The European waste policy is focused on reducing the negative impact of waste, eliminating the unhealthy use of resources, and on better waste management. The aim of this paper is to analyse Romania’s waste management practices in the EU context. The research methodology is based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The descriptive data analysis reveals significant differences among EU countries in terms of the municipal waste generated and the recycling rate. The municipal waste generated registers decrease, whereas there are significant increases in terms of the recycling rates in the EU countries. The qualitative research is based on the analysis of structured interviews among stakeholders, relevant for the waste management in Romania. The information obtained based on interviews was processed using NVivo and the main findings are focused on recommendations for improving the waste management system. We have identified a lack of adequate public support in the waste field due to insufficient awareness programs, lack of operator’s obligation for separate waste sanitation, people's discouragement to separate their household waste, and lack of bins to separate collection. The correction of identified weaknesses could lead to an improved waste management system, feasible only through an active involvement of stakeholders

This study aims to assess and identify the role of disruptive/digital technologies in financial innovation strategies as part of social innovations at both the firm and country level. The analysis proposed by the present study brings useful theoretical/pragmatic insights on the application of financial technologies in the context of the “fintech” revolution, as a disruptive innovation. There are few studies of this type that “cross-examine” technical/social innovative capacity at the firm level vs. the same innovative capacity at the level of the world’s major countries. Our proposed study brings some novel elements to the literature on this topic. First, the study synthesizes the factors/variables explaining technical/social innovative capacity as ranked by the GCI (Global Competitiveness Index) and GII (Global Innovation Index) at the country level and then correlates informal/empirical variables with the factors explaining innovative capacity for the 50 companies in the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) ranking. Second, the study identifies three “driving forces” (digital technologies, managers, and the market) as the main variables determining financial innovativeness (fintech revolution) at the firm level. Third, based on the “over-cross assessment” (non- statistical) of the information/data provided by the BCG study vs. the GII and GCI studies, the study suggests some ways to delineate and quantify financial innovation as part of social innovation (e.g., it is argued that up to 80% of the social innovation achieved annually by a firm relates to the financial relationships engaged by the firm with various categories of stakeholders). Finally, the study is also important from a pragmatic point of view as it suggests/proposes a number of principles that can be considered by managers for building a KM (knowledge management) and continuous financial innovation strategy. From a theoretical perspective, the study provides a starting point for further research aimed at explaining firm-level financial innovation (fintech as a disruptor) through the massive use of disruptive technologies.

This study aims to assess and identify the role of disruptive/digital technologies in financial innovation strategies as part of social innovations at both firm and country level. There are few studies of this type that "cross-examine" technical/social innovative capacity at the firm level vs. the same innovative capacity at the level of the world's major countries. Our proposed study brings some novel elements to the literature on this topic. First, the study synthesizes the factors/variables explaining technical/social innovative capacity as ranked by the GCI (Global Competitiveness Index) and GII (Global Innovation Index) at the country level and then correlates these variables with the factors explaining innovative capacity for the 50 companies in the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) ranking. Second, the study identifies three "driving forces" (digital technologies, managers and the market) as the main variables determining financial innovativeness at firm level. Third, based on the "cross" analysis of the information/data provided by the BCG study vs. the GII and GCI studies, the study suggests some ways to delineate and quantify financial innovation as part of social innovation (e.g., it is argued that 80% of the social innovation achieved annually by a firm relates to the financial relationships engaged by the firm with various categories of stakeholders). Finally, the study is also important from a pragmatic point of view as it suggests/proposes a number of principles that can be considered by managers for building a KM (knowledge management) and continuous innovation strategy. From a theoretical perspective, the study provides a starting point for further research aimed at explaining firm-level financial innovation through the massive use of disruptive technologies.