企业的社会责任
企业社会责任（ CSR ）已成为一个全球趋势，涉及企业，国家，国际组织和民间社会组织。但这远远不能清楚CSR的主张，有什么真正的趋势，是从哪里开始，在哪里发展，谁是项目的主要行动者。如果把它作为一种社会运动，我们必须要问：什么运动和谁执行？讨论有助于我们反思形成的趋势和如何管理某些特点来迅速和广泛地在全球各地进行扩展，并增加了以下体制变革,特别是对变化中国家之间、企业法人和民间社会组织关系之间的界限的作用。
企业社会责任的趋势在三个方面：作为一个管理框架，新的要求，地方企业;作为动员企业行为，以协助国家的发展援助;和作为管理趋势。每一个这些画像表明，中心的某些行为，关系，驾驭团队和利益。我的例子表明，没有人对这些意见似乎比别人更准确，而是，活动包括规范的不同利益、作用因素、起源和轨迹。这些多重身份的趋势可以部分描述其成功以及它的争论，脆弱性和流动性。
许多公司现在有具体的计划和小节在其网站上处理企业社会责任。在过去，软条例和指导网络，国际公认的规则一直是一种重要机制，作用在公司、国家和国家间组织的需求，例如，发布指导方针和条例的公司。在这背景下，国际组织仍然是重要的行动者，他们正在寻求与跨国公司进行对话，而不是试图通过国家控制企业社会责任。各国际组织不是对企业的社会责任监管机构;而他们却是监管和自我约束的倡议之间的经纪人的最合适人选。对社会负责行为和监测这些行为的需求越来越多地以国家以外的这些组织为渠道，并强调赞成高比例的自律。因此，我们看到了软法律(Morth, 2004)的出现，或者是Knill 和Lehmkuhl (2002) 所说的“被规管的自律”，和Moran (2002)所归纳的“精细”或“非正式”规章。我更喜欢“软法律”和“软规章”的说法，因为他们并不总是非正式的。软规章常常包括正式报告和统筹程序。还有，从统筹和行政的观点来看，那些规章和精细还是相去甚远的。社会责任的措施和规章在公司和他们的利益相关者之间的对话中发展。
联合国全球契约是发展中的软规章框架的中心。它是自愿的，没有法律约束力的制裁。适用于没有遵守规章并被笼统制定的企业。它为理解条例提供许多余地，从而以适合它们自身情况和期待的某种方式，实现将规章转化为行动的改变。该倡议是建立在菜单上的书面原则基础上的国际宣言和协定的成员契约遵循。然而，契约本身并不是一个法律框架。此倡议依赖于承诺，信誉和能见度遵守，而不是对不符合原则的企业发出明确的制裁。全球契约从全球影响力和道德权威的联合国和增列角色创建社区发出的原则，增长其信誉。软规则，换言之，是嵌套在更广泛的监管范围（ Jacobsson和萨赫林-安德森，2006年），更说明了一个事实，即目前还不清楚，结合这些条例以及在何种程度上可以预料，从而遵守或将保持疲软。
联合国全球契约,已形成过程中通过响应规则。2004年的夏天,一个十原理产生广泛的在协商过程。此外,大量的重点放在形成什么被称为“学习网络”和“政策对话”。大量
的会议,安排定期商界领袖、联合国机构、政府的代表,劳工协会,非政府组织和其他团体、学者、都聚集了来讨论和分享他们的经验和关心的具体问题。全球紧凑的进一步鼓励产生的局部结构和网络的国家区域的水平。参赛者来自丹麦，芬兰，挪威和瑞典已经形成了全球契约北欧网络为例，探讨了实现的原理。努力扩大主要是为了扩大网络招聘和活化成员及其它跨国组织形成合作关系。这些网络和对话的目标,为全球契约的网站上公布，在推动学习的演员和部门。参与公司在全球契约要求提供的例子是如何工作的，按照积极推广十原则。组织者现在全球契约当作学习的网络和一个后面的报告是存在野心的，为最佳实践提供了范例。最近，全球已经强调赞成学术著作标准化的报告的标准。最佳实践的案例是由学术的学者全球契约，张贴在网站上。科学和学术参考作为一个合法化的设备和手段的平衡,出现在网络的依赖性有价值的独立与科学和审计。似乎有一种视觉形式的社区中，每个参与者个人演员努力显得适当的关系网络和其他成员对他们的利益相关者的立场，他们根据律。为鼓励人们的机制,坚持准则是，因此，包括他们的小组，来说服他们，关键是要有一个好的该组织内部的名字，达到一个高水平的合法性的努力，在作为一个整体事实上，一定程度的合法性,信号到更广泛的观众，团队成员定义、对社会负责。最后，既包含紧凑像强调的名字的主动权。一个逻辑的适用性(1981年3月)作为管理策略：紧凑的重要性，强调个人演员出现，它是适当的规范旨在使看得见的适用性和合规或缺乏。开发类似于一个社会运动，它是依靠自己的演员。为了让这样一个网络功能有效的、积极参与成员是至关重要的。相反于这种理想的设定紧凑,这个网站，见证公司的放松和不活跃的参与。
积极组织的会议和网络视为一种发起人调动会员为建立一个更活跃的运动。还有其他的方法中，全球契约提醒我们的社会运动或使用汪宏年的(2002)术语模式转向网络。作为其代表强调，“全球契约办公室不规范和监控公司文件和行动”(Kell，2003年3月，p38)。范围的动员、政策制定、报告和监测机构正在形成网络。这整个网络,不是个体的规则和规则制定者形式监管框架。这个目标是为了保持网络的演员一起共同原则、程序和规范。那些在冲突或那些不遵守规则内没有受到惩罚系统。因此柔性的规定存在的假设，将共同规范中这些连接网络来判断对方相对于既定的规则和程序。虽然可能有共同利益之初，希望是这些包括在网络来分享共同规范。包含机制建立在视觉上的更大更广泛的这个网络，更重要的是它会的是为企业，依赖于他们的利益相关者，加入网络向他人显示他们遵守其规章。那些没有遵守原则的，仅仅被责备和羞辱，而没有接受正规的制裁。延长网络是建立在全球契约包含了大量的主动关心的企业公民,企业社会责任和相关问题。它包含大量多样，包括政府机构组织为世界银行、国际经济合作与发展组织，商业协会(例如国际商会及世界贸易委员会对可持续发展),劳动组织(例如国际联合会的自由贸易协定)、学术机构、民间组织。另外,主动离开纪律的独立观察者学者、非政府组织、独立的媒体——观察和细究这个措施，用手指责备那些超越规则界限的行为。鼓励公民社会组织细看社会责任感的企业，全球形成一种治理结构紧凑而不需要运用法律框架。在这个指南为会员，贴
在全球契约的网站,Corpwatch及其他公民社会组织已知愈发细看公司和全球化被称为活性检查操作的全球契约和它的成员的迹象,积极进行审查。通过与这些更关键的演员,主动进一步合法化。这些组织预计扮演重要的角色检查监视器和批判的公司的演员和公司遵循建立的原则。另一种和补充的独立观察员和活动中不可或缺的部分的管理和治理结构是建立具有独立性的监测系统。这样一个系统的会计的这些方面生意的全球报告倡议(世源科技公司)，正在发展。世源科技公司自己描述其网站作为“多方利益过程和独立机构的使命是去可持续发展和推广全球报告准则”放之四海而皆准。这个主办了多方利益过程具有永久性，独立的组织自从1997年全球总部位于荷兰阿姆斯特丹。致力于发展的困扰一个报告制度与国际会计准则委员会和达到一定水平的报告的经济效益、环境效益和社会的可持续发展，将作为常规财务报告。一个框架协定全球契约世源科技公司成立，于2003年3月，在全球契约同意鼓励公司使用指南和报告指标，世源科技公司现有匹配全球契约的原则。延长网络的报告、规范、规则设定和监控组织已经连接到全球契约。例如，世源科技公司和全球契约已经宣布，他们与社会和环境标准的联系。
SA8000和ISO14000。监督和治理模式和发展伴随着新元素的演变，以相互之间伴随着相关的监督管理,控制相互作用和批判的作用力。法规和治理具有相互作用的规范。CSR作为监管框架：影响组织和跨界别的关系有一种特殊的社会趋势的抗议活动演变与公民社会的关注组织。公司已经推出计划，应用标准和带着积极参与开发此类标准的回应新的要求和新形式的监控。它是一种管理框架。公司的主要目标，开始出现了主要驱动因素的趋势。其他组织或多或少都动员作为这个公司的环境的因素。国家和政府间国际组织担任在公司的渠道，要求地方国际组织把这些要求背后的合法性和力量被包装他们的形式全球标准和报告的标准，通过基于联合国框架，通过将他们与建立、规范和协议。这样的运动建立并将会进一步强调了三者之间关系国家、国际组织、企业、国家有望形式制度框架内，维护公司的行为。这个原因形成这种监管框架是薄弱的，而不是努力是基于框架似乎无法完成和国家法规，不得有接受那些调节(公司)及他们的利益相关者。因此，把重点放在柔软的条例，出现了全球性的权力力量的跨国公司。因为公司有这样的力量这个世界,他们的最基本的人性、工人和环境的权利积极发展所必需的深化企业社会责任的世界。辩论中心应符合标准的实现谁应该监控，达到符合处罚不遵守的行为。然而，也有不同的方式，在各种行动者追赶CSR。一个区别有关的其他相关企业社会责任活动，并要求对公司的业务。在企业的需求行为以及培养社会责任方面所做的努力与调节和审查从这些要求，是用来关注整个公司在世界的运作方式。另一方面，当企业社会责任是追求作为公司在协助美国动员工作的发展援助，它可能不关心整个公司，而这似乎是组织形式，在特定的项目，经常瞄准非常遥远的地方和部门。再者，作为管理的趋势，企业社会责任似乎主要是与演示和连接在公司的合法性建设，我们可以预期，根据以往的研究大量的结合发生。
当谈到跨界别的界限，商业和关系公司和公民社会组织、三大趋势似乎也需要之间的差异。第一个趋势，这对公司的新要求，似乎是建立在和强化相对传统的责任，在社会领
域美国提供了游戏的规则和公司按照这些规则。美国与国际组织的规则制定者的范围内做
点公益和介质的更广泛的需求导致冲突和紧张的公司应该在谁的规则和谁应该监督他们。
但这样的冲突并不独特的社会领域。第二个趋势，入口的大公司进入交割的援助来发展国家，似乎是驾驶多点的界限，到达和力量似乎太有限。在第三管理，我们看到了一个趋势
中发挥更积极的作用，由运营商概念、模型、期望和演讲比通常被认为是这个案子。再次，
这并非独一无二，它还代表被发现的情况管理与组织发展的趋势更加普遍。这种现象，然而，重要性阐述了跨部门的发展模式更进一步关系，中介机构之间的关系;并规范和标准
企业家、组织平台和管理技术。
Corporate social responsibility: a trend and a movement, but of what and for what?
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a global trend involving corporations,states, international organizations and civil society organizations.
It is far from clear what CSR stands for,what the trend really is, where it comes from, where it is heading and who the leading actors are. If one views it as a social movement, one must ask: a movement of what and for whom? The discussions help us reflect on the formation ofmanagement trends and how certain models come to flow rapidly and extensively around the globe,following and adding to institutional change –especially to changes in the roles, relations and boundaries between and among states, business corporations and civil society organizations.
The CSR trend in three ways: as a regulatory framework that places new demands on corporations; as a mobilization of corporate actors to assist state development aid; and as a management trend. Each one of these portraits suggests the centrality of certain actors, relations, driving forces and interests. My examples show that no one of these views seems more accurate than the others; instead the movement comprises a bundle of diverse interests, actors, origins and trajectories. These multiple identities of the trend may partly describe its success as well as its contestation, fragility and fluidity.
Many corporations now have specific programs and subsections on their websites dealing with corporate social responsibility. Soft regulations and steering networks In the past, internationally established regulations have been one important mechanism for placing such demands on companies –states and interstate organizations have, for example, issued guidelines and regulations for companies. International organizations are still important actors in this context, but they are seeking a dialogue with corporations rather than seeking to control the social responsibility of corporations via states. The international organizations are not regulators of corporate social responsibility; rather they are best described as brokers between regulatory and self-regulatory initiatives. The demand for socially responsible operations and the monitoring of these operations has increasingly been channeled through organizations other than states, and the emphasis favours a high proportion of self-regulation. Consequently, we have seen the emergence of soft law (Morth, 2004) or what Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002) have called ‘‘regulated self-regulation’’and Moran (2002) has termed
‘‘subtle’’ or ‘‘non-formal’’ regulations. I prefer the terms ‘‘soft law’’ or ‘‘soft regulations’’, because they are not always informal. The soft regulations often include formal reporting and co-ordinating procedures and, from a co-ordination or administrative point of view; the regulations are often far from subtle.the social responsibility measures and regulations evolve in dialogues between corporations and their stakeholders.
The UN Global Compact is at the centre of this evolving soft regulatory framework: It is voluntary, has no binding legal sanctions applied to those who fail to comply, and is formulated in general terms so it provides considerable leeway for those interpreting the regulations to translate them into practice in a way that fits their circumstances and expectations.The initiative is built on a menu of written principles based on international declarations and agreements for members of the Compact to follow. However, the Compact is not in itself a legal framework. Instead of issuing clear sanctions for organizations that do not comply with the principles, the initiative depends upon commitment, credibility and visibility for compliance. The Global Compact gains its credibility from the global reach and moral authority of the UN and from the inclusion of additional actors creating a community around the issued principles. It also gains credibility through its linkages to other regulatory systems. The soft regulations, in other words, are nested in broader regulatory constellations(Jacobsson and Sahlin-Andersson, 2006), adding to the fact that it remains unclear how binding these regulations are and to what extent they can be expected to lead to compliance or to remain soft.
The UN Global Compact has developed through processes of responsive regulation. In the summer of 2004, the addition of a tenth principle resulted from extensive consultative processes among Compact members. In addition, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the formation of what is termed ‘‘learning networks’’ and ‘‘policy dialogues’’. A number of meetings is arranged regularly, in which business leaders, UN agencies, labor associations, governmental representatives, non-governmental organizations, academics, and other groups are brought together
to discuss and share their experiences and concerns about specific issues. The Global Compact further encourages the creation of local structures and networks at the country and regional level. Participants from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have formed the Global Compact Nordic Network to discuss the implementation of the principles. Major efforts have been extended in order to expand the network by recruiting and activating members and by forming partnerships with other transnational organizations. These networks and dialogues aim, as announced on the Global Compact website, at facilitating learning across actors and sectors. Participating companies in the Global Compact are asked to provide examples of how they work to comply with and actively spread the ten principles. The organizers present the Global Compact as a learning network and one ambition behind the reports is to provide examples of best practices for others to follow. Lately, self-reporting has been de-emphasized in favor of academic writings and standardized reporting criteria. Cases of best practice are written by academic scholars and posted on the Global Compact website. Reference to science and academics serve as a legitimizing device and a means of balancing dependence that emerges in the networks with values of independence that are associated with science and auditing. It seems that there is a vision to form a community among the participants in which each individual actor strives to appear appropriate in relation to other members of the network and to their stakeholders at large, a stance that should drive them to act according to the principles articulated. The mechanism for encouraging people to adhere to the norms is, therefore, to include them in the group, to persuade them that it is critical to have a good name within the group, and to reach a high level of legitimacy for the effort as a whole –in fact, a degree of legitimacy that signals to wider audiences that group members are, by definition, socially responsible. Inclusion is both the end and the means of the Compact – as emphasized by the very name of this initiative. A logic of appropriateness (March, 1981) is used as a governance strategy: the Compact emphasizes the importance for individual actors to appear appropriate and it is aimed at making visible the norms of appropriateness and compliance or the lack
thereof. The development resembles that of a social movement, as it is dependent upon the mobilization of actors. In order for such a network to function effectively, the active participation of members is crucial. In contrast to this ideal setup of the Compact, the websites bear witness to a somewhat more relaxed and less active participation by the companies.
The active organizing of conferences and networks can be seen as a means for initiators to mobilize members in order to form a more active movement. There are other ways in which the Global Compact reminds us of a social movement or, to use Moran’s (2002) term, a mode of steering network. As its representatives repeatedly emphasize, ‘‘The Global Compact office neither regulates nor monitors a company’s submissions and initiatives’’ (Kell, 2003, p. 38). Constellations of mobilizing, policy making, reporting and monitoring bodies are formed into a network. This entire network, rather than individual rules and rule makers form a regulatory framework. The goal is to hold the network of actors together by common principles, procedures and norms. Those in conflict or those unlikely to adhere to the rules are not punished within the system. Thus the soft regulation presumes the existence of common norms and a will among those joining the network to judge each other relative to these established rules and procedures. Although common interests may not be present at the outset, the hope is that those included in the network come to share common norms. The inclusion mechanism is built on the vision that the larger and more extensive this network, the more important it will be for corporations, which are dependent on their stakeholders, to join the network and to show others that they comply with its rules. Instead of receiving formal sanctions, those not following principles are merely blamed and shamed.The extended network that is built around the Global Compact includes a large number of initiatives concerned with corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility and related issues. It comprises a wide set of diverse organizations, including such intergovernmental organizations as the World Bank and the OECD, business associations (e.g. International Chamber of Commerce and World Business Council for Sustainable Development), labor organizations (e.g. The International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions), academic institutions, and civil society organizations (e.g. Amnesty International). Furthermore, the initiatives leave discipline in the hands of independent observers –academics, NGOs, and independent media – that watch and scrutinize the actions taken and point the finger of blame at those who step out of line. By encouraging civil society organizations to scrutinize the social responsibility of business corporations, the Global Compact forms a governance framework without necessarily applying a legal framework. In the guidelines for members, posted on the Global Compact web site, Corpwatch and other civil society organizations known to more critically scrutinize corporations and globalization are referred to as active scrutinizers of the operations of the Global CompacI describes itself on its website as ‘‘a multi-stakeholder process and independent institution whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines’’. This multi-stakeholder process is hosted by a permanent, independent organization which has had global headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands since 1997. The GRI seeks to develop a reporting system comparable to the international accounting standards board and to achieve a level of reporting of economic, environmental and social sustainability that would be as routine as financial reporting. A framework agreement between the Global Compact and the GRI was established in March 2003, wherein the Global Compact agreed to encourage companies to use GRI guidelines and reporting indicators that matched existing Global Compact principles. Extended networks of reporting, standardizing, rule setting and the monitoring of organizations have been connected to the Global Compact. For example, the GRI and the Global Compact have announced their links with social and environmental standards.
SA 8000 and ISO 14000. The regulatory and governance modes and domains develop incrementally with the enrollment of new actors; with the interplay among actors; and with the interplay among related regulatory, governing and criticizing efforts. Regulations and governance are characterized by reciprocity and co-regulation.
CSR as a regulatory framework: impacts on organizations and cross-sector relations I have described the CSR trend as evolving from the protests and concerns of civil society organizations. Corporations have launched programs, applied standards and taken an active part in developing such standards in response to new demands and new forms of monitoring. It is a regulatory framework. Corporations appear both as main targets and as main driving actors of the trend. Other organizations are mobilized more or less as actors in the environment of the corporations. States and intergovernmental organizations act as channels to place demands on corporations, demands which have also been expressed by civil society organizations. The organized efforts of states and international organizations have put legitimacy and strength behind these demands by packaging them in the form of globally applicable standards and reporting criteria, by basing them on the UN framework, and by associating them with established norms and agreements. In this way the movement builds on and can be expected to further emphasize a relationship between and among states, international organizations and corporations, whereby states are expected to form and uphold the institutional frameworks within which corporations act. The reason for forming this regulatory framework to be soft rather than hard is based on what the framework seems to be able to accomplish – harder and more state-centered regulations may not have been accepted by those who are to be regulated (corporations) and by their stakeholders. Hence, the emphasis on soft regulations appears as an expression of the global power and strength of multinational corporations. Because business corporations have such strength in the world, their compliance with fundamental human, worker and environmental rights is essential for furthering positive developments in the world of corporate social responsibility. Debates center on how such compliance should be accomplished, what the criteria are for reaching compliance and who should monitor and sanction those not complying.
However, there were also differences in the manner in which various actors pursued CSR. One difference concerned the way in which corporate social responsibility related to other activities, operations and demands on the
corporations. The demands on corporations to act and to develop in socially responsible ways and the regulating and scrutinizing efforts that follow from these demands are meant to concern the entire corporation – wherever in the world it operates. On the other hand, when corporate social responsibility is pursued as a mobilization of corporations in assisting states in development aid, it may not concern the whole corporation; rather it seems to be organized and pursued in the form of specific projects, often aimed at very distant places and sectors. And third, as a management trend, corporate social responsibility seems to be connected primarily with presentations and legitimacy building in corporations, and we should expect, based on previous research, a great deal of de-coupling to occur.
When it comes to cross-sector boundaries and relationships among states, business corporations and civil society organizations, the three trends also seem to entail differences. The first trend, the placing of new demands on corporations, seems to be built on and to reinforce a relatively traditional division of responsibility across societal sectors whereby states provide the rules of the game and corporations act according to these rules. States and international organizations do act as rule setters and as mediators of the broader demands placed on corporations leading to conflicts and tensions over who should set the rules and who should monitor them. But such conflicts are not unique to the CSR field. The second trend, the entrance of large corporations into the delivery of aid to developing countries, seems to be driving a somewhat more blurring of boundaries, in which corporations are not only expected to follow rules and to respond to expectations and demands set by others, but are actually expected to supplement and add to state and inter-governmental organizations where their reach and strength seems to be too limited. In the third, the management trend, we find a more active role being played by the carriers of concepts, models, expectations and presentations than is usually assumed to be the case. Again, this is tional trends more generally. This phenomenon, however, points to the importance of developing further elaborated models of cross-sectoral relationships; the role of intermediaries; and the interrelations among norms and norm entrepreneurs,
organizational platforms and governing technologies.
河南科技学院新科学院2013届本科毕业论文（设计） 外文文献及翻译 Environmental Accounting 学生姓名：叶乃润 所在系别：经济系 所学专业：国际经济与贸易 导师姓名：郭晓明（助教） 完成时间：2013年4月18日
Environmental Accounting by Joy E. Hecht Interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment. The field of environmental accounting has made great strides in the past two decades, moving from a rather arcane endeavor to one tested in dozens of countries and well established in a few. But the idea that nations might integrate the economic role of the environment into their income accounts is neither a quick sell nor a quick process; it has been under discussion since the 1960s. Despite the difficulties and controversies described in this article, however, interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment. Environmental accounting is underway in several dozen countries, where bureaucrats, statisticians, and other proponents both foreign and domestic have initiated activities over the past few decades. Several countries have made continuous investments in building routine data systems, which are integrated into existing statistical systems and economic planning activities. Others have made more limited efforts to calculate a few indicators, or analyze a single sector. Some of the earliest research on environmental accounting was done at RFF by Henry Peskin, working on the design of accounts for the United States. One of the first countries to build environmental accounts is Norway, which began collecting data on energy sources, fisheries, forests, and minerals in the 1970s to address resource scarcity. Over time, the Norwegians have expanded their accounts to include data on air pollutant emissions. Their accounts feed into a model of the national economy, which policymakers use to assess the energy implications of alternate growth strategies. Inclusion of these data also allows them to anticipate the impacts of different growth patterns on compliance with international conventions on pollutant emissions. More recently, a number of resource-dependent countries have become interested in measuring depreciation of their natural assets and adjusting their GDPs environmentally. One impetus for their interest was the 1989 study “Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts,” in which Robert Repetto and his colleagues at the World Resources Institute estimated the depreciation of Indonesia’s forests, petroleum reserves, and soil assets. Once adjusted to account for that depreciation, Indonesia’s GDP and growth rates both sank significantly below conventional figures. While “Wasting Assets” called many to action, it also op erated as a brake, leading many economists and statisticians to warn against a focus on green GDP, because it tells decision makers nothing about the causes or solutions for environmental problems. Since that time, several developing countries have made long-term commitments to broad-based environmental accounting. Namibia began work on resource accounts in 1994, addressing such questions as whether the government has been able to
一、对会计造假行为主体的界定 (一)会计造假的含义 会计造假可分为会计信息的有意造假和会计信息的无意失实。本文主要涉及会计信息的有意造假，它是指会计活动中当事人．事前经过安排，故意以欺诈、舞弊等手段．伪造 、变造虚假会计信息，使会计信息歪曲反映经济活动和会计事项．以此达到特定利益的集团或个人的不正当违法犯罪行为。 (二)会计造假主体的界定 会计造假主体应包括炮制假账和相关违法乱纪活动的主谋、共谋和执行者。按照在造假过程中所发挥的作用不同，会计造假主体包括动议者、决策者、操作者和协同者。 造假的动议者是指为会计造假出谋划策的人。通常是单位财会部门的负责人．在造假过程中往往扮演替导演的角色。 造假的决策者是指有权决定会计造假实施的各级领导人。决策者既可以是领导者个人．也可以是领导层集体，是会计造假的最大受益者。 造假的实施者是指拥有职务便利、能够接触会计凭证、帐薄、报表等资料，亲自实施和完成会计造假的人员。它不仅包括有关会计人员、出纳人员，而且还包括相关的采购人员、销售人员、保管人员和统计人员。造假的协同者是指从某些方面策应、配合造假的人员。既包括在造假之初为之提供方便者．如某些财会人员为造假积极出谋划策，提供信息 及技术方法和手段，与领导共同设计防范检查的对策和措施：也包括在造假事实发生后为其掩饰、布防、通风报信和提供伪证等人员。 值得说明的是，在不同的造假案件中．造假主体的人员构成不尽相同．相关人员在造假过程中所承担的职资和所发挥的作用也不一样。 二、作为企业的经营者，对虚假会计信息的出笼和传播有着较为复杂的心态
(一)“高指标”诱出假数字 前些年在企业和主管部门还没有完全脱钩的情况下，一些厂长经理迫于经营业绩的考 核压力年年把销售、利润当做最紧要的“任务”抓，实行以“高指标”“乌纱帽”的考核 办法，在这种压力下，经营者不粉饰报表、不编造假数字就难过考核关。在企业内部实行 以盈亏数字论功行赏的办法。于是便有了“造假数字”这一“良方”。 而近几年，在各种利益关系的诱导下，一些企业在编制会计报表时“对症下药”：贷 款时夸大资产，掩饰坏帐；报税时隐瞒利润，销售缩水；上报成绩时粉饰业绩，掩盖问题 逃债时隐藏资产，虚列负担；改制时，资产剧降、利润变负。 私营企业则是千篇一律的造假模式，开“阴阳发票”、虚开增值税票、隐藏收人，惟 一的目标就是逃税、逃税、还是逃税!经营者既深知造假之风有害无益，又自觉不自觉地参 与和支持会计造假有的管理人员坦然地说，会计造假形成的不正之风使得公平竞争遭到破 坏不是造假者深受其害，而是谁不做假谁吃“哑巴亏”，因而大部分造假者都是心存侥幸，相互仿效，只是造假的程度不同罢了。 (二)假业绩会引出“金凤凰” 事实上，会计造假就像“臭豆腐”，闻着臭吃着香。这就使企业陷人了“服喜得喜， 报忧得忧”的怪圈。因为不少经营者有着“依靠虚假数字出政绩，追求数字真实丢官位” 的教训。在经营业绩实“一票否决权”的情况下，有人就因造假造出了“政绩”，而使得 企业“突飞猛进”，个人不断“进步”，这就使人产生了“撑死胆大的，饿死胆小的”的 活思想。 当被问及怕不怕浮夸造假漏馅而遭处分，不少人不置可否，一位知情管理人说：“会 计包装，人所共知，但到目前为止，一般还很少追究过任何造假者的责任。别的单位能这 样做，我也这样做。到手的荣誉和实惠谁也不会不要。”看来，会计打假目前尚缺乏应有 的力度，大部分造假者都各有“招数”，并没有多少后顾之忧。同时，不少经营者也反映
经典文献（The 100 articles with the highest citation index-until 1996） 以下所有文献按照：Lawrence D. Brown, 1996, “Influential Accounting Articles, Individuals, Ph. D Granting Institutions and Faculties; A Citational Analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, V ol.21, NO.7/8, P726-728提供的资料 1.Ball, R. and Brown, P., 1968, “An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Numbers”, journal of Accounting Research, Autumn, pp. 159-178 2.Watts R.L., Zimmerman J., 1978, “Towards a Positive Theory of the Dete rmination of Accounting Standards”, The Accounting Review, pp. 112-134 3.Healy P.M, 1985, “The Effect of Bonus Schemes on Accounting Decisions”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, April, 85-107 4.Hopwood A. G., “Towards an Organizational Pe rspective for the Study of Accounting and Information Systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society (No. 1, 1978) pp. 3-14 5.Collins, D. W., Kothari, S. P., 1989, “An Analysis of Intertemporal and Cross-Sectional Determinants of Earnings Response Coefficients”, journal of Accounting & Economics, pp. 143-181 6.Easton P.D, Zmijewski M.E, 1989, “Cross-Sectional Variation in the Stock Market Response to Accounting Earnings Announcements”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 117-141 7.Bea ver, W. H., 1968, “The Information Content of Annual Earnings Announcements”, journal of Accounting Research, pp. 67-92 8.Holthausen R.W., Leftwich R.W., 1983, “The Economic Consequences of Accounting Choice: Implications of Costly Contracting and Monitoring”, journal of Accounting & Economics, August, pp77-117 9.Patell J.M, 1976, “Corporate Forecasts of Earnings Per Share and Stock Price Behavior: Empirical Tests. Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn, 246-276 10.Brown L.D., Griffin P.A., Hagerman R.L., Zmijewski M.E, 1987, “An Evaluation of Alternative Proxies for the Market’s Assessment of Unexpected Earnings”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61-87 11.Ou J.A., Penman S.H., 1989, “Financial Statement Analysis and the Prediction o f Stock Returns”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Nov., 295-329 12.William H. Beaver, Roger Clarke, William F. Wright, 1979, “The Association between Unsystematic Security Returns and the Magnitude of Earnings Forecast Errors,” Journal of Accounting Research, 17, 316-340. 13.Burchell S., Clubb C., Hopwood, A., Hughes J., Nahapiet J., 1980, “The Roles of Accounting in Organizations and Society”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, No.1, pp. 5-28
会计信息质量在投资中的决策作用对私人信息和监测的影响 安妮比蒂，美国俄亥俄州立大学 瓦特史考特廖，多伦多大学 约瑟夫韦伯，美国麻省理工学院 1简介 管理者与外部资本的供应商信息是不对称的在这种情况下企业是如何影响金融资本 的投资的呢？越来越多的证据表明，会计质量越好，越可以减少信息的不对称和对融资成本的约束。与此相一致的可能性是，减少了具有更高敏感性的会计质量的公司的投资对内部产生的现金流量。威尔第和希拉里发现，对企业投资和与投资相关的会计质量容易不足，是容易引发过度投资的原因。 当投资效率低下时，会计的质量重要性可以减轻外部资本的影响，供应商有可能获得私人信息或可直接监测管理人员。通过访问个人信息与控制管理行为，外部资本的供应商可以直接影响企业的投资，降低了会计质量的重要性。符合这个想法的还有比德尔和希拉里的比较会计对不同国家的投资质量效益的影响。他们发现，会计品质的影响在于美国投资效益，而不是在日本。他们认为，一个可能的解释是不同的是债务和股权的美国版本的资本结构混合了SUS的日本企业。 我们研究如何通过会计质量灵敏度的重要性来延长不同资金来源对企业的投资现金 流量的不同影响。直接测试如何影响不同的融资来源会计，通过最近获得了债务融资的公司来投资敏感性现金流的质量的效果，债务融资的比较说明了对那些不能够通过他们的能力获得融资的没有影响。为了缓解这一问题，我们限制我们的样本公司有所有最近获得的债务融资和利用访问的差异信息和监测通过公共私人债务获得连续贷款的建议。我们承认，投资内部现金流敏感性可能较低获得债务融资的可能性。然而，这种可能性偏见拒绝了我们的假设。 具体来说，我们确定的数据样本证券公司有1163个采样公司（议会），通过发行资本公共债务或银团债务。我们限制我们的样本公司最近获得的债务融资持有该公司不断融资与借款。然而，在样本最近获得的债务融资的公司，也有可能是信号，在资本提供进入私人信息差异和约束他们放在管理中的行为。相关理论意味着减少公共债务持有人获取私人信息，因而减少借款有效的监测。在这些参数的基础上，我们预测，会计质量应该有一
会计外文文献翻译
原文题目：《评述教育会计专业》作者：迈克尔卡夫金原文出处：School of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia 会计教育会计教育。一般来说，从业者似乎已不愿想改变 - 要离开自己的舒适区 - 慢，并已承认在与伦理，环境恶化，全球化相关的地区更广泛的社会问题所提出的问题，增加业务的复杂性和其他一些因素我写我的一些挫折（卡夫金，1981 年）和左新西兰追求我在澳大利亚的学习和职业生涯。我后来成为澳大利亚的主要会计机构教育委员会主席。在这种角色我曾与新西兰身体的教育委员会的领导组织，并得到非常积极的态度，他们与澳大利亚的机构都对促进更“圆”大学会计教育方案（其中大部分出自从业者，学者的鼓励！）。最近在新西兰旅行，我一直很失望，观察什么似乎是一个这样做的目的完全逆转; 重点放在，由新西兰的专业团体，纯粹的技术能力，他们迫使大学遵守这一点 - 复仇的bean 柜台？什么也令人失望对我来说是由学术带头人的决心明显缺乏，使专业团体的“决定”什么通行证作为会计教育法规，如会计死记硬背。我观察到有什
么事我当作一个高级学者讨好自己的专业机构，而不是促进学科发展，将在二十一世纪更广泛的社会需要的知识要点。因此，我的评论是针对试图界定什么是专业会计师 - 毫无疑问，很多人可能不同意。我的目的是展示合作的重要性，而不是怀疑和无知的需要和应具有什么样的会计专业的各个部分努力。我并不想冒犯各位同事，而是试图提供一个什么样的我的看法是会计面临的问题和强调纪律，前进的方向，通过所有这些谁认为，在解决方案协助资讯科技合作是批判极大的社会问题。从业人员有一个会计的执业类别广泛的业余爱好，所以任何评论，我所做的非常广泛的推广。传统上，从业者已被注册会计师，会计师或公共部门私营会计师，但随着业务的日益复杂和商业机构在最近的时代，这些分类的界线变得越来越模糊。即使是会计师有与大，往往跨国公司，会计师事务所有关人士，并在小企业非常不同的具体利益与每个人 - 财务顾问，财务报表编制，税务顾问或核数师。然而，有票面21,2 172 学术的角度来看，一般来说，从业者似乎是什么学术可疑。显然不是所有从业者觉得这种方式，有的已经布满学术界
附件1：外文资料翻译译文 财务报表分析 A.财务比率 我们需要使用财务比率来分析财务报表，比较财务报表的分析方法不能真正有效的得出想要的结果，除非采取的是研究在报表中项目与项目之间关系的形式。例如，只是知道史密斯公司在一个特定的日期中拥有10000美元的现金余额，对我们是没有多大价值的。但是，假如我们知道，这种余额在这种平衡中有4%的流动负债，而一年前的现金余额有25%的流动负债。由于银行家对公司通常要求现金余额保持在银行信用度的20%，不管使用或不使用，如果公司的财务状况出现问题，我们可以立即发现。 我们可以对比比较财务报表中的项目，作出如下结论： 1. 项目之间的资产负债表比较： a）在资产负债表中的一个日期之间的比较，例如项目，现金与流动负债相比； b）同一项目在资产负债表中一个日期与另一个日期之间的比较，例如，现在的现金与一年前比较； c）比较两个项目之间在资产负债表中一个日期和一个相似比率在资产负债表中的另一个日期的比率，例如，现在现金流动负债的比率与另一个项目一年前的相似比率和已经标记的现金状况趋势的比较。 2．项目报表中收入和支出的比较： a）一定时期中的报表项目的比较； b）同一项目在报表中现阶段与上个阶段的比较； c）报表中项目之间的比率与去年相似比率的比较； 3．资产负债表中的项目与报表中收入和支出项目的比较： a）在这些报表项目之间的一个给定的时间内，例如，今年净利润可能以百分比计算今年净值； b）两个报表中项目之间的比率在这几年时间的比较，例如，净利润的比率占今年净值的百分比与去年或者前年的相似比率的比较 如果我们采用上述比较或比率，然后依次比较它们，我们的比较分析结果将获得重要意义：
会计类英文参考文献 The Optimization Method of Financial Statements Based on Accounting Management Theory ABSTRACT This paper develops an approach to enhance the reliability and usefulness of financial statements. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) was fundamentally flawed by fair value accounting and asset-impairment accounting. According to legal theory and accounting theory, accounting data must have legal evidence as its source document. The conventional “mixed attribute” accounting system should be replaced by a “segregated” system with historical cost and fair value being kept strictly apart in financial statements. The proposed optimizing method will significantly enhance the reliability and usefulness of financial statements. I.INTRODUCTION Based on international-accounting-convergence approach, the Ministry of Finance issued the Enterprise Accounting Standards in 2006 taking the International Financial Reporting Standards (hereinafter referred to as “the International Standards”) f or reference. The Enterprise Accounting Standards carries out fair value accounting successfully, and spreads the sense that accounting should reflect market value objectively. The objective of accounting reformation following-up is to establish the accounting theory and methodology which not only use international advanced theory for reference, but also accord with the needs of China's socialist market economy construction. On the basis of a thorough evaluation of the achievements and limitations of International Standards, this paper puts forward a stand that to deepen accounting reformation and enhance the stability of accounting regulations. II. OPTIMIZATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SYSTEM: PARALLELING LISTING OF LEGAL FACTS AND FINANCIAL EXPECTATION As an important management activity, accounting should make use of information systems based on classified statistics, and serve for both micro-economic management and macro-economic regulation at the same time. Optimization of financial statements system should try to take all aspects of the demands of the financial statements in both macro and micro level into account. Why do companies need to prepare financial statements? Whose demands should be considered while preparing financial statements? Those questions are basic issues we should consider on the optimization of financial statements. From the perspective
Foreign source ：Friends of the accounting, in 2009 (30) 84 85 Enterprise receivables management analysed 【abstract 】in order to meet the expanding sales and increase the competitiveness of the enterprises, reduce inventory, reduce inventory risk and management expenses need, the business activities in El often created accounts receivable. Accounts receivable is the enterprise is an important, the risk is bigger liquid assets, its quality is good or bad for a business often has had a significant impact. Because of the important account receivable, according to some accounts receivable management and accounting, points out the existing problems in the disadvantages of account receivable mismanagement, and puts forward some to strengthen the management of accounts receivable practices. 【keywords 】receivables; The provision for; Management risk Accounts receivable is the enterprise is an important, the risk is bigger liquid assets, its quality is good or bad for a business often has had a significant impact. These long-term difficult to recover the accounts receivable existence, seriously affected the enterprise. The normal production and business enterprise management costs, increased to different extent some enterprise into a financial crisis. 1.The role of account receivable. Expand sales, increase the competitiveness of the enterprises in the fierce market competition situation, is to promote the sales of credit is an important way. Enterprise credit is actually to provide customers with the two transactions, to customer selling products, and in a limited period introverted customers funds. In credit-tightening, market weakness, lack of money, the promotion with obvious credit for enterprise sales role. New products and explore new market is more important significance. Reduce inventory, reduce inventory risk and management costs. To the enterprise to hold finished goods inventory additional fee, warehousing costs and insurance expenses; Instead, the enterprise to hold accounts receivable, you do not need the spending. Therefore, when the enterprise products inventory more for long time, generally can use more favorable credit conditions, the inventory into pipes receivable and reduce finished goods in stock, save related expenses.
中英文翻译 战略财务会计在中小企业 摘要：随着社会经济的发展和科学技术的进步,中国的企业在一个充满机会和危险的阶段。介绍了安全会计的含义和意义战略财务会计中存在的问题,阐述了财务策略进行小中型企业一起,最后提出了一些对策和原因。 关键词：中小企业的战略财务会计、问题、对策 一个企业的不确定性的金融环境其财务活动充满风险。除了机会,有许多的危险从时间,以时间,其财务会计。因此,它已经成为了成功的关键一个企业的财务会计是否能跟踪的趋势变化什么是有用的吸收。应当拒绝接受什么是有害的。战略会计思想是非常重要的在企业的财务会计,因为我们必须努力去分析和把握一般环境和发展一个企业的发展趋势,从而提高适应能力、可变性和适用性的金融中心会计不确定环境。目前,中小企业在100年通过了工商登记、以企业总数的90%。因此,其战略财务会计是特别重要的,这也是本论文的主题。 1 简介 战略性的财务会计是财务会计理论,根据该融资应该的在最适当的方式进行,采集到的资本必须利用和会计的最有效的方式虽然企业和决策和利润分配应该最合理。根据其内涵,总结三个主要内容的战略财务会计,包括融资策略,投资战略和利润分配决策策略。详情如下: 融资策略 高度发达的现代企业具有的销售急剧增长。当面对这样一种局势,企业倾向于有很大的要求从股票和应收账款是资本的提升。更大的为销售增长的张力,但更大的资本要求。因此,在融资策略都具有十分重要的意义战略会计财务。融资策略的
功能在于明确的指导方针融资、铺设融资目标下,建立整体规模、融资渠道和方法,安排战略资本结构优化方案,从各方面对此作了相应的对策,以达到融资目标,最后预测和收集的大量资金的企业的需要。 投资策略 为核心的战略财务会计,这种策略决定一个企业只能分配它的首都资源合理而有效的方法。投资策略包括确认投资固定资产的方向、公司规模和资本规模、投资选择相关的外部扩张或内部扩张,改革旧的产品或开发新的、独立或联合操作,自有资金投资决定或贷款之间的百分比固定资产、流动资产、投资策略和风险和那些在通货膨胀。 利润分配决策策略 这个策略,包括会计资本收益和设立股份奖金分配制度,主要的交易一个企业比例,搁在长期底图在扩大规模、提高员工福利和自身的生活水平。利润分配决策战略旨在满足需求,对于资产资本的发展和改进企业的核心竞争力根据相关的投资策略和融资策略。与此同时,在实行这个策略,企业建立以人为本预计分配政策的有效方法,积极探索运用那些重要的要素,如知识、技术、专利、会计利润分配决策课程。 2 我国中小企业战略财务会计的问题 目前,一些常见的问题包括： 2.1 缺乏科学规范的财务策略 不少企业在追求只有一个大的规模,或购买大量的土地而忽略资产结构配置,或没有合理安排其资本。他们没有财务策略,不要去提到实施。至于其他的影响,分析了其战略财务会计是很大的影响由于他们的科学和不规则的策略,并具有以下特点:第一,他们的战略企业财务目标的总体离开他们的财务策略;第二,被认为相当于金融计划,因此忽视的综合性金融策略;第三,金融方案不是根据他们的企业的长期目标,因此有很大的随机性。 2.2 忽视战略环境分析,并有不合理的战略性的财务目标 战略环境分析既是财务策略的基础和保障实施。它包括内部和外部环境分析与前者的存在内部基础和实施依据建立的财务策略。目前,很多中小企业没有实现战略环境的重要性,建立和推行的金融战略和因此未能有适当的分析,特别是其战略
变化中的会计师审计独立性——与当前环境与时俱进，理查德·贝克 2005年8月——具《注册会计师专刊》的主编罗伯特科尔森在他2004年3月的专栏里的研究表明，“会计师审计的独立性”的概念，在过去的150多年中，是不断变化的。从一般意义上说，会计师审计的独立性与当前的商业环境是存在着密切的关联的。但是，不同的“会计师审计的独立性”的概念之间，并没有明显的过渡。通常情况下，许多审计的独立性的不同概念的提出，都是围绕着专业的会计师、审计师、监管机构和一般公众之间的独立性，所展开讨论的。 会计师审计的独立性的最初概念，出现在19世纪。它的出现，是基于这样一个前提的，即主要是英国本土的专业会计师和审计师，对整个大英帝国以前的和现有的殖民资本承担监督的责任。在此期间，数量上相对来说较少的会计师事务所，却要对相对来说大数量的群体执行审计的任务。这些专业的会计师和审计师就有可能同时对不同的实体出具财务报告、为不同的投资群体工作。 在这个时代，会计师审计独立性的概念，并没有把审计设想为一个独立存在的审计实体;英国投资者明确禁止审计者在其审计的企业工作或参与投资。与此同时，只要会计师保持对主要投资者的审计服务，他们的专业会计服务的范围，是可以合理地扩大的。例如，审计师被允许可以帮他们所审计的企业编制财务报表。 会计师审计的独立性这一初步的概念在19世纪末到20世纪初发生了改变。在这段时期，经济上有了一个大的变化，那就是资本的主要来源由国内市场转向到外国资本市场。这一变化的出现是与美国的大型工业公司，如采矿，铁路，能源，电力和电信，的出现相关联的。伴随着这些美国大公司的出现的，也包括着对公司商业性的理解的改变。在上世纪30年代，经济学家阿道夫贝尔和伽尔迪纳指出，推进对这一变化的理解的，是大型企业所有权的分离，以及会计和审计对于公司的财产权益的重要性。在这一新思路下，审计的主要职责，就是为集体的所有权益的需要而服务，而不是某个具体的无所有权的利益。这种集体的所有权益，基本上是由国内的股东组成，通常往往是大银行或非常富有的投资者。 联邦证券法在新政时代的通过，以及美国证券交易委员会的成立，使会计师审计的独立性的概念，有了再一次的转变。美国证券交易委员会的成立，对建立出具财务报告和审计法规的标准，有着最重要的影响。通过这种努力，公共的会
河南科技学院新科学院 2013 届本科毕业论文（设计） 外文文献及翻译 Environmental Accounting 学生姓名：叶乃润 所在系别：经济系 所学专业：国际经济与贸易 导师姓名：郭晓明（助教） 完成时间：2013 年 4 月 18 日
Environmental Accounting by Joy E. Hecht Interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment. The field of environmental accounting has made great strides in the past two decades, moving from a rather arcane endeavor to one tested in dozens of countries and well established in a few. But the idea that nations might integrate the economic role of the environment into their income accounts is neither a quick sell nor a quick process; it has been under discussion since the 1960s. Despite the difficulties and controversies described in this article, however, interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment. Environmental accounting is underway in several dozen countries, where bureaucrats, statisticians, and other proponents both foreign and domestic have initiated activities over the past few decades. Several countries have made continuous investments in building routine data systems, which are integrated into existing statistical systems and economic planning activities. Others have made more limited efforts to calculate a few indicators, or analyze a single sector. Some of the earliest research on environmental accounting was done at RFF by Henry Peskin, working on the design of accounts for the United States. One of the first countries to build environmental accounts is Norway, which began collecting data on energy sources, fisheries, forests, and minerals in the 1970s to address resource scarcity. Over time, the Norwegians have expanded their accounts to include data on air pollutant emissions. Their accounts feed into a model of the national economy, which policymakers use to assess the energy implications of alternate growth strategies. Inclusion of these data also allows them to anticipate the impacts of different growth patterns on compliance with international conventions on pollutant emissions. More recently, a number of resource-dependent countries have become interested in measuring depreciation of their natural assets and adjusting their GDPs environmentally. One impetus for their interest was the 1989 study “Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts,” in which Robert Repetto and his colleagues at the World Resources Institute estimated the depreciation of Indonesia’s forests, petroleum reserves, and soil assets. Once adjusted to account for that depreciation, Indonesia’s GDP and growth rates both sank significantly below conventional figures. While “Wasting Assets” called many to action, it also operated as a brake, leading many economists and statisticians to warn against a focus on green GDP, because it tells decision makers nothing about the causes or solutions for environmental problems. Since that time, several developing countries have made long-term commitments to broad-based environmental accounting. Namibia began work on resource accounts in 1994, addressing such questions as whether the government has been able to