DOI: 10.5593/SGEM2014/B53/S21.056


C.Popescu, C. Popescu, M. Hrestic
Wednesday 1 October 2014 by Libadmin2014

References: 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2014, www.sgem.org, SGEM2014 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7105-19-3 / ISSN 1314-2704, June 19-25, 2014, Book 5, Vol. 3, 423-430 pp

The appearance of the concept of sustainable development, although in the beginning a sort of universal remedy, is becoming increasingly frequently the object of tensions, both in point of its objectives and especially in point of its content. As far as its objectives are concerned, the debate is organized around a reasoning based on the theory of the interested parties, but also around the reasoning of competition, which sets in motion an ethics of responsibility as teleological principle. Consequently, the sustainable development meanings, and implicitly the sustainable development programs, are also the object of contradictions and may not be solvable through a process of standardization of their contents. However, the standardization dynamics is itself a bearer of “perverse effects”, already observed in the domain of the accounting standards and, under these circumstances, this standardization dynamics cannot claim to be the only solution able to regulate these controversies. The problem lies mainly with the doctrinal weaknesses characterizing Sustainable Development as a concept today, obviously, by comparison to what it intended to be.

Keywords: sustainable development, sustainable growth, paradoxical association, contradictory terms.