自從成立三十年以來，環(huán)境成本會計已經(jīng)發(fā)展到一定階段，環(huán)境會計成本體系已經(jīng)從以環(huán)境成本評估為基礎(chǔ)的會計制度核心中分離出來（參考Fichter et al., 1997, Letmathe 和 Wagner , 2002）。
　　　
由于環(huán)境成本經(jīng)常被評估為一般管理費用，傳統(tǒng)觀念的完全成本會計或者直接成本都沒有為環(huán)境成本會計的實施描述一個適當?shù)幕A(chǔ)。與傳統(tǒng)會計發(fā)展類似，自從20世紀90年代以來，環(huán)境會計在概念和理論領(lǐng)域的重點放在了基于流程的會計中（參考Hallay和Pfriem，1992年，F(xiàn)ischer 和Blasius，1995年，德國環(huán)境部，1996年，Heller等人。1995 ，Letmathe，1998年，Spengler和H.hre，1998年）。
　　　
考慮到環(huán)境成本會計可行的概念，基于流程的觀念似乎是制定環(huán)境成本會計的最好選擇（參考Heupel 和 Wendisch，2002年）。但是這些概念必須確保能夠在中小企業(yè)中正常運行。

基于Burritt等人提出的環(huán)境管理會計框架，我們對環(huán)境成本會計的概念著重于兩個有關(guān)環(huán)境影響的主要群體。這是由環(huán)境引起的對環(huán)境系統(tǒng)的財務影響和與公司向關(guān)聯(lián)的影響（參考Burritt和Schaltegger，2000年，第58頁）。所有這些影響都和特定種類的金融和換環(huán)境信息相關(guān)。由環(huán)境引起的息對財務的影響有基于貨幣環(huán)境信息的影響和基于事物的環(huán)境信息影響。傳統(tǒng)的會計體系可以處理雙方面，包括以貨幣為單位的何以實物為單位的，但是卻不注重環(huán)境對產(chǎn)生的影響。要得出一個在公司現(xiàn)行會計制度中實施環(huán)境成本會計的切實可行的方法，并能夠處理貨幣和事務方面的混淆問題，需要一個能互相協(xié)調(diào)的綜合的概念。由于實物信息往往是貨幣信息的基礎(chǔ)（例如，1千克原料的消耗是對實物消耗多少貨幣的計量基礎(chǔ)），這個信息到會計系統(tǒng)數(shù)據(jù)庫的集成是至關(guān)重要的。在那里，物理環(huán)境信息和貨幣環(huán)境信息的產(chǎn)生在很多情況下是可行的。對于許多公司來說，在確定資源消耗和投資決策信息時，他們會優(yōu)先使用貨幣環(huán)境信息。環(huán)境成本會計在小型和中型的企業(yè)中使用還比較少見，因此實際的例子在現(xiàn)有的文獻中并不多見。有一個問題就是，中小企業(yè)的定義因國家而異（參考Kosmider，1993年和Reinemann，1999年）。我們列于表一中的工作標準是用來描述中小型企業(yè)的


Since its inception some 30 years ago, Environmental Cost Accounting (ECA) has reached a stage of development where individual ECA systems are separated from the core accounting system based an assessment of environmental costs with (see Fichter et al., 1997, Letmathe and Wagner , 2002).
　　　
As environmental costs are commonly assessed as overhead costs, neither the older concepts of full costs accounting nor the relatively recent one of direct costing appear to represent an appropriate basis for the implementation of ECA. Similar to developments in conventional accounting, the theoretical and conceptual sphere of ECA has focused on process-based accounting since the 1990s (see Hallay and Pfriem, 1992, Fischer and Blasius, 1995, BMU/UBA, 1996, Heller et al., 1995, Letmathe, 1998, Spengler and H.hre, 1998).
　　　
Taking available concepts of ECA into consideration, process-based concepts seem the best option regarding the establishment of ECA (see Heupel and Wendisch , 2002). These concepts, however, have to be continuously revised to ensure that they work well when applied in small and medium-sized companies.
　　　
Based on the framework for Environmental Management Accounting presented in Burritt et al. (2002), our concept of ECA focuses on two main groups of environmentally related impacts. These are environmentally induced financial effects and company-related effects on environmental systems (see Burritt and Schaltegger, 2000, p.58). Each of these impacts relate to specific categories of financial and environmental information. The environmentally induced financial effects are represented by monetary environmental information and the effects on environmental systems are represented by physical environmental information. Conventional accounting deals with both – monetary as well as physical units – but does not focus on environmental impact as such. To arrive at a practical solution to the implementation of ECA in a company’s existing accounting system, and to comply with the problem of distinguishing between monetary and physical aspects, an integrated concept is required. As physical information is often the basis for the monetary information (e.g. kilograms of a raw material are the basis for the monetary valuation of raw material consumption), the integration of this information into the accounting system database is essential. From there, the generation of physical environmental and monetary (environmental) information would in many cases be feasible. For many companies, the priority would be monetary (environmental) information for use in for instance decisions regarding resource consumptions and investments. The use of ECA in small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) is still relatively rare, so practical examples available in the literature are few and far between. One problem is that the definitions of SMEs vary between countries (see Kosmider, 1993 and Reinemann, 1999). In our work the criteria shown in Table 1 are used to describe small and medium-sized enterprises.