If human capital encompasses all skills that actually do or may eventually represent an asset for a company or organisation, however valuable or indispensable such an asset should turn out to be, then language skills cannot but be included in human capital. Whether they refer to a language-based know-how or knowledge (e.g. oratory skills, communication skills, jargon) or to the very linguistic competence in a language used in the interactions relevant to the performance of a productive task (e.g. understanding of instructions) or those implied by the work environment (e.g. socialisation at the workplace), language skills are often a self-evident prerequisite, when they needn’t be specified in a job profile, and are also sometimes stated explicitly as a requirement in the recruitment or promotion process. Any further language skills, especially those in an additional language irrelevant to task performance or sociability, are usually not included in human capital, though they may matter positively (e.g. glossing in nonstandard or in a different language) or impact negatively (e.g. misunderstandings stemming from unbalanced or flawed bilingualism). Unless they become branded or even assessed as a potential marketable asset, such further language skills are only elemental to linguistic personalia which are per se labour-irrelevant. Rebranding and re-assessment are more likely to occur as regulations change (e.g. co-officialization of a language; mandatory dual language labelling) or as a specific corporate strategy is conducted (e.g. territorial marketing ; inclusiveness and diversity campaign). Rather than a confirmation of the purported intrinsic values of a language or of the merits of its features, the status shift from linguistic personalia to human capital asset is a valuation that is first and foremost policy-dependent in the sense that it results from a greater law compliance, from a gain in labour market relevance for the language, or from the enforcement of both public policies and corporate policies. Public policies, when applied to language planning, automatically lead to an increase in labour market relevance of the target language, as it must then be regarded as part of corporate constraints or specifications. But conversely, corporate policies, when related to specific marketing strategies or glottopolitical stances, can give rise to public policies, as they facilitate the agenda-setting endeavours of language campaigners. My paper aims at evidencing the particular interconnectedness between law compliance issues and labour market relevance when it comes to minority languages. It will mostly dwell on the case of West Flemish in Northern France (aka vlamsch). I will discuss the supposed enhanced employability of people who are acquainted with or being taught West Flemish, as this complementary argument of vlamsch champions has lately attracted much criticism from Dutch supporters who have striven for decades to label Dutch as a major capital asset on the labour market. I will also show that, in their attempt to rebrand vlamsch a language – be it a mere regional or minority language, vlamsch champions had no other option than to find an economic utility beyond social usefulness and cultural interest, believing that economics outweighs and leverages politics.