Search results

The study makes an attempt to understand the regional state of depletion of natural capital stock based on the World Bank's recent data on natural resource depletion by following comparative growth analysis using growth accounting method and exploratory econometric approach. The study also considers two regions namely South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa for comparative analysis. Although the extent of protected areas is increasing in different regions of the world, the extent of forest land areas is declining in different regions. The study also intends to determine the role of deforestation and land-use change, habitat fragmentation, encroachment, rapid population growth, and urbanization in explaining cross-country variations of natural resource depletion. Besides, it assesses the temporal movement of this natural resource depletion for the most vulnerable countries, namely low-income economies. Results show that the two major regions of low-income countries do exhibit depletion of natural capital stock such as agricultural land, forests, and subsoil assets in per capita terms. These results have important implications for poverty reduction and fulfillment of Sustainable development goals (SDGs) of low-income countries.

The World Bank report Changing Wealth of Nations 2018 is only the most recent reminder of how much poorer Africa is becoming, losing more than US$100 billion annually from minerals, oil, and gas extraction, according to (quite conservatively framed) environmentally sensitive adjustments of wealth. With popular opposition to socioeconomic, political, and ecological abuses rising rapidly in Africa, a robust debate may be useful: between those practicing anti-extractivist resistance, and those technocrats in states and international agencies who promote “ecological modernization” strategies. The latter typically aim to generate full-cost environmental accounting, and to do so they typically utilize market-related techniques to value, measure, and price nature. Between the grassroots and technocratic standpoints, a layer of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) do not yet appear capable of grappling with anti-extractivist politics with either sufficient intellectual tools or political courage. They instead revert to easier terrains within ecological modernization: revenue transparency, project damage mitigation, Free Prior and Informed Consent (community consultation and permission), and other assimilationist reforms. More attention to political-economic and political-ecological trends – including the end of the commodity super-cycle, worsening climate change, financial turbulence and the potential end of a 40-year long globalization process – might assist anti-extractivist activists and NGO reformers alike. Both could then gravitate to broader, more effective ways of conceptualizing extraction and unequal ecological exchange, especially in Africa’s hardest hit and most extreme sites of devastation.

Drawing upon Alfred Sohn-Rethel's work, we argue that, just as capitalism produces abstract labor, it coproduces both abstract mind and abstract life. Abstract mind is the split between mind and nature and between subject/observer and observed object that characterizes scientific epistemology. Abstract mind reflects an abstracted objectified world of nature as a means to be exploited. Biological life is rendered as abstract life by capitalist exploitation and by the reification and technologization of organisms by contemporary technoscience. What Alberto Toscano has called “the culture of abstraction” imposes market rationality onto nature and the living world, disrupting biotic communities and transforming organisms into what Finn Bowring calls “functional bio-machines.”

This chapter gives in “Introduction to the Human Capital Issue” a critical analysis of the standard (economic) Human Capital (HC) theory, with the help of some “traditional” (founding) accounting concepts. From this study, to avoid the accounting and social issues highlighted in “Introduction to the Human Capital Issue,” we present, in “The “Triple Depreciation Line” Model and the Human Capital,” the “Triple Depreciation Line” (TDL) accounting model, developed by Rambaud & Richard (2015b), and we apply it to “HC,” but viewed as genuine accounting capital – a matter of concern – that firms have to protect and maintain.

From a critical review of literature on HC theory, from the origin of this concept to its connection with sustainable development, this chapter provides a conceptual discussion on this notion and on the differences/common points between capital and assets in accounting and economics. Then, it uses a normative accounting model (TDL), initially introduced to extend, in a consistent way, financial accounting to extra-financial issues.

This analysis shows at first that the standard (economic) HC theory is based on a (deliberate) confusion between assets and capital, in line with a standard economic perspective on capital. Therefore, this particular viewpoint implies: an accounting issue for reporting HC, because “traditional” accounting capital and assets are clearly isolated concepts; and a societal issue, because this confusion leads to the idea that HC does not mean that human beings are “capital” (i.e., essential), or have to be maintained, even protected, for themselves. It only means that human beings are mere productive means. The application of the TDL model to an accounting redefinition of HC allows a discussion about some key issues involved in the notion of HC, including the difference between the standard and “accounting” narratives on HC. Finally, this chapter presents some important consequences of this accounting model for HC: the disappearance of the concept of wage and the possibility of reporting repeated (or continuous) use of HC directly in the balance sheet.

This chapter contributes to the literature on HC and in general on capital and assets, by stressing in particular some confusions and misunderstandings in these concepts. It fosters a cross-disciplinary approach of these issues, through economic, accounting, and sustainability viewpoints. This analysis also participates in the development of the TDL model and the research project associated. It finally proposes another perspective, more sustainable, on HC and HC reporting.

The stakes of HC are important in today’s economics, accounting, and sustainable development. The different conceptualizations of HC, and the narratives behind it, may have deep social and corporate implications. In this context, this analysis provides a conceptual, and practicable, framework to develop a more sustainable concept of HC and to enhance working conditions, internal business relations, integrated reporting. As an outcome of these ideas, this chapter also questions the standard corporate governance models.

This chapter gives an original perspective on HC, and in general on the concept of capital, combining an economic and an accounting analysis. It also develops a new way to report HC, using an innovative integrated accounting model, the TDL model.

When it comes to measuring and managing corporate impacts on the multiple capitals (financial, natural, social, human and built), Impact Management and Impact Valuation have emerged as best practices in the interrelated fields of corporate social responsibility and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) investing. These practices have two significant shortcomings that are largely unacknowledged: they don't attend to ecological and social thresholds (or the carrying capacities of capitals); and they assume impacts on the various capitals are fungible, and therefore impacts on one capital can substitute for impacts on another capital, which clearly does not reflect reality.

This chapter proposes solutions to both gaps: respect ‘critical capital’ thresholds to retain vital capital stocks necessary to fuel continuing flows of value (and avoid systemic collapses of capital resources), and aggregate impacts across capitals via the common factor of ‘progress towards sustainability’. These steps will mature the fields towards the creation of System Value, where capitals are continually regenerated sustainably in ways that support healthy living systems.

The “time value of money principle,” a building block of finance theory and practice, states that money today is worth more than money in the future. In this chapter, we argue that this principle is not consistent with intergenerational equity or sustainability.

We demonstrate that standard capital budgeting negatively affects sustainability by presenting two numerical examples and by discussing the role of financial markets in the time value of money and the discount rate. We then discuss Silvio Gesell’s (1862–1930) concept of Freigeld as a possible alternative framework for a “socially optimal” discount rate.

We show that the time value of money principle, as employed in standard capital budgeting techniques, tends to reject sustainable projects (that only break even in the long run) and accept unsustainable projects (that break even in the short term but entail significant long-term negative externalities). We find that fiat currencies offer interesting perspectives in the context of sustainability.

We show that money, interest rates and investment valuation techniques are not merely technical tools, but have important institutional, social, and political attributes. Taken together with current global demands for sustainability, this observation could justify a new research agenda seeking to redefine current capital budgeting techniques.

We stress that the “time value of money principle” should not be viewed as a technical tool, but rather, as a social and political construct. We argue that the principle needs to be reconsidered given the current global sustainability crisis.

The economics literature considers that externalities indicate a market failure, to which policy makers should respond by introducing optimal tax incentives and regulation. At the same time, the management studies literature has proposed a set of initiatives to align corporate governance with sustainability principles. This chapter examines an issue that concerns both these literatures, that is, the relationship between sustainability and the time value of money.