Alexandre Rambaud

In this presentation, we firstly give a critical analysis of Natural Capital (NC), in order to clarify the differences between its economic and ecological approaches. Secondly, we connect this debate with the concept of capital in accounting. We argue that accounting theory provides a relevant framework to structure the debate on NC and to implement its ecological conceptualisation. Thus, in the first part, we question the notion of “capital” itself and assert that “capital” is not prima facie money or a mean of production but is a type of power (Nitzan & Bichler, 2009). Indeed, this concept is consubstantial of Modernity, characterized by the Subject/Object dichotomy (Latour, 2004), and of capitalism – a particular modality of the Modern cosmology –, defined as a societal institution based on the unlimited expansion of the rational mastery of Subjects over Objects (Castoriadis, 1998): Capital is the operationalization of this rational mastery. Therefore, by definition, NC is not another type of capital: NC is the natural part of Capital, i.e. the recognition that the Capital partially stems from environmental Objects and so that, these Objects, in the same time, are means under the control of Subjects and contribute to the growth of the power and welfare of these last ones. Now, in economics, Capital has two fundamental forms that we will detail: the fundist one and the materialist one (Hicks, 1974). Their application to NC can clarify the concepts of weak and strong sustainability: in particular, strong sustainability is a specific materialist conceptualisation of NC and so remains based on a capitalist approach. In these conditions, the utilization of the notion of NC by ecologists gives raise to confusion, because it does not rely on capitalism. Ecological NC (ENC) is not “welfare-based” but “stuff-based” (Norton, 2005), i.e. ENC is really another type of capital, whose role is to focus on the preservation of environmental entities. So we will explain what a capital is in this context. In the second part, we firstly claim that double-entry bookkeeping accounting is relevant to reformulate the different viewpoints about NC. Indeed, for capitalism, firms are automated tools which manage some assets in order to develop the Capital of shareholders, the “real” Subjects. Thus, at the corporate level, the economic notion of Capital is not a liability, whose specific conservation implies accountability issues, but is an asset. Therefore the capitalist NC is also an asset, a mere mean. Now, for traditional accounting, capital is a liability. The standard accounting capital is money: its maintenance is the cornerstone of accounting and led to the creation of powerful instruments, like the planned depreciation. So we argue that ENC must also be seen as a liability: therefore, at the corporate level, the difference between a capitalist and an ecological NC relies on the difference between assets and liabilities. In these conditions, we finally suggest that the development of an ecological conceptualisation of NC naturally rests on the extension of the traditional accounting maintenance instruments to this new capital (cf. (Rambaud & Richard, 2013). References
Castoriadis, C. (1998). The Imaginary Institution of Society. (K. Blamey, Trans.) (p. 426). MIT Press.
Hicks, J. R. (1974). Capital Controversies: Ancient and Modern. American Economic Review, 64(2), 307–316.
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy (p. 307). Harvard University Press.
Nitzan, J., & Bichler, S. (2009). Capital as Power. A Study of Order and Creorder (p. 463). Routledge.
Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability (p. 607). The University of Chicago Press.
Rambaud, A., & Richard, J. (2015). The Triple Depreciation Line ( TDL ) against the Triple Bottom Line ( TBL ): Towards a genuine integrated reporting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting.

Today's sustainable finance mainly relies on the extension of a particular classical capital theory to extra-financial types of capital (in particular human and natural). We call (and justify it) this mainstream theory, the Fisherian-(falsified) Hicksian approach. After a critical analysis of this model, we claim that this way of conceptualising sustainable finance is finally unsustainable. At the same time, we also defend the idea that there is a convergence between ecological-based sustainability (which we can call by definition a genuine sustainability) and the extension of the traditional accounting framework to extra-financial types of capital. Therefore, we propose to structure a sustainable finance from this perspective (which we call CARES, for Capital Approach Resting on Ecological-based Sustainability): after having defined how to operationalise and theorize such a sustainable accounting, thanks to the " Triple Depreciation Line " model (Rambaud & Richard, 2015), we use this model to redefine the notion of free cash-flows to make them " sustainable ". We finally discuss the manner they can be used for financing purposes.

As an introduction, in a first part, we give a critical analysis of the standard Human
Capital theory, with the help of some “traditional” accounting concepts. In particular, we show
that this theory is based on a (deliberate) confusion between assets and capital. In order to avoid
this issue, we introduce the “Triple Depreciation Line” (TDL) (financial) accounting model,
developed in (Rambaud & Richard, 2015), as a concrete way to design an accounting model
able to treat “Human Capital”, as a real accounting capital – a matter of concern – that firms
have to protect and maintain. Therefore, in a second part, after a brief presentation of this
accounting model, we explain how to apply it to the “Human Capital” case. This application
allows a discussion about some key issues about this notion and the difference between the
standard perspective on Human Capital and the “accounting” one. Finally, we present some
important consequences of this accounting model for the Human Capital: the disappearance of
the concept of wage and the possibility to report repeated uses of the Human Capital directly in
the balance sheet.

The ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (TBL) is a major and increasingly used socio-environmental accounting framework. However, critical academic examinations of this model have been remained scarce and most importantly, no real alternatives have been developed. Thus this theoretical paper provides a contribution to fill this gap. Through a critical analysis of the TBL, we argue that it suffers from severe limitations. In particular, it does not protect human and natural capital (HNC). As an answer to these problems, we propose and discuss another accounting framework, the ‘Triple Depreciation Line’ (TDL), which extends to HNC the powerful capitalist accounting tool for preserving financial capital – the historical cost accounting (HCA) and its planned depreciation. To this end, we analyse and (re-)define the concept of capital in an ecological accounting context. We clearly specify the assumptions on which the TDL relies, to facilitate comparisons or dialogues with other accounting models and to avoid misunderstanding as in the case of the TBL. These axioms concern what we call the ‘social’ (axioms SA1–2) and ‘corporate’ (axioms AA1–4) capital maintenance. While the two first appeal to the most precise ontological investigation possible of HNC, the others imply mainly the recourse to the HCA and its depreciation.

The problem of inter-generational preservation and management of socio-environmental entities, like
biodiversity, and so, the valuation of these entities for their own sake, is a central issue for
sustainability. The ecocentric approach of Sustainable Development (SD) tackles this problematic by
introducing the ethical concept of “intrinsic value” of an entity, which rests upon the question “should
we treat this entity as an end in itself ?”. Besides, the orthodox conceptualization of SD, notably based
on neoclassical economics, “translates” this intrinsic value into the economic notion of “existence
value” of an entity. This value stems from the idea that individuals can have a benefit from “the mere
knowledge that [this entity] is preserved or continues to exist” (in (Krutilla, 1967)), independently of
any use of it. Existence value is also a part of the Total Economic Value (cf (D. W. Pearce, Markandya,
& Barbier, 1989)⁠ ) and, as notably argued by M. S. Common, R. K. Blamey and T. W. Norton,
“existence value […] is particularly […] relevant to sustainability questions. [… Of the values of
Total Economic Value], only existence value aligns directly with this concern”. (in (Common, Blamey,
& Norton, 1993)⁠ )
In these conditions, in the first part of this talk, I will present the main arguments which make the
existence value an essential ingredient of the orthodox approach of SD. I will then discuss the
relevance to integrate this type of value into firms, notably into corporate accounting. I will stress the
conceptual, economic and accounting issues raised by this incorporation, especially those related to
the assessment of existence value. Indeed, existence value cannot be estimated on a market: only
Contingent Valuations are able to reveal it, but this technique poses a problem of reliability.
Now, SD is usually divided into three orientations ((Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause, 1995), (Stubbs &
Cocklin, 2008)⁠ or (Clifton, 2010)⁠ ): an orthodox one, an ecocentric one and what we can call a
Third Way, named the sustaincentric, reformist or ecological one, often described as the genuine
sustainable approach. Thus, from the problematics raised in the first part, I will propose in a second
part another approach to existence value and its integration into firms, in line with the third orientation
of SD. In order to take the existence value seriously, this re-conceptualization will notably require a
real ontological reflection in a Latourian way (Latour, 1999).

This paper is a theoretical contribution to CSR. In the first part, we present the main theoretical propositions for a better politicization of firms, and discuss the gaps between CSR and Corporate Citizenship conceptions and effective political participation of corporations. We distinguish two main positions that analyse these concepts: theories that recognize only individuals as citizenship holders and theories that recognize complex organizations as holders of a specific citizenship. We argue that a dialectical approach and a political dialogue between actors, is a relevant methodology to integrate smoothly the new regulative agents. In the second part, we define what could be a genuine Political CSR able to face up to the 21 st  century issues, like uncertainty, pluralism or the legitimacy crisis. As an application, we define a Political CSR model, which relies on a dialectical processual methodology. A novelty of this contribution is to bring out the "instituting ability of corporations" beyond "instituted corporations", in the way C. Castoriadis brought out the “instituting society” beyond the “instituted society”. Another originality of our methodology consists in integrating an endogenous ontological questioning about the involved actors, like corporations. We also discuss the main expected outcomes of this type of model.

This article, based on a tutorial given for the 26th ”Journées
d’Arithmétiques Faibles” (Weak Arithmetics Days), deals with a presentation of o-minimality. It is divided in two parts: the first one is an attempt to give an overview of this theory; with this aim in view, we draw up a non-exhaustive list of common o-minimal structures, of some properties of o-minimality (without proofs) and of current applications of this theory, notably in Weak Arithmetics. The second part focuses on some remarks about o-minimal structures through model theory; we give at the same time some classical methods of model theory.

Cette thèse étudie l’intégration systématique d’entités environnementales pour « elles-mêmes » dans la comptabilité générale d’entreprise. Nous resituons premièrement les termes de cette question (Q) dans le cadre des rapports Homme/Nature via une analyse de la Modernité (Latour, 1997). Nous en déduisons trois approches-types de Q : une Moderne Orthodoxe centrée sur l’Objectivation, et rapprochée du Capitalisme (Castoriadis, 2013), incluant notamment la valeur d’existence néoclassique (Krutilla, 1967) – dont nous discutons les modalités, raisons et obstacles pour son incorporation comptable ; une Moderne renvoyant à l’Ethique Environnementale, où les entités non-humaines sont Subjectivées via la valeur intrinsèque ; une a-Moderne Ecologique Relationnelle. Nous montrons ensuite que la ligne narrative centrale de la comptabilité financière « classique » est celle du maintien d’une entité particulière, le « capital », et nous argumentons que trois capitaux différents structurent les théories comptables financières actuelles : le Capital (Capitaliste) Fundiste, le Capital (Capitaliste) Matérialiste (Hicks, 1974) ou le capital-monnaie. De cette analyse ressort l’idée que les différentes notions de résultat comptable sont assimilables à une extension de la notion de profit Hicksien selon Lindhal (Hicks, 1939) à ces trois capitaux. A partir de cette étude, nous proposons une redéfinition de la notion de « capital », apte à l’élargir à des questionnements extra-financiers, et nous construisons un Modèle Comptable Intégratif (MCI), systématisant l’extension des états financiers à tout « capital » ainsi redéfini, à partir du principe de maintien des capitaux. Nous montrons notamment que la valeur d’un capital (financier ou non) peut toujours être appréhendée comme étant égale au coût de maintien (Gray, 1992; Richard, 2012) de ce capital : en particulier, nous relions la notion de valeur actualisée au coût de maintien (non actualisé) du Capital Fundiste. Nous rattachons finalement l’intégration des entités environnementales pour « elles-mêmes », selon chaque approche-type, au maintien de certains « capitaux » (tels que redéfinis) et appliquons le MCI à ceux-ci pour obtenir des modèles comptables (bilans et comptes de résultats) répondant de façon méthodique et systématique à Q.
Castoriadis, C. (2013). La “rationalité” du capitalisme. In Quelle Démocratie? Tome 2 - Ecrits politiques 1945-1997 (pp. 627–656). Editions du Sandre.
Gray, R. (1992). Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 399–425.
Hicks, J. R. (1939). Value and Capital: An Inquiry Into Some Fundamental Principles of Economic Theory. Clarendon Press.
Hicks, J. R. (1974). Capital Controversies: Ancient and Modern. American Economic Review, 64(2), 307–316.
Krutilla, J. V. (1967). Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review, 57(4), 777–786.
Latour, B. (1997). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes : Essai d'anthropologie symétrique (2e ed.). La Découverte.
Richard, J. (2012). Comptabilité et Développement Durable. Economica.

This thesis studies from the point of view of model theory and topology certain classes of real functions : restricted quasi-analytic functions. Here, a restricted quasi-analytic class E will consist on the one hand of a ring of real functions C ∞, which vanish outside a compact box, containing the indicator functions of every compact box and which is closed by composition, rational powers, implicit functions and C ∞ division. On the other hand, we will require every C ∞ function around 0 either to vanish around 0 or to have a finite multiplicity. For such a given class E, we consider the language L which contains the langage of rings, a symbol for each function of E and one more for the order ; we study the
universal theory T in the language L such that T contains the theory of ordered rings and the universal axioms which define the indicator functions of compact boxes, rational powers, implicit functions, C ∞ division, the simple diagram of R (real numbers) and the boundedness of the functions of E on a compact box. We prove that T is equivalent to the complete theory of R in the language L and is model-complete. In particular, T admits quantifiers elimination because T is universal. Furthermore, T is o-minimal and admits local cellular decompositions in terms of E.

Nous étudions ici la question du capital, d'un point de vue comptable et économique, dans la « Summa » de Luca Pacioli, le Père de la comptabilité moderne. Nous proposons une analyse historique du capital avant Pacioli, permettant d'expliciter certains traits saillants de cette notion à l'époque où est rédigée la « Summa ». Nous réalisons ensuite une étude, a priori inédite, du capital dans cet ouvrage : nous mobilisons en effet, dans ce but, certaines parties de la « Summa », en-dehors de la célèbre partie « Particulis de computis et scripturis » où sont présentés théoriquement pour la première fois le capital comptable et la partie double. Notre but est de voir dans quelle mesure Pacioli est un « pont entre deux mondes (ancien et Moderne) » en ce qui concerne la question du capital.

In this article, we study using model theory certain classes of real functions: restricted quasi-analytic classes. Let E be such a class of functions, we introduce a natural language L, including E and a theory T in L such that T admits quantifiers elimination, is o-minimal and ...