?"
The paper is divided in two main parts. In Section 1 we discuss the purpose, roles and functions of entrepreneurs and managers by presenting the state of the art of business administration and accounting doctrines, in light of the CST. Section 2 is dedicated to analysing the link between entrepreneurial and managerial activities and communion in EoC companies. Specifically, this part has been developed following a qualitative approach and a case study methodology (Yin, 1994). The empirical analysis was based on information collected in 2009 through in-depth semi-structured questionnaires, as well as interviews with the entrepreneurs and managers and researcher direct observation during company visits.
Finally, we show some concluding remarks about the challenge of striking a balance between managerial and entrepreneurial activities and the existence of CST within them necessary to lead to actual development of the firms.
1. ENTREPRENEURSHIP, MANAGERIALISM AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGH: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Scholars, who have contributed to place the accent on entrepreneurship and manage-rialism, highlight how the concept of entre-preneurship derives from that of entrepreneur. (Kent et al., 1982; Hébert & Link, 1989; Julien, 1989). Only following the work by Schumpeter (1965), studies on entrepreneur-ship brought back within two principal theoretical trends,: historical and analytical, both of which are consolidated in the 20th century. The first one, mainly developed by business historians scholars, was principally oriented towards identifying the reasons that lead determinate subjects to become entrepreneurs; the second trend, developed in the context of management studies, places the accent upon how these subjects behave, rather than on the why (Livian, 1988). The two theoretical trends present a substantial difference: the former allows us to distinguish the concept of entrepreneurship from that of managerial-ism, while the latter leads to the coincidence between the two concepts.
In this context of studies, the concept of entrepreneurship is directly tied with the activity of creation of an enterprise.
The importance of the phenomenon of the creation of new enterprises and the role attributed to small to medium-sized companies in generating a sustainable socio-economic development, in that they are rooted in the values of the socio-economic fabric to which they belong suggest us to investigate the drivers of the decision of some subjects to become entrepreneurs(Quinn, 1997; Vyakarnam et al., 1997; Spence, 1999; Spence et al., 2004; Spence & Rutherfoord, 2003; Van de Ven et al., 2007; Del Baldo, 2010). Some contribu-
tions, below briefly outlined, appear of significance to us as they focus on entrepreneurs and managers, whose ethical-oriented values are reflected in and transferred to the company's mission and governance.
Responsibility which refers to single individuals is based on a moral conscience, upon which entrepreneurs and managers are pushed to reflect on as well as measure themselves against. Such a statement finds confirmation in manifold passages of the Encyclical Caritas in Veritate: "Today's international economic scene, marked by grave deviations and failures, requires a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise. Old models are disappearing, but promising new ones are taking shape on the horizon" (Benedetto XVI, 2009: 62).
Respect of anthropological values is important for business ethics both for CST as well as laic thinking (Frederick, 1992; Gray, 2000). Ethical principles are embedded in the corporate culture and are part of the founders and management's values (EU, 2004). Among the factors which contribute to shaping an ethical organizational culture, leaders' moral behaviours and values represent the most crucial (Melé, 2009).
The subjective matrix of the entrepreneur-ship is justified by the fact before having a professional meaning, entrepreneurship has a human one, since it is an "actus personae', (Giovanni Paolo II, Centesimus Annus, 1991, 32, 1.c.: 832-833). The ethos and values of entrepre-neurship are expressed by way of active aptitudes and attributes: spirit of initiative, creativity, leadership, charisma, enthusiasm, passion, ambition, desire, commitment, responsibility. Such a concept is highlighted by Melé: "business is about human activity and we need to consider the founding traits of human nature" (Melé, 2009: 25; Moore, 2005a-b, 2008).
Subjective variables lie at the core of entre-preneurship, which serve to explain behaviours, return to personal characteristics and motivations of a psychological and sociological nature. Numerous classifications of entrepreneurs have been drawn up on the basis of the types of values, objectives and personal characteristics they possess (Smith, 1967; Scase & Goffee, 1980; Julien & Marchesnay, 1988; The Stratos Group, 1990). In the context of strategic studies models have been proposed (Filion, 1991) that place the values and objectives of the entrepreneur among the key variables that influence individual and collective behaviour in many ways in the field of strategic management.
Given that values guide decision-making and actions, entrepreneurs apply criteria to judge their success that are in line with their values (Gorgievski et al., 2011).
Among value orientations put forth in Schwartz value theory universalism and benevolence are present (Schwartz, 2005). Gorgievski et al. (2011) distinguish these values in fourth groups: self-transcendence; conservation; self-enhancement; openness to change. These elements put in relation to different success criteria. Among them, we can find: profitability, growth, firm survival/continuity, innovation, that try to join the good balance between work and private life. Softer success criteria, such as having satisfied stakeholder and a good work-life balance are guided by self-transcendence value orientations such as: benevolence and universalism.
Bucar & Hisrich (2001) studied differences in ethical attitudes between entrepreneurs and business managers. They concluded that the attitudes of each group where very similar, but when differences did occur, entrepreneurs tended to express attitudes that were more ethical than those of business managers.
A comparative analysis on ethical perceptions of managers of large, corporations and
the owners and managers of smaller companies (Longenecker et al., 2006) across 17 years (1985-2001) suggests that business leader are making more ethical decisions in recent years, but cannot draw a general conclusion that owners and managers of smaller firms are more or less ethical than executives in larger companies. Nevertheless, authors are left to conclude that small owner-managed firms are very different from large corporations, where ownership and management are separated and that the ethical values and inclinations of the entrepreneur should have a far more direct consequence on the practices of the business as a whole personal and situational factor (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004).
Finally, to close this interpretive profile concerning the ethical and anthropological foundation of entrepreneurship and manage-rialism, we point out the contribution of Bertini, who underlines how manager-entrepreneurs and entrepreneur-managers can be considered two different souls, bearers of entrepreneurial and managerial values, in constant dialectic relationship and in continual evolution between them. He distinguishes three different moments of the same phenomenon: entrepreneurial, managerial and operating creativity "unitary expression of the intelligence of the subjective system of the company ('corporate spirituality')" (Bertini, 1995).
Entrepreneurialism and managerialism are qualities of equal importance as regards lasting success for the company and they both must be possessed by whoever runs it (Stevenson, 1983). Following the above discussion, we can make a synthesis: "Entrepreneurship and management have, and must always assume, a mul-tifaceted meaning. Each of them requires and expresses a specific business capacity. In order to construct an economy that will soon be in a position to serve the national and global co-
mmon good, it is appropriate to take account of this broader significance of business activity" (Benedetto XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 2009: 65-66). In the next section we are going to see the application in EoC enterprises.
2. ENTREPRENEURIALISM,
MANAGERIALISM AND COMMUNION IN EOC ENTERPRISES AFTER 20 YEARS OF REALITY
The experience of Economy of Communion (EoC) enterprises was initiated in Brazil in 1991 from the charisma of Chiara Lubich, the founder of the "Focolare Movement" (Lubich, 2001) to solve poverty problems near the Sao Paulo area, and now it has developed all over the world and, at present, the Brazil government is considering it as one of the most important models in developing the poorest areas.
For an appraisal of the phenomenon as a whole, different statistical investigations have
been carried out by scholars in various fields (Gold, 2010; Callebaout, 2010). Since the project started, it gradually took root throughout the various areas of the world and was held under observation by many scholars, who, initially, were only economists (Bruni, 1999). Later on, scholars from almost every discipline joined them (Baldarelli, 2006; Argiolas, 2009; Gold, 2010) and the various interdisciplinary publications on this subject matter bear witness to this (Bruni & Pelligra, 2002; Bruni & Cri-velli, 2004; Bruni & Uelmen, 2006).
EoC enterprises are not those that have only solidarity in their final aim. They try to promote a new culture, so they become a way to join up the objective of world fraternity. The experience of EoC enterprises has been developing for twenty years. We can see the following tables (fig. 1—2) to understand their spreading in the world Moreover, the Manifesto for an Economy of Communion action was established in 1999 (www.edc-online.org).
Fig. 1. Number of EoC enterprises
Europe Asia ■ 2011 ■ 2010
5 23 25
Africa America Australia i & 27
8
Fig. 2. Division of EoC enterprises by Continent
The "mission" of EoC companies reverberates within a whole of objectives in the absolute conviction of wanting to actively take part in the betterment of collective well-being too and especially, to spring to the aid of those situations "nearest", concerning material and spiritual poverty. The presence of both non profit-making and profit-making companies, leads some authors to define them "companies with an ideal motive" (Molteni, 2009), in that they are the fruit of an ethical substratum, which directs every field of human behaviour and, therefore, that economic behaviour too. The second element consists of highlighting the attention both on production and distribution of wealth, while the third regards the freedom to take part in the project, indeed this reverberates throughout the dividing of assets to be distributed into three parts: one is for the training of "new men", who are able to manage the companies respecting the fundamental values of the person; one is in order to alleviate situations of poverty whether local ones or far-off ones, and the third part is for the company itself, so it may develop and grow and produce income. The third element winds through the serious commitment to bring about social betterment, beyond the confines of the company with a third of the assets, but also to promote employment, especially as regards protected and disadvantaged categories (Bruni, 2009). From that which emerges from the project description, the time of production and that of distribution of the wealth are placed on the same levels. This behaviour, indeed, may also derive from deep-held values, but the awareness for the whole company does not spring from it, per se. Such awareness has to be built up, through human relations (Gui & Sugden, 2005), but also by taking advantage of a style of leadership and management tools, that allow this awareness to sediment in order
to make it become knowledge, which is incorporated into a shared fundamental strategic orientation. In this way, the whole of objectives becomes "ethically oriented" (Baldarelli, 2005) and heads for the integral development of the business (Melé 2012). Indeed, it is the poor who, donating their needs, make themselves the motivation "promoter", even if indirectly, to all the companies, which have to creatively activate themselves in order to try to provide the answer. Indeed, it stimulates the productivity of the operative units and the quality of production, which does not end with providing a service or obtaining a determinate product, but goes beyond all this until it makes the customers content, those who will use such a product or service. The concrete methods, through which the virtuous circle (Cornwall & Naughton, 2008) which has just been analysed is ignited, are many and varied and even if the project suggests that 1/3 of the assets has to be destined to alleviating situations of poverty, this may take shape in various ways in company production. In these companies, it is the quality itself of the strategic process that changes, promoting extended participation to all operative units. Such a process requires great preparation and relational work in order to involve the members of the structure, the line workers and the staff also laying the bases for a radical modification of the company structure itself. Moreover, we define them as companies which develop the "globalisation of solidarity" (Gold, 2004), since, especially considering the actual conditions of the countries wherein they operate, they are developing a model of growth and relationships which, even though it goes along with the initial model which came to life in Brazil, adapts itself to the competitive and environmental circumstances and situations of the area, giving life to a different model, in certain respects, for each country,
one which is able to suit the specific local context (Buckeye & Gallagher, 2013).
About the governance two aspects qualify the model: the first is inserting ethical principles into the production of profit; the second is the wealth of the company thought of, not as an end in itself, rather as a means which allows achieving a much wider aim of universal fraternity. Then, the active presence of persons, who "depend" for their survival and development on that third of the assets of the companies of the project, sets a mechanism of cohesion off, which reciprocally and multi-directionally involves every subject internal to the company (partners, administrators, executives, managers, and the staff).
This allows for the development and extension of reciprocal control system. In this sense, the situations of neediness develop a type of control, even if "from afar", to operate bettering the quality of those products and services provided, which thus become the expressions of the "value" of relations that have developed throughout the production process (Naughton & Laczniak, 1993). This new virtuous circle, which is engaged within the internal control processes, is also useful for learning purposes, for sedimenting and circulating knowledge.
To balance entrepreneurship and mana-gerialism in EoC enterprise we suggest to apply the "tools" of communion following our elaboration of Argiolas' model (2010).
Indeed, the first that we underline is the importance of the "pact on the mission". This pact must involve the sincere dialogue, expands throughout the whole company and therefore the ways with which dialogue must come about and that is, in the most absolute silence and attention to the other are focused on (Argiolas et al., 2010).
The second tool is about the "communion of experiences", that regards more the entrepreneurial and management "process". It involves motivation/difficulty in achieving objectives. With this tool, we rediscover being a strictly interrelated group of people, in order to consolidate all the creativity and beauty development. But through the communication of how the company is "lived", it is possible to be "inside" more than "outside", "to be" more than "to do".
The third tool regards "the time of truth", which is not simply a correction of a mistake committed by a subject, whether an employee or external collaborator, as much as a path which allows him to improve, in qualitative terms, his relationship of work: with colleagues and with the company. For this reason the quantum is not sufficient, rather "how much" this is an expression of "improved" reciprocity relationships with work, with the sacrifice that this involves (Bruni, 2007). Therefore, the stages that emerge are subdivided into: representation, synthesis outcomes and interpretation are not to be understood as solely economic trends. The forth tools is colloquium that involve deep dialogue, to resolve doubts and to start with more tenacity the journey again. The novelty is in never pursuing single decisions, rather decisions taken together for the good of the "third party" who has to receive them.
Indeed, the results briefly presented in the following are related to a research conducted in 2009 aimed at analysing the degree of application of the inspiring principles of the Economy of Communion taking into consideration the coherence of the mission with governance in the business management, because we hold that, through coherence, the aspects of mana-gerialism and entrepreneurialism of such companies.
In order to quantify the phenomenon (Naughton & Laczniak, 2004) a progressive score can be identified: from 1 to 5 to the importance the same interviewees attribute to the various aspects, where we articulated the questionnaire through more specific questions that regarded: business and work; business, dialogue and communication; business and ethics; business and environment; quality of life and of production.
In relation to the consistency of the phenomenon, the data obtained from the Centre for Italian EoCs shows that there are approximately 230 businesses throughout all various parts of the Country. We decided to articulate the 43 companies who answered to the questionnaire by size, emphasising that the micro companies reach 73%, small companies are 18.60% and the medium-sized ones are 9.30%. The general tendency to a higher score emerges from answers to the questionnaire, this points to the elevated degree of coherence between mission and governance and, therefore, so too is the trend towards the balance between entrepreneurialism and manage-rialism.
The results obtained highlight the importance attributed to each aspect examined, in general, confirming a strong commitment of the companies to develop the mission-governance relationship according to the characteristics for which the project was launched, and therefore, to integrate entrepreneurialism and managerialism while looking for, from time to time, a balance.
Let us now focus our attention on the different typologies of stakeholders beginning from human labor. The involving of the workers is founded on a relationship of faith which throws the basis for an active participation within the companies and particular attention is dedicated to the working environment
as well as to the situations of unease, whether personal and/or familiar, among members of the company. Besides, the entrepreneurs, as an element of primary importance, place the time dedicated to listening to members of the company and they affirm there are often appropriate spaces for dialogue created (Argiolas, 2006). Going on to respect for the environment, we need greater effort especially in terms of external communication and there are still various stages to travel but also in this case the account of one, following, sums up the general trend which we have noticed in our analysis. With reference to the relationship between the company and ethics, the results show that both internally and externally, the companies act as moral subjects in their operating sectors (Al-ford & Naughton, 2001) even if, in the majority of cases, codes of ethics are not introduced. Regarding the last aspect examined and that is to say: business, quality of life and production, from the results, we may affirm that the attention to the market is still evolving, in the sense that we need, from time to time, to find the right balance, in terms of managerialism, to give the chance to these businesses to marry efficiency and communion. This means, sharpening the tools in order to make the product competitive, in such a way that it may be sold at a price which is at the same time "fair". Moreover, the evaluation of the relationships with customers and suppliers are excellent and the relationships improve further exactly following entrance onto the EoC project. The tension in making those who buy goods and/ or services happy, which manifests itself also in production, can be perceived from their capacity to "put themselves in the other person's shoes". The percentage which emerges from the analysis in the field is 75% and such tendency, always according to the entrepreneurs, leads to an improvement in relation-
ships even within the company thus making management easier and the results more consciously obtainable.
3. CONCLUSION
The seesaw between company entrepre-neurialism and managerialism has always been very lively, despite the effort to orientate the activity of the company, in certain times, one way or the other, fearing the disappearance of one of the two. As things currently stand, the presence of both, even in the different context where we operate, seems particularly important to us.
About the reply to the research question: "How to equilibrate entrepreneurship and managerial-ism with CST?" we can formulate the following reflections in theory and in practice. We considered literature review and we showed the different theories about the anthropological back ground that is at the base of entrepreneurship and managerialism. So we found that there is a fundamental role of Caritas and Veritate to make good enterprise about entrepreneurship and managerialism (Moore, 2005a-b, 2008; Melé, 2012). We discussed about the case of EoC enterprise demonstrating how they are able to implement in their activity in entrepreneurship and managerialism. This process of implementation is highlighted by the communion tools. So,As regards EoC, the challenge that we seem to be able to take up, especially concerns seesaw com-ings-and-goings, that we have had between the presence of entrepreneurialism and managerial-ism and in them the presence of CST principles. We maintain that only a time and space balancing of the two characteristics can lead to a true development of such companies. Here then, is the need to broaden the sphere of knowledge to better spread managerial culture through an education oriented towards understanding well
the professional aspects. These are the duty of EoC company management, but, at the same time, do not slow down the "ideal tension" (Bruni & Smerilli, 2009) towards that which is the effective purpose of these companies: universal fraternity of which they represent a puzzle piece.
Literature
Afford H. & Naugthon M. 2002. Beyond the Shareholder Model of the Firm: Working Toward the Common Good of Business. In S. A. Cortright & M. Naugthon (Eds.), Rethinking the Purpose of Business. Interdisciplinary Essays form the Catholic Social Tradition: 27-47. Notre Dame - Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Aford H. & Naughton M.J. 2001. Managing as if Faith mattered. Cristian Social Principles in the modern organization. Notre Dame - Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Argandona A. 1998. The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good. Journal of Business Ethics. 17(9): 1093-1102.
Argandona A. 2008. Anthropological and Ethical Foundations of Organization Theory'. In S. Gregg & Stoner J.R. (Eds.). Rethinking Business Management. Examining the Foundations of Business Education: 22-37. Princeton, NJ: The With-erspoon Institute.
Argiolas G., Baldarelli M.G., Ferrone C. & Parolin G. 2010, Respect, Economic Democracy and Values: a point of view in theory and practice. In Bouckaert, L. & Arena, P. (Eds.). Respect and Economic Democracy, European SPES Cahiers 6: 155-172. Garant, Antwerpen-Apeldoom.
Argiolas G. 2006. The Good Management. Drivers of Corporate Social Orientation Towards a Multidimensional Success. Paper presented at the International Conference "The Good Company", 5-7 October, Roma.
Argiolas G. 2009. Economia di Comunione. In Bruni L. & Zamagni S. (Eds.). Dizionario di Economia Civile: 332-345. Roma: Citta Nuova.
Baldarelli M.G. 2005. Le aziende eticamente orientate. Mission, governance e accountability. Bologna: CLUEB.
Baldarelli M.G. 2006. An Italian Note on Social Responsibility, Catholic Social Teaching and the Economy of Communion. Social and Environmental Accounting Journal, April: 7—12.
Benedetto XVI, 2009. Caritas in Veritate. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Bertini U. 1995. Scritti di politica aziendale. Torino: Giappichelli.
Bruni L. (Ed.). 1999. Economia di comunione. Per una cultura economica a più dimensioni. Roma: Città Nuova.
Bruni L. 2007. La ferita dell'altro. Economia e relazioni umane. Trento: Il Margine.
Bruni L. 2009. The Economy of Communion. Toward a Multi-Dimensional Economic Culture. USA: New City Press.
Bruni L. & Pelligra V. (Eds.). 2002. Economia come impegno civile. Relazionalità, Ben-essere ed Economia di comunione. Roma: Città Nuova.
Bruni L. & Crivelli L. (Eds.). 2004. Per una economia di comunione. Un approccio multidisci-plinare. Roma: Città Nuova.
Bruni L. & Uelmen A.J. 2006. Religious Values and Corporate Decision Making: the Economy of Communion Project. Fordham Journal of corporate and financial low: 645—680.
Bruni L. & Smerilli A. 2009. Benedetta economia. Roma: Città Nuova.
Bucar B. & Hisrich R.D. 2004. Ethics of Business Managers vs. Entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 61, No. 1: 59-82.
Buckeye J. & Gallagher J. 2013. Charism and Institution: an organizational theory case study of Economy of Communion. In Carey J.B. 2001. The Common Good in Catholic Social Thought. St. John's Law Review, 75(2): 311-313.
Carrol A.B. 2000. Ethical Challenges for Business in the New Millennium: Corporate Responsibility and Model of Management Morality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1): 33-40 .
Cassel D. 2001. Human Rights Business Responsibilities in the Global Marketplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2): 261-274.
Cornwall J. & Naugthon M. (Eds.). 2008. Bringing your business to life. The four virtues that will
help you build a better business and a better life. Regol: Ventura.
Cortright SA. & Naugthon M. (Eds.). 2002. Rethinking the Purpose of Business. Interdisciplinary Essays form the Catholic Social Tradition. Notre Dame — Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press: 27-47.
De Bettignies H.C. & Thompson M.J. (Eds). 2010. Leadership, spirituality and the common good. East and west approaches. European SPES Cahiers 4, Antwerpen-Apeldoom: Garant.
Del Baldo M. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance in Italian SMEs: toward a 'Territorial' Model based on Small 'Champions' of CSR'. International Journal of Sustainable Society 2(3): 215-247.
Donaldson J. & Preston L. 1995. The Stakeholder Theory of Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, Implication. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
EU, European Union, 2004. European Multi-stakeholder forum on CSR. Final results and recommendations, Final Report, 29 June 2004.
Filion L.J. 1991, Vision and relations: elements for an entrepreneurial metamodel. International Small Business Journal, 9(2), Jan: 26-40.
Frederick W.C. 1992. Anchoring Values in Nature: Toward a Theory of Business Values. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(3): 283-304.
Freeman E., Harrison J.S., Wicks A.C., Palmar B.L., De Colle S. 2010. Stakeholde Theory. The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman R.E. 1994. The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 409-429.
Garriga E. & Mele D. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1): 51-71.
Giovanni Paolo II 1991. Centesimus Annus. Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Gold L. 2010. New financial horizons. The emergence of an Economy of Communion, N.Y: New City Press
Gold L. 2004. The sharing economy. London: Asgate Economic Geography Series.
Gorgievski M.J., Ascalon M.E. & Ute S. 2011. Small Business Owners' Success Criteria, a Values Approach to Personal Differences. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2): 207-232.
Gray R. 2000. Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, Reporting and Attestation: a Personal Perspective. Glasgow: University of Glasgow
Gui B. & Sugden R. 2005. Economics and Social Interactions. Accounting for Interpersonal Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hébert R.F. & Link A.N. 1989. In Search of the Meaning of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, n. 1: 39-49.
Hemingway CA. & Maclagan P.W. 2004. Managers' Personal Values as Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1): 33-44.
Julien P.A. & Marchesnay M. 1988. La Petite Enterprise. Paris: Vuibert.
Julien P.A. 1989. The Entrepreneur and Economic Theory. International Small Business Journal, 7(3): 29-38.
Kent CA., Sexton D.L. & Vesper K.H. 1982. Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kets de Vries M.F.R. 1977. The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the Crossroad. The Journal of Management Studies, 14(1): 34-57.
Livian Y.F. 1988. The Evaluation of Personal Characteristics of New Entrepreneurs. An Empirical Study. EIASM, RENT I, Brussels.
Longenecker J.G. et al. 2006. Ethical Attitudes in Small Business and Large Corporations: Theory and Empirical Findings from a Tracking Study Spanning three Decades. Journal of Small Business Management, 2: 167-183.
Longenercker J.G., Moore C.W., Petty J.W., Palich L.E. & McKinney JA. 2006. Ethical Attitudes in Small Business and Large Corporations: Theory and Empirical Findings from a Tracking Study Planning Three Decades'. Journal of Small Business Management, 2(44): 167-183.
Lubich Ch. 2001. Economia di comunione. Sto-ria e profezia. Roma: Città Nuova.
Maritain J. 1947. The Person and the Common Good. New York: Charles Scribner's Son.
Melé D. 2002. Not Only Stakeholder Interests. The Firm Oriented Toward the Common Good. Notre Dame Notre — Indiana: University Press of Notre Dame.
Melé D. 2009. Business Ethics in Action. Seeking Human Excellence in Organizations. Hampshire, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.
Melé D. 2012. Management ethics. Placing ethics at the core of Good Management. Hampshire, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.
MolteniM. 2009. Aziende a movente ideale: 6575. In Bruni, L. & Zamagni, S. (Eds.). Dizionario di Economia Civile. Roma: Città Nuova.
Moore G. 2005a. Corporate Character: Modern Virtue Ethics and the Virtuous Corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15: 659—685.
Moore G. 2005 b. Humanizing Business: A Modern Virtue Ethics Approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15: 237-255.
Moore G. 2008. Re-Imagining the Morality of Management: A Modern Virtue ethics Approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 483-511.
Naughton M. & Laczniak G.R 2004. A Theological Context of Work from the Catholic Social Encyclical Tradition. Jounal of Business Ethics, (12).
Quinn J.J. 1997. Personal Ethics and Business Ethics: the Ethics Attitudes of Owner/Managers of Small Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2):119-127.
Ruisi M. 2009. Antropologia ed etica aziendale. Note sul tema di trascendentali e virtù imprendito-riali. Milano: Giuffrè.
Scase R. & Gofee R 1980. The Real World of the Small Business Owner. London: Groom Helm.
Schumpeter J.A. 1965. Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History. In H.G.J. Aitken (Ed.), Explorations in Enterprise: 45-64. Cambridge: Harvard Press.
Schwart^S.H. 2005. Basic Human Values: Their Content and Structure Across Culture. In A. Tama-yo & J. Porto (Eds.), Values and Work: 21-55. Brasilia: Editoa Vozes.
Sciarelli S. 2007. Etica e responsabilità sociale nell'impresa. Milano: Giuffrè.
Smith N.R. 1967. The Entrepreneur and his Firm: the Relationship Between Type of Man and
Type of Company. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Sorci C. (Ed.). 2007. Lo sviluppo integrale delle aziende. Milano: Giuffrè.
Spence L.J. 1999. Does size matter? The State of the Art in Small Business Ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(3): 163-174.
Spence L.J. & Rutherfoord R 2003. Small Business and Empirical Perspectives in Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1): 1-5.
Spence L.J., Habisch A. & Schmidpeter R. (Eds.). 2004. Responsibility and Social Capital: The World of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: 25-43. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Stevenson H.H. 1983. A Perspective on Entrepreneurship. Working Paper, No. 9-384-131. Boston: Harvard Business School.
The Stratos Group. 1980. Strategic Orientation of Small European Business. Aldershot: Gover Press.
Trevino L.K. & Weaver G.R. 1994. Normative and Empirical Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2): 129-143.
Van de Ven A.H., Sapienza H.J. et al. 2007. Entrepreneurial Pursuits of self-and Collective Inter-
ests. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3-4): 353-370.
Velasquez M. 1992. International Business, Morality and the Common Good. Business Ethics Quarterly 2(1): 27-40.
Votaw D. 1972. Genius Became Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility Pt1. California Management Review, 15(2): 25-31.
Vyakarnam S., Bailey A., Myers A. & Burnett D. 1997. Towards an understanding of ethical behaviour in small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(15): 1625-1636.
Wood D.J. & Lodgson J.M. 2002. Business Citizenship: From Individuals to Organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series, 3: 59-94.
WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development: 1987. Our Common Future, Brundtland Report, General Assembly. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zamagni S. (ed) (1995), The economics of altruism, Hants: E. Elgar.
Zsonlay L. (Ed.). 2011. Spirituality and ethics in management. 2nd ed., Springer.
