3-corporate social responsibility in the thinking of paolo ...emilio cassandro had a heightened...

Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, September 2016, Vol. 12, No. 9, 461-493 doi: 10.17265/1548-6583/2016.09.003

Corporate Social Responsibility in the Thinking

of Paolo Emilio Cassandro

Rossella Leopizzi University of Salento, Italy

Stefano Coronella University of Naples Parthenope, Italy

Andrea Venturelli, Fabio Caputo University of Salento, Italy

This paper, which is to be collocated with international research studies of the historical origins of corporate social

responsibility (CSR), deals with both the theme of CSR itself and the topics related to it through an examination of

the key characteristics of the theories of the master in the field of Italian Economia Aziendale, Paolo Emilio

Cassandro (1910-2004), who wrote an impressive number of works on numerous subjects that are of notable

current relevance, including the social role of business, the concept of added value, and the role of the social report

in the process of providing information for external purposes. Through an analytical-descriptive approach, our work

will focus in particular on certain aspects of his life and works, which show beyond doubt the great value of his

contribution to the advancement, at both national and international levels, of research into CSR. The main aim of

what follows is to highlight not only the innovative nature of Cassandro’s studies of the subject when compared

with other research carried out in Italy in the second half of the 20th century but also how strikingly relevant they

are to CSR as a topic for international scholars today.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility (CSR), Cassandro, social role of business, added value, social profit,

social report

Introduction Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social reporting, both of which are of great current interest to

researchers and practitioners, have in the past been the subject of in-depth studies by some of the foremost Economia Aziendale1 scholars who, with great foresight and skilful analysis of the business world, have offered innovative insights, the influence of which is still very clear today. While most of these scholars are of the opinion that the principles which underlie CSR originated in the United States, it is acknowledged that they also partly derive from Italian business philosophy (Guatri, 1995).

Rossella Leopizzi, Ph.D. in Management, Research Fellow, Department of Economic Sciences, University of Salento. Email: [email protected].

Stefano Coronella, Full Professor, Department of Management, University of Naples Parthenope. Andrea Venturelli, Associate Professor, Department of Economic Sciences, University of Salento. Fabio Caputo, Assistant Professor, Department of Economic Sciences, University of Salento.

1 Given that internationally there is no equivalent of Economia Aziendale as an academic discipline, whereas in Italy it is established as the study of the company and of its conditions of existence and survival, we have decided not to translate the expression but to leave it in Italian language in order to avoid potential terminological and conceptual confusion.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D

CSR IN THE THINKING OF PAOLO EMILIO CASSANDRO

462

Without a doubt, the study scholars consider the seminal work on the precepts of social responsibility to be the one published by Clark in 1916 (Clark, 1916), even though 60 years would pass from the time of its appearance to the beginnings of mature debate on the subject. It was in the 1970s, in fact, that the first studies on CSR began to appear; these were the works of scholars from a number of different fields, and they therefore approached the subject from different perspectives.

The first was probably that of Friedman (1970), who adopted a minimalist approach, and this was followed by Freeman’s (1984) study, which put forward the stakeholder theory that provided the inspiration for a number of subsequent works (Freeman & Reed, 1983; Goodpaster, 1991; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Clarkson, 1995; Evan & Freeman, 1993; Freeman, 1994). The different perspectives on CSR then became the subject of further studies, in which topics of note included connections between CSR and social performance (Carroll, 1979), business ethics (Solomon, 1993), stakeholder management (Donaldson & Preston, 1995), and accountability (Elkington, 1998).

This is the background against which our work is set. The aim is to provide a general picture of the opinions of leading Italian Economia Aziendale scholars on the subject in question. Particular attention will be paid to some of the enlightening reflections that make up only a part of the vast contribution of Paolo Emilio Cassandro (1910-2004) to the development of the study of Economia Aziendale, thus making available to international scholars and young researchers the strikingly topical and highly perceptive thinking of a pioneer who is all too often forgotten.

Cassandro’s works have in fact been underexploited in studies on business at an international level. This is clear from the limited number of quotations from them in internationally published research, as can be seen in Table 12, which shows the numbers of international quotations by both Italian and non-Italian authors. In particular, before this paper, nobody has underlined and described the relevance of his theory in the field of CSR.

Table 1 International Quotations About Cassandro

Publications Year of publications

Number of international quotations by foreign authors

Number of international quotations by Italian authors

Sulle teorie aziendali di Eugenio Schmalenbach 1941 1 2 Le riserve occulte 1946 0 1 I gruppi aziendali 1954 3 7 Le gestioni assicuratrici 1957 1 4 Le gestioni agrarie 1960 0 2 Ragioneria generale 1960 0 2 Le gestioni erogatrici pubbliche 1963 1 6 Le aziende: principi di ragioneria 1965 1 2 Fabio Besta (Rirea) 1972 0 1 Sul contenuto degli Studi di ‘Accounting 1973 0 5 Betriebswirtschaftslehre» ed economia aziendale 1975 1 0 Le rilevazioni aziendali 1975 0 2 Sul concetto di economicità aziendale (Rirea) 1980 0 1 Trattato di ragioneria 1982 0 1

2 The quotations from the author were obtained by combining information from the ABI/INFORM databank and from the latest version of the Publish or Perish software.


463

The choice to single out Paolo Emilio Cassandro from the various Italian Economia Aziendale scholars was made for very specific reasons. Cassandro developed interesting thoughts and ideas on the social function of the company, on the importance of appropriate distribution of added value, and on the ethics of profit at a time when, from an economic point of view, the key factors were production and consumption. In that period, mass goods and services were absorbed by consumers; the main preoccupation was with responding to this increasing market demand. Workers were interested in obtaining forms of employment within the industrial sector and were prepared to compromise significantly on conditions in order to achieve this aim. Studies of business focused on other aspects; ethics and the idea of the company as a community (Cassandro, 1958, p. 120) were of marginal interest to scholars at the time.

With impressive farsightedness, Cassandro devoted part of his time to the analysis and development of his ideas on conceptual categories and on the abovementioned subjects (Cassandro, 1956; 1958; 1967a; 1967b; 1969; 1972; 1978; 1980). He was, for example, the first Italian Economia Aziendale scholar to deal with the question of the social report (Cassandro, 1989).

In this paper, the reflections on Cassandro are specifically concerned with the concept of CSR in terms of the author’s vision of the company as a system of forces capable of long-term survival. Compared to other renowned Economia Aziendale scholars of his day, both his mentors and other contemporaries, Paolo Emilio Cassandro had a heightened interest in certain topics connected with social responsibility, most notably added value and the social report, concepts that were certainly new for the time and which will be discussed shortly.

As well as this main theme, our work will consider other topics that Cassandro explored in depth, including the social function of the company, the role of profit, and the need to use other social communication tools in addition to the annual financial statement.

Using an analytical-descriptive approach, we focus on certain aspects of the life and works of Cassandro which clearly demonstrate that the abovementioned concepts were already developed and established in his mind.

In order to determine to what extent Cassandro’s work may be considered pioneering and/or a product of its time, the spotlight is turned onto the ideas of leading Italian Economia Aziendale scholars (in particular Zappa, Onida, Masini, and Amaduzzi) in an attempt to ascertain, through the study of their most important works, whether they too were reflecting on or working on topics that might in any way echo the theories of CSR.

So, alongside what might be termed a “vertical” analysis of Cassandro’s thoughts regarding certain thematic areas connected to the theory of CSR, we provide a “horizontal” analysis comparing his thinking with that of other scholars working in the field at the time.

In particular, taking as a starting point those issues common to all definitions of CSR, our paper aims first to establish that these issues already featured in economico-aziendale doctrine, and then to explore in depth Cassandro’s thinking with regard to them.

The originality of this paper derives from the fact that the theme of CSR has rarely been examined from a historical point of view and that the development of the theme in Italy has usually been traced by examining the ideas of the leading scholars in the field of Economia Aziendale. Some have analyzed possible interactions between the thinking of the most eminent Italian Economia Aziendale scholars and stakeholder theory (Signori & Rusconi, 2009). Other studies have dealt with the works and biographies of important Italian scholars such as


464

Fibonacci (Antoni, 1985), Pacioli (Galassi, 1996; Nobes, 1995), Flori (Quattrone, 1994), Marchi (Poddighe, Coronella, Madonna, & Deidda Gagliardo, 2007), Besta (Sargiacomo, Servalli, & Andrei, 2012), Pisani (Torrecchia, 2008), Zappa (Biondi, Canziani, & Kirat, 2005; Canziani & Rondo Brovetto, 1992; Capalbo & Clarke, 2006; Dagnino & Quattrone, 2006; Galassi, 1984; Alexander & Servalli, 2011; Cinquini, 2007; Viganò, 1994; 1998; Zambon & Zan, 2000; Zan, 1994), De Minico (Cinquini & Marelli, 2002; Fiume, 2007), D’Ippolito (Lipari, 2008), Amaduzzi (Melis, 2007), and Melis (Garner, 1976; Padroni, 1976).

As explained above, this paper is collocated with those international studies on the search for the historical origins of CSR (Vilanova, Lozano, & Arenas, 2009; Argandona, Moreno, & Solà, 2009; Moscarini, 2009; Dahlsrud, 2008; Manetti, 2011). The aim is to examine the theme of CSR and the topics connected to it by considering the key characteristics of the ideas of Paolo Emilio Cassandro, highlighting on the one hand their highly innovative nature compared to the state of development of studies in the field of Economia Aziendale in the second half of the 20th century in Italy, and on the other hand their striking relevance for international scholars interested in CSR in the world of today.

The limitations of this paper lie in the fact that the account provided of the concept of social responsibility is restricted to the ideas of specific Economia Aziendale scholars and is not intended in any way as a complete documentation of all the contributions made to the literature by Italian scholars on the advancement of the international debate on CSR. However, the focus in our work on certain leading figures in the field is designed to properly contextualize Paolo Emilio Cassandro and his ideas, and to highlight the ways in which he might be considered a pioneer. A more structured analysis of the ideas of the pioneers of social responsibility in Italy will be the basis of a broader work currently in the planning phase.

The paper first of all describes the research questions and the methodology adopted (Section 2); it then provides a brief summary of Cassandro’s life and works, which aims to identify those traits of his personality that will facilitate the understanding of his views on the subjects that are the focus of this particular research (Section 3); it goes on to analyze existing definitions of CSR in literature (Section 4), definitions that, for the most part, tally with concepts closely bound up with Italian economico-aziendale doctrine. These concepts are analyzed, first in relation to the context in which Cassandro was operating (Section 5) and then, in greater detail, with reference to Cassandro himself, to show how he was more open to these ideas than other Economia Aziendale scholars were; in fact, the level of attention he devoted to them was such that Cassandro can fairly be described as a pioneer not only in national but also in international terms (Sections 6-10). In particular, the final part of the paper focuses on the main links that can be identified between the theories of CSR and the ideas explored in depth by the leading Economia Aziendale scholars, and in particular by Paolo Emilio Cassandro himself.

Research Hypothesis and Methodology

This work is based on two research hypotheses: H1: Certain ideas belonging to a number of Italian Economia Aziendale scholars (Zappa, Onida, Masini,

Amaduzzi, and Cassandro) foreshadow the current international debate on CSR. H2: Cassandro is to be considered a pioneer of the international debate on CSR. In order to better contextualize the research hypotheses, it is necessary to examine the main definitions of

CSR found in the literature and to identify the relative assumptions.


465

In order to verify H1, these definitions were aligned with the ideas of Italian Economia Aziendale scholars extrapolated from the contents of the works of the founding father of Economia Aziendale, Gino Zappa (1879-1960), and of his most important pupils3, Pietro Onida (1902-1982), Aldo Amaduzzi (1904-1991), Carlo Masini (1914-1995), and Paolo Emilio Cassandro (1910-2004).

Zappa is considered the founder of Economia Aziendale, the science of the conditions of existence and the manifestations of life of aziende. He was the first to adopt an integral view of the azienda, which leads to a holistic approach to articulate a unitary economic discipline.

Zappa, founder of the Scuola Bocconiana, had many pupils, some of whom were considered “orthodox” (whence the term Scuola Zappiana), such as Pietro Onida and Carlo Masini, and some “unorthodox” (the Scuola post-zappiana), such as Amaduzzi, founder of the Scuola Sistemica.

Cassandro (1910-2004), although he initially studied under Benedetto Lorusso (a pupil of Besta’s), was later “adopted” by Aldo Amaduzzi and, from a doctrinal point of view, is considered a pupil of the latter.

An analysis of these authors was carried out using primary sources4, and focusing on their output from the end of the Second World War to the end of the 1970s.

Focusing on the works of Zappa, Onida, Amaduzzi, Masini, and Cassandro, this paper highlights logical and conceptual overlapping between the theories put forward by these authors in their own day and present-day definitions of CSR in the literature.

Examination of the definitions mentioned in Section 4 is followed by the explanation of certain concepts found in the works of Zappa, Onida, Amaduzzi, Masini, and Cassandro. The works analyzed are from the period 1950-1970 and are listed in Table 2.

The period 1950s-1970s was chosen for two reasons: firstly, it was only from the 1950s onwards, after the Second World War, that Italian Economia Aziendale scholars turned their attention to the role a company played in the wider community; secondly, this was a unique period in Italy, which was undergoing a transformation from being an agricultural nation into an industrial one. It was in fact a time of intensive development and of the so-called economic boom, in which Italy, thanks to the process of change, became one of the leading European countries in terms of growth and GDP.

Industrialization was taking place at a previously unimaginable pace. Employment in the industrial sector rose significantly and the rate of capital savings grew at an unprecedented rate.

This level of growth was due to both the international situation (for example, positive economic trends, various forms of aid from the United States, the disparity between domestic and international prices) and internal factors such as the availability of an enormous low-cost workforce.

Economic growth was accompanied by a rise in social conflict, which meant that topics such as the social function of the company and the role of profit became increasingly important. It was, in fact, a historical period in which companies were predominantly concerned with making profits and showed little or no interest in working conditions or, more generally, in the social impact of their economic activity. It goes without saying that in such circumstances any foreshadowing of the principles of CSR could only be described as farsighted and revolutionary.

3 Zappa had other important pupils. We have chosen just three, not including Cassandro (who was not a first-hand pupil of Zappa’s) because of the importance of their studies concerning the social function of the azienda. 4 By “primary sources”, we mean works attributable to the author; by “secondary sources”, we mean works dealing with an author’s ideas but written by others.


466

Table 2 Works Analyzed Year Author Work 1953 Aldo Amaduzzi L’azienda nel suo sistema e nell’ordine delle sue rilevazioni 1954 Pietro Onida L’azienda. Primi principi di gestione e di organizzazione 1954 Pietro Onida L’azienda. Fondamentali problemi della sua efficienza 1956 Gino Zappa Le produzioni nell’economia delle imprese 1957 Aldo Amaduzzi Conflitto ed equilibrio di interessi nel bilancio dell’impresa 1958 Gino Zappa La dinamica dei processi economici e delle altre coordinazioni di gestione nelle aziende 1958 Gino Zappa L’ipotesi del costante nella dottrina e nella gestione d’azienda 1958 Paolo Emilio Cassandro Le aziende. Principi di Ragioneria 1959 Gino Zappa La perdurante instabilità dei mercati e delle gestioni di azienda 1959 Gino Zappa Le condizioni e le circostanze di instabilità delle gestioni di azienda 1959 Gino Zappa Nuove condizioni e circostanze dell’instabile gestione di azienda 1959 Gino Zappa La ricercata stabilità dell’economia delle aziende e dei mercati

1959 Gino Zappa La nozione di sistema; le sue vaste applicazioni; i diversi sistemi dei valori nell’economia di ogni azienda

1959 Gino Zappa Il divenire sociale 1960 Carlo Masini L’organizzazione del lavoro nell’impresa 1960 Gino Zappa La popolazione, i suoi movimenti e la sua economia 1960 Gino Zappa Le classi delle società umane: la famiglia 1960 Pietro Onida Economia d’azienda 1961 Pietro Onida Economicità socialità ed efficienza nell’amministrazione dell’impresa 1962 Gino Zappa L’economia delle aziende di consumo 1964 Carlo Masini La struttura dell’impresa 1967 Paolo Emilio Cassandro Il profitto dell’impresa e la sua determinazione 1967 Paolo Emilio Cassandro L’equilibrio di impresa e la politica dei redditi 1969 Paolo Emilio Cassandro Il profitto dell’impresa mezzo non fine 1970 Carlo Masini Lavoro e risparmio

One final observation that needs to be made with regard to the historical period in question is that the authors’ aim is to highlight the pioneering nature of the studies by Cassandro and the Italian Economia Aziendale scholars on the social responsibility of businesses. Our analysis begins in the 1950s, as no scholar appears to have dealt with the subject before that date, and extends to the 1970s, which is when studies on the topic began to appear internationally.

From the analysis of the various works by scholars and from the comparisons made between their ideas, what emerged was a greater sensitivity on the part of Paolo Emilio Cassandro to topics connected with CSR. This finding led us to carry out a more in-depth study of all of his work, in which a clear evolution of his ideas is evident over time. From a methodological point of view, the analysis focused not only on Cassandro’s works but also on the ways in which his life and experiences shaped his thinking.

In order to verify H2, the spatial and temporal scope of the study was widened to include primary sources from a longer period (1950-1990) and secondary sources.

Broadening the study of Cassandro was deemed justified not only for the reasons outlined above but also on account of his remarkable openness towards the international scene, which was rare amongst Italian scholars at that time; he was facilitated in this by his knowledge of other languages, an attribute that enabled him to


467

explore subjects that were barely known or had not been developed in Italy and to make more original contributions to the literature. It should be pointed out, moreover, that accounting topics, particularly concepts relating to CSR and social accountability, are a feature of the works analyzed.

A Brief Biographical Sketch of Cassandro Paolo Emilio Cassandro was born in Barletta on January 9, 1910 and began his academic career in Bari, as

a pupil of Benedetto Lorusso, who had studied under Besta. In 1929, before he had even graduated, he wrote an essay on Leone Gomberg, the Swiss Economia Aziendale scholar, thus demonstrating an interest in international scholarship which would subsequently be developed in his degree thesis “L’economia aziendale nei Paesi stranieri e le recenti tendenze italiane (Aziendale Economics in Foreign Countries and Recent Italian Trends)”.

Shortly afterwards he attended a course in Economia Aziendale at the Business School in Berlin, where he spent two years thanks to a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education which enabled him to further internationalize his approach to his studies by carrying out a critical analysis of the treatment of Economia Aziendale by German scholars, in particular Schmalenbach.

A perfect knowledge of four languages – French, English, Spanish, and German – meant that he was able to read the original versions of the texts that most interested him. He developed a particular affinity for the Swiss and German schools, notably the work of Leone Gomberg, whom he defined as a forerunner of the ideas that would subsequently become established in Italy.

Cassandro also devotes attention to Schär, whom he considers a great idealist because “he sees the phenomenon of exchange as a social function that is important not only economically but also morally and spiritually” (Cassandro, 1933, p. 80). This was written in the period in which Cassandro was already beginning to attach great importance to the social role of economic activity.

He spent his academic career teaching at the University of Bari, whose economics faculty ranked second only to Venice, and then at Catania, Pescara, and Rome.

In 1963, he gave a series of lectures at the University of Asmara, thus establishing important links between it and the University of Bari. This experience too would have a clear influence on both his personality and thinking.

Cassandro’s published output consists of 30 longer works and various shorter pieces (138 articles) – the most important are listed in an appendix to this paper – which confirm his interest in numerous topics that are strikingly relevant today, including the social report. In dealing with these various subjects, he explored the theories and practical solutions adopted internationally, not only by the Swiss and the Germans (as in his earlier days) but also by the Anglo-Saxons.

Three key points emerge from an analysis of his enormous output which, as has already been pointed out, covers an extremely wide range of subjects: the relevance of his studies of accounting, his striking openness towards international studies, and the attention he devotes to topics that feature in current debates on CSR.

In order to better collocate Cassandro in both Italian and international contexts, it should be pointed out that, in comparison with his predecessors, he considerably broadens the parameters of Ragioneria, which he sees as an autonomous science that involves the study of the structure of the company and of life within it as well as of methodologies for the exploration of business events so as to ensure economically efficient practices (as a normative science). For Cassandro, then, company economics and accounting methodology cannot be separated and reporting is not simply an end in itself but a useful means of communicating what happens inside a company and of managing a company in accordance with the principles of economicità (Cassandro, 1970).


468

It is well worth emphasizing at this point that the term Ragioneria, as defined by Cassandro and as understood in Italian aziendale theory, is not synonymous with the English “accounting”, as Cassandro himself goes to some lengths to point out on more than one occasion. Accounting is only a part of Ragioneria, more specifically, the part relative to entries; it does not include other entry methodologies or any theory aimed at exploring business events and the logical connections between them (Cassandro, 1973).

His in-depth knowledge of the international scene and of how it differs from Italy in terms of theory – as it did both then and now – is thus clearly evident.

As regards those aspects connected with disclosure, Cassandro is one step ahead of his contemporaries: he focuses his research and encourages the basing of practices on topics that had hitherto barely been touched upon in Italy; he also expresses the hope that accounting information will be harmonized internationally (Cassandro, 1984). He thus makes a valuable contribution to promoting acceptance of the European directive on the financial report and the consolidated financial report.

On the subject of writing that foreshadows the current debate on CSR, which will be dealt with at greater length in the following paragraphs, Cassandro’s contribution can be better understood if compared with, for example, the ideas expressed by Bowen (1953) in the same period about businessmen having responsibilities to society since businesses are vital centres of power.

Up to the beginning of the 1960s, in fact, international academic debate on the subject tended to focus on the social responsibility of businessmen, as can be seen for example in the works of Davis (1960) and Frederick (1960). Internationally, awareness of the importance of the role of the company in its wider milieu seems not to have been fully developed, especially if comparison is made with the thinking that emerges from an analysis of the Italian Economia Aziendale scholars.

It was only towards the end of the 1960s that scholars began to examine the idea of CSR (Walton, 1967), although even then it is clear that there was not a proper debate on the subject. Such a debate began in the 1970s: definitions of CSR proliferated, and a number of different approaches were developed, including Friedman’s (1970) minimalism, Carroll’s (1979) four responsibilities (the first of which was economic responsibility), Davis’s (1973) institutional principle, Ackerman and Bauer’s (1976) strategic approach, and Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory.

Cassandro was a great scholar and a man of outstanding moral rectitude who was absolutely devoted to his work and his family; he saw teaching as a lifelong vocation, and academic research as the noblest pursuit open to a graduating student. He was under no illusions, however, about the difficulties that such a career entailed, and inculcated both in his children and his students an awareness of the importance of the values of sacrifice, perseverance and humility, qualities essential to the achievement of worthwhile aims. In his relationships with his students, he was strict but open to dialogue. In impressing upon his students the importance of growing intellectually, he emphasized the need to be open to ideas from across the international spectrum if one was to develop a full understanding of the current state of – ultimately boundless – knowledge.

Together with Giannessi (1908-1982) and Ferrero (1926-1992), he was part of the academic generation which immediately succeeded that of the pupils of Gino Zappa (1879-1960), Amaduzzi (1904-1991), Amodeo (1912-1998), D’Ippolito (1894-1977), Onida (1902-1982), and Masini (1914-1995).

In order to fully understand just how relevant to the present day his ideas were, and even more strikingly how forward-looking he was, it is necessary first to briefly consider the Italian historical context in the period during which Cassandro was most productive (1950-1970).


469

These were two decades of intense economic development, the so-called boom years, during which Italy was transformed from a predominantly agricultural country into an industrial power and became Europe’s second most populous country after Germany. Industrial growth was accompanied, however, by a growth in social conflict. Against this background, the subject of the social function of businesses and the role of profit began to feature in contemporary political and institutional debate. It is clear, in fact, that at that time companies were predominantly geared to making profits and paid practically no attention to the conditions of the workers, who appeared increasingly alienated as the size of workforces increased and automation spread. The priorities for any business were production and consumption; outsiders’ opinions about how they should operate were ignored. Moreover, although the Civil Code of 1942 had sought to limit the power of management by establishing that the balance sheet should take account of more than simply internal value, the information actually provided on company balance sheets was extremely scant and the law did not stipulate a minimum amount of information; legislation to that effect was not introduced until 1974. In such a context, to speak of added value and a social report was downright revolutionary.

Subsequent developments have shown how farsighted Cassandro’s vision was, and his ideas are still relevant today; for an economist of his time, he was not only insightful but radical. In his treatment of certain themes he was clearly a forerunner: considering his publication of “I gruppi aziendali” in 1954, when the phenomenon of the group in Italy was largely unknown. The bibliography to the work consists mainly, in fact, of non-Italian publications, mostly authored by Anglo-Saxons.

He was also a pioneer, as we shall see shortly, in his writings on the social report and on profit as a means rather than an end, a subject currently at the centre of debate. Such vision and foresight were the products of his having lived and studied in an international environment.

Cassandro’s ideas, explored through an analysis of specific topics such as the role of the company, the role of public administration and rationale valuations on the balance sheet, have been the subject of a number of studies (Di Cagno & Caputo, 2008; 2010; Turco, 2006; Faccia, 2007). Other topics close to Cassandro’s heart, including that of his own international experience and particularly his interest in Swiss and German theories of Economia Aziendale, were the subject of a Study Day held in his memory in Lecce on February 22, 2008 (Massari, 2008; Catturi, 2008; Milone, 2008; Paolone, 2008; Bruni, 2008; Adamo, 2008; Canaletti, 2008; Di Cagno, 2008; Sarcone, 2008).

Review of Literature on CSR and Social Communication Tools

Historically and geographically, the concept of CSR – for an overview of its development, the reader is referred to a systematic review of the literature (Garriga & Melé, 2004) – has been interpreted in a wide variety of ways owing to the influence of the different legal, political, and social systems in different countries (Pava, 2008; Mio & Venturelli, 2013; Sison, 2009; Adams, Hill, & Roberts, 1998; Habisch, Jonker, Wegner, & Schmidpeter, 2005; Matten & Moon, 2008; Welford, 2003; Tschopp, 2005). This has led over recent years to the emergence in the literature of a very broad range of definitions of CSR.

Taking as a starting point a work by Dahlsrud (2008) which seeks to identify distinctive taxonomic characteristics in procedures and in the literature on the subject of CSR, we selected five of the definitions provided by the author; the two criteria for selection were the number of quotations and multi-dimensionality (i.e., the inclusion of environmental, social, economic, stakeholder, and voluntary dimensions).


470

This choice, although it excluded any possibility of providing a single, definitive definition of CSR, was based on the idea that it would make it possible to identify specific features common to the various definitions of CSR extant today (Argandona et al., 2009).

In his work, Dahlsrud examined 37 definitions of CSR. The five selected for analysis in this paper were chosen for their completeness and because of the number of times in which they are quoted. The definitions listed below are multidimensional because they include the social, environmental, economic, multi-stakeholder, and voluntary dimensions.

The leading definition of CSR in terms of the number of quotations is the one provided by the European Commission in 2001 (Commissione Europea [CEE], 2001)5 which considers CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”.

The other definitions selected for this study are listed below: (1) “Business decision-making linked to ethical values, compliance with legal requirements, and respect

for people, communities and the environment”; (2) “Open and transparent business practices based on ethical values and respect for employees,

communities, and the environment, which will contribute to sustainable business success”; (3) “Corporate social responsibility is achieving commercial success in ways that honour ethical values

and respect people, communities, and the natural environment”; (4) “Global corporate social responsibility can be defined as business practices based on ethical values and

respect for workers, communities, and the environment”. From a first reading of these definitions, it emerges clearly that CSR describes a way of doing business. Its

principles are perfectly integrated into the ordinary management of a company. This is not as obvious a statement as it might seem and will be key to the subsequent analysis of a number of concepts that have been widely discussed in the international literature and that, moreover, provide the basis for some of the teachings of the masters of Economia Aziendale6.

A careful reading of the definitions above makes it possible to identify the common characteristics that form the basis of the concept of CSR according to authoritative international doctrine.

The first common feature to emerge is that CSR pertains to the role that the company takes on in its specific milieu, the ethical nature of this role, its relationship with its different kinds of stakeholders, and the resulting need to report to these stakeholders.

In the international literature, the term “responsibility” generally has a moral connotation; it expresses the idea of “doing the right thing” in relation to people (stakeholders) who have expectations, who judge the company’s work and towards whom the company also has a duty of accountability (Argandona & von Weltzien Hoivik, 2009). Acting responsibly should not be seen as the result of strategic consideration of both internal and external expectations in order to gain an advantage in terms of revenue and/or reputation; rather, any such advantages should be considered a natural consequence of behavior based on principles of a moral nature (Argandona & von Weltzien Hoivik, 2009). 5 The 286 quotations on the web contain the following definition: “A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. 6 On this subject, Onida observed: “Taking inspiration from sociality in the running of a company does not mean doing uneconomic things but rather, consistently with the conditions necessary for economic survival and development of that company, imposing moral limits on the economic choices made and on the pursuit of company profit” (Onida, 1961, p. 14).


471

Moreover, CSR is also defined as the product of constructive participatory dialogue between the company and its stakeholders; to move even closer into line with stakeholder theory in its various evolving forms (Freeman & Reed, 1983; Freeman, 1984; Clarkson, 1995; 1999; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Evan & Freeman, 1993; Freeman, 1994; Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007; Goodpaster, 1991; Marens & Wicks, 1999; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Phillips, 2003; Phillips, Freeman, & Wicks, 2003; Wicks, Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994; Wicks & Freeman, 1998), one might describe the company as a system of stakeholders and of relations between and with them.

It is also important to point out that the definitions of CSR emphasize the importance for the company of the long term, of survival, of success, and of sustainable development. In fact, CSR should be seen less as a response to the various demands of internal and external stakeholders than a response to the very nature of the company itself and to its social function, its strategy for long-term survival (Argandona et al., 2009).

These assumptions are the basis on which this study will seek to identify similarities with the ideas expressed in the writings of Zappa, Onida, Amaduzzi, Masini, and Cassandro on the following subjects: the social function of the company, the role of profit, the concept of added value, and the need to report on company operations to the stakeholders.

Table 3 below provides a schematic summary of the assumptions listed above and considered common to all the definitions of CSR from the various historical and geographical contexts.

Table 3 The CSR Assumptions CSR assumptions CSR1 Azienda as a system of stakeholders and their relationships CSR2 Ethical principles more than strategic ones CSR3 The role of azienda in the socio-economic environment CSR4 Long-term and durable existence CSR5 Satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs CSR6 Be accountable to stakeholders

As regards assumptions CSR5 and CSR6, it is to be noted that one of the tools used by companies to take on, promote, and communicate the taking on of social responsibility is in fact the social report (in the various forms in which it has appeared in different countries and at different times). It is a tool that has both an internal value, which is of a strategic nature, and an external value, as a means of social legitimization (Deegan, Rankin, & Tobin, 2002) and communication of the company image (Leopizzi, 2010).

The development of the tool across the world has been extremely irregular as a result of the different factors leading to its emergence and spread (Bonal, Burchell, De Santis, Heard, Hemmer, Jacquet, Kuller, & Vermay, 1981; Boesso & Kumar, 2007). For an analysis of the review of its role and development, the reader is referred to Contrafatto (2011) and to Adams and McNicholas (2007). As regards the historical development of this type of report, it first appeared in Germany, beginning in 1938, as a consequence of the intensification of the conflict between capital and workers, and then, from 1968 on, in the United States, in response to demands by environmentalist and consumer movements.

The model for the social report that spread in the United States was, from the beginning, of predominantly external value, and was descriptive and qualitative in nature (narrative disclosure). The first examples in the United Kingdom, in the shape of the so-called “corporate report”, were mainly oriented towards external


472

stakeholders. There, in fact, the emergence of a social communication tool was not considered quite as significant, owing to the excellent system of industrial relations.

The European model for the social report, especially in civil law countries such as Germany, France, and Italy, was of a more quantitative than qualitative kind. In particular, the German model, which was based on guidelines drawn up by the Arbeitskreis Sozialbilanzen Praxis, the Italian model, for which the guidelines were laid down by the Social Report Study Group, and the French model, which was the result of specific legislation (Law 77-790 of July 12, 1977), require, alongside the description of the company’s identity and the social report for different kinds of stakeholders, the detailing of the figures relating to the added value, and of its redistribution.

In the late 1990s, thanks to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), an international body founded in 1997, a much more complete and comprehensive reporting tool was introduced, namely, the sustainability report. The GRI model – the current version is the fourth to date – jointly considers the three key elements of sustainability: the economic, the social, and the environmental. It has become the model par excellence in the international field for the communication of company sustainability, in the sense of the ability of an organization to continue its business indefinitely while taking due account of its impact on natural, social, and human capital.

In Italy, unlike France, no law has ever been introduced to oblige companies to produce a social report, although in 1981 a bill clearly inspired by the French model was rejected by parliament. Social reporting in Italy has therefore remained purely voluntary, the exception being for certain legal requirements in particular industries (for example, non-profit organizations and foundations with banking origins). Despite this lack of legislation, as far back as 1978 an attempt to produce a social report was made by Merloni, a company with a long tradition of producing household electrical appliances. This was an isolated effort, however. Not until 1994 did another large (this time state-owned) company, the Ferrovie dello Stato, publish a social report.

The explanation for the slow spread of the social report in Italy lies in the poor awareness of the concept of CSR amongst politicians, entrepreneurs, and managers. This is supported by empirical research based on an across-the-country analysis (Mio & Venturelli, 2013) which also, however, suggests that as a result of the response to the European directives, the gap between Italy and other countries in terms of social and environmental information provided is narrowing.

The Theoretical Background

To verify H1, it is necessary to find logical-conceptual overlaps between the theories of the Italian Economia Aziendale scholars and the CSR assumptions listed in Table 3.

The increasing attention devoted to the role of the company in its specific context or milieu, a subject now once again at the centre of debate, leads us back to a way of thinking and a topic that have already been discussed many times by great Economia Aziendale scholars of the past7.

As early as 1923, in fact, Ceccherelli (1923) spoke of the need for a convergence of economic and social phenomena.

In 1956, Gino Zappa recognized the importance and complementary nature of the social aspect and economic aspect for businesses. He also saw, as did Aldo Amaduzzi later, that in the long term, it is necessary to harmonize and align the specific interests of the individual stakeholders with the interests of the company itself.

7 It should be pointed out that the importance of the social role of the company was particularly emphasised by scholars in the field of organisation and sociology as early as the 1930s. Specifically, Mayo (1933) and Maslow (1943) focused on the ethical, moral, and psycho-sociological aspects of the worker.


473

Masini saw business operations as having an out-and-out social function. In fact, heavily influenced by a Christian ethical-religious outlook, he placed the family at the heart of his theory and insisted on the need to strive for the common good. He believed that the company has a fundamental social characteristic deriving from the fact that as an economic-social institution it is descended from human institutions (Masini, 1970).

In the same period, Pietro Onida affirmed that the goal of companies’ economic activities was the common good, given that:

Companies do business… in the economic sphere, but the economic aspect is not an end in itself; rather, it is a rational means of achieving human wellbeing, which is why a company is created in the first place. Thus, what is economic or useful… enters the domain of human wellbeing and is anything but extraneous to or opposed to this wellbeing. (Onida, 1971, p. 70)

In addition, Onida draws a distinction between the ultimate goals of a company and its objective, asserting that the former is concerned with the well-being of humans and the human personality while the latter is of an economic nature and is concerned with the production and/or consumption of economic goods.

Economicità is essential for the achievement of a company’s long-term objectives. However, in order for economicità to be real and complete, there are a series of prerequisites, of which Onida gives extensive examples.

The first requisite for company economicità is self-sufficiency, in the sense of the ability of a business to get a return, through the money it makes, on all aspects of production and to repeat its production processes with a view to continuity and durability.

Onida’s second prerequisite for economicità is efficiency in the management of the firm: “In terms of the physical and technical performance of the various factors and various processes used and, more broadly, in terms of production and sales costs” (Onida, 1971, p. 70). But in pursuing these aims, namely, the optimizing of the physical and technical performance and the reduction as far as possible of production costs, account must always be taken of certain limiting factors, particularly those of a social nature. In fact, it would not be appropriate to focus merely on one of these objectives without considering the phenomenon in its entirety and, as a consequence, the possible social benefit and enduring long-term equilibrium.

Generating revenue without considering the social aspect is akin to “taking short breaths or wearing blinkers, and is to ignore the company’s long-term future while indulging in speculation that, although it may be clever, is predatory” (Onida, 1961, p. 15). There is no doubt that this kind of revenue generation rules out the possibility of the company’s long-term survival. In today’s parlance, it might be said that the company cannot survive in the long term if it ignores the basic principles of sustainability.

Masini, while recognizing the production of revenue as a “necessary aim”, emphasizes that revenue is to be interpreted in the broad sense, or in other words not only as the return on the capital invested in the company but also its achievement of non-economic goals.

The same principle applies to the maximization of profit. This too must not be pursued without regard for the remuneration of other factors of production. Profit must therefore be seen not as an end but as a means to achieving the aim of the survival of the company.


474

Giannessi, who studied under Ceccherelli, offers a particularly interesting viewpoint: in adopting an objective approach8 to the concept of the company, he sees its ultimate goal not as the fulfillment of human needs but rather as the attainment of an equilibrium that “will have enduring value” (Giannessi, 1960, p. 46). This equilibrium will provide adequate remuneration of all the factors of production utilized, including, obviously, the business activity created by the company’s founder.

Returning to the stakeholder view, according to which a company’s ultimate aims are closely related to the individuals involved in the company’s business activities, it should be pointed out that this has undergone a series of variations as a result of increases or decreases in the number of individuals considered to be actual stakeholders.

Aldo Amaduzzi, for example, was one of the first to identify a connection between the concept of the company and the presence of stakeholders, in the sense of those for whom the company’s business activities are pursued and who constitute that group of people in whose “predominant interest” (Zappa, 1957) the company operates (Amaduzzi, 1957).

In the literature, there is more than one interpretation of the term “stakeholder” and, as a result, definitions of companies’ ultimate goals can be broader or narrower.

Masini, in fact, in extending the concept of stakeholder to encompass all those who have an interest in the existence of the company9, by which he means “that group of people affected by the business’s institutional interests”, and not merely those who are in positions of power10, implicitly includes in company objectives the fulfillment of everybody’s interests. He thus arrives at a social view of the company11.

Masini maintains that a company’s goals should be: (1) The fulfillment of the economic and non-economic expectations of all the people who in their various

ways perform a role within the company; (2) The fulfillment of the expectations of those who have supplied the capital and thus taken on the risks

associated with the business; (3) “Active participation in the economic and social development of the country” (Masini, 1970, p. 16). There is no doubt that the abovementioned extension of the concept of stakeholder derives from the changing

role of the company in its specific milieu and from a growing recognition of its having social responsibility. Onida too, taking inspiration from Masini, broadens the concept of stakeholder to one who should:

At least represent the interests both of those who provide the equity capital and of those people who, through organised activity, bring the company into being and for whom the company becomes the object of their work, in the economic sense (expectation of remuneration) and in the moral sense (the performance and enhancement of the human personality). (Onida, 1971, p. 30)

8 A company in fact can be analyzed using an objective approach, or in other words by considering it an autonomous system and investigating its state of equilibrium, or else using a subjective approach, which entails examining the roles and behaviour of the individuals involved in the system. The latter approach does not however make it possible, or at least makes it very difficult, to distinguish the ultimate goals of the company from those of the individuals concerned. For further discussion of this, see Amaduzzi (2002). 9 He refers more frequently to soggetti di istituto than to stakeholders. “As regards the institution, there is a soggetto di istituto: the institutional stakeholder, which is not always also a stakeholder… The soggetto di istituto is made up of those individuals whose all institutional interests belong” (Masini, 1970, p. 41). 10 In actual fact, Masini refers to the stakeholders as “people who with their interests control and preside over the business”, but in the sense that these interests are able to influence the decisions of those who run the company. It is therefore an indirect action (Masini, 1970, p. 55). 11 “The aims of the company must be consistent with the higher religion- and ethics-based aims of human beings, not only in the sense that the interests that are met through the achievement of these aims are relevant to the real individuals who are directly or indirectly (through juridical persons) stakeholders, but also as regards the various relations with people from other companies” (Masini, 1970, p. 67).


475

Seen from this point of view, then, the company performs an economic role (in that it fulfils human needs), a social role (in that it has effects on the development of society), and a cultural role (in that it advances human knowledge). Human needs are thus encompassed within an ethical vision while the concept of economicità does not conflict with that of sociality.

As regards added value, a topic in which Cassandro was extremely interested, the literature in his day focused mainly on the question of the distribution of the wealth created among those who contributed to its production.

The creation of wealth is not, in fact, an end in itself but a prelude to the crucial subsequent phase in which it is distributed, to a greater and lesser extent, among those who contributed to producing it. This wealth is the fruit of the work of various participants in the company’s business: first and foremost, the owner (or partners) who provide the venture capital, then the workers (both those employed directly by the firm, and others), the financial backers and, in a certain sense, also the State. The sharing out of the wealth is subject to a series of restrictions and to potential or real conflict between the various interested parties, a problem which the leading Economia Aziendale scholars of Cassandro’s day were well aware of.

The key to this issue is the balance/imbalance between the dividend policy and the self-financing policy: the former is necessary to provide an adequate return on the equity capital, the latter in order to boost the long-term strengthening and development of the business. Onida points out, however, that although the sharing out of profits and self-financing might seem to be in conflict, since keeping back part of those profits means there is less wealth available for distribution, in actual fact this retention makes it possible to consolidate the company’s ability to generate revenue and to increase profits in the future (Onida, 1971).

Another highly relevant factor in the distribution of the wealth is pay policy. On this question, Cassandro observed that the worker’s desire for a high salary must not obscure the need for self-financing and remuneration of the equity capital, which if neglected would lead to inevitably negative consequences for the workers’ own pay.

To sum up, from the idea of creating value for the stakeholder (Amaduzzi, 1963) or of pursuing an economic equilibrium in order to get a return for all the factors of production while rewarding the stakeholder (Giannessi, 1960), theories in the literature evolved to encompass first the concept of creating value for the client, and then to the conclusion that the wealth created by a company is for all those interested in the phenomenon of the company, whether they be working for it or simply inhabiting the milieu in which it operates. From this point, it is a short step to establishing as the ultimate aim of a company the creation of value that will satisfy the needs of the community.

Re-examination of the forward-looking vision of Economia Aziendale scholars of the past confirms the importance of continuing to create wealth that can then be fairly distributed in order to better satisfy human needs. A company seeking to accept its responsibilities towards the community must therefore be capable of maximizing added value.

Conversely, all the social parties must also be aware that, in order for their needs to be satisfied, they will have to develop an interest in the survival and growth of the company.

From the analyses carried out so far on the works published by Italian Economia Aziendale scholars in the 20 years under consideration, a number of themes have emerged; these are listed schematically in Table 4.


476

Table 4 Economia Aziendale Issues Issues Italian Economia Aziendale scholars

EA1 Azienda as an economic institution intended to last for an indefinite length of time/dynamic and open system/production of a return in relation to the durable existence and the fitting development

Zappa, Masini, Onida, and Amaduzzi

EA2 Importance of the human factor Zappa, Masini, Onida, and Amaduzzi EA3 Continuous equilibrium between the social and the economic dimensions Zappa, Masini, Onida, and Amaduzzi EA4 Long run harmonic conciliation of different interests Zappa, Masini, Onida, and Amaduzzi EA5 Profit as a means and not as an aim Zappa, Masini, Onida, and Amaduzzi EA6 Durable existence of the azienda in the long term Zappa, Masini, Onida, and Amaduzzi EA7 Satisfaction of controlling interests Zappa, Masini, Onida, and Amaduzzi

These themes, which underpin the thinking of Zappa, Onida, Masini, and Amaduzzi, overlap unequivocally with the CSR assumptions listed in Table 3.

Table 5, while in no way intended to be exhaustive, shows a number of logical-conceptual links identifiable between the CSR definitions and the themes treated in depth by Italian Economia Aziendale scholars.

Table 5 The Logical-Conceptual Links CSR1 CSR2 CSR3 CSR4 CSR5 EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6 EA7 Notes. CSR1: Azienda as a system of stakeholders and their relationships; CSR2: Ethical principles more than strategic ones; CSR3: The role of azienda in the socio-economic environment; CSR4: Long-term and durable existence; and CSR5: Satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs. The gray areas highlight the existing logical-conceptual links between the CSR assumptions and the EA issues.

In particular, from an analysis of Table 5, the following similarities emerge: (1) The reflections on the characteristics of the company as an economic institution able to survive over

time, and as an open, dynamic system of forces (EA1) cannot but call to mind the concept of the company as a system of stakeholders and relationships (CSR1) previously mentioned in the discussion of definitions of CSR, as well as the role that the company plays in its specific milieu (CSR3) and the long-term perspective (CSR4);

(2) The importance of the human factor (EA2) coincides with five of the six concepts of CSR. Giving adequate importance to the human factor in fact means on the one hand responding to the demands of the stakeholders (CSR5), and on the other hand, acknowledging the significance of relationships with the people who come into contact with the company (CSR1). It is equivalent, moreover, to having a full understanding of the role that the company plays in its specific milieu, or in other words to contributing to the well-being of the community (CSR3), while prioritizing ethical rather than strategic principles (CSR2), with a view to survival and long-term viability (CSR4);


477

(3) Sociality, which is not an alternative to but a part of economicità (EA3), considering profit not as an end for company operations but as a means to the achievement of long-term company objectives (EA5) and planning for survival (EA6) are undoubtedly principles of an ethical nature (CSR2) and are perfectly consistent with the role that the company takes on in its specific milieu (CSR3) through the creation of value in the long term (CSR4);

(4) Finally, the convergence between specific and general interests in the long term (EA4) and meeting the requirements of the soggetto economico (EA7), the extent of which varies in accordance with the number of people considered relevant, chime with the role of the company in its specific milieu (CSR3) and with its role as a creator of wealth in the long term (CSR4) as well as with equal distribution of that wealth amongst all those who, in their different ways, have contributed to producing it (CSR5).

The systematic comparisons above reveal how the ideas of a number of the Italian Economia Aziendale scholars (Zappa, Onida, Masini, Amaduzzi, and Cassandro) foreshadow the current international debate on CSR. H1 is therefore verified.

The verification of H2, namely that Cassandro deserves to be considered a pioneer of the debate on CSR, will be dealt with in Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

The Social Role of the Company in Paolo Emilio Cassandro The previous section outlines the background to the development of Cassandro’s own ideas, which have

been described as “an admirable example of the processing and reworking of Zappa’s thinking, culminating in a personal vision of the company as an institution” (Cavazzoni, 2008, p. 20). His studies, analyses, and thinking can, in fact, be seen as the basis of an autonomous school of thought; he treats accounting not only as a science of data collection but also as a science of business occurrences.

For Cassandro, a company is a system of forces12, resources, people, and organization linked by ties of purpose, complementarity and interdependence, and combined using the principle of rationality in order to achieve the greatest possible output. In other words, the company is a system that, although predominantly economic, is also social; it is the “driving force of the economy”.

On the subject of controlling interest in the company, Cassandro defines the owner of the company as the figure who actually controls the business, reaping its benefits and suffering the consequences of its losses, who essentially directs the company and uses it to achieve his own aims. However, he goes on to say that:

Although the company is created in the interests of and for the purposes of a given individual, once it has been created it becomes associated with the interests of other categories of people, the number of which varies according to the size of the company. (Cassandro, 1956, p. 5)

He is referring, obviously, to the employees, but also to the whole community for which the company is producing assets and revenue. “This is the social aspect of the company, which must not be neglected and the importance of which grows in proportion to the size of the company” (Cassandro, 1956, p. 5).

12 The systemic approach introduced several decades ago to analyze the complexity of certain physical, biological, and social phenomena makes it possible to study a business on the basis of the relationships between the various components of the system and of the links with other, external systems. In the literature, the company is equated by some with an organic system and by others with a mechanical system. Ceccherelli prefers the former analogy, Amaduzzi the latter. Cassandro, although he refers to the mechanical metaphor, exploits the similarities with biological organisms to describe the integral nature of the company and the characteristics of its system, which he sees as open and dynamic.


478

Subsequently, taking account of the fact that a company is an “organism in which the various forms of revenue, from salaries to interest to profits, are created in order to then emerge” (Cassandro, 1967b), and that there can be no collective economic development without the prior development of the individual parts that make it up, Cassandro would be more explicit in his recognition of the company’s unavoidable social role. On more than one occasion, in fact, he reiterated that a firm’s immediate economic goal is the remuneration of the capital invested in it while not underestimating the social and institutional role it must play in contributing to the achievement of collective well-being. In this regard, it should be pointed out that, in his observations on economicità, Cassandro insists on the need to take account of social as well as company economicità (Cassandro, 1980).

The company system is, moreover, open and dynamic. This is key to the close connection that Cassandro emphasizes between a business and its milieu, which it influences and is influenced by. He even goes further, insisting on the fundamental importance of the human factor in the company, and agreeing with Nicklisch that the company is the man (Cassandro, 1958).

In the same year, 1958, on the subject of company “autonomy” as a necessary condition for long-term stability, the durability of its various parts and survival, Cassandro underlined the need for the company to be a “self-contained system”, insisting that this does not mean “independence” from the social milieu in which it is located and operates. Rather, it is self-contained in the ability of its various constituent parts to ensure the achievement, without outside help, of the purposes for which it was created (Cassandro, 1958).

In 1978, in paying tribute to the famous German Economia Aziendale scholar Nicklisch on the centenary of the latter’s birth, Cassandro returned to the theme of the company as a community:

The idea of the company as a community is inspired by ethical principles, which are underpinned by respect for the human being, whatever role that human being performs. A community is characterised by a sense of solidarity and by cooperation between its members. These principles aim to create a harmonious system in which the relationships between individuals become genuinely collaborative and are based on mutual respect; such behaviour is inspired by a moral sense, by the repudiation of selfishness and by a constant awareness of one’s duty. (Cassandro, 1978, p. 1200)

This moral sense leads every individual, whatever their position in relation to the company, to feel that they are “a link in the chain”.

The pre-eminence of the human being within the company makes it into a living organism. In fact, for Cassandro, the company community is nothing more than a part of the wider social community. “In performing his duties within the company, a member of the community is also fulfilling his obligations to the larger, social community in which that particular company operates” (Cassandro, 1978, p. 1201).

Cassandro’s development of these ideas of Nicklisch’s confirms his keen awareness of the social role of the company, and ties in perfectly with his abovementioned insistence on the need to reconcile the various interests that converge in a company, as well as with the latest international theories regarding stakeholders.

They are ideas that also fit in well with the way Cassandro conducted his life and career, as described briefly in Section 2: his moral rectitude, his full awareness of the importance of his roles as teacher and researcher, the contribution he always made to the intellectual and moral growth of his students and, indirectly, of the community at large. In fact, he is remembered by the Association of Graduates in Business and Economics of the University of Bari as: “A creator and shaper of professional culture and a life mentor who for over twenty years generously shared his wealth of wisdom, knowledge, experience and moral transparency”. A full awareness of belonging to a community and of contributing, together with the other individuals in that community, to the performance of the role for which that community came into being was therefore key to both Cassandro’s life and thinking.


479

The Role of Profit in the Thinking of Paolo Emilio Cassandro The subject of profit and of companies’ tendency to seek to maximize it has always been one of the most

controversial areas in Economia Aziendale; it has inspired debate, a variety of interpretations and, on occasion, ideological questioning of its importance and/or moral validity. The absolutist, simplistic idea that a company must merely strive to maximize its profits must however be clarified if it is to be interpreted correctly.

As mentioned in Section 4, the view of the most eminent Economia Aziendale scholars is that it is not correct either to consider profit as an end in the absolute sense or to ignore it and, as a consequence, insist that a company should pursue different aims.

Profit is not, in fact, an end in itself but rather a necessary precondition for the survival of the company since, in order to create and distribute new wealth over time, it is first necessary to make profits that can be then reinvested in the company itself. Reinvesting profits in the business has the effect of establishing a self-financing process that allows the company to achieve and maintain long-term stability. For the company, profit is therefore a means rather than an end. From this point of view, Cassandro was fully in agreement with other scholars of the day.

“The best sociality lies in fact in economicità, and there is no economicità without profit” (Cassandro, 1969, p. 828). Obviously, he is referring to that total economicità discussed earlier, which is the form that incorporates sociality. The concept of economicità of which Onida was so fond thus makes it possible to reconcile profit with what is socially useful for the country.

In 1969, Cassandro (1969, p. 828) wrote:

Seeing profit as it really is, as an indispensable means of ensuring the existence and development of the company, is also a way of disarming those critics who, in the name of outdated ideologies, seek to attack it from a moral standpoint, portraying it as something reprehensible.

The lack of unanimity and of uniform interpretation is primarily due to the different meanings attributed to the word “profit” at different times and in different places. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the term has, on more than one occasion, been subverted for political or ideological ends.

As Cassandro observed, though, profit is essentially an absolutely necessary condition for the development and continuity of the company, which anchors its morality to the maximum output achievable from the resources available, thus preventing the destruction of wealth.

Profit is the wealth exceeding the adequate remuneration of all the resources, notional as well as real, used by the company in order to produce, and is a necessary (though not the only) precondition for achieving and maintaining the long-term equilibrium of the business. So, after the greater wealth created through economic activity (added value) has been distributed among all those who have contributed to the business, and after remuneration has been made not only of the capital provided and the work performed by the stakeholder but also of the risk that the same stakeholder has taken by investing in the company, any remaining surplus can be considered profit or extra revenue.

For Cassandro, this surplus is to be considered remuneration for the company, remuneration essential to the achievement of long-term development. In order for this goal to be reached, the profits must be reinvested in the company itself. Through reinvestment of the profits in the company, the business is consolidated and develops, with beneficial effects for all the social community.


480

Profits, it emerges on closer examination, depend on the existence of certain favorable conditions associated for example with organization, the cohesion and ability of the staff, or of the entrepreneur, of relations with customers and suppliers, and with location.

Obviously, the profits resulting from favorable conditions enjoyed by the company – conditions which can ensure its long-term development – must be virtuous, or in other words not due to a dominant market position and thus to unfair high pricing, and nor must they be a consequence of low remuneration, as this would clearly have effects of a social nature; in short, what is required is economicità in its fullest and most complete form.

In Cassandro’s view, any such profits must be approved of and desired by the community, since they are important not only to the company itself but also to the wider community, in the sense that the wealth is then reinvested in the business leading to a growth in resources, to the development of the company, and to benefits for all those around it (Cassandro, 1967a).

Profit is therefore recognized as having a key role in the development of a business when it makes it possible to pursue not merely a static economic equilibrium (which is achievable simply by obtaining revenue, not profit) but a forward-looking, dynamic state (Amaduzzi, 1963).

Cassandro expresses himself thus on the subject:

Where this surplus is lacking, the company is destined to remain static in a world that is constantly evolving technically and economically, and this would compromise not only its potential for growth but also its ability to survive in a changing environment. (Cassandro, 1967a, p. 796)

The Importance of Added Value for Paolo Emilio Cassandro As mentioned in Section 4, the concept and importance of “added value”, a key element in any analysis of

a company’s social contribution, was also a subject on which Economia Aziendale scholar of the past had a number of observations to make.

A company’s raison d'être is the ongoing creation of wealth by adding value, through its business operations, to the resources it has acquired. The new value created becomes significant only when it is recognized as such by the market or, in other words, when there is a readiness to pay the asking price to acquire the products and services (including that added value) created by the company.

To give a specific example, when the market is prepared to pay a price considerably higher than that of the resources used, as with high technology or innovative products or for famous brands, it means that the company has succeeded in creating products/services which have a high added value or, in other words, are much more useful than what was used to make them. If this added value were not recognized in the relevant milieu, the company would have destroyed wealth belonging to both itself and the wider community. It would be unjustifiable and anti-economic to persist in pointless attempts to save companies that continuously and inexorably destroy wealth. Closer examination reveals that such a strategy would represent a failure not only economically but also socially. It is, in fact, recognition of added value in the wider community that makes it possible for the company, through the creation of sales revenues, to ensure continued production and the long-term future of the business.

In comparison with other economists in Italy, Cassandro’s ideas on how such added value should be quantified are innovative. In fact, while acknowledging that the question of a company’s social role and responsibility to the community in which it is operating had been widely discussed in the literature, he decried the lack of Italian studies on the measurement of this social contribution (Cassandro, 1972).


481

At an international level, on the other hand, Cassandro recalled the example of Nicklisch, who as early as 1932 was referring to the entire community that makes up a company in his discussions of the overall performance of businesses (Nicklisch, 1932). The Italian economist also mentions a French author who in 1968 spoke of objective evaluation of businesses and of the usefulness of measuring how far this was achieved (Delataille, 1968), as well as the contribution of an English author who in 1949 wrote of the entrepreneur’s responsibility to provide information regarding created value to employees and to the community in general (Goyder, 1949).

Once again, then, Cassandro shows himself to be a forerunner in Italy thanks to his in-depth studies and knowledge of a wide range of international authors.

As early as 1958, Cassandro spoke of “overall results in relation to the social community in which the company carries out its business” (Cassandro, 1958, p. 153). Later he would add:

The company is an economic organism which, using various contractual means, takes different kinds of goods and services from the milieu in which it operates and then returns to that milieu goods and services of greater value than the goods and services it has utilized. (Cassandro, 1972, p. 920)

This greater value, which is equivalent to the so-called added value, is one of few objective results, since it is a measure of the economic capacity of the company and is neutral in relation to the converging and/or diverging interests of the system that is the company. It is, in fact, the so-called “economic result from the company viewpoint” or alternatively the “social revenue”, a measurement of the contribution that the company makes to the community in terms of revenue.

In fact, revenue, although highly important, cannot provide an effective measurement of efficiency in the use of the resources available to the company and is not shared by all those who participate in the productive process. It is calculated by subtracting from the wealth produced all the resources used in production with the exception of those relating to labor and capital, which are remunerated through the distribution of added value.

Cassandro points out that in order to calculate the contribution of the company to society at large, it is necessary to “put together a balance sheet which shows the company’s economic results for the whole community” (Cassandro, 1972, p. 921). This need arises from the desire to give a value to the contribution that the company is recognized as making to the community13. Given, moreover, that this social revenue should provide remuneration for the labour – in the broadest sense, that is from the company owner down to the last employee – and also, indirectly, for the organized community (the State), it can be calculated in two different ways:

(1) As the summation of the various remunerations (remuneration of the equity capital through the operating income, of the loan capital through the interest on the loan capital, of the workers of every type through salaries and social security contributions, of the State through taxes);

(2) As the difference between the company’s gross product and the direct and indirect costs borne in obtaining it, excluding those costs which “as remuneration for both direct and indirect participants, are new wealth created by the company” (Cassandro, 1972, p. 934).

Obviously, the two calculation methods lead to the same result and the starting point in both cases is the financial report. Certain clarifications are, however, necessary. 13 A useful definition of added value in this context is “profitability of the socially responsible company” (Gabrovec Mei, 1984, p. 92).


482

In the first case, the remunerations that are added together in order to calculate the added value represent, as far as the financial report is concerned, certain costs, or rather the consumption of factors of production in order to create revenue. In the second case, the starting point is the wealth produced, from which “external” consumptions are then extracted so as to obtain a value for the greater wealth created.

Among the costs which must be subtracted from the wealth produced to calculate the added value, Casssandro includes amortizations, which “are consumptions of wealth that are indispensable to the creation of new wealth” (Cassandro, 1972, p. 920). The inclusion of amortizations, which is considered controversial by some, led to a configuration of added value (namely, net added value) – together with the corresponding gross added value – from which amortizations are excluded and considered rather as a form of remuneration, specifically remuneration of the company (Onida, 1971, p. 766).

On the issue of the direct calculation of the added value from the results in the published financial report, Cassandro expresses doubts about the reliability of the process, the same doubts that arise when the reliability of the published financial report is questioned. Cassandro (1972, p. 928) wrote:

… In the same way that it is not possible to deduce from a public financial report a figure for company revenue that can be considered an objective as possible reflection of the state of the company and of the milieu in which it operates, so it is impossible for social revenue to be independent of the company’s management policy… The conclusion to be drawn is that there is no difference, as regards the level of reliability of the figures involved, between the business income and the social or added value of a given company.

Cassandro’s thoughts on the connected issue of the valuations in the balance sheet are also of interest; he links the concept of rationale limits to the processes of evaluating the assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. While acknowledging the desirability of producing an internal financial report as a means of showing the company’s stability – and for no other purpose than that – he insists on the need for the social report, given that it too is published because of its immense communicative and informative value, to be based on a published document, such as the balance sheet.

The Company Social Report in Paolo Emilio Cassandro

In discussing questions relating to theories of social responsibility, it is useful to examine what as early as 1972 Cassandro was calling the “company social report” (Cassandro, 1972); an extended form of this, adapted to our own times and to current informational and communicational needs, exists in the shape of what is now called the Social Report. On this particular issue, Cassandro was an out-and-out pioneer among his contemporaries.

In Cassandro’s opinion, alongside the financial report, which is intended for the shareholder, an annual report, defined as “objective”, should be drawn up in order to “show the results concerning the wider community” (Cassandro, 1972, p. 924).

As has already been noted, Cassandro concludes that it is appropriate, in calculating the added value, to start from the results on the published financial report, even though this might in some way cast doubt on the reliability and objectivity. Let us take, for example, the remuneration provided to the State: the way in which the law forcibly imposes taxes on the company does not necessarily – and very often not at all – correspond to the real contribution the State makes to the business in terms of services provided or public expenditure. Despite that, the importance of not resorting to an internal financial statement in which the figures are “rationally determined purely on the basis of the level of stability of the company”, derives from the need for uniformity between the two reports (objective and subjective) to be published.


483

Figure 1. The social report: the financial statement.

In his vision of how the company’s social report should be, Cassandro, inevitably influenced by the fact that at the time the information provided in financial reports was meagre, did not envisage descriptive tables or statements apart from the statements regarding assets and the profit and loss account, which will be discussed shortly. Obviously, then, he was a long way from imagining the social report as we know it today and the abundance of information found in it. However, Cassandro’s farsighted insistence on the need to begin measuring and communicating the real contribution made by the company to the milieu in which it operates cannot fail to strike us on account of its current relevance.


484

The assets in Cassandro’s social report, shown in Figure 1 above, do not appear very different from what is provided in a subjective financial statement, and unusually, all the sources of financing are categorized as capital contribution, savings capital, and loan capital.

Figure 2. The social report: the profit and loss account.

By far the most interesting part of the social report from the point of view of the company’s contribution to the wider community, however, is undoubtedly the profit and loss account, which differs in significant ways from the previous statement. Moreover, if we wish to find parallels with social reports in their present form, in the face of the total lack of balance sheets or financial statements, the profit and loss account, whatever standard or model of social reporting it follows, is an indispensable starting point for any examination of both the creation and means of distribution of the wealth created by the company.


485

The diagram of the profit and loss account in Figure 2 above shows the make-up of the “new wealth generated, broken down into salaries, interest, net profit and taxes levied on revenue” (Cassandro, 1972, p. 934).

A few years later, Cassandro published another article on the social report in which he focused in particular on its relationship with the financial report. Specifically, he wrote:

It [the social report] does not contain different data from that in the normal report but reworks that data and presents it in such a way as to inform the reader directly about what the company has done for the benefit of the community. (Cassandro, 1989, p. 1693)

As regards the inclusion in the financial report itself of information on the company’s contribution to the milieu in which it operates, Cassandro again urges the need for a separate, specific document. To a greater extent than in his previous article, however, he insists on the need for the evaluation criteria applied sic et sempliciter in the financial report to be revised for the social report.

In actual fact, Cassandro is of the opinion that in the social report, in accordance with the informative role it performs, those reporting policies typically adopted for the financial statement (at least in his day) should be abandoned in an attempt to express as accurately as possible the economic reality of the market at the time when the report is drawn up.

Finally, he expresses the hope that more information will be supplied so as to provide a fuller explanation of the company’s social role and contribution.

In Italy, as we said in Section 5, there had been no actual instances of social reports apart from the example of Merloni in 1978. The next social report (by Ferrovie dello Stato, the Italian State Railways) did not appear until 1994. As far as legislation was concerned, a bill was introduced in the Senate in 1981 but never became law. On the other hand, in the same period in France, an ad hoc law made it obligatory for companies employing over 300 people to produce a social report (Law 77-790 of July 12, 1977).

Even today in Italy, no such forward-looking measures have been introduced; the law merely requires a limited amount of obligatory information regarding environmental and social interaction.

The explanation for the lack of attention paid in Italy to social communication tools lies not only in the reasons listed in this section and in Section 5 but also in the fact that unlike with other innovative ideas that he worked on such as corporate groups or the financial report, none of Cassandro’s pupils carried on his research into CSR. With regard to those other ideas, it is worth pointing out that the contribution of both the master and his pupils helped to accelerate the implementation in Italy of the European directive on financial report and consolidated financial report.

Conclusions The aim of this article was to highlight not only the innovative nature of Cassandro’s studies of the subject

when compared with other research carried out in Italy in the second half of the 20th century but also how strikingly relevant they are to CSR as a topic for international scholars today.

In particular, the research hypotheses outlined in Section 2 were the following: H1: Certain ideas belonging to a number of Italian Economia Aziendale scholars (Zappa, Onida, Masini,

Amaduzzi, and Cassandro) foreshadow the current international debate on CSR. H2: Cassandro is to be considered a pioneer of the international debate on CSR.


486

In particular, as pointed out in Section 5, the ideas discussed by Zappa, Onida, Masini, Amaduzzi, and Cassandro undisputedly have elements in common with the definitions of CSR listed in Section 4. This made it possible to verify H1.

The in-depth analysis of Cassandro’s entire academic output in Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, on the other hand, has made it possible to verify H2.

In particular, in Sections 6-9, in addition to subjects that had already emerged in the thinking of other Italian Economia scholars, it was seen that Cassandro produced other ideas with elements in common with the definitions of CSR listed in Section 4.

Table 6 provides a schematic summary of the main topics encountered in the works of the Italian Economia Aziendale scholars and, in a separate column, the additional topics attributable to Cassandro.

Table 6 EA Issues Within the Italian EA Scholars vs. EA Issues Within Cassandro Issues within the Italian Economia Aziendale scholars (Zappa, Onida, Masini, and Amaduzzi)


EA2 Importance of the human factor EA3 Continuous equilibrium between the social and the economic dimensions EA4 Long run harmonic conciliation of different interests EA5 Profit as a means and not as an aim EA6 Durable existence of the azienda in the long term EA7 Satisfaction of controlling interests Issues within Cassandro


EA2 Importance of the human factor EA3 Continuous equilibrium between the social and the economic dimensions EA4 Long run harmonic conciliation of different interests EA5 Profit as a means and not as an aim EA6 Durable existence of the azienda in the long term EA7 Satisfaction of controlling interests EA8 Reddito sociale (Social profit) EA9 Bilancio oggettivo (Social report)

Using the same approach as that employed in Section 5 to verify H1, Table 7 (below) shows logical-conceptual links between the CSR assumptions and the subjects to which Cassandro devoted much of his thinking.

In particular, compared to Table 5 above, the following additional similarities were found in Cassandro: (1) The importance of social revenue (EA8) corresponds strikingly with the company’s role in its specific

milieu (CSR3), with its role as a creator of wealth in the long term (CSR4) and with equal distribution of that wealth amongst all those who, in their different ways, have contributed to producing it (CSR5, CSR6);

(2) The need to produce a social report (EA9) containing additional information to that provided in the financial report corresponds strikingly with the need to meet the demands of the stakeholders (CSR5) and to be accountable to them with regard to company operations (CSR6).


487

Table 7 The Logical-Conceptual Links: Conclusions HIP. 1 CSR1 CSR2 CSR3 CSR4 CSR5 EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6 EA7

HIP. 2 CSR1 CSR2 CSR3 CSR4 CSR5 CSR6 EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6 EA7 EA8 EA9 Notes. CSR1: Azienda as a system of stakeholders and their relationships; CSR2: Ethical principles more than strategic ones; CSR3: The role of azienda in the socio-economic environment; CSR4: Long-term and durable existence; CSR5: Satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs; and CSR6: Be accountable to stakeholders. The gray areas highlight the existing logical-conceptual links between the CSR assumptions and the EA issues.

Thus, the comparison with the other leading Economia Aziendale scholars examined in this study (Zappa, Onida, Masini, and Amaduzzi) reveals that Cassandro has a clearer awareness of the company’s duty of social responsibility. In fact, although the other authors mentioned also understand the role that the company must play in its given milieu and the contribution that it must make to all the parties that interact with it (while never losing sight of the importance of the fundamental principles of survival and development), Cassandro is ahead of his time in his vision of those aspects connected to the quantification of value created for the wider community through the so-called social profit, and of the aspects relating to the communication of results through the drawing up of the so-called social report. In these two areas, Cassandro may therefore be considered a pioneer as far as Italian scholarship is concerned. Thus, H2 is verified, too.

It should be pointed out, however, that the comparison made is subject to the limitations of this study that were discussed in the foreword, most importantly the partial nature of the sample of the vast amount of Italian studies of company economics from that time.

Ultimately, what emerges clearly from our study is the current relevance of Cassandro’s ideas even though they were conceived and developed in an economic and social climate that was profoundly different from that of today. It was unusual for anyone to reflect upon the social role of business at a time when the chief focus of attention was on production and consumption, and when information provided on financial and economic matters was either non-existent or extremely scant.


488

Today, the importance of information regarding companies’ social function is widely accepted. Legislation, although discontinuous and fragmentary, has led to the introduction of regulations requiring the provision of data relating to that function, and at the same time an increasing number of companies are freely supplying information about their social role.

References Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. (1976). Corporate social responsiveness. Reston, VA: Reston. Adamo, S. (2008). Il sistema di rilevazioni secondo Paolo Emilio Cassandro. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo Emilio

Cassandro, Cacucci, Bari. Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382-402. Adams, C. A., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating

corporate behaviour? British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1-21. Alexander, D., & Servalli, S. (2011). Economia aziendale and financial valuations in Italy: Some contradictions and insights.

Accounting History, 16(3), 291-312. Amaduzzi, A. (1957). Conflitto ed equilibrio di interessi nel bilancio dell’impresa. Editrice Viscontea, Milano. Amaduzzi, A. (1963). L’azienda nel suo sistema e nell’ordine delle sue rilevazioni. Utet, Torino. Antoni, T. (1985). Leonardo Pisano called Fibonacci, mathematician and accountant. Paper presented at the Fourth International

Congress of the History of Accountancy, Pisa, August 23-27, 1984. Congress Proceedings, ed. ETS, I-III. Pisa: ETS. Argandona, A., Moreno, C. M., & Solà, J. M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in the first years of Caja de Pensiones para la

Vejez y de Ahorros. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 333-346. Argandona, A., & von Weltzien Hoivik, H. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: One size does not fit all. Collecting evidence

from Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 221-234. Biondi, Y., Canziani, A., & Kirat, T. (2005). The firm as an entity: Implications for economics, accounting and the law. London:

Routledge. Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2007). Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: A framework and empirical evidence from Italy and

the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(2), 269-296. Bonal, J., Burchell, S., De Santis, G., Heard, J. E., Hemmer, E., Jacquet, J. L., Kuller, H. D., & Vermay, A. (1981). Responsabilità

sociale e bilancio sociale di impresa. Esperienze e prospettive negli Stati Uniti d'America ed in Europa. Milano: Franco Angeli.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Bruni, G. (2008). In ricordo del Professore Paolo Emilio Cassandro. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo Emilio Cassandro,

Cacucci, Bari. Canaletti, F. (2008). Cassandro e le amministrazioni pubbliche. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo Emilio Cassandro,

Cacucci, Bari. Canziani, A., & Rondo Brovetto, P. (1992). The emerging of the economics of firms in continental Europe during the 20s:

Economia aziendale and Betriebswirtschaftslehre as methodological revolutions. In S. Todd Lowry (Ed.), Perspectives in the history of economic thought (Vol. vii, pp. 168-191). London: Elgar for the History of Economics Society.

Capalbo, F., & Clarke, F. (2006). The Italian Economia Aziendale and Chambers’ CoCoA. Abacus, 42(1), 66-86. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4),

497-505. Cassandro, P. E. (1933). Dottrine economico-aziendali svizzere. Rivista di Ragioneria. Cassandro, P. E. (1956). Azienda, Enciclopedia di Scienze politiche economiche e sociali. Vol. I, Zuff, Bologna. Cassandro, P. E. (1958). Le aziende. Principi di ragioneria. Bari: Cacucci. Cassandro, P. E. (1967a). Il profitto dell’impresa e la sua determinazione. Rassegna economica, No. 5. Cassandro, P. E. (1967b). L’equilibrio dell’impresa e la politica dei redditi. Rivista di Politica Economica, No. 1. Cassandro, P. E. (1969). Il profitto dell’impresa mezzo e non fine. Dirigenti Industria, No. 11. Cassandro, P. E. (1970). Il contenuto della Ragioneria e in particolare della Ragioneria privata. In Quaderno No. 5, serie Studi e

Ricerche, Cacucci, Bari. Cassandro, P. E. (1972). Il bilancio oggettivo dell’impresa. Rivista dei Dottori commercialisti, No. 3.


489

Cassandro, P. E. (1973). Sul contenuto degli studi di Accounting. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, No. 5/6. Cassandro, P. E. (1978). Sul concetto di impresa come comunità. Rassegna Economica, No. 1. Cassandro, P. E. (1980). Sul concetto di “economicità” aziendale. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, No. 5/6. Cassandro, P. E. (1984). Sull’armonizzazione internazionale dell’informativa contabile. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di

Economia Aziendale, No. 9/10. Cassandro, P. E. (1989). Sul cosiddetto bilancio sociale dell’impresa. Rivista di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, No. 7/8. Catturi, G. (2008). Il pensiero di Paolo Emilio Cassandro sul posizionamento scientifico e sulla ripartizione disciplinare degli

studi aziendali: attualità e prospettive. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo Emilio Cassandro, Cacucci, Bari. Cavazzoni, G. (2008). Giornata in memoria di Paolo Emilio Cassandro. Cacucci, Bari. Ceccherelli, A. (1923). Introduzione allo studio di Ragioneria generale. Parte I. Gli organismi aziendali. Le Monnier, Firenze. Cinquini, L. (2007). Fascist corporative economy and accounting in Italy during the thirties: Exploring the relations between a

totalitarian ideology and business studies. Accounting, Business & Financial History, 17(2), 209-240. Cinquini, L., & Marelli, A. (2002). An Italian forerunner of modern cost allocation concepts: Lorenzo De Minico and the logic of

the “flows of services”. Accounting, Business & Financial History, 12(1), 95-111. Clark, J. M. (1916). The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political Economy, 24(3), 209-229. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of

Management Review, 20(1), 92-117. Clarkson, M. (1999). Principles of stakeholder management. Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, Toronto. Commissione Europea [CEE]. (2001). Promuovere un quadro europeo per la responsabilità sociale delle imprese. Libro Verde, 19

luglio 2001. Contrafatto, M. (2011). Social and environmental accounting and engagement research: Reflections on the state of the art and new

research avenues. Economia Aziendale Online, 2(3), 273-289. Dagnino, G. B., & Quattrone, P. (2006). Comparing institutionalisms: Gino Zappa and John R. commons’ accounts of “institution”

as a groundwork for a constructivist view. Journal of Management History, 12(1), 36-52. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility

and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70-76. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2),

312-322. Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from

1983-1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312-343. Delataille, E. (1968). Ou va l’enterprise? Paris. Di Cagno, N. (2008). Il Bilancio di esercizio nella visione di Paolo Emilio Cassandro. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo

Emilio Cassandro, Cacucci, Bari. Di Cagno, N., & Caputo, F. (2008). La funzionalità aziendale nel pensiero di Paolo Emilio Cassandro. Quaderno Monografico

Rirea, No. 71, Rirea, Roma. Di Cagno, N., & Caputo, F. (2010). La pubblica amministrazione e le sue modalità di funzionamento nel pensiero di Paolo Emilio

Cassandro. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia aziendale, No. 5/6, pp. 352-364. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy

of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp, &

N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75-84). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Faccia, F. (2007). Paolo Emilio Cassandro. Contributo scientifico all'evoluzione delle teoriche aziendali. Aracne, Roma. Fiume, R. (2007). Lorenzo de Minico’s thought in the development of accounting theory in Italy: An understated contribution.

Accounting, Business & Financial History, 17(1), 33-52. Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), 54-61. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield: Pitman Publishing. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409-421. Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California

Management Review, 25(3), 88-106.


490

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. Gabrovec Mei, O. (1984). Il valore aggiunto dell’impresa. Libreria Goliardica, Trieste. Galassi, G. (1984). Accounting research in Italy: Past, present and future. In A. G. Hopwood, & H. Scrhreuder (Eds.), European

contributions to accounting research: The achievement of the last decade (pp. 163-187). Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij/Free University Press.

Galassi, G. (1996). Italy, after Pacioli. In M. Chatfield, & R. Vangermeersch (Eds.), The history of accounting: An international encyclopedia (pp. 347-350). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc..

Garner, S. P. (1976). The Melis testimonial. The Accounting Historians Journal, 3(1), 13-15. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2),

51-71. Giannessi, E. (1960). Le aziende di produzione originaria. Volume primo, Le aziende agricole, Colombo Vursi, Pisa. Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53-73. Goyder, V. (1949). The future of private enterprise. Londra. Guatri, L. (1995). “Editoriale”. Finanza, Marketing e Produzione, No. 3. Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Leopizzi, R. (2010). Il ruolo della rendicontazione sociale tra etica d'impresa e immagine aziendale. Pensa, Lecce. Lipari, C. (2008). Teodoro D’Ippolito: The first writer of treatises on Economia Aziendale. Paper presented at the 12th World

Congress of Accounting Historians, Istanbul, Association of Accountant and Finance Academicians. Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(2), 110-122. Marens, R., & Wicks, A. (1999). Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary

duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 273-293. Masini, C. (1960). L’organizzazione del lavoro nell’impresa. Giuffrè, Milano. Masini, C. (1970). Lavoro e risparmio. Utet, Torino. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Massari, L. (2008). Paolo Emilio Cassandro – L’uomo e lo studioso. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo Emilio Cassandro,

Cacucci, Bari. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of

corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Melis, A. (2007). Financial statements and positive accounting theory: The early contribution of Aldo Amaduzzi. Accounting,

Business & Financial History, 17(1), 53-62. Milone, M. (2008). Paolo Emilio Cassandro e le teorie aziendali svizzere e tedesche. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo

Emilio Cassandro, Cacucci, Bari. Mio, C., & Venturelli, A. (2013). Non-financial information about sustainable development and environmental policy in the

annual reports of listed companies: Evidence from Italy and the UK. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(6), 340-358.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood. D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.

Moscarini, F. (2009). Lo sviluppo degli studi sulla Corporate Social Responsibility nella dottrina internazionale. Rivista italiana di ragioneria e di economia aziendale, 2, 178-193.

Nicklisch, H. (1932). Die Bietriebswirtschaft. Stoccarda. Nobes, C. (1995). Pacioli’s Tractatus: A note on a mystery and a review of some commentaries. Accounting, Business & Financial

History, 5(3), 379-384. Onida, P. (1961). Economicità socialità ed efficienza nell’amministrazione d’impresa. Rivista dei dottori commercialisti, No. 1. Onida, P. (1971). Economia d’azienda. Utet, Torino. Padroni, G. (1976). A profile of Melis. The Accounting Historians Journal, 3(1), 18-21. Paolone, G. (2008). Paolo Emilio Cassandro economista aziendale. In Giornata di studi in memoria di Paolo Emilio Cassandro,

Cacucci, Bari.


491

Pava, M. L. (2008). Why corporations should not abandon social responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 805-812. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25-41. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479-502. Poddighe, F., Coronella, S., Madonna, S., & Deidda Gagliardo, E. (2007). Francesco Marchi and the development of Logismology.

Accounting, Business & Financial History, 17(1), 11-32. Quattrone, F. (1994). Ludovico Flori’s accounting thought: An epistemologic introduction. Economia Aziendale Review, 13(2),

199-216. Sarcone, S. (2008). Paolo Emilio Cassandro ed i principi relativi alla formazione dei bilanci consolidati di gruppo. In Giornata di

studi in memoria di Paolo Emilio Cassandro, Cacucci, Bari. Sargiacomo, M., Servalli, S., & Andrei, P. (2012). Fabio Besta: Accounting thinker and accounting history pioneer. Accounting

History Review, 22(3), 249-267. Signori, S., & Rusconi, G. (2009). Ethical thinking in traditional Italian “Economia Aziendale” and the stakeholder management

theory: The search for possible interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 303-318. Sison, A. (2009). From CSR to corporate citizenship: Anglo-American and Continental European perspectives. Journal of

Business Ethics, 89(3), 235-246. Solomon, R. C. (1993). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Torrecchia, P. (2008). A Sicilian author of accounting: Emanuele Pisani and his “Stathmography”. Paper presented at the 12th

World Congress of Accounting Historians, Istanbul, Association of Accountant and Finance Academicians. Tschopp, D. J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: A comparison between the United States and the European Union.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12(1), 55-59. Turco, M. (2006). La razionalità del bilancio di funzionamento secondo il pensiero di Paolo Emilio Cassandro. Quaderno

monografico RIREA, No. 39, Rirea, Roma. Viganò, E. (1994). A comparative view of accounting and “Economia Aziendale”. Economia Aziendale Review, 13(1), 1-70. Viganò, E. (1998). Accounting and business Economics traditions in Italy. European Accounting Review, 7(3), 381-403. Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness.

Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 57-69. Walton, C. C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Welford, R. J. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical elements and best practice. Journal of

Corporate Citizenship, 13, 31-47. Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search

for ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 123-140. Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. J., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 4(4), 475-497. Zambon, S., & Zan, L. (2000). Accounting relativism: The unstable relationship between income measurement and theories of the

firm. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(8), 799-822. Zan, L. (1994). Toward a history of accounting histories: Perspectives from the Italian tradition. European Accounting Review,

3(2), 255-310. Zappa, G. (1957). Le produzioni nell’economia delle imprese. Giuffrè, Milano.


492

Appendix

Main works Year Un precursore: Leone Gomberg 1929Sulle teorie aziendali di Eugenio Schmalenbach 1941Lineamenti amministrativi dell’azieda agraria 1943Economia e finanza delle imprese di assicurazione 1946Le riserve occulte 1946Calcolo commerciale 1949I problemi della rilevazione nelle aziende agrarie 1950L’incidenza dei fattori produttivi a lungo termine sul risultato economico di periodo delle imprese 1950Ragioneria applicata 1952Metodologia contabile ed economica d’azienda 1953I gruppi aziendali 1954Le gestioni commerciali 1954Os estudos da economia de emprese na Italia 1954Amministrazione e contabilità delle aziende domestiche 1955L’avviamento e la sua valutazione 1955Le gestioni agrarie 1956Principi di Ragioneria 1956Le gestioni assicuratrici 1957Le aziende: principi di ragioneria 1958Le gestioni societarie 1960Quaderni di esercitazione: la formazione dei bilanci di gruppo 1960Ragioneria generale 1960Istituzioni economiche e commerciali 1961Le contabilità nazionali 1961Sulle rilevazioni amministrative nelle aziende pubbliche 1961La pianificazione aziendale 1962Quaderni di esercitazione: la partita doppia e la determinazione contabiledel risultato economico di esercizio nelle imprese 1962Le gestioni erogatrici pubbliche 1963La pianificazione dentro e fuori l’azienda 1964La partita doppia e la determinazione contabile del risultato economico di esercizio nelle imprese 1965Piani e programmi nell’ azienda assicuratrice 1966Il profitto di impresa e la sua determinazione 1967L’equilibrio dell’impresa e la politica dei redditi 1967La formazione dei bilanci di gruppo 1968Modelli e tipi nello studio economico-aziendale 1968Il profitto dell’impresa mezzo e non fine 1969La formazione e la determinazione dei costi nelle aziende industriali 1969La componente personale dell’azienda e la sua valutazione 1971Le rilevazioni aziendali 1971Fabio Besta 1972Il bilancio oggettivo dell’impresa 1972La tipizzazione dei bilanci annuali delle società per azioni 1973Sui bilanci annuali delle società assicuratrici 1973Sui contenuto degli studi di “accounting” 1973In memoria di Eugenio Schmalenbach 1974


493

(Table continued) Main works Year “Betriebswirtschaeftslehre” ed Economia Aziendale 1975Gli ammortamenti e gli accantonamenti di bilancio secondo la nuova normativa fiscale 1975Inflazione monetaria e bilanci annuali di impresa 1975Revisione aziendale e certificazione di bilanci 1975Aspetti economico-aziendali della legge 216 1976Sui costi dell’azienda assicuratrice 1976Per una storia aziendale 1977Scritture doppie e bilanci di esercizio nelle imprese 1977Sulla pianificazione strategica delle imprese 1977Controllo sindacale e società di revisione 1978Sul concetto di impresa come comunità 1978Sulla capacità informativa del bilancio annuale delle società 1978Il primo bilancio di esercizio di una grande banca 1980Revisione aziendale e certificazione di bilanci: l’esperienza americana e i suoi insegnamenti 1980Sul concetto di economicità aziendale 1980Sulla crisi di impresa e sulle possibilità di risolverla 1981Sulla revisione esterna delle contabilità aziendalin e sulla certificazione dei bilanci 1981Sui principi contabili generalemnet accettati secondo la normativa nord-americana 1982Trattato di ragioneria: l’economia delle aziende e il suo controllo 1982Gli studi e le pubblicazioni del Prof. Ugo Monetti 1983Sulla riforma del collegio sindacale 1983La banca europea degli investimenti e il suo bilancio 1984Le fonti e gli impieghi dei mezzi nell’impresa e la loro rappresentazione in bilancio 1984Sull’armonizzazione internazionale dell’informativa contabile 1984Le imprese multinazionali e il bilancio consolidato 1985Sul contenuto del financial management 1985Sulla cosiddetta performance dell’azienda e sulle possibilità di una sua valutazione 1985Sulla funzionalità delle imprese e sulla sua misurazione 1986Sull’analisi aziendale 1986Sulle comparazioni aziendali 1986Aspetti economico-aziendali del leasing 1987Le aziende fiduciarie di investimento 1987Sulle cosiddette banche d’affari e sulle loro caratteristiche 1987Finanza ed economia nell’unità dell’azienda 1988Sul concetto di opportunity cost e sulle sue determinazioni concrete 1988Sulla cosiddetta disintermediazione bancaria 1988Sulla creazione di aziende miste nell’Unione Societica 1988Sul bilancio della Banca Europea degli Investimenti 1989Sul cosiddetto bilancio sociale dell’impresa 1989Sulla relazione semestrale delle società quotate in Borsa 1989Sulle direttive CEE in campo bancario 1989Sull’unificazione dei mercati finanziari europei 1989Prospettive per l’attività bancaria in Europa 1990Sulla revisione aziendale 1990Scritti vari 1929-1990 (ricerche a cura di Giuseppe Spallini) 1991

3-corporate social responsibility in the thinking of paolo ...emilio cassandro had a heightened...

Documents