Proceedings

CONCLUSIONS
Complex and dynamic approaches have the potential to cover the gaps generated by
the traditional linear quantitative approaches by introducing new instruments to
approach issues and design solutions. These approaches cannot always be translated
into financial or quantitative terms. Translation in financial terms is possible in the
case of interference between the economic factor and another factor, but it is not
feasible for phenomena connected with the economic environment. Biodiversity has
emerged independently from the economic human factor, and therefore it cannot be
assessed either in financial terms, or through economic, financial or political measures
of intervention. In the case of biodiversity, the influence of the economic factor is
invasive. The social and economic environment consumes the same resources as
biodiversity and generates entropy, as opposed to biodiversity which generates
synergy.
Understanding how best to relate the organization performance and the
macroeconomic issues is an evolving process. Global Reporting Initiative
recommends reporting entities to explore ways in which to include these aspects in
their sustainability reports directly; doing so would accelerate the process of
understanding these links, both by themselves and with their users (GRI, 2006).
To create projections of reality that can be studied by integrated analysis, the complex
approach to global climate change externalities provides a solution. It validates the
need to create an integrated framework to "reduce complexity" so that it becomes
predictable, controllable and responsive to the actions of correcting the destructive
effects caused by natural or human forces. This framework should allow integrating a
variety of areas relevant to sustainability, including both natural and social sciences
and using a system of values that are recognizable, identifiable and quantifiable. The
framework should be accessible to decision-makers, combining different effects of
options in various areas. Lastly, it calls for the development of human abilities, which
are now limited to monitoring a small number of dimensions of reality (Huppes and
Ishikawa, 2009).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by The National Council for Higher Education Research –
Executive Board for Financing Higher Education and University Research (CNCSIS –
UEFISCSU), project PN II – IDEI 1825/2009: Researches, developments and
innovations in social environmental accounting from the policies and procedures
perspective for global warming eco-costs recognition in Romania.
REFERENCES
Antheaume, N., (2003), “Valuing External Costs – From Theory to Practice: Implications for
Full Cost Environmental Accounting”, European Accounting Review, vol. 13, no. 3:
443-464
Azar, C. and Schneider, S.H. (2002) “Are the economic costs of stabilizing the atmosphere
prohibitive?”, Ecological Economics, vol. 42:73-80
Clarke, H. R. and Reed, W. J. (1994), “Consumption/Pollution Tradeoffs in an Environment
Vulnerable to Pollution-Related Catastrophic Collapse”, Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, vol. 18: 991-1010
~ 1020 ~