Multi-capital accounting: to what end?

Purpose The aim of this contribution is to offer an economist’s perspective on multi-capital accounting development. The author reflects on the use of multi-capital models in his own experience and stresses the areas of multi-capital accounting that are still in contention. Design/methodology/approach The author reviews four streams in the literature to emphasise the characteristics that multi-capital accounting should have. The author then reviews four representative models along the weak–strong sustainability continuum to reflect on their current limits and perspectives. The author finally offers some criticism of multi-capital accounting and stresses the direction it could take. Findings The author observes that there is a great variety of multi-capital accounting models that offer diverging perspectives on sustainability. Issues related to the role of physical stocks, physical limits, sustainability paths and valuation are treated differently across models. As a result, multi-capital models are not fit for every institutional context and might be better suited for regional-level or ecosystem accounting. Research limitations/implications The author suggests that authors from the pragmatic and critical schools of accounting could usefully work together to overcome the limitations of existing models, notably the joint accounting of the cost of action and the cost of inaction. Practical implications Authors of multi-capital models should work together on efforts to scale up their method in suitable contexts. More work could also be done on altering financial accounting in line with sustainability accounting. A necessary first step here would be the compilation of a science-based database for asset, liabilities, impact and dependencies valuation. Social implications Multi-capital accounting could be applied to new bodies in charge of physical stock management. Governments aiming for the development of multi-capital accounting should consider models fit for their own goals. Multi-capital accounting could also support global coalitions for stewardship of critical ecosystems involving diverse stakeholders. Originality/value This paper offers an original viewpoint on multi-capital accounting.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal
Published
2025-09-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-12-2023-0890
Primary Topic
Capital Investment and Risk Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Multi-capital accounting: to what end?

Louis Dupuy
Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal
Capital Investment and Risk Analysis
article

Multi-capital accounting: to what end?

Louis Dupuy
article en

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this contribution is to offer an economist’s perspective on multi-capital accounting development. The author reflects on the use of multi-capital models in his own experience and stresses the areas of multi-capital accounting that are still in contention. Design/methodology/approach The author reviews four streams in the literature to emphasise the characteristics that multi-capital accounting should have. The author then reviews four representative models along the weak–strong sustainability continuum to reflect on their current limits and perspectives. The author finally offers some criticism of multi-capital accounting and stresses the direction it could take. Findings The author observes that there is a great variety of multi-capital accounting models that offer diverging perspectives on sustainability. Issues related to the role of physical stocks, physical limits, sustainability paths and valuation are treated differently across models. As a result, multi-capital models are not fit for every institutional context and might be better suited for regional-level or ecosystem accounting. Research limitations/implications The author suggests that authors from the pragmatic and critical schools of accounting could usefully work together to overcome the limitations of existing models, notably the joint accounting of the cost of action and the cost of inaction. Practical implications Authors of multi-capital models should work together on efforts to scale up their method in suitable contexts. More work could also be done on altering financial accounting in line with sustainability accounting. A necessary first step here would be the compilation of a science-based database for asset, liabilities, impact and dependencies valuation. Social implications Multi-capital accounting could be applied to new bodies in charge of physical stock management. Governments aiming for the development of multi-capital accounting should consider models fit for their own goals. Multi-capital accounting could also support global coalitions for stewardship of critical ecosystems involving diverse stakeholders. Originality/value This paper offers an original viewpoint on multi-capital accounting.

Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal
Université de Bordeaux (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Capital Investment and Risk Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.