A concise look at one of the most ubiquitous and elusive concepts of our time

To govern, to manage, to care, to pay attention. It’s something that applies to businesses, but also to territories, to communities, to individuals where governance is put into practice. The word “governance” is thrown around a lot these days, but it’s a tricky notion that hides several shades of meaning; in other words, it’s a concept to be handled with care. Which is exactly what Alfio Mastropaolo has done in a recent essay for Quaderni di Sociologia.

Mastropaolo, a professor in the department of Culture, Politics and Society at the University of Turin, wrote his article in response to a French book recently translated into Italian, but his words ring true irrespective of the context for which they were penned.

As the author explains: “The role we assign to words and concepts is always a difficult one. These are among the many inventions with which humans attempt to organise, simplify and control the world around them. But they are not self-evident. Words and concepts are imposed, in various ways, by someone onto something. There are professionals whose job is to deal with these matters, but this doesn’t make things any easier. Especially because words and concepts are not univocal. Many carry within them a multitude of meanings, often in contrast with each other. Furthermore, these meanings change frequently, and dictionaries seldom provide much help. First of all, because there are many. Secondly, because no dictionary has the authority to definitively steer meaning. And recently, there is one term that has been abused and stretched out like few others before it: “governance”.

Mastropaolo goes on to summarise the various contexts in which the notion of governance is used nowadays, adding that the concept itself “marks a shift: it reflects a movement aiming to dismiss the centuries-old tradition of State-based government, founded on principles of sovereignty and authority, and to replace it with an alternative method of presiding over societal forces”. What matters even more – he adds – is the “mixed” (public/private) nature of real-life operational dynamics which this notion engenders. Coming together for the care of a territory or a community requires the participation of all stakeholders involved, including companies (not only private ones), which are thus learning to reshape their corporate culture and to look beyond the gates of their production facility.

Alfio Mastropaolo’s article succeeds in the difficult task of clarifying, in just a few paragraphs, several complex and interconnected concepts, making this an interesting and valuable read.

“Significati, utilizzi e fortune del concetto di governance”

Alfio Mastropaolo

Quaderni di Sociologia, 76-2018

Our reputation precedes us. According to the RepTrak 2019 rankings published by the Reputation Institute, five of the world’s top 40 companies by reputation are Italian: Ferrero, Pirelli, Armani, Barilla and Lavazza. This is further proof that “Made in Italy” is a winning brand, capable of succeeding internationally and producing value for stockholders, if it manages to marry quality, technology, taste and a global vision with its deep-rooted identity and its culture of manufacturing excellence.

Rolex tops the ranking, followed by Lego and Walt Disney. Adidas, Microsoft, Sony, Canon, Michelin, Netflix and Bosch round out the Top 10. Ferrero is first among Italian companies, checking in at number 19. Pirelli is ranked 23rd, followed by Armani (24th), Barilla (31st) and Lavazza (38th, a whopping 11 spots higher than last year). The rankings are based on a survey conducted in January 2019 of more than 230,000 individuals. The reputation of about 10,000 companies in 15 different markets was measured and the factors considered included: comparative evaluations, brand reliability, awards for quality and corporate conduct, and the accuracy of a company’s communication towards consumers and investors.

A good reputation, of course, has a positive impact on a company’s business.Reputation stems from relationships formed with suppliers, customers and investors but also employees and the communities in which the corporate presence is felt. It influences new consumer trends and stimulates investment. It’s also a measure of trustworthiness and appeal for those entering the workforce and looking for a good place to work.

That Italian businesses are maintaining or even strengthening their reputation is good news, particularly in these times of controversy and recession. The OECD is forecasting a -0.2% negative growth for Italy in 2019, as part of a general slowdown of the world’s economy. The Bank of Italy is warning against “serious risks for the economy”, and other authoritative observers see a trend somewhere between recession and stagnation. The Lega-M5S government, on the other hand, had forecast a +1% growth, a prediction that now appears wildly unrealistic.

Yet, despite everything, the most dynamic businesses are braving the storm, growing, meeting the expectations of consumers and international investors, and proving once again that the battle is not lost. Victory, however, requires an economic and industrial policy capable of fuelling the motors of growth, which, incidentally, is just the opposite of what the “yellow-green” majority at Palazzo Chigi is currently doing.

What else do the Reputation Institute rankings tell us? These are five Italian multinationals with both a widespread presence across the globe and deep roots in their respective areas of origin (Alba and Piedmont, Milan, Parma, Turin), which ensures a strong business culture as well as the ability to blend memory with innovation. These are companies that invest heavily in research and development, and consistently deliver highly recognisable advertising and communication efforts, essential for strengthening brand trust. They are companies capable of growing according to the paradigms of the “good factory”, namely one that is well-designed, welcoming, well-lit, safe, and environmentally and socially sustainable (the hi-tech Pirelli plant designed by Renzo Piano and the state-of-the-art Lavazza plant, both located in Settimo Torinese, are perfect examples). For some time, these manufacturing groups have recognised sustainability as a crucial element of competitiveness.

These are companies committed to building a supply chain made of small and medium enterprises, which in turn stimulates innovation and productivity. These large corporations serve as the main economic engine for vast industrial networks – a landscape in stark contrast with the “good things in small packages” rhetoric of the current government, which seems to strongly favour small companies over large ones.

Of course, Italy’s five companies in the RepTrak Top 40 are well-established global leaders. But they are by no means isolated cases. Anyone familiar with the country’s corporate landscape knows that even during these extremely challenging years, countless businesses have invested and innovated, focussing on quality and on high-end products, doing research in collaboration with universities, and acquiring significant market shares around the world. They have created jobs and contributed to raising the quality of life for their employees and the communities in which they operate, often introducing innovative benefit packages. They have met the digital demands of the Industry 4.0 era, and served as catalysts for economic recovery.

These companies, therefore, deserve attention, trust, fiscal policies capable of stimulating innovation (the kind of measures which previous governments, on both sides of the political spectrum, used to trigger economic growth) and infrastructures, both material ones (rail roads, highways, ports and logistic systems, etc.) and immaterial ones (digital networks, investments in research and training). In short, they deserve an industrial policy. This is exactly what the Conte government and its ministers has so far neglected.

The story of Calabrian company Callipo may not be a management textbook, but there’s much to be learned

Every company has a history, a tale waiting to be told. And when a tale is beautiful, interesting and full of potentially valuable lessons, then it’s a tale that deserves to be told. That is precisely the case of Callipo, a tuna supply company (among other things) based in Pizzo, Calabria, which celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2013. The company’s story has recently been told through a blend of words and images in Gianfranco Manfredi’s book Callipo dal 1913.
The story of Callipo (now called Giacinto Callipo Conserve Alimentari) dates back to 1913, when its founder, Giacinto, started a Mediterranean tuna fish processing and canning operation, Calabria’s first and one of the first in Italy. Now part of a diverse group comprising six subsidiaries, the company is still led by one of Giacinto’s descendants, Filippo Callippo, along with his children. Over the course of a century, five generations of business people have worked hard to reconcile traditions with increasingly competitive market dynamics, creating a brand that has established itself as one of the “noble faces” of Southern Italy.
Through a combination of words and images, the book traces the company’s progress, revealing the close bond between a family – the Callipos – and its business, and between a business and its employees. Vintage photos and documents are the foundation for Manfredi’s volume, which is neither a handbook on business administration nor a family history. “Instead, Callipo dal 1913 is a little bit of both. It is a book that offers valuable lessons on how to run a manufacturing business, with some fascinating insight into a complicated land and a complicated sector (respectively Calabria and the food industry) which nevertheless deserve our attention.
The book’s editor provides an effective synopsis: “More than a mere company history, this is a tale of values, vision and know-how. It’s the story of an organisation firmly rooted in its territory, which above all else values people, community and quality.” Good Italian business therefore, means good business culture.

Callipo dal 1913
Gianfranco Manfredi
Rubbettino, 2019

A closer look at AR and VR reveals new horizons of production

Virtual factories and new technologies: de-materialised production yields physical objects. Impalpable labour that is nevertheless real. Beyond traditional manufacturing know-how – and to an extent, beyond the paradigms of Industry 4.0 – industrial systems are now beginning to incorporate production methods that are literally beyond reality itself. And yet, they exist. The latest frontier in business and manufacturing opens up a range of possibilities whose potential modes of application we do not yet fully understand. That’s why we should read “Applicazioni delle tecnologie immersive nell’industria e Realtà Aumentata come innovazione di processo nella Logistica: stato dell’arte ed implicazioni manageriali (Industrial applications of immersive technologies and Augmented Reality as a process innovation in Logistics: current developments and managerial implications) by Marco Remondino, an Economics and Business Administration research fellow at the Department of Economics of the University of Genoa. The article is a useful introduction to a subject that is evolving so rapidly, it is hard keep track.

The author points out that the concept of immersive technology “refers to the goal of lessening the distinction between the physical (or ‘real’) world and the simulated (or ‘virtual’) world generated by a computer, creating a sense of immersion and inclusion with elements that can be drawn from diverse and heterogeneous contexts. It therefore refers to an engaging and potentially multi-sensory digital experience, which can be delivered by means of different technologies, including Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), 360-degree video, hybrid realities or a combination of the above”. Not just virtual factories, therefore, but also “augmented” ones, with everything that might entail in terms of work methods, production organisation and relational dynamics within factories or offices, but also with customers, suppliers, the public, etc.

It is a vast and complex topic, which is why Remondino limits the scope of his analysis to the current state of the art in utilising these technologies. Particular attention is given to Augmented Reality, since it represents “an innovation for industrial and managerial process, especially in terms of its strategic applications in optimising existing processes or creating new possibilities”.

The article is neatly structured. First, the author provides a general overview of the subject matter (noting, among other things, that this could be a 95-billion-dollar industry by 2025), then he focuses on the areas of application of VR and AR within industrial processes. Finally, the essay delves into the specifics of applying these technologies to the logistics sector, while also tackling more general aspects related to the use of VR and AR in management.

Remondino’s paper may not go down as a seminal work in the field of AR and VR, but it succeeds at explaining in clear and comprehensible terms what businesses may have on their hands, not in a few decades, but right now.

“Applicazioni delle tecnologie immersive nell’industria e Realtà Aumentata come innovazione di processo nella Logistica: stato dell’arte ed implicazioni manageriali”

Marco Remondino

Impresa Progetto – Electronic Journal of Management, no. 3, 2018

The latest book by Joseph Sassoon discusses one of the most advanced frontiers of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Humans are made for storytelling. It has been this way since the dawn of time and will probably remain so until the last man and woman on earth who call themselves humans. This is true even though AI and its machines have been able to tell stories for quite some time on an almost equal par as humans. This is a historic schism, as great if not greater than that of the industrial revolution. And it affects all facets of human activity. This includes the economy and business (which indeed has made storytelling one of its fields of action).

The theme of stories created by machines instead of humans is a delicate one, something that must be understood thoroughly and observed attentively. An excellent guide in this area is Storytelling e intelligenza artificiale.. Quando le storie le raccontano i robot (Storytelling and Artificial Intelligence. When Robots Tell the Stories), the latest book by Joseph Sassoon who is a researcher, consultant, speaker and professor of Brand Storytelling in the Master in Marketing Utilities and Storytelling Techniques at the University of Pavia.

Sassoon explores one of the most advanced frontiers in the application of AI to human activities. He begins with an observation: telling stories might not be something that only humans can do; although in their present phase, algorithms and AI tend to intervene primarily in assistance functions, they can also be considered as more than mere reproduction mechanisms, as veritable creators of new stories and tales.

This is the start of the author’s thoughts, condensed in roughly 100 highly readable pages, where some passages entrance the reader as if it were a novel. Through the looking glass of this book, we thus view our present transitional phase in which software, artificial systems and robots are mastering the secrets of storytelling. Sassoon employs a vast range of reasoning. To help us understand the question, he draws examples from a series of realms that are crucial for modern communication: cinema, journalism, marketing and advertising. He does this by citing cases in literature as well as the economy or even entertainment to usher the reader into the delicate relationship (that is actually not that new) between machines and the stories that humans tell.

The book thus seeks to answer a series of vital questions such as how far machines have come in the ability to tell stories, the experiments under way, the role of machines “that can tell stories” in the entertainment world and in the economy, but also problems that arise in the social, political and ethical realms.

Sassoon does not champion any specific cause but simply explains, thus accomplishing an important task from a cultural point of view, one that is also valid for anyone ‒ entrepreneurs and managers alike ‒ who may be faced with these contexts that are now also part of the business culture. “The fact that AI will soon be able to match us at the level of storytelling, giving meaning to the world,” the author says, “demonstrates quite clearly that our world will never again be the same.”

Storytelling e intelligenza artificiale. Quando le storie le raccontano i robot

Joseph Sassoon

Franci Angeli, 2019

In a recent speech, Ignazio Visco outlined the events that link investments and business development with the availability of financial support.

Development, including that of businesses, is based on clear and lucid visions of what is to be done. In other words, success comes to those who plan their own actions effectively and thus, who have a clearer vision of the world compared to others. It is a question of information, but also one of the ability to analyse. It is also a question of means. For this reason, among the many exceptional pieces available, it is worthwhile reading the speech given by Ignazio Visco (Governor of the Bank of Italy) on 13 February 2019 at the Baffi Carefin Bocconi-Equita event during the sixth conference on The Italian Corporate Bond Market: what is happening to the capital structure of Italian non-financial companies?

Visco focused in particular on the theme of ‛Corporate financing in Italy: recent evolution and prospects’, looking closer into the relationship among companies, investments and the financial situation. It was an exercise in economic culture but also in corporate culture as well.

The author stated in his opening remarks: “The development of an economy is driven by the propensity of businesses to grow and innovate.” However, to achieve this: “Companies must operate in a favourable macroeconomic context in terms of the level of taxation, the functioning of the labour market, the availability of infrastructures and efficiency in public administration. A key factor for investments is the availability of business funding options that are adequate in both quantity and quality.” From these initial words, Visco moved on to discuss the latest developments in Italian businesses regarding financial resources.

The Governor of the Bank of Italy then gave a brief historical overview of the ‛diversified’ financial system in Italy from the beginning of the 20th century to the early 2000s, when there was a decisive emergence of the capital market alongside the banks as a means of financial support for business investments. Visco then outlined today’s situation, including the opportunities and risks for businesses balancing both bank and non-bank credit.

Highlighting the importance of certainty and stability, Visco cited these two elements as essential for the development of investments sustained by diversified financing that is more attentive to non-banking sources. As mentioned earlier, it is a question not only of an economic culture but of the political and institutional cultures as well, which can also become drivers of business.

Corporate financing in Italy: recent evolution and prospects

Ignazio Visco

Baffi Carefin Bocconi-Equita, Sixth conference, The Italian Corporate Bond Market: what is happening to the capital structure of Italian non-financial companies?

Milan, 13 February 2019

A Franco-German Manifesto has been issued to reboot Europe’s industrial policy and to invest jointly in innovation, Artificial Intelligence and the development of major European corporations in order to resist the ever-sharper competition of the USA and China. Paris and Berlin, in short, are united as they take another step forward to unveil a way out of the crisis that is holding the EU back. The two countries have thus launched a heady challenge to all the other countries, starting with Italy: a choice between growth under common objectives, falling behind or, even worse, ending up on the sidelines of a ‘two-speed’ Europe whose engine sits squarely on a Franco-German axle.

These are difficult times for the stagnating European economy, caused in part by the sudden slowdown that directly affected the German automobile industry and, consequently, the entire European automotive sector (Italy has been severely affected as it is a major supplier for BMW, Audi, Volkswagen and Daimler). The economy is also hemmed in by Trump’s manoeuvres (claiming the European auto industry is a threat to national security) and USA-China trade conflicts. The picture becomes even darker given the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. In addition, the political tensions that afflict many EU countries expose the risks associated with populism, sovereignism and protectionist nationalism just now as we prepare for the imminent May elections for the new European Parliament. The push is for all countries and governments that still believe in the indispensable nature of Europe, and thus in its reform and reinforcement, must give clear and active political signals to halt the de-growth, political crisis and risks of decline.

“Being outside the EU might lead to more policy independence, but not necessarily to greater sovereignty. The same is true of the single currency,” said Mario Draghi, president of the ECB, to students in Bologna last Friday during the ceremony awarding him a degree honoris causa in Jurisprudence. The only other alternatives would be the Polish, Hungarian or, alas, Italian style of sovereignism. Or else building walls out of fear around ‘little homelands’ and miserable localisms. Europe, Draghi added, naturally needs some reform “to adjust the [EU] institutions to change”, face external challenges that have “become increasingly threatening” and to “respond to the perception that [the European Union] lacks equity between countries and social classes”. The strategy, however, is for ‘more Europe’ and a better Europe. It certainly is not for a dismantling or impoverishment, as desired by Trump’s USA and Putin’s Russia (and nationalists in Italy).

Draghi recalled that true sovereignty is reflected in the ability to control outcomes and respond to the fundamental needs of the people:
“Peace, safety, and public good” as defined by John Locke, the 17th century liberal philosopher, one of the ethical and political inspirations for the concept of Europe. A Europe to be changed, of course. However, we should not forget that the EU “has been a political success” and this includes the financial policies of the ECB in the face of the Global Financial Crisis. Thus, Europe no matter what. It is a lesson to bear in mind.

The decisions taken by Paris and Berlin follow in this direction. After renewing the Treaty of Aachen last January and initiating a draft for common policy on the Eurozone Budget, it is the Manifesto for the industrial policy that outlines concrete strategies and measures to foster the growth of ‘European champions’. How will this come about? We need to invest more in innovation and develop the cutting-edge technologies of Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics and computer processes for applications in healthcare, transport, the environment and energy. Electric automobiles is one common sector for growth. The same can be said for all that is Industry 4.0 (which the Italian government, opposed to industry, scientific research and innovation has unfortunately placed on the back burner, thus hampering economic growth).

The second pillar of the Manifesto concerns reform of the EU antitrust regulations. Irritated by Brussels’s ‘no’ to the Alstom-Siemens agreement on high speed trains, Paris and Berlin wish to change Europe’s rules on competition, developing ways to better protect the new ‘European champions’ from challenges set into motion by the USA and China, which is busy shopping around for European hi-tech companies. Changes in competition rules and antitrust procedures are not popular in European Commission circles and some European states, especially in the north. Yet, the issue is being addressed quite strongly. It will be discussed, in a dialectic that is certainly not academic, between the ‘free market’ and ‘interventionist’ proponents.

The third pillar regards the need for each country to monitor its own strategic industrial assets to make sure that any transfer of competence, patents or know how in one country does not place the whole European industry in crisis. It is a complex question, naturally, because it is related to freedom of the market and businesses. The question is nevertheless under discussion and aims to solicit commitments of reciprocity for investments in the USA and China by European companies.

And what about Italy? In all these questions, it is substantially absent. The anti-Brussels moves by several components of the green-yellow government, the polemical outbursts by powerful ministers against the EU, the Euro and European ‘bureaucrats’, the ‘filo-Putin’ feelings and the arguments with France and cold shoulder to Germany are definitely not helpful.

“Germany and France are speeding up in the absence of Italy,” commented editorialist Attilio Geroni in Il Sole 24 Ore (20 February). A few days later, Giuseppe Chiellino commented as well: “Italy remains outside the design of European integration.” This came with another ominous notation for our country: “In the so-called G3 Group, which acts as the main impetus for proposals on the most important issues ‒ from the budget to immigration policies to forthcoming EU appointments ‒ the partner to France and Germany is no longer Italy, but Spain.”

Indeed, Brexit should have enabled Italy, second manufacturer in Europe and third EU economy, to be a steady, relevant protagonist in the ‘European triangle’ with the Germans and the French. The short-sighted choices of the Conte government have instead marginalized us. Many, in Brussels and in the capitals of other major European countries, now see Italy, hit by a new recession and lacking political credibility on the state budget and development policies, no longer as a strategic partner but as a dead weight for a Europe on the move.

This is an alarming picture. Italy’s businesses, amidst the government’s distraction and irresponsibility, are attempting to provide a response. One response is a summit between Confindustria and MEDEF, the corresponding French employers’ organisation, in Versailles on 28-29 February 2019. An additional step is preparation of another encounter that will involve the German association BDI. Industry is assuming responsibility, attempting to curb the political damage by the government and the majority party, and reweaving a strategy for European development.

An increasingly long shadow is being cast over Italy in recession (alone amongst the major European countries) whose “engine has stalled” (definition by Professor Sabino Cassese): this shadow is the growing presence of the State in the economy, not as a legislator and controller (as would be right and appropriate) but as a manager of companies. In the rooms of Palazzo Chigi and the Ministries of Finance there is a great yearning for nationalisation. The plan is to gain a majority shareholding in Alitalia, through direct intervention by MEF (the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance), and shares in Cassa Depositi e Prestiti and the Railways (ignoring the fact that the State has already squandered almost 10 billion euros with the Alitalia mess). The aim is to double its presence in Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, from 4.26% to about 10%, and in the private Telecom company, in order to unbundle the network and combine it with the Open Fiber network (in which CDP holds 50%). At the Ministry of Infrastructures there are rumours about nationalising the motorways. There is also talk of bringing CDP into the new international construction colossus, Salini-Astaldi (private companies, the first strong but the latter in a state of crisis). And the supporters of Beppe Grillo and the League still want to make Carige a public bank and seek private investors, even though the current commissioners appointed by the ECB are well aware of the accounts and conditions of the bank in crisis and say there is no need. The Five Star Movement (M5S) is preparing a bill on the public management of water, which would block the private investment that has been going on for years and bring everything back under the control of the public and municipal bodies that did such a lot of damage in the past (waste, customers, service problems, second rate network quality).

In other words, there is a desire to return to an Overlord State, as seen in the widespread expectation of the “yellow-green government” for hands-on involvement in the management of large and small businesses, in managerial decisions on investments, in hiring and in tenders. These claims for power completely disregard the need for efficiency, savings, productivity, quality and the costs of service and business activities.

These are demands for power. And contradictions. The Budget Law approved in extremis at the end of December by the Chambers (without even studying it well) after laborious negotiations with the EU Commission on the accounts, the deficit and the public debt, envisages privatisation of one GDP point, about 17 billion, in 2019. However, there is no shadow of the privatisations promised to Brussels in order to get the manoeuvre approved, while all the moves by the government are heading instead towards increasing the presence of the public sector in the economy, towards having the State enter private companies.

What about the Regulatory and Controller State? It is blocked by the dispute between M5S and the League, the two government parties, to position their people. So, CONSOB was without a chairman for months (the serious uncertainties were damaging for the markets), before finally appointing Paolo Savona. INPS has been without a chairman since the competent economist Professor Tito Boeri’s mandate expired. They even plan to poke their noses into the affairs of the Bank of Italy for the appointment of the deputy director general: this seriously interfers with the institute’s autonomy.

There is a lot of chatter but insufficient competence in the government to handle the complex processes of the economy.

It is worthwhile studying a little history to remember how the Overlord State was the key figure of some of the worst moments in the history of our economy. After the dynamic years of reconstruction and boom, when the public sector was managed by competent, capable and respectable administrators, the country had the infrastructures it needed for recovery (steel, motorways, transport, public buildings, chemicals industry). Then, from the seventies on, the Government Shares have gradually been reduced to an abusive circuit of party patronage, squandering public money in the “panettone di Stato” (State cake) with banks resembling “petrified forests”, State cars and public telecommunications, energy and postal services that are increasingly expensive and less efficient. We have monopolies, clientèle, private interests in the guise of public interest, waste.

The season of privatisation in the 1990s reopened the economy, making it more efficient (with better services that cost less for citizens, consumers, families and businesses). It is true that privatisation has been carried out poorly on occasion and has not always been flanked by the indispensable process of liberalisation. In spite of the limitations and contradictions, the Italian economy was integrated into the European market processes and then into the euro. It started to grow again, although it did not bridge the gaps between efficiency and productivity (private business were productive, public administration and services were quite unproductive).

Now, the government that opposes competence, professional merit, science, research, efficient infrastructures, competition and international comparisons, yearns once again for nationalisation and state control. This desire comes in a context riddled with insufficient attention to private, Italian and international investments and the distribution of supplementary income, early retirement, tax amnesty, protection of vulnerable groups (in total populist style) and the misuse of the few public resources available.

The horizon is bleak. To avert the danger, growing fronts of public opinion and key players in business and social circles are on the move. Il Foglio made an appeal to “unblock Italy”, which was signed by authoritative political and economical figures including Confindustria top management. “Don’t hold Italy back” was the headline in La Stampa, giving ample space to the opinions of those who work and produce. These were well-timed pleas. The point is, Italy does not deserve nay-sayers or backers of a “woeful decline” behind which an interest in power hides, negatively affecting those who rightly lay claim to a brighter future based on balanced development.

A book illustrating the Crespi d’Adda factory and working-class village

 Industrial locations. Business spaces. Territories that are still alive in human memory. Industrial Italy (but not only) is swept over by numerous sanctuary-like sites reflecting human ingenuity, but there are also opportunities to learn about a present built on an important past that teaches of effort and hard work. These are tangible signs of a work culture that is dead only in appearance. One of these sites is the Crespi d’Adda complex founded by Cristoforo Benigno Crespi in 1878. It was still active in 1995 when it was listed as a World Heritage Site, then it underwent several industrial changes, finally ceasing production activity in 2003. The area experienced a “rebirth” in 2013 at the hands of an entrepreneur from Bergamo who took over the entire establishment that was at one time the headquarters of Cotonificio Benigno Crespi, bringing it back to life.

The factory as a workplace and the village as a place to live: Crespi d’Adda was conceived, built and managed to accommodate these two notions, concepts illustrated in

Crespi d’Adda. The history of an Enterprise by Giorgio Ravasio. This fifty-page book is packed with words and lots of images.

The story line recounts an urban and industrial experiment that attempted (and to a large extent succeeded) to combine “living and working in harmony with an eye to functionality and beauty, nature and architecture”, as the author explains.

This is a book to be read and leafed through, but also to reflect on, starting with the images (70) that are both recent and historic, the latter from private and public archives dating back to the end of the 1800s and early 1900s.

Besides telling of the industrial culture experiment that lasted for over 100 years, this book also serves as a tool for gaining awareness of our industrial present. Ravasio quotes Jesuit priest Matteo Ricci who “claimed that memory is a building that is constructed one brick at a time, thus the building is solid and indestructible. Remember not only so that you don’t forget, but also to build up the land on which we rest our feet”.

Crespi d’Adda. The history of an Enterprise

Giorgio Ravasio

Associazione Crespi d’Adda, Tesserememoria, 2019

Research into start-up businesses attempts to shed light on the most favourable characteristics of a location for manufacturing organisations.

“Thinking” up a business, establishing it and helping it grow are major undertakings. Ideas and resources (primarily human resources) are needed to ensure that everything works. The environment also counts: the strange and complex combination of location, people, social ties, limits and opportunities, institutions and culture can contribute to supporting the first steps taken by a young business.

It is essential to understand which locations can help businesses get the best start. “Fertile places for innovation. A study of the localisation of innovative start-ups in Italy” is an interesting paper written by Roberto Antonietti and Francesca Gambarotto of the Department of Economic and Business Sciences at the University of Padua. The study, which was recently published in Economia e Società Regionale, is based on two observations. The first point the authors considered was what start-up means: “A fundamental tool for transforming knowledge into new and innovative products/services”. Then there was the observation that it was only a few years ago our country “intervened to support setting up innovative, new businesses, but little importance is given to the environmental aspects that facilitate this creative process”.

The scope of the research is, therefore, to understand which locations are the “best”, the most “fertile” for forming new companies.

The study used Unioncamere’s register of innovative start-ups and ISTAT’s local labour systems.  The mass of data generated an analysis of the territorial distribution of start-ups to gain an understanding of the factors that have the greatest influence on the establishment and localisation of a new business. By cross-referencing the information, Antonietti and Gambarotto proved that medium-large size urban centres are the most fertile habitats for supporting the emergence of innovative start-ups owing to their varied economies, the presence of key players like universities and incubators, and their economic performance that is open to international markets. It is not a foregone conclusion and, most importantly, the result is backed by numbers, which raises the question: how can we increase the capacity to host new businesses in other territorial environments as well?

Fertile places for innovation. A study of the localisation of innovative start-ups in Italy

Roberto Antonietti, Francesca Gambarotto

Economia e Società Regionale, 2018, Dossier 3