Non-Dual Economics

Volume II — Foundations: The Paradigm and the Science

THE PLATE

A watercolour of golden hills crossed by field lines, sunflowers in the foreground under a wide sky. — Plate II.03The Line Somebody Drew.The boundary is not in the landscape. It is in the drawing. And somebody downstream of this pen is already being paid by where it lands.

THE LETTER

There is a lineage behind this chapter and it is better to name it in the first paragraph than to have it discovered in the fourth. The word non-dual comes out of a contemplative tradition — Nāgārjuna in the second century, the Advaita commentators, and a long line of practitioners since, whose claim is that the division between the one who perceives and the thing perceived is a convention of description rather than a feature of the world.

That lineage is where the instinct came from. It is not where the argument comes from, and this chapter will not lean on it once. A textbook that asked a CFO to accept a balance-sheet claim on the authority of a Madhyamaka philosopher would deserve the reception it got.

So here is the claim, stated entirely in the language of accounts, where it can be tested by anyone with a set of standards and a calculator.

Four divisions carry most of the weight in modern economics: producer and consumer, firm and environment, worker and owner, self and other. Every one of them is a boundary drawn in an accounting standard. Every one of them could have been drawn elsewhere, is drawn elsewhere in some jurisdictions and some periods, and moves when someone decides to move it. And every one of them has a price, because in each case there is a party whose income depends on where the line falls.

That is a falsifiable proposition about documents, not a metaphysics. If the boundaries were facts of nature, they would not be listed as choices in the standards that create them — and they are, by name, with the alternatives set out beside them and a footnote required to record which was taken.

What follows is the arithmetic of four such lines. Where the line sits, what the move is worth, who collects, and — the movement most of this chapter's readers will find the most useful — where a line genuinely must be drawn, and what becomes unmeasurable the moment somebody refuses to draw one.

— The Editors

DISCOVERY

What is already working

The most encouraging fact in this chapter is that the strongest statements of its claim were made by the most orthodox economists available, and were made early.

Coase, 1937. The Nature of the Firm asks a question nobody had thought to ask: if the price mechanism allocates resources, why is so much economic activity conducted inside firms where no prices operate at all? His answer is that the firm's edge sits wherever the cost of transacting across a market exceeds the cost of organising internally — which makes the boundary of the firm a variable set by cost, not a fact given by nature. It moves when transaction costs move. It has moved enormously since 1937, in both directions, and each movement was recorded as outsourcing or vertical integration rather than as what it also was: a redrawing of what counted as the company.

Simon, 1991. Herbert Simon asks a visitor from Mars to look down at a market economy with firms shown in green and market transactions as red lines between them. The visitor, he says, would report seeing large green areas connected by thin red lines — and would call the planet an organisational economy, not a market economy. The image is a boundary argument delivered as a joke, and it is unanswerable.

Jensen and Meckling, 1976. The founding paper of agency theory, as canonical as finance gets, states plainly that the firm is a legal fiction serving as a nexus for contracting relationships among individuals, and warns against treating it as though it were a person with intentions. Half a century of practice has treated it as exactly that.

Coase again, 1960. The Problem of Social Cost makes the sharpest version of the non-dual move in the whole literature and it is routinely misread as a theorem about bargaining. Coase's actual point is that harm is reciprocal. The cattle damage the crops; but restraining the cattle damages the herd. To ask who is harming whom is to have already decided which party is the default. The question is wrongly put, he says, and he is not being rhetorical.

That is the discovery: the profession already knows. What it has not built, in most places, is the apparatus. Here is where the apparatus exists and is working.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting. The SEEA Central Framework was adopted by the United Nations Statistical Commission in 2012 as an international statistical standard — the same status as the System of National Accounts itself — and SEEA Ecosystem Accounting followed in March 2021. More than ninety countries now compile accounts under it. The firm/environment line and the economy/nature line are being redrawn, at national scale, inside official statistics, by statisticians rather than by campaigners.

The household satellite accounts. The United States Bureau of Economic Analysis published a full accounting of household production in 2012; the Office for National Statistics publishes one for the United Kingdom. Both are official, both are methodical, and both measure a producing economy that the headline number does not contain. The figures are in the next movement and they are larger than most readers expect.

PUMA's Environmental Profit and Loss Account, 2011. The first published attempt by a listed company to put a currency figure on its environmental impact across the whole value chain — not as a disclosure but as a P&L, in euros, tier by tier. It is a decade old, its methodology has been argued with extensively, and it remains the clearest single demonstration of what happens to a company's self-portrait when the fence is moved outward.

Te Awa Tupua. In 2017 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, which recognises the river as a legal person with the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of one, and creates an office — Te Pou Tupua — to speak in its name. A legislature moved the self/other line and attached a settlement to the move. Rivers in Colombia, India, Ecuador and Bangladesh have since been the subject of comparable findings, with mixed enforcement records that Volume VI treats honestly.

Employee ownership at scale. The National Center for Employee Ownership counts roughly 6,500 employee stock ownership plans in the United States covering some fourteen million participants. The United Kingdom's Employee Ownership Trust, created by the Finance Act 2014, has produced a conversion route used by hundreds of firms since. The worker/owner boundary is not a frontier. It is a well-tested piece of corporate plumbing with a tax code written around it.

Six cases, one pattern: in each, somebody moved a line in a document, and the economy that appeared on the other side had been there the whole time.

THE ARITHMETIC

Where the line sits, what the move is worth, and where it must not move

Every figure below is computed in lib/verify/II_03.py and can be re-run with different inputs.

First: the consolidation boundary, which is the purest case because the standard states the price.

Under United States practice before 2003, a special purpose entity could be kept off the sponsor's balance sheet if an independent party held at-risk equity of at least three percent of the entity's total assets. FIN 46(R), issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board in 2003, replaced the test and raised the presumptive benchmark to ten percent. IFRS 10, issued in 2011, abandoned the bright line altogether and consolidates on control.

Do the division.

  outside equity required    assets held off balance sheet
                             per unit of that equity
  ------------------------------------------------------
  3 %  (pre-2003)                      33.33
  10 % (FIN 46(R))                     10.00
  ------------------------------------------------------
  reduction in leverage                 3.33 x

And now the line this chapter exists to draw. The sliver-holder is paid a fee measured against the assets moved, and risks only its own thin stake. So the boundary has a yield, and the yield can be quoted:

  fee on assets moved      return on the sliver
                        3 % rule      10 % rule
  -------------------------------------------------
        0.5 %             16.7 %          5.0 %
        1.0 %             33.3 %         10.0 %
        1.5 %             50.0 %         15.0 %

A boundary is not discovered. It is bought, and its price is quoted as a yield on the thinnest stake that will hold it in place. Read the right-hand column and notice what the 2003 reform actually did: it did not abolish the trade. It repriced it, by a factor of 3.33. The most consequential accounting reform of the decade was a price change.

Enron is the worked example and the Powers Report of February 2002 is the primary source. Chewco's outside equity of $11.5 million included $6.6 million funded by loans cash-collateralised by Enron itself, so the equity was never genuinely at risk and the three percent test never held. When the entities were consolidated retroactively, the November 2001 restatement reduced reported 1997–2000 net income by $586 million. No asset moved. No factory changed hands. A line in a set of consolidation rules was found to have been drawn in the wrong place, and half a billion dollars of reported profit stopped existing.

Second: the firm/environment boundary, measured two ways.

The GHG Protocol splits a company's emissions into scope 1 (its own combustion), scope 2 (the electricity it buys) and scope 3 (everything else in its value chain, in fifteen categories). CDP's supply-chain reporting finds supply-chain emissions averaging 11.4 times operational emissions across reporting companies. PUMA's Environmental P&L, built from entirely different data by an entirely different method, found €145 million of environmental cost for 2010, of which €8 million arose in PUMA's own operations — a ratio of 17.1 to one.

  share of the full footprint inside a scope 1+2 fence
    from CDP's 11.4x multiple                     8.1 %
    from PUMA's own accounts                      5.5 %

Two routes sharing no data and no method land between five and eight percent. A company reporting scopes 1 and 2 has drawn a fence around roughly one-fifteenth of what it causes and published that fence as a portrait of itself.

Then the move that follows from it. A firm with 100 kt of scope 1 emissions sells the plant and contracts to buy the same output from the buyer:

  reported, on a scope 1+2 boundary    100 kt  ->    0 kt   (-100 %)
  physically emitted                   100 kt  ->  100 kt   (   0 %)

The Protocol requires base-year recalculation for structural change — but a company that does not report the relevant scope 3 category has nothing to recalculate. The molecules do not move. The fence moves, and the molecules are now outside it.

And the same emission can be reported three ways, all compliant. Take a firm with 500 kt from wholly owned operations and a fifty-fifty joint venture emitting 300 kt:

  operational control, JV excluded      500 kt
  equity share                          650 kt
  operational control, JV included      800 kt
  ---------------------------------------------
  spread, on the lowest                  60 %

None of those is a misstatement. The standard permits all three and a footnote records which was taken.

Third: the producer/consumer boundary, which is where the largest number in this chapter lives.

Pigou put it in 1920: a man marries his housekeeper and the national dividend falls. Nothing about the following morning's output is different. A wage of £30,000 leaves the accounts because the person producing the service crossed a line between two categories of human relationship.

The modern measurement is the BEA's. Including household production, United States nominal GDP would have been 39.0 percent higher in 1965 and 25.7 percent higher in 2010. The two figures together produce something more interesting than either:

  1 + 0.390 = 1.390   (1965)
  1 + 0.257 = 1.257   (2010)
  ln(1.390 / 1.257) / 45 years  =  0.22 percentage points a year

For forty-five years, measured growth overstated total production by about a fifth of a percentage point annually — 10.6 percent cumulatively — because work moved from kitchens onto payrolls. Some of that movement was real specialisation and produced real gains. Some of it was a reclassification recorded as growth. The national accounts, by construction, cannot tell you which share is which.

The UK figure gives an independent check. The ONS household satellite account valued household services at £1.24 trillion in 2016, 63.1 percent of GDP. Divide one by the other and you get an implied UK nominal GDP of £1.97 trillion, against the £1.99 trillion in the national accounts — agreement to within 1.2 percent. Two publications with different purposes describing the same economy, one of which the headline does not contain.

Fourth: the boundary inside a single firm.

The OECD's arm's-length principle requires an intra-group transaction to be priced as though the two parties were independent. They are not. There is no market price because there is no market — there are five permitted methods and a range. On €1,000 million of in-country sales, two defensible royalty rates three points apart move €30 million of taxable profit, and €7.5 million of tax at a 25 percent rate, with no change in any physical or commercial fact.

At the aggregate, Tørsløv, Wier and Zucman put roughly 36 percent of multinational profits in havens — about $600 billion in 2015 and $200 billion of tax. The OECD's own Action 11 work, on different data, put the annual loss at $100–240 billion, or four to ten percent of global corporate income tax receipts. Two strategies that disagree about method agree about order of magnitude. A line that does not exist, priced as though it did, moves a mid-sized national budget every year.

Fifth: the worker/owner boundary, which is one line on an income statement.

A payment to a person above the line is an expense and reduces operating profit. The same payment to the same person below the line is a distribution and does not. Enterprise value is quoted as a multiple of the line.

  EBITDA 10.0m, payroll 40.0m, 8x multiple
  10 % of payroll moved to profit distribution     4.0 m
  EBITDA after                                    14.0 m   (+40 %)
  enterprise value before / after            80.0m / 112.0m
  created by the reclassification                 32.0 m

Identical cash, to identical people, in the same month.

Now the honest negatives, and there are two.

The first is the one that matters most, and it cuts against this chapter. Refuse to draw a boundary and you cannot count at all. Take a supply chain of n equal tiers, each reporting its full upstream footprint truthfully:

  tiers    sum of inventories / physical emissions
    2                   1.50 x
    4                   2.50 x
   10                   5.50 x
   25                  13.00 x

Tier one's emissions are counted n times. The same factor applies to claimed reductions: one physical tonne abated at the bottom can be claimed, truthfully and simultaneously, by every firm above it. This is not an abuse of scope 3; it is a designed property of it, which is why corporate inventories cannot be summed into a national total.

Ostrom's first design principle for an enduring commons is clearly defined boundaries — of the resource and of who holds rights in it — and she is right. A commons without a defined edge is an open-access resource, and the empirical record on open access is not ambiguous. This chapter does not argue that the boundary can be dispensed with. It argues that it is chosen. An accounting with no boundary has no unit, and a number with no unit cannot be audited, financed, or defended in a court.

The second negative is the reclassification above. An equity analyst normalises that EBITDA in one line, and the employees who were creditors of the payroll are now residual claimants carrying risk they did not previously carry. Moving the worker/owner line without moving governance with it is not liberation; it is a transfer of risk dressed as a transfer of ownership. That is Volume V, and it is treated there at length.

DREAM

What becomes ordinary

In the organisation that has absorbed this, the first page of the annual report carries a boundary note: a single page stating which consolidation basis was chosen, which emissions basis, which household or unpaid contribution is excluded, and what each figure would have been under the alternatives. It is short. It is dull. It is the most-read page in the document, because it is the only one that tells a reader how to compare this company with another.

Nobody argues about whether the boundary is correct. They argue about whether it is stated, which is a question with an answer.

Capital allocation papers carry a line under the return figure reading boundary sensitivity: how much of this return is produced by work, and how much by where the perimeter was set. Proposals whose return is mostly perimeter are not forbidden. They are labelled, which turns out to be sufficient.

The finance function has stopped experiencing the value chain as somebody else's problem. Procurement holds the same emissions ledger as the plant, because the company found that a tonne it could influence at a supplier cost less to abate than a tonne it controlled directly, and the abatement curve is drawn across the whole chain rather than stopping at the gate.

Household and care contributions appear in the statistical office's headline tables rather than in a satellite annex published eighteen months later, so a finance minister can see the whole producing economy on one page. When care work moves onto a payroll it is recorded as a transfer between sectors rather than as growth, and when it moves back it is not recorded as a recession.

The people inside the firm can see which side of each line they stand on and what it is worth. Nobody has to be told that a boundary was moved on their behalf; the register shows it, dated, with the reason and the signature.

And the firm still files accounts a statutory auditor signs. This is not a story about an organisation that stopped having a balance sheet. It is a story about one that stopped mistaking the edge of its balance sheet for the edge of its effects, and priced the difference.

DESIGN

The boundary register, built

The whole of this chapter becomes operational through one artifact, and it is small enough to build in a fortnight.

The boundary register: one row per line, five columns.

Column	What goes in it
The line	Consolidation · emissions perimeter · worker/owner · producer/consumer · intra-group pricing
Where it sits now	The elected basis, named in the language of the standard
The permitted alternatives	Every other basis the standard allows, listed
The value of the move	What the reported figure would be under each alternative
Who is paid by it	The party whose income depends on the current election

The fifth column is the one that makes the register worth keeping, and it is the one that will be resisted. It is not an accusation. Often the answer is benign — the joint venture partner, whose covenants are set on the equity-share basis — and writing it down is what makes the benign cases visible as benign.

How it is built. Days one to fifteen: list the lines. Most organisations have between five and nine that matter, and finance already knows all of them. Days sixteen to thirty: fill the third and fourth columns from the standards themselves, not from memory. Days thirty-one to forty-five: fill the fifth column, and take it to the person named in it before it goes anywhere else.

Governance. The register is owned by the controller, reviewed by the audit committee annually, and — this is the load-bearing clause — any change to an elected boundary requires the prior-period figure to be restated on both bases and presented side by side. That single rule removes almost all of the value of moving a line quietly, which is almost all of the reason lines are moved quietly.

Sequence. Do the emissions perimeter first. It is the line with the clearest published alternatives, the lowest political charge internally, and an existing external standard to point at. Do the intra-group pricing line last, and do it with tax counsel in the room, because there the register is discoverable and its contents are the subject of active examination in many jurisdictions.

What to resist. The register is not a campaign to move every line outward. A firm that consolidated its whole value chain would produce an unauditable document and a legal-entity boundary its creditors could not read. The purpose is to make the elections visible, priced and reversible on the record. Some of them, once visible, should stay exactly where they are.

DESTINY

How it holds when nobody is pushing

Three conditions, and the third is the one people skip.

It is in the audit committee's standing papers. A register reviewed by exception is a register that is reviewed once. On the standing agenda it survives a change of controller, which is the event that kills most of these.

The restatement rule is in the accounting manual, not in a memo. A rule living in a manual is applied by whoever has the job next. A rule living in a memo is applied by the person who wrote it, for as long as they are there.

The register is used at least once a year to defend something. This is the condition that is skipped, and it is the one that makes the other two load-bearing. An instrument that has never been used in an argument gets quietly dropped from the pack. Use it the first time a comparison with a competitor turns on a boundary election — and it will, because most of them do.

Now the failure modes, named.

It fails when the register becomes a compliance artifact — filled in once, copied forward, never re-derived from the standards. It fails when the fifth column is diluted into stakeholders affected, which is the same sentence with the money taken out. It fails when someone uses it as a weapon in an internal dispute, after which nobody will write an honest fifth column again. And it fails, most commonly, when it is built by a sustainability function rather than by the controller — because then it describes a set of boundaries that do not govern any money, and a boundary that governs no money is a diagram.

DELIGHT

What it feels like

There is a specific pleasure in the moment a long-running argument dissolves because somebody finally wrote down where the line was. Two teams who had been disagreeing for a year about whether a plant's emissions were theirs discover that they had been using different consolidation bases, both correct, and the argument was never about the plant.

The disagreements that remain after that are the real ones, and they are far more interesting than the ones that vanished. A room that knows exactly what it disagrees about is a room that can decide something before lunch.

And there is a quieter pleasure, harder to describe, in the moment the fence around the firm stops feeling like a wall. The suppliers, the households, the watershed and the people were never outside; they were on the other side of a line in a document, drawn by somebody with a deadline, for reasons that were usually practical and sometimes not. Seeing that is not disillusionment. It is the opposite: the relief of discovering that a thing you had been treating as weather is actually joinery, and joinery can be rebuilt.

OPERATIONALIZE THIS

At the level of finance

The register is the discipline. The instrument that makes it worth money is a sustainability-linked loan with a boundary-lock covenant, and it is available today from any lender running the Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles.

The structure. A revolving credit facility or term loan whose margin ratchets against a named key performance indicator — emissions intensity per unit of output is the common one — with two additions that the market does not currently standardise:

The boundary lock. The KPI is measured on a frozen organisational perimeter, stated in the facility agreement by reference to the elected consolidation and emissions bases at signing. Any change to that perimeter — acquisition, divestment, outsourcing, a change of consolidation basis — triggers mandatory restatement of the baseline on the new perimeter, whether or not the borrower reports the affected scope 3 category. This closes the 100-percent-reduction-that-reduces-nothing gap directly.
The register covenant. The borrower maintains the boundary register and delivers it with the annual compliance certificate. Non-delivery is a reporting default, not a financial one — it carries the ratchet penalty, not acceleration.

The counterparty. The relationship bank on an existing facility, at the next refinancing. This is not a new borrowing; it is two clauses added to a facility that is being papered anyway, which is why it costs nothing to propose.

Verification. Limited assurance from the existing auditor over the KPI and the perimeter statement. ISAE 3000 is the engagement standard, and most large auditors already run it over sustainability data.

Balance-sheet treatment. The ratchet is an adjustment to the effective interest rate, and the loan remains at amortised cost. The lender's side was genuinely uncertain until recently: an ESG-linked contingent cash-flow feature raised a question about the solely-payments-of-principal-and-interest test. The IASB's 2024 amendments to IFRS 9 settle it — such features can be consistent with SPPI — effective 1 January 2026. Cite that amendment in the term sheet; it removes the lender's last drafting objection.

The number that decides it. The ratchet has to pay for the measurement it requires. At an annual boundary-locked measurement and assurance cost of €120,000:

  ratchet    break-even facility size
  --------------------------------------
   2.5 bp            EUR 480 m
   5.0 bp            EUR 240 m
   7.5 bp            EUR 160 m
  10.0 bp            EUR 120 m

At a five basis point ratchet, the covenant pays for its own measurement above a €240 million facility and does not below it. Below that size, build the register and skip the ratchet — the register is worth having on its own and costs a fortnight.

The first ninety days.

Day	Action	Artifact
1–15	List the lines that matter	The register, column one
16–30	Fill the alternatives and their value from the standards	Columns two to four
31–45	Fill column five; take it to the people named in it first	The complete register
46–60	Draft the two clauses; agree the frozen perimeter with the auditor	Term sheet mark-up
61–75	Agree the restated baseline; put the restatement rule in the manual	The signed perimeter statement
76–90	Sign at the refinancing; first compliance certificate scheduled	Executed facility

APPRECIATIVE QUESTIONS

Twelve, for a room

Discovery — what is already working

Where in our accounts have we already elected a boundary deliberately and for a good reason — and who made that call, and what did they see that the standard did not require them to see?
Think of a time two teams here stopped disagreeing because somebody wrote down a definition. What was the definition, and what did the room do with the hour it got back?
Which of our suppliers, neighbours or households already behaves as though it were inside this company — and what do we get from that which no contract asks for?

Dream — what becomes possible

If our annual report opened with a one-page boundary note, what is the first comparison a reader could make that they cannot make today?
Imagine we could see the whole producing economy around this business — paid and unpaid — on one page. What would we do differently on a Tuesday?
If every person here could point to the line that separates what they are paid for from what they contribute, what would they ask for next?

Design — what we build

Which line should we write down first, and what makes that one the easiest for this organisation to be honest about?
What would it take for a change of boundary here to require a side-by-side restatement as a matter of course rather than as a matter of argument?
Who should own the fifth column — who is paid by where this line falls — so that it stays accurate and stays safe to write?

Destiny — how it holds

What would have to be true for the boundary register to still be in the audit committee pack when everybody in this room has moved on?
When has an instrument here survived because somebody used it to win an argument? What did that use look like, and how do we arrange the first one?
What is the first sign we would see that the register had become a form rather than an inquiry — and who would notice it first?

WORKS CITED

Coase, R. H. (1937). "The Nature of the Firm." Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

Coase, R. H. (1960). "The Problem of Social Cost." Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.

Simon, H. A. (1991). "Organizations and Markets." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 25–44.

Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure." Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press.

Hart, O. and Moore, J. (1990). "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm." Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1119–1158.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chandler.

Nāgārjuna (c. 150 CE). Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Translated by J. L. Garfield as The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (1995). Oxford University Press.

Powers, W. C., Troubh, R. S. and Winokur, H. S. (2002). Report of Investigation by the Special Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of Enron Corp.

Financial Accounting Standards Board (2003). FIN 46(R): Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.

International Accounting Standards Board (2011). IFRS 10: Consolidated Financial Statements.

International Accounting Standards Board (2024). Amendments to the Classification and Measurement of Financial Instruments (Amendments to IFRS 9 and IFRS 7).

World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, revised edition.

World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2011). Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard.

CDP (2021). Transparency to Transformation: A Chain Reaction. CDP Global Supply Chain Report.

PUMA SE (2011). PUMA's Environmental Profit and Loss Account for the Year Ended 31 December 2010.

Pigou, A. C. (1920). The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan.

Reid, M. G. (1934). Economics of Household Production. Wiley.

Waring, M. (1988). If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. Harper & Row.

Folbre, N. (2001). The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New Press.

Bridgman, B., Dugan, A., Lal, M., Osborne, M. and Villones, S. (2012). "Accounting for Household Production in the National Accounts, 1965–2010." Survey of Current Business, 92(5), 23–36.

Bridgman, B. (2016). "Home Productivity." Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 71, 60–76.

Office for National Statistics (2018). Household Satellite Account, UK: 2015 and 2016.

United Nations, European Commission, FAO, OECD, IMF and World Bank (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 — Central Framework.

United Nations (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015). Measuring and Monitoring BEPS, Action 11 — 2015 Final Report.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2022). OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations.

Tørsløv, T., Wier, L. and Zucman, G. (2023). "The Missing Profits of Nations." Review of Economic Studies, 90(3), 1499–1534.

Kruse, D. L., Freeman, R. B. and Blasi, J. R. (eds) (2010). Shared Capitalism at Work. University of Chicago Press.

Kurtulus, F. A. and Kruse, D. L. (2017). How Did Employee Ownership Firms Weather the Last Two Recessions? W. E. Upjohn Institute.

National Center for Employee Ownership (2023). ESOPs by the Numbers.

New Zealand Parliament (2017). Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Loan Market Association, Asia Pacific Loan Market Association and Loan Syndications and Trading Association (2023). Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles.

Note on figures. Consolidation leverage and boundary yields, scope coverage ratios, the joint-venture spread, the chain overcount, the household-production growth wedge and its ONS cross-check, the transfer-pricing spread, the reclassification value and the covenant break-even are all computed in lib/verify/II_03.py and reproducible there. Source figures are named on the line that prints them.