Factories are changing, in these times of the digital economy. Work is naturally changing too, as it retains its primary role in a well-balanced economy (in addition to the aim for a just society, as our Constitution proclaims, where indeed Article 1 refers to it: “Italy is a democratic Republic, based on work”). And as a result the representations, the stories about work are changing too. And therefore industrial relations, contracts, regulations, and salaries should also change. How so? This is described in a slim but very thorough, well-presented book, with an elegant cover in Playfair display font printed in red and in blue on a white background and bearing the fundamental title: “The future of work”.

It is a “white paper” by Assolombarda, the first of a series (the next, in September, will deal with tax), curated by the Centro Studi Adapt under the scientific supervision of Michele Tiraboschi, one of the best Italian work jurists (he teaches at Modena University and was one of the closest colleagues of Marco Biagi, who was assassinated in March 2002 by the Red Brigades specifically for his courageous reforming views about working rights). And it was presented last week in Milan by Carlo Bonomi, the chair of Assolombarda and by Mauro Chiassarini, vice-chair (with responsibilities for workplace, security and welfare policies).

This is the point: work as the top of the bill, as a major economic and social subject, an instrument of personal dignity, and a basic feature of citizenship in a strong relationship between rights and obligations. Work to be defended, as it follows and – why not? Work to be defended, as it follows and – why not? –   anticipates the trends occurring in manufacturing dynamics (with all the necessary training, from the alternating system of college/job to training on the job and to lifelong learning or, to put it another way, to the obligation to study continuously, in order also to work better and to understand the meaning of the work one is doing). But also work to be created, by innovating and forming businesses, following the path shown by start-ups and above all, making them grow: Milan can provide exemplary stories of this. Certainly, not work to be replaced by strange interventionist ideas: the citizen’s income dear to the hearts of the 5-Star Movement is anathema to Assolombarda.

How do we move forward, then? “Flexibility and interlinking sets of knowledge: this is how future work will change”, is the heading from “IlSole24Ore” (18th May) as it summarises the contents of the 78 pages of Assolombarda’s book and warns that this flexibility certainly does not mean either precarity or insecurity, but a way of working which takes on board the trends in technology and which must set out within its contracts precisely an ensemble of responsibilities and protections which are adapted to a changing world, without unacceptable anti-historic rigidities for flexible companies, nor precarities which generate inequalities, difficulties, a detachment from work, lost identity, and lack of productivity.

If work is “the place where individuals can express themselves”, work contracts cannot but take this into account in an innovative fashion. By translating into regulations and organisation the “new-generation technologies” and the “growing digitalisation” of professional processes.

We need a new virtuous circle for work, in fact, in these times of the so-called “knowledge economy”. This will need to be discussed at length, naturally, with the trade unions too, especially at local regional and enterprise level. In the full knowledge that company competitiveness is closely linked to the competitiveness of each local region, and that indeed these regions succeed in being attractive for capital and brains, and known for a good quality of life, if they are animated by active companies. Another fine example of a virtuous circle, to which in fact the modern Milan can testify.

“A new ecosystem of relationships”, is exactly what Stefano Micelli is hoping for; he is an economist who is particularly attuned to the ideas of “Industry 4.0” and of the digital economy which extends through the territories of the so-called “A4 Region”, the most economically dynamic zone of the whole country, along the motorway from Piedmont to Friuli and the axis between Lombardy and Emilia, with its medium-sized companies and most active supply chain for the mechatronics and automotive sectors (we discussed this in our blog of 8th May).

Assolombarda’s book suggests that we should take a new look at several traditional concepts: that of the working day, for example, which is fine for the Ford-style manufacturing chain and small-scale functions but which needs to be reconsidered in these times of smart working, distance working and creativity: we need to value not simply the amount of time spent on the company premises, but the performance of tasks and the result of people’s professional commitment. In the same way as in contracts, room needs to be made for questions of competencies, more than for traditional functions.

Furthermore, in the book, there is an obvious emphasis on the relationship between work, training and welfare. Important echoes of this can be found in a recent labour contract, that of the metalworkers (drawn up and signed off thanks to a fundamental contribution from the businesses of Assolombarda and of Emilia). And further progress is needed along this road, with training, at both school and university level, always linked to innovation and change, which, by the way, are essential functions of the competitiveness of companies (of particular relevance is the emphasis on the role of the ITS, the further institutes for technical training, which in Italy remain insufficiently widespread, unlike in Germany and France).

Active policies for work, then. In a European perspective. And dynamism, at the same pace as the changes in technologies, but also in demographics (we are a country where the average age is growing and the younger generations are finding it hard to identify good work and lifestyle opportunities).

There is one key word, which underpins all these reflections. And it is “sustainability”. It is a fundamental characteristic for a business, from both a social and environmental viewpoint. A meaningful objective for all those who, from the investors to the managers, and from the technicians to the specialist workers, keep a company working and growing. And a cultural and moral area of responsibility, at the positive crossroads between “value” (profits for the shareholders) and “values”, everything which binds us together towards an ethical objective of responsibility.

We are reminded, in this connection, of the words of Leopoldo Pirelli, about the rules for a good businessman, in his speech to the College of Engineers in Milan, in October 1986: “Our credibility, our authority, and I would say our legitimisation in the eyes of the public conscience, are directly proportional to the role which we play in contributing to overcoming the social and economic inequalities in the countries where we operate: a business is increasingly seen as a place of synthesis between the ambitions for maximum technical-economic progress and the human ambitions for better working and lifestyle conditions”. Rules which are as valid as ever today.

“All things considered, we are not too keen on this James Bond fellow.” The film critic Morando Morandini’s debut with his “Cinema in the mirror” column in Pirelli magazine no. 1 of 1965, already appeared as a manifesto of intent. Having just moved to Il Giorno newspaper, after almost a decade on the cinema and television pages of Notte, Morandini started his collaboration with Pirelli magazine with one of the film sensations of the moment: the adventures of Her Majesty’s Secret Agent 007. When he wrote “Who is afraid of James Bond?” in January 1965, Dr No (1962), From Russia with love (1963) and Goldfinger (1964) had already been released: but he did not like this James Bond character, and nor did he like its literary creator Jan Fleming, whose narrative was “railway reading and snobby”. Morandini immediately showed his very mixed audience of Pirelli readers that American-style adventure fiction was not his thing at all. And “the incredible Aston Martin DB5 coupé (cost: 17 million lire!)” with its machine guns, its oil spreader, and the bladed hubs on its wheels, came under attack too. Morandini was not one for excesses. Indeed, after reviewing two films that were not exactly box-office hits – Hamlet by the Russian Kozintsev, 1964, and The Trial of Joan of Arc by Bresson, 1962 – his criticism turned to Federico Fellini. In “The colour of the spirits”, in Pirelli magazine no. 5-6 of 1965, he took it out mainly on Giulietta, the protagonist of the film that had just been released in cinemas: the actress was Giulietta Masina, playing her third Fellini character after Gelsomina and Cabiria (La Strada, 1954 and Nights of Cabiria, 1957). “We will say straight out that this Giulietta, the heart of the film, is neither convincing nor bewitching. This Giulietta does not interest us. She is a serious professional, not a great actress.” However, it was not that the critic did not admire the extravagant, baroque world of Fellini, but “even the magical aspect of the film leaves us perplexed. An illustrated catalogue of Fellini’s universe? That’s right.” But things did not go much better even for the American The Loved One, directed by Tony Richardson in 1965 as a typical example classic “English humour”: a grotesque comedy that, in the words of the critic, “gives the impression that it is a slightly overabundant, incomplete tale… perhaps because it has such a messy, incoherent pace.” But then the film did not take the box office by storm either.

Up to this point, Morando Morandini had been a relentless critic of contemporary cinema – as he was meant to be. But the “Cinema in the mirror” column, which continued in Pirelli magazine until the end of 1967, often managed to provide the most erudite analysis of particular currents in the cinema, as in the case of war films in “The game of war” (no. 5 of 1966) and of American comedy in “Jerry Lewis, the last buffoon” (no. 2 of 1967). He also wrote a profound and painful reflection on the role of film festivals, in “Festivals for sale” (no. 4, 1966) and painted a superb portrait of Spencer Tracy, a giant of Hollywood alongside Katharine Hepburn, in “Three memories” (no. 4 of 1967). His last contribution to the “Cinema in the mirror” column – in magazine no. 6 of 1967 – was “The lion is bored” – and the title says it all. Morandini talks about Buñuel, and about how “at sixty-seven, he is no longer interested in cinema: he has ended with Belle de Jour, taken from a novel by Kessel that he does not like.” The great Spanish director shot An Andalusian Dog and The Golden Age, Viridiana and The Forgotten, Nazarin and The Diary of a Chambermaid. After his masterpiece, Belle de Jour, he said that he had “had enough of looking for angles for the camera and talking nonsense to the actors”. The direct, hard-hitting reviews made Morando Morandini one of the most authoritative voices of Italian film criticism. A voice we can still read today, in the pages of our Pirelli magazine.

A graduation thesis at the University of Padua takes a snapshot of relations between sustainable finance and conscious business

Social responsibility of finance as well as business. Awareness of the effects of investments. A look that reaches beyond merely closing accounting balance sheets. Corporate culture, which is also about conscious investment culture. These are important, inter-connected, complex themes. Themes which should be addresses carefully. Reading “Impact investing: prospettive in Italia” (Impact investing: prospects in Italy), Luca Vincenzo D’Addetta’s graduation thesis at the University of Padua, can be a valid tool better to understand.

This research provides a good overview of the situation of responsible and sustainable finance based on an observation: “The world of finance is a world that is constantly evolving and an example of this is the latest phenomenon of cryptocurrencies (…). If we put the recent financial crisis and all the consequences it had on the real economy into context, it is evident that the rift between the latter and traditional finance is increasingly clear”.  So, what can be done? According to D’Addetta we need to “change the way we conceive finance” and how it supports the real economy.

This is obviously no easy feat, and a task in which companies are also fully involved. Yet one which, for D’Addetta, also touches upon sustainable development seen as a tool that “that creates long-lasting value that does not collapse onto itself”. And this is where responsible finance comes in, along with corporate culture that looks “closely at local communities and the environment” with a whole set of “extra-financial objectives such as protecting the environment and respecting workers’ rights, social inclusion of the more vulnerable”.

D’Addetta goes through his reasoning and begins to explain what sustainable investments are, and then moves on to an analysis of impact investing and then its position within the framework of the Italian financial and industrial system. Alongside corporate social responsibility, the author then outlines an equally important role of sustainable and responsible investments that complete the activities of production organisations and make them more effective.

The work by D’Addetta can take credit for writing clearly about an obviously complex topic. And it ends on a positive note: “Day after day – the conclusions in fact state -, the tools of traditional finance are adapted to suit sustainable finance to facilitate their dissemination among a growing basin of investors; the surveys amid the same investors support the hypothesis of growth with more than promising figures. The generational change, the financial returns that are aligned with those of traditional sectors contribute substantially to this expansion”.This is a condition in which Italy is also taking part, albeit with a slight delay.

Impact investing: prospettive in Italia (Impact investing: prospects in Italy)

Luca Vincenzo D’Addetta

University of Padua, “Marco Fanno” Department of Economics and Business Studies, Honorary Master’s Degree in International Economics, 2018.

A volume that has just been disseminated on the Net provides an updated picture of the family business

A company is a family. Beyond rhetoric, this is still the case today. With all the necessary consequences. But it is also equally often the case that the family actually creates the company. Production organisations characterised by special connotations, family businesses should be studied carefully and continuously. Not only because they represent a constant in the Italian economy and in the Italian industrial system, but also because they are changing continuously.

This study is aided by the book entitled “Le imprese familiari.Governance, internazionalizzazione e innovazione” (Family businesses. Governance, internationalisation and innovation), written by multiple hands and edited by Giorgia M. D’Allura with Rosario Faraci.

The book starts with an observation of the constant dissemination of family businesses not only in Italy but across the world, stating: “The work proposes the study and investigation of the specificity of this form of business and its growth patterns towards internationalisation and innovation, to find out more about an economically significant phenomenon also for national policies and actions in support of the development of the family business“.The family business illustrated by D’Allura and Faraci is not confined to limited borders, but instead open to the world, i.e. truly the production organisation which in many cases supports – perhaps without appearing to do so – many economic and production facilities at national level. This narrative is therefore articulated first of all in an overview of the definition of the family business and hence of its contours and its essential features, and then moves on to the investigation of the methods of managing and controlling these production facilities and then finally addresses the description of the growth, internationalisation and innovation processes.

In addition to this part, and more than a mere business case study, the book also contains a series of contributions that provide further information about particular (yet important) aspects of family businesses: relations with the institutional context, the role of women in family decision-making and management positions, the heterogeneity of the so-called family business, the cultural context in which family businesses are established and run, the use and the diffusion of the English language in this type of company, the complex and thorny issue of the generational changeover.

The book edited by D’Allura and Faraci is certainly worth reading from cover to cover. And it has a characteristic which also gives credit to the publisher since it is disseminated using the open access mode.

Le imprese familiari. Governance, internazionalizzazione e innovazione (Family businesses. Governance, internationalisation and innovation)

Giorgia M. D’Allura, Rosario Faraci

Franco Angeli Open Acces, 2018

(http://bit.ly/francoangeli-oa)

A Fuzzy is how the Americans at Stanford University describe a student of the humanistic subjects of the humanities. A Techie, on the other hand, is a student who studies engineering and mathematics, physics and chemistry, the so-called “hard sciences”. In the heated discussions about what the economy and businesses need, in order to grow better, public opinion places the emphasis on techies. And in Italy especially, there are many people who complain about the worrying shortages of professionals trained to tackle the new production challenges of the digital world, of that particular dimension of Industry 4.0 which brings together hi tech manufacturing, innovative services big data and the Internet of Things: engineers, precisely – technological experts, IT experts, technical specialists.

The requirements of businesses for a well-qualified workforce open to innovation are certainly well-founded and legitimate: Germans and Americans, the Chinese and Japanese are investing heavily in scientific and technical training and thus have all those techies they need for productivity, competitiveness, and economic growth.

But is that really how things are? Does the challenge of growth, if we truly want it to be “sustainable and balanced”, merely require a plethora of engineers and chemists? And, if we want to look into the matter more closely, what type of engineers and chemists should they be?

In order to find some answers, it is worthwhile looking beyond the usual clichés. And indeed to pause awhile in Stanford, that centre of training excellence in the USA. By picking up a recent book by Scott Hartely: The Fuzzy and the Techie, in fact. Alternatively titled as Why the Liberal Arts will rule the Digital World. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, this is an extremely interesting essay (and was discussed very perspicaciously by a good Italian philosopher, Sebastiano Maffettone, in the “IlSole24Ore” publication of 18th March). For the qualities of its author, first of all: he is not a philosopher nor a man of letters, but a businessman who is an expert in venture capital and innovative start-ups , has spent an intensive work placement with Google and Facebook and possesses a sophisticated technical competence in the world of the new technologies. Hartely’s thesis is clear: big data are nothing if not backed by the human factor, interpreting them and giving them a meaningful structure. We need to add human and humanistic expertise to technology, in order to make it work at its best. And who can do this better than a philosopher, for whom hermeneutics (that is to say, the work of interpreting texts, but also scientific facts) is their daily bread and butter? The algorithms which guide the new machine civilisation must be drafted, modified over time, and interpreted. They need to translate the complexity of elements and behaviours, manage multiple phenomena, and find ways forward through conflicts. The job of a philosopher, precisely. Of someone who understands everything about techniques but who also apprehends and manages their meaning, their locations, and any open questions. And of someone who, specifically in this world marked by technologically highly sophisticated machines, must never forget its humanity and its values. Philosophers and engineers. Or also engineer-philosophers. And poet-engineers. “Study humanities”, then, the Stanford professors advise their students.

Hartely’s message is similar to the call for Renaissance values made by Steve Jobs to American students. And it is indeed in the two words so familiar to Italians – Humanism and Renaissance – that we find the key to a better way of thinking: the Humanists had a complete range of knowledge; they did not separate science from expertise, beauty from mathematics, balanced architectural shapes from town planning, or machines from people. They had a complex and complete set of knowledge, a solid “polytechnical culture”. These are attitudes we need to rediscover. And on which to base a re-launch of “good schooling”.

“Allowing ourselves to be led by artificial intelligence, and by its algorithms, finishes up by turning us into simple machines”, warns Edgar Morin, one of the most important modern philosophers, in his introduction to “Complex thinking” by Mauro Ceruti, Raffaello Cortina Publishers. The enquiry into the direction things are taking and thus into the new phase of high-technology growth itself “requires a pluridisciplinary expertise, which is able to extract, assimilate and integrate areas of knowledge which are still separate, compartmentalised and fragmented. It requires a complex way of thinking, that is to say one which is able to bring together and articulate these areas of knowledge and not simply juxtapose them”.

Technical prowess is not enough, in fact, even for technological growth itself, if such advances are not accompanied by meanings, limits, basic values. If, alongside the “how?”, science and economics do not also ask the questions “why?” and “what for?”.

And from this question too we turn to the value of humanistic expertise, which must be kept very close to competencies.

We will also have this in the best, most productive and competitive companies. “Philosophers within a business make profits surge” was the heading in “Business & Finance”, the weekly economic bulletin of the “la Repubblica” newspaper (23rd April) quoting the English daily paper “The Guardian” and talking about the work of Lou Marinoff, a philosopher corporate advisor for more than twenty years, and of Paolo Cervari, the author, alongside Neri Pollastri, of a successful book, in the context of managerial literature, entitled “The corporate philosopher – philosophical practices for organisations”, published by Apogeo Education. There are crises to be tackled, values which need sharing (responsibility, inclusion, trust, passion, participation), and relationships which need to be interrupted or re-established. And neither managerial practices nor economistic tools can do this; instead, there need to be discussions about the meaning of things which are happening, about community spirit and about the importance of people. And without people who are aware and responsible, there is no business.

This is clearly explained by another corporate philosopher, Roger Steare, a professor at the Cass Business School of City University in London: “People often support the thesis that profit and philosophy are incompatible, but this is a major misunderstanding. The tension in fact is not between philosophy and profit, but between deep wisdom and short-term profit maximisation. What we need to try to create is long-term sustainable value”. An efficient philosophy for good economics and for a business capable of long-term thinking and solid values.

An Atlas designed as a means of exploring innovative pathways between business and work

Having safe and reliable maps is one of the basic principles of any good journey. This applies to companies too.For the company that becomes a business and that ventures in a complex and global, fast and multiform system such as the one in which production organisations currently do business, having good guidelines can change their destiny and growth perspectives. And maps are also necessary for work. Maps that work like orientation for everyone.

“Atlante lavoro. Un modello a supporto delle politiche dell’occupazione e dell’apprendimento permanente” (Work atlas. A model to support employment policies and lifelong learning) is a good read to understand more about

the principles and methods used for the preparation of the model work Atlas put together by Inapp, i.e. the National Institute for the Analysis of Public Policies, that performs the analysis, monitoring and assessment of employment policies and work services, education and training policies, social policies and all those public policies that affect the labour market. The research written by Riccardo Mazzarella, Francesco Mallardi and Rita Porcelli is important to read because the Inapp Atlas is one of the most popular and widely used maps also in the institutional sphere to sort and clarify the situation of the labour market in Italy, its conditions and its prospects. The authors explain that the Atlas “is a model of universal representation of the contents of the work based on the description of activities that are commonly performed in working environments”. An Atlas as a base map, therefore, whose original model has subsequently been supplemented with the aim of gathering information from the world of education and of helping policies in the field of lifelong learning as well as active employment policies.

The authors then describe how the Atlas was built and how it should be implemented (the complete Atlas is available from the http://atlantelavoro.inapp.org/ website), but most of all, the final part of the research illustrates the possible uses of the Atlas as a model for research and a technical tool in practice and in the services of the employment-education system and most of all in lifelong learning.

So, from a map used as a simple guide to avoid taking the wrong turn, the work Atlas thus becomes a tool for building and travelling along unusual roads. Yet another piece of the puzzle towards an increasingly complete and significant corporate culture.

Atlante lavoro Un modello a supporto delle politiche dell’occupazione e dell’apprendimento permanente (Work atlas. A model to support employment policies and lifelong learning)

Riccardo Mazzarella, Francesco Mallardi, Rita Porcelli

SINAPPSI – Connections between research and public policies | Year VII | No. 2-3/2017 | Four-monthly Inapp magazine

Economic geography,beyond traditional boundaries, has a new player: the A4 Region. That vast territory, all around the motorway (from which it takes its name – a creation by Dario Di Vico, the perspicacious and intelligent contributor to the Corriere della Sera newspaper), which winds its way from Piedmont to Friuli, which has its epicentre in the Milan metropolis for expertise and innovative services, which crosses the Via Emilia with its automotive and mechatronic manufacturing and continues towards the East and Middle Europe and then, further on, towards the countries of the Orient. It is the most dynamic economic area of Italy, with entirely European characteristics and dimensions, similar levels of productivity and wealth, and a robust capacity for innovation. Innovation, moreover, based on the real economy, on new medium tech and hi tech manufacturing, strongly characterised by state-of-the-art services and well connected along the major means of communication between East and West and North and South.

The “A4 Region” as a European region, therefore, bypassing the indications of administrative geography, that distinguishes Piedmont and Lombardy, Emilia and Veneto, up to Friuli. A region that finds if anything substantial unifying features, albeit through territories that are rich in differences and complexities (and with a political dimension which now sees strong local dominance of Lega and the centre-right, except for “M5S” Turin and the regions of Piedmont and Emilia and the Municipality of Milan which are centre-left).

It is the territory of the most innovative industrial districts, which are turning into meta-districts and “long supply chains”, following the flows of production re-composition and of the supply chains according to the strategies of large and medium-to-large companies present in Italy and open to the world (Fca with Ferrari and Maserati, Techint, Pirelli, Siemens, Prysmian, Bayer, Audi with Ducati, General Electric, Vacchi’s Ima and Seragnoli’s Coesia, quality chemical firms such as Squinzi’s Mapei and excellent pharmaceutical concerns, Bracco and Dompè, Marchesini and Zambon, but also the groups with a public holding, Ferrovie railway and Fincantieri, Leonardo and the Poste mail, and the construction giants such as Salini-Impregilo and Maire Technimont, who bring Italian know-how and expertise to major international public works). It is the European area where, precisely here with particular originality, the former Ford-based industrial traditions were transformed the most, becoming hybrid with the new digital dimensions that build unprecedented relations between the productions of the new-factory, logistics, research, services and where high levels of competitiveness are getting to grips with the necessary dimensions of sustainability and of economic and social inclusion.

In the relationship between changing places and continuous flows between territories and the world, original industrial relations are being experimented with, taking on a concrete form in employment contracts (mechanical engineering, chemicals) at national level but especially at corporate and territorial level, linking wages to welfare, productivity to training, income to quality of life and work.

In short, there is a whole world that is changing, in the A4 Region. This is also documented in the latest Cerved-Confindustria report (Il Sole24Ore newspaper, 5th May) about SMEs, small and medium-sized enterprises, taking a snapshot of the resumption of investment and turnover primarily in the areas of Central and Northern Italy: the levels preceding the great crisis have not yet been recovered, but the dynamism is particularly accentuated in both the North West (with record figures of new companies opening up) as well as in the North East. With an essential indication from Emilia, in terms of the relationship between competitiveness and social cohesion: Pietro Ferrari, Chairman of Confindustria Emilia-Romagna, recalls the “alliance for work” signed between companies and trade unions in summer 2015 to reach “full and good employment” by 2020 and notes that “there are no strong companies in territories that are not strong and vice-versa.” Just as Assolombarda provides another interesting indication, the one about the “beautiful factory” i.e. one that is well designed, safe, transparent, sustainable from an ecological and social perspective and in which the pursuit of safety and quality of work is closely linked with productivity and competitiveness.

This dynamic North has another ambition: to stimulate, to act like a driving engine for the remainder of the country, which is slower and more uncertain in its growth.

Carlo Bonomi explained this well in an interview a few days ago: “Italy needs Milan just as much as Milan needs Italy. Selfishly, we are doing well here. But I am afraid of the rebound effect. This Milan that is rushing, moving out there in the world, cannot continue to do so by widening the gap from the rest of Italy. We cannot afford a country at two speeds or even Milan will end up being pulled back. We are bound to the country for politics, public finance, bureaucracy, the capacity to attract investment. So far we have stayed afloat when it comes to exports and internationalisation, but domestic demand has been at a standstill for ten years. It should be made to restart” (Corriere della Sera newspaper, 5th May).

The challenge, therefore, is the entirely political, about perspectives. This is precisely the dimension of the so-called “question of the North”. As a national question, not as a territorial claim.

This North now asks, specifically to continue to deal with the international economic challenges affecting its businesses, for concrete acts of good governance, under the banner of sustainable development and of European perspectives. It looks on with concern at the political vacuum that seems to be hitting the country, at the failure to reach any satisfactory outcome to political negotiations, at the lack of concrete signs of the measures promised to a disorientated public opinion.

At a time when the EU is discussing its budget and European public policies are being defined, the absence of an authoritative and far-sighted Italian Government is being felt full-on.

The Regions of the North, even if on different trajectories, from Veneto to Lombardy, from Emilia to Piedmont, had started dealings with the central government, on the subject of autonomy, to pursue greater balance and better tax and administrative efficiency. There are risks, of fragmentation of the measures, but also opportunities in the closer link between territories and local government. But even that path is now blocked. It is urgent that it should start up again.

The trouble is that at national level little is discussed about the economy and much, too much, about oblique alliances and new elections. The best, most internationalised businesses, the most competitive ones on international markets can continue to move forward, even if a little lopsided, even in the absence of government. But the rest of the economy cannot. And the danger is that the fragile recovery in progress may slow down or stop outright. With serious consequences on employment, on income, on the prospects for the future. Those who move around in the economy world know this only too well. Just as much political awareness is lacking.

The time is now ripe for artificial intelligence, now omnipresent in public speeches and economic practices, to be named by its synthetic acronym, AI (Artificial Intelligence). From robots, which are playing an ever greater role in industry and logistics, to surgery and even in the kitchen, and in domestic activities. Billions of data criss-crossing each other in extremely rapid timeframes, generating connections for possible knowledge. “A cyber-space which is continually growing and changing, creating extraordinary opportunities but also major risks”, is how it is described by Stefano Venturi, chair and managing director of Hewlett Packard Italy, who calculates that in 2020 there will be 6 billion Internet users, but also 200 billion sensors connected to the Web. Sensors which are infinitely numerous and growing in numbers, through which pass data and connections which are indispensable for the Internet of things, for Industry 4.0 and for other digital activities, but also “dumb objects” which Can be used or attacks by hackers, for security violations of companies and nations, and for the intrusions and manipulations of the sophisticated cybercriminals who assail, amongst other things, our privacy and our liberty. Innovation has many faces, and contrasting ones.

What can be done, in such a changing landscape and one marked by extraordinary brightness of progress and alarming darkness of crisis? We can try to be neither apocalyptic nor integrationist, to quote an aphorism by Umberto Eco. Neither techno-sceptical nor techno-enthusiast. But if anything, to show that we are ready, with a love of expertise and critical intelligence, to consider every aspect of the spread of the new technologies. With one basic consideration: “digital natives” are well able to navigate the digital world, and possess the competencies to exploit a major part of its resources, but those competencies do not automatically equate to expertise, much less an ability for profound judgement. Expertise is the key to everything. Critical intelligence, that is to say, one which is aware of the risks and opportunities.

What can be done, then? We might spend all day in front of a computer, working, doing research, reading, writing. We might also be submerged by e-mails and messages. But perhaps, precisely during these so controversial times, it would be worthwhile withdrawing our attention for a moment from our digital tasks to dedicate some time and attention to a good book. Such as “Homo premium” by Massimo Gaggi, published by Laterza, an example of clear ability for description, for analysis and for judgement, refined during the course of a long experience by the author in the USA as editorialist of the “Corriere della Sera” newspaper.

Gaggi recounts “how technology divides us”. He claims that “subjugated as we are by the fascination of the infinite possibilities of the digital universe, we have failed to notice how unjust, brutal and concentrated the new economy born from the innovations of Silicon Valley has become”. And he highlights, for example, from the very start, the perspective of Evan Williams, founder of Twitter: “We thought that we were gifting people the freedom to address the whole world. Instead, the mechanism which is at the heart of the Internet has broken. I myself was convinced that once everyone had been put in a position where they could freely exchange information and ideas, the world would have automatically become a better place. I was wrong”.

In fact, the time of digital innocence is over. And, precisely because we are aware of the importance and positivity of the “digital revolution”, we need to be very careful in assessing the problems which it brings with it, in particular as regards the world of work: robots and algorithms are eliminating traditional activities, not only in factories but also in the sectors of the traditional professions (the lawyer and the doctor, the journalist and the manager with the more repetitive functions) but we are not yet fully aware what and how many new jobs will be created. McKinsey, in their 2017 Report on artificial intelligence, estimated that 49% of existing jobs are at risk of replacement by machines, but in the 2018 Report Notes from AI frontier, they speak of 6 thousand billion euros of “new value”, with consequent employment openings which could have a major positive impact (“la Repubblica /Affari&Finanza”, 23rd April).

It is hard to say exactly how things will develop. It is up to us to understand, over time, what is changing and to try to regulate the processes involved (in this, there is an extraordinary role of responsibility to be played by politics). And, as Gaggi suggests, we also need to look beyond industry and the workplace into everything which relates to social stability, health, learning, and indeed the very structures of democracy. Gaggi explains that inequalities have grown, with the arrival of the new type of homo premium (the person who lives inside the hi tech world, who decides its dynamics and who enjoys its benefits), “not only very rich, but highly endowed including physically and mentally, in comparison with those who remain behind” and the “socially disadvantaged groups who already today not only enjoy a more modest existence, but also live on less on average, as a result of a series of sanitary, social and nutritional factors and factors linked to education”.

Nevertheless, there is a growing critical conscience in relation to the digital giants, the Big Tech enterprises, Facebook (with all its burden of errors linked to the relationship with Cambridge Analytica and the inappropriate use of data, of which press articles abound) but also Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple, with their passion for algorithms which “by creating an architecture for the choices of every human being, end up eroding our free will”. Even though the signals are mixed. From a radical refusal of such technologies to the illusion that blockchain, the certification system for which a trace always remains, as well as driving forward the dangerous phenomenon of cryptocurrencies, could also change participation behaviours and democracy, in a move towards “direct digital democracy”: another condition where it is difficult to see clearly. Here in Italy, in the context of the current political debate, there are several aspects of it about which we need to have very carefully reasoned discussions.

In essence, we need to reinforce the dimensions of thinking. And of critical ability. This is also what is suggested by Tom Nichols, a professor at Harvard, in an essential book: “The Death of Expertise”, published by Luiss, in his analysis of “the era of incompetence and the risks for democracy”. There is no need to give in to “the society of the ignorant”, that is to say the lazy attitude of those who prefer beliefs to science, or to the widespread distrust of technicians and experts (the wretched arguments about vaccinations, which have packed days of recent debates, including political ones, are just one of its manifestations). If anything, we need to insist on close attention to science, as both a responsibility and a source of expertise. And not to be misguided by the tensions and slapdash attitudes of those who are committed blindly, and mistakenly, to the digital culture. Even digital culture must be a critical culture, just as Karl Popper maintained for scientific culture.

Therefore we also need a new “pact” between the élites and the masses, by suggesting, alongside Nichols, that it should actually be the scientists and intellectuals with their robust levels of knowledge who come out of their ivory towers of privilege and abstruse knowledge to listen with humility and attentiveness, to explain, to try to teach, to give new reasons for learning and for civil virtues. Because democracy needs popular expression to be taken properly into account, but also translated, interpreted and transformed into political choices and government actions. In times of Web-induced lazy thinking, we need to turn to the lesson of Jurgen Habermas about “discursive public opinion”, that is to say able to make a critical public statement. This is our biggest current responsibility.

A book contains a collection of thoughts and recommendations arising from the comparison between the school system and the business system

Young people, but who are prepared. Entrepreneurs and managers, and also executives and freelancers. Everyone. At a time of a fast economy and digitalisation of production, as well as a return to social commitment and also the territory of businesses and institutions, enthusiasm (when there is any) is not enough, as preparation and an awareness of what is being doing are also necessary. At all levels. Also in the business system. It is also a question of educational programmes. For this reason, reading “Una testa pensante è meglio di una testa piena. Una ricerca sul ruolo della scuola nella formazione dei top manager” (A thinking head is better than a full head. Research on the role of the school in educating top managers) by Giuseppe Monteduro can be useful for many.

The basic idea behind the book is extensive: to boost the development of Italy, the Country needs its best youths to be able to invent new businesses or to join existing companies and lead them to success or improve their performance.

There are two parties concerned: on the one hand, the school and education system, on the other the business system. In the midst lies the objective: to educate good corporate culture.

Monteduro has therefore asked top Italian managers directly what, based on their own experience, the best education is and what skills are required to thrive.

The book has a clear structure. It starts with identifying what a company is (not from an organisational perspective but rather a sociological and a human one), then moves on immediately to the definition of the figure of the manager and then to the examination of the school approach (with the debate between humanistic training and corporate needs). The book then makes a comparison between the opinions of managers  and those of educators.

The Book by Monteduro should be read carefully starting with one of its initial considerations: “The ability to be a manager, i.e. to take on apical positions within a company, such as that of a very famous Chief Executive Officer and with the opportunity of accessing substantial remuneration, is not the mechanical outcome of a particular educational choice rather than another”.In short, people grow within a company as they do in life, because they are in fact people and not machines. Just like the title of the book itself expresses so effectively: better a thinking head than a full head.

Una testa pensante è meglio di una testa piena. Una ricerca sul ruolo della scuola nella formazione dei top manager (A thinking head is better than a full head. Research on the role of the school in educating top managers)

Giuseppe Monteduro

EGEA, 2018