经济与管理专业外文翻译--运用作业成本法和经济增加值的具体应用

EVA（经济增加值）在绩效考核中的应用大家好，今天我们来聊一聊关于企业绩效考核中的一种指标，那就是EVA，即经济增加值。

对于很多刚入行的小伙伴来说，这个名词可能还有些陌生，但它在企业管理中的地位却是非同小可的。

让我们一起来揭秘EVA 在绩效考核中的应用吧！什么是EVA？让我们来解释一下EVA是什么。

EVA的全称是EconomicValueAdded，翻译成中文就是经济增加值。

简单来说，EVA是一种衡量企业绩效的财务指标，它通过计算企业实际盈利高于资本成本的部分来评估企业的经济利润。

EVA如何计算？EVA的计算方法其实并不复杂，就是净利润减去资本成本的乘积。

具体公式如下：EVA=净利润-资本成本这里的资本成本包括了企业使用的资本的成本，一般是根据资本成本率乘以资本的成本基数来计算的。

EVA的优势与挑战EVA作为一种绩效考核指标，有着诸多优势。

它能够更客观地反映企业创造的价值，而不仅仅是看盈利额；EVA更加注重长期投资价值，能够促使企业进行长期规划和持续创新。

然而，EVA也面临着一些挑战，比如计算复杂、需要大量准确的数据支持等。

EVA在绩效考核中的应用那么，EVA在绩效考核中究竟扮演着怎样的角色呢？可以说，EVA既是一种绩效考核指标，也是一种激励机制。

通过将EVA纳入绩效考核体系，可以激励员工为企业创造更多的经济增加值，进而实现共赢。

EVA还可以帮助企业更好地评估投资价值，制定科学的激励政策，提高企业整体绩效。

EVA作为一种衡量企业绩效的重要指标，在绩效考核中发挥着至关重要的作用。

通过合理运用EVA，企业可以更加全面地评估自身的经济价值创造能力，并激励员工积极努力，共同实现企业的长期发展目标。

希望通过本文的介绍，大家能对EVA在绩效考核中的应用有所了解，并在实际工作中加以运用，取得更好的绩效成绩！。

管理会计应用指引第602号——经济增加值法经济增加值（EVA）法是一种衡量企业绩效的管理会计工具，也被认为是衡量企业创造经济价值能力的一个重要指标。

本文将从EVA法的定义、计算方法、优点及应用等方面介绍。

经济增加值（Economic Value Added，简称EVA）是斯特恩斯特曼·A·库珀（SternStewart & Co.）公司于1994年首次提出的概念，是一种测量企业广义经济利润的指标。

EVA法的核心思想是通过对企业净资产的回报率进行评估，以及对资本成本的考虑，从而计算出企业创造的经济价值。

EVA的计算方法如下：EVA =净利润- (净资产×资本成本率)其中，净利润表示企业在特定时期所获得的税后利润；净资产表示企业在特定时期的总资产减去负债；资本成本率表示企业所使用资金的成本，主要由权益资金成本和有息负债资金成本组成。

EVA法的优点在于：1.考虑了资本成本：EVA法通过计算企业对资本的回报率与资本成本之间的差异，加强了企业对资本的有效配置和利用，避免了传统利润指标对投资回报的忽视。

2.长期导向：EVA法注重长期经营，对于企业发展规划和战略部署具有指导意义，可以促使企业形成具有持续竞争优势的核心能力。

3.激励机制：EVA法可以作为激励机制的基础，通过与企业绩效挂钩，激发员工的积极性和创造力，提高企业整体绩效。

EVA法的应用主要包括以下几个方面：1.经营绩效评估：EVA法可以作为衡量企业经营绩效的指标，通过对不同部门、不同项目的EVA进行评估，及时了解业务部门的盈利能力，发现业务短板，并采取相应的改进措施。

2.投资决策支持：EVA法可以提供一个全面的企业盈利能力评估，对于企业内部的投资决策提供决策支持，帮助企业确定投资项目的优先级和可行性。

3.资本投入效益评估：EVA法可以帮助企业评估资本投入的效益，通过计算EVA，可以了解资本投入带来的回报，从而优化资本配置和使用。

经济增加值的三种计算方法经济增加值（Economic Value Added，EVA）是一个用来衡量企业经济绩效的指标，它可以帮助企业评估自身的经济利润能力，并且可以为企业的经济决策提供重要的参考依据。

在实际应用中，有多种计算方法可以用来计算经济增加值，下面将介绍其中的三种常用方法。

首先，最常见的计算经济增加值的方法是净资产收益率法。

这种方法是通过计算企业净资产的收益率来评估企业的经济增加值。

具体的计算公式是，经济增加值 = 净资产收益率× 净资产。

净资产收益率可以通过净利润除以净资产来计算，而净资产则是企业的总资产减去总负债。

这种方法的优点是简单易懂，能够直观地反映出企业的经济增加值情况。

其次，市场价值加权法也是一种常用的计算经济增加值的方法。

这种方法是通过计算企业市场价值的加权平均收益率来评估企业的经济增加值。

具体的计算公式是，经济增加值 = （市场价值加权平均收益率资本成本率）× 总资本。

市场价值加权平均收益率是指企业市场价值的加权平均收益率，而资本成本率则是企业的资本成本。

这种方法的优点是能够更准确地反映出企业的经济增加值情况，但是需要对市场价值进行加权平均计算，相对复杂一些。

最后，经济价值链法也是一种常用的计算经济增加值的方法。

这种方法是通过对企业经济价值链的各个环节进行分析，从而评估企业的经济增加值。

具体的计算公式是，经济增加值 = 企业销售收入变动成本固定成本资本成本。

这种方法的优点是能够将企业的各个环节都纳入考量范围，更全面地评估企业的经济增加值情况，但是需要对企业的各项成本进行详细的分析计算。

综上所述，经济增加值的计算方法有多种，每种方法都有其特点和适用范围。

企业在选择计算方法时，需要根据自身的情况和需求来进行选择，以便更准确地评估自身的经济绩效，为经济决策提供更有力的支持。

希望以上介绍的三种计算方法能够帮助大家更好地理解和应用经济增加值的概念。

作业成本法在制造业中的运用及利弊外文翻译 外文翻译 Utilization of Activity-Based Costing System in Manufacturing Industries ? Methodology, Benefits and Limitations Material Source: International Review of Business Research Papers Author: Boris Popshop Introduction The difficulty inherent in choosing a proper and accurate product costing method for manufacturing enterprises has been widely discussed by academics and practitioners. The important limitation of traditional absorption costing methods had been deeply discussed along with advantages of other costing method as Variable Costing or Activity-Based Costing ABC. Despite the fact that issues relating to ABC have been widely discussed by researchers and practitioners in the past ten years, this modern concept still lacks general rules governing both methodology and cost allocation principles. Looking back, the concept of Activity-Based Costing has been considered a sophisticated method of cost calculation since the early 1980s. The ABC method was originally designed as a solution to the limitations of traditional costing methods. The problems relating to these traditional costing methods had been discussed with the need for improvement in the quality of costing systems actually utilized in practice. However, one challenge faced when carrying out the cost allocation procedure in ABC lies in the manner in which the methodology is applied. When allocating costs in adherence to ABC principles, the user of the system also has to strictly follow the individual steps within the implementation methodology, where clearly defined allocation procedures and other methodical acts are performed. This research study has no ambitions to judge the expediency of the ABC system for recent or future users. In fact, the aim of this paper is to definitively explain the necessary steps to apply ABC, as well as to clarify procedures for activity output measurement and cost assignment. The paper also describes the benefits and limitation of ABC implementation in manufacturing industries. 1. Literature review 1.1 The ABC concept was designed as a method which eliminates the shortages of the traditionally used absorption costing methods. Traditional costing techniques were used for the purposes of overhead cost allocation during the 20th century. These are based on simplified procedures using principles of averages. In recent decades, such conventional concepts have become obsolete due to two major phenomena. The first of these is ever increasing competition in the marketplace, the necessity to reduce costs and the effect of having more detailed information on company costs. Secondly, there has been a change in the cost structure of companies. In terms of the majority of overhead costs, traditional allocation concepts, based as they are on overhead absorption rates, can often provide incorrect information on product costs. Those shortages or limitations had been very closely described in the scientific publications Drury, 2001, Lucas, 1997. The first criticism of traditional costing concept was published by Kaplan and Johnson in 1987. The effect that plays a role in determining an inaccurate overhead cost allocation could be described figure 1 as ‘verbalization’ Popshop, 2008. In other words, the end results of allocating a proportionally average volume of costs of any type to all cost objects. For example, the cost for transporting an item to customer A is the true value of 50 and transport to customer B is 900 If we use traditional absorption costing, the transport costs will become part of the sales or distribution overhead, meaning all the costs of this type will be mixed together and then allocated through the absorption rate to the cost object, in proportion to the specific type of direct cost. All cost objects then will be subject to the principal average volume of transport costs. In the example this means 130for customer A and 110for customer B. Above mentioned problems could be sometimes be solved by application of differentiation absorption costing, which uses several types of overhead with different allocation bases, instead of summing absorption costing with one universal overhead

经济增加值（EVA）评估方法经济增加值（Economic Value Added，简称EVA）是一种用于衡量公司绩效的财务指标。

与传统的会计指标相比，EVA更能反映出公司经营活动对股东利益的贡献，被广泛应用于公司管理和投资决策中。

本文将介绍EVA的概念、计算方法以及应用。

一、EVA的概念EVA是由管理学家斯特恩·斯图尔特（Stern Stewart）提出的，它通过减去资本成本后的盈利来衡量公司是否为股东创造了价值。

简而言之，EVA就是净利润扣除资本成本后的剩余盈余。

公司的EVA为正值，表示公司的盈利高于资本成本，为股东创造了价值；EVA为负值，则表示公司的盈利低于资本成本，未能为股东创造价值。

二、EVA的计算方法EVA的计算方法相对简单，主要包括两个步骤：首先，计算资本成本；其次，计算经济利润。

1. 计算资本成本资本成本是指投资者为了支持公司运营所需支付的成本，它反映了投资的风险和预期回报率。

常用的计算资本成本的方法有权益资本成本和债务资本成本。

权益资本成本通过考虑投资风险和市场回报率来计算，而债务资本成本则取决于债务的利率。

2. 计算经济利润经济利润是指超过资本成本的盈利，也就是净利润扣除资本成本后的剩余盈余。

计算经济利润时，需要将净利润调整为实际经济价值，考虑到公司的市场地位、行业周期等因素。

三、EVA的应用EVA作为一种绩效评估指标，广泛应用于企业的战略规划和绩效管理中。

1. 绩效评估通过EVA，公司可以更准确地评估经营绩效。

相比于传统的会计指标，EVA更能反映出公司真实的盈利能力和价值创造能力。

公司可以通过分析EVA的波动情况，找出影响绩效的关键因素，并采取相应的措施进行改进。

2. 资本配置决策EVA还可以辅助公司进行资本配置决策。

公司可以根据各个业务单位的EVA表现，决定将资金投入到哪些业务中以及投资规模的大小。

优先投资EVA表现好的业务，能够最大限度地提升整体企业的价值。

3. 激励机制设计通过将EVA纳入绩效评估和激励机制中，公司可以激发员工的积极性和创造力。

经济增加值EVA介绍什么是经济增加值（EVA）？经济增加值（Economic Value Added，缩写为EVA）是一种用于评估企业绩效的管理概念。

它被广泛应用于财务分析和投资决策中，旨在衡量企业经营产生的净资产回报率。

EVA的核心理念是衡量企业的真实盈余，而不仅仅关注会计报表中的利润数据。

它通过考虑企业占用的全部资本成本，计算出企业在经营过程中创造的真实价值。

EVA的计算公式EVA的计算公式如下：EVA = 净营业利润 - (资本成本率 * 资本投入)其中，净营业利润指的是企业的净利润，资本成本率则是企业的加权平均资本成本，资本投入则表示企业在经营过程中投入的资本。

公式中的净营业利润部分，与传统会计报表中的净利润不同，EVA 将其作为一个核心指标来衡量企业的经营绩效。

而资本成本率则是企业从资本市场上获取资金所需要支付的利息和股东回报等成本。

EVA的优点EVA相较于传统财务指标有以下几个优点：1. 体现了净资产回报率传统的会计指标如净利润、利润率等只是从盈利能力的角度衡量企业绩效，而EVA考虑了资本成本，在评估企业绩效时更加全面。

它突出了企业为股东创造的经济利益。

2. 对经营决策有指导作用EVA在计算上考虑了资本成本，可以帮助企业管理者更好地进行经营决策。

通过评估EVA将不同项目、部门或业务线进行比较，可以帮助管理者有效分配资源，并优化业务结构，提高企业经济效益。

3. 激励企业管理者EVA能够将企业的绩效与管理者的薪酬直接联结起来。

通过设定EVA目标并与管理者的绩效奖励挂钩，可以激励管理者更加积极地追求企业盈利和价值创造，提高企业整体经营水平。

实施EVA的挑战和解决方案尽管EVA在衡量企业绩效时具有优势，但其实施仍然面临一些挑战。

以下是几个常见的挑战，并提供相应的解决方案：1. 数据的可靠性EVA依赖于准确的财务数据，而企业可能会面临数据不完整或不准确的问题。

为了解决这个挑战，企业应建立健全的财务管理体系，确保数据的准确性和可靠性。

EVA（Economic Value Added）即经济增加值。

其理论渊源出自于诺贝尔奖经济学家默顿·米勒和弗兰科·莫迪利亚尼1958年至1961年关于公司价值的经济模型的一系列论文。

从最基本的意义上讲，经济增加值是公司业绩度量指标，与大多数其他度量指标不同之处在于：EVA考虑了带来企业利润的所有资金成本。

经济增加值-作用有：EVA改变了会计报表没有全面考虑资本成本的缺陷，它可以帮助管理者明确了解公司的运营情况，从而向管理者提出了更高的要求。

EVA具有强大的经济功能和实际应用价值，归纳起来，主要表现在以下几个方面:激励性功能:这是EVA的首要功能，也是关健性功能。

以EVA为核心，设计经营者激励机制有利于规范经营者行为，以维护所有者和股东的合法权益。

它与传统的激励机制相比有如下优越性:第一，有利于克服经营者行为短期化。

这是因为从理论上讲，EVA扣除了资本成本，后者是一种预期成本、未来成本，它考虑了资金时间价值和风险因素，这就必然有利于经营者行为长期化。

第二，有利于加强监督力度，减少做假账的可能性。

一方面，对财务报表的调整过程本身就是进一步加强审计和监督的过程，从中便于再次发现问题杜绝假帐。

另一方面，合理调整目的之一在于为经营者提供更有用的决策信息扩考评目标已不再是会计利润，而是EVA,虚瞒伪报的必要性随之下降。

正如开发研制费用的调整并非不利于经营者。

第三，强化风险承担意识，有利于经营者目标与所有者目标趋于一致。

让经营者成为所有者的一部分，两者目标才能趋于一致。

EVA奖励方式给我国上市公司的股权改革留下了巨大的想像空间。

全面性功能EVA理论提出了全面成本管理的理念，成本不仅包括在帐面上已经发生的经营成本，而且还包括极易被忽视的帐面上并未全部反映的资本成本。

忽视权益资本成本就容易忽视股东利益，忽视资本成本就容易忽视资本的使用效率。

当一项营运业务的变革会增加经营成本，但要是它会减少资金占用从而以更大数额降低资本成本时，这一变革会减少会计利润。

作业成本法、平衡记分卡和经济增加值的整合及应用
陆建民
【期刊名称】《黄山学院学报》
【年(卷),期】2006(008)006
【摘要】作业成本计算、平衡记分卡和经济增加值是一套帮助企业适应动态和复
杂竞争环境的有力管理工具.ABC正确地计量了作业、产品和客户的成本,揭示了驱动产品和客户成本的动因;平衡记分卡引入财务和非财务计量指标,揭示出企业收入
驱动的动因,有助于企业协调长期目标和短期目标冲突;EVA提供单一的价值计量指标,正确地展示了企业经营活动的成果,促进企业的价值创造.同时,它们又是相互补充、彼此完善的,构成了统一的管理框架体系.对它们综合运筹,协调把握,有利于企业长期业绩的提升和股东财富的最大化.
【总页数】4页(P94-97)
【作者】陆建民
【作者单位】黄山学院,经济管理学院,安徽,黄山,245041
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】F230
【相关文献】
1.企业业绩评价中经济增加值与平衡记分卡的比较及应用 [J], 孙开宝;陈刚;何玉书
2.谈经济增加值(EVA)与平衡记分卡(BSC)的整合 [J], 李睿;刘向伟
3.论作业成本法、平衡记分卡和经济增加值的关系 [J], 向文生;孙旭
4.论作业成本法、平衡记分卡和经济增加值的关系 [J], 向文生;孙旭
5.基于层次分析法的价值管理--"平衡记分卡"和"经济增加值"整合战略管理应用[J], 印猛;李燕萍
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。

外文文献翻译译文原文：Activity-Based Costing Implementation and Adaptation AbstractActivity-based costing (ABC) has been much studied and much written about over the last decade. While the topic has received a great deal of coverage from a technical and theoretical standpoint, accounts of actual implementation experiences have received relatively less study. If ABC is to be an important addition 10 management practice, the theory must be translated into successful implementation. This survey reports on the extent of research that applies the theory of organizational change to the topic of ABC implementation. It finds the area under-researched, and makes suggestions for new studies.IntroductionOver the course of the last decade, a management tool called "activity-based costing" (ABC) has become one of the more widely embraced of new management methods. While its core lies in cost accounting, it has attracted the attention of business managers in general, and has been the subject of articles in the Harvard Business Review, Fortune, and elsewhere in the business press. And not only is it a major theme in business, it has been adopted in parts of government, for instance, the IRS and the Department of Defense.What began as essentially an "accounting" matter has spread to the point where it affects nearly every aspect of an organization, from production to marketing. In the early literature about ABC, the focus was on the underlying concepts –essentially "theory development". As the theory began to be implemented, farther-reaching consequences were developed for instance, the need to reshape performance evaluation measures to reflect the new economics revealed by ABC. As these extensions of the basic theory started to affect organizations, academic researchers came to recognize that profound implementation issues were arising. This in turn has given rise to a segment of the ABC literature on organizational change. It is that literature this paper surveys.The focus of the paper is that part of the "organizational change" literature that has some theoretical foundation. I will not attempt to survey comprehensively a large number of teaching cases, nor accounts of ABC installations in the practitioner literature - articles along the line of "In a DoD Environment Hughes Aircraft Sets the Standard for ABC" (Haedicke and Feil 1991). These cases and descriptions have had an important influence on the more "academic" papers by providing a rich field from which to examine successes and failures. The paper is generally restricted to ABC. Although there are surely many common lessons and conclusions that might be extracted from implementations of TQM (Jensen and Wruck 1994) or JIT (Klein 1989), I will not attempt in this paper to make those connections.Finally, I note that this is quite a new, and accordingly rather small, literature. Only in about 1990 did rigorous study of ABC implementation become part of our literature. Moreover, there are those (e.g.. Hopwood 1983) who believe that the whole area of studying accounting in the contexts in which it operates is underdeveloped.The next section gives a description of ABC. The third section is the review, and the final section concludes.DiscussionThis section outlines the basic ideas of ABC and how the basic ideas have spread to other areas of management.An explicit aim of cost accounting has always been to use an accounting system that assigns to products a dollar amount that reasonably reflects the value of resources actually consumed to create that product - whether a good or a service. Some resources are fairly easy to account for, like the paper in a book. The greater challenge lies in allocating resources where the connection between the resource and a unit of the final product is indirect, unobservable, and imprecise, like industrial engineering services.In recent years, the challenge in allocating indirect resources has increased greatly, for several reasons. (1) Indirect cost as a fraction of total cost has increased; e.g.. automation: the substitution of machines (indirect) for direct laborers (easily traced). (2) Increasing proliferation of product models and types, where complex production scheduling, parts inventories, etc. add to indirect costs; e.g., automobile models andoptions. (3) Decreasing reliability of the "base" which has traditionally been used to allocate direct costs; direct labor time. This changing manufacturing world has led to the need for better methods of assigning costs. The key idea of ABC is that activities cause costs; products do not cause costs. The design of an ABC system rests on identifying the relationship between an indirect resource and the "activity" that consumes it. Once that is done, the product cost is simply the cross product of the activities that were incurred to produce that product and the cost per unit of the activity. ABC started out. then, as a solution to a ''product costing" problem. Revised product costs lead directly to marketing implications: when a new, more reliable cost system shows that some products are generating less revenue than their cost, marketing practices should change, for example, re-pricing, abandonment, changing product promotion policies, etc.In the operations realm, the ABC perspective makes clear that production managers do not manage costs, they manage activities (which in turn create costs). This implies that ABC can, and should, be used for more than passively measuring costs; it can be used actively to manage costs. Among other uses, it has been used to improve quality by estimating the costs of "non-value-adding" activities (MacArthur 1992). The extension of ABC to cost management is termed "activity-based management".Activity-based management reaches beyond manufacturing. Returning to the marketing department, it becomes clear that the costs of marketing can be analyzed in terms of the "activities" that cause them, just as is the manufacturing process (Foster et al. 1996). A large Dutch firm Philips NV performed an analysis of one of its business units in which administrative departments that support production - personnel, among others –were examined in terms of the "activities" which drove their costs (Groot 1997). This study resulted in revised methods of allocating the costs to the production departments, and also in personnel reductions in the administrative departments."ABC thinking" calls into question performance measurement. If the new "activity" insights call for different emphasis, then performance measurements should direct managers efforts toward that emphasis. Further, with ABC thinking, traditional budgeting practices become suspect - it makes more sense to start with the number of times an activity is to be performed as the basis for the budget, than to start with last year's budgetand add 5%.ABC thinking also changes the criteria for design: product designers, armed with information about the cost of manufacturing activities, could design a product to minimize manufacturing cost (Berlant et al. 1990).The list goes on. The point is that ABC is a tool that affects behavior throughout an organization. Because it changes established routines and revises performance and compensation standards, it has important behavioral consequences. It is no surprise, then, that not every attempt to capture the benefits of better cost measurement has met with success. It is true that there is a selection bias that makes it harder to learn the failures than the successes, but nevertheless there is abundant evidence of slow, stalled, or abandoned ABC implementations as well as important advances. Before proceeding to the academic study of this implementation process, a description of the scope of ABC is in order.ABC is not universally accepted. There is a substantial population of organizations that believes that the cost exceeds the benefit. It appears that even among organizations that have adopted it. It is most likely done "off line" with spreadsheets and special studies; it has not replaced the traditional accounting system used to create financial statements. Since many of the uses of ABC - product pricing, for example - do not depend on "real time" information, many of the benefits of ABC are available even without the cost of restructuring the accounting system. Despite the absence of a wholesale changeover to ABC systems, the concepts of ABC have been influential, and have certainly affected policies in a wide range of organizations.SurveyBruns (1987) performed an early, detailed field study of a firm that changed its accounting system (though it was not an ABC implementation). Though he did not submit the study to a deep theoretical analysis, he observed what many others reported later: (1) the importance of a top management sponsor - in this case the absence of one, and associated lack of progress;(2) the stimulating role of crisis in developing new information systems: and (3) the difficulty of dislodging an "embedded" cost system (resistance to change). While none of these discoveries were startling, they are the beginning of a fairly consistent picture of ABC implementation that arises in later studies.It is also one of the few studies that peers into a relative "failure".Anderson (1995) performed a very thorough case study of ABC implementation at General Motors. She used interviews, archives, and direct observation to track the implementation over a period of several years. Her approach was to follow the case study methods proposed by Mintzberg (1979) and Eisenhardt (1989), in which she began the study with a "well-defined research focus", using the existing literature on ABC to pick variables. The theoretical framework was based on Kwon and Zmud (1987) and Cooper and Zmud (1990). In this view, the success of implementations depends both on stages of the implementation, as well as on factors that determine progress within each stage. This model is based largely on studies of implementations of information technology projects (which have been studied much more thoroughly than accounting implementations) and on the organizational change literature.The GM story was more "successful" than not. As Anderson left the theater, ABC had become corporate policy and had begun to branch out beyond its initial uses in product costing to "activity-based management", where operational improvements are sought on that basis of the ABC principles. Nevertheless, the system had not yet proceeded beyond the fourth of the six stages, and there were still difficulties that threatened to curb full acceptance and the full scope of possibilities.Anderson found that the "stage" model fitted GM's experience quite well. It seems clear that almost any set of events can be; fitted to this model that identifies, for example, the first stage as the "initiation" stage. Thus the study is not so much a test of a theory as a careful account analyzed according to the organizing principle of a "change model". Similarly, the general category of "factors" in Kwon and Zmud (1987) are broad enough to encompass almost anything: the categories are individual, organizational, technological, task characteristics, and external environment.She draws many conclusions; a few seem particularly important. (1) Individual factors - things like sponsorship -are important in the early stages, but organizational factors - Like "routines to promote efficiency" - become dominant in later stages. Organizational factors are probably even more important at GM, where there were over 100 ABC sites, than in smaller organizations. (2) There were significant technologicalhurdles to be cleared - the challenges at GM extended far beyond the "resistance to change" that might meet a change in, say, a bonus formula. There were two criteria that GM set early on: that the system be broadly applicable to many different processes, and that it result in better decision-making. (3) She found very strong sentiment that the ABC system should reside, not in accounting, but in manufacturing, and that knowledge of the production process is very important to success. In some cases process knowledge was a criterion for team membership; in others, accountants were excluded from teams in the belief that they could not approach the problem with a "clean slate".Source : Frederick WLindahl . Human Resource Planning ,1997, V ol.20 Issue 2, 62-66.二、翻译文章译文：作业成本法的实施和适应性摘要在过去十年里作业成本法进行了深入的研究，与此同时，作业成本法这个题材受到了大量技术和理论角度的关注，而关于实际运用经验的研究却很少。

企业成本控制外文文献翻译作业成本法2014年译文3300多字XXX high-XXX of cost control。

The article then presents several cost control strategies that can be used by high-tech enterprises。

including cost n。

cost avoidance。

and XXX of effective cost control in the success of high-tech enterprises.nHigh-XXX when it comes to cost control。

These challenges arise from the nature of the industry。

XXX change。

high levels of n。

and the need for XXX。

high-XXX maintaining high levels of quality and XXX.XXX StrategiesOne of the most common cost control strategies used by high-XXX。

Some of the areas where cost n can be achieved include manufacturing。

research and development。

and marketing and advertising.Cost XXXAnother cost control strategy used by high-tech XXX。

high-tech enterprises may avoid unnecessary costs by using open-source are instead of proprietary are。

本科生毕业设计(论文）外文原文及译文所在系管理系学生姓名专业财务管理班级学号指导教师2014 年 6 月外文原文及译文Cost ControlRoger J. AbiNaderReference for Business，Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd ed。

Cost control，also known as cost management or cost containment，is a broad set of cost accounting methods and management techniques with the common goal of improving business cost-efficiency by reducing costs, or at least restricting their rate of growth. Businesses use cost control methods to monitor, evaluate, and ultimately enhance the efficiency of specific areas，such as departments，divisions, or product lines, within their operations.Cooper and Kaplan in 1987 in an article entitled "how cost accounting systematically distorts product costs” article for the first time put forward the theory of "cost drivers" (cost driver, cost of driving factor）of that cost, in essence，is a function of a variety of independent or interaction of factors （independent variable) work together to drive the results. So what exactly is what factors drive the cost or the cost of motive which? Traditionally, the volume of business (such as yield）as the only cost driver （independent variable)，at least that its cost allocation plays a decisive role in restricting aside，regardless of other factors (motivation）. In accordance with the full cost of this cost driver, the enterprise is divided into variable costs and fixed costs of the two categories。

基于作业成本法（ABC）与经济增加值（EVA）融合模式的运用作者：王力来源：《商业会计》2017年第02期摘要：目前绝大部分盈利组织均以“组织价值最大化”作为财务管理目标，而现有成本核算模式，无论是传统的制造成本模式还是较为先进的作业成本法，显然均无法满足这一目标，其根本原因在于这两种成本核算模式均没有考虑资本成本，属于不完全成本。

而经济增加值模型的提出，正好可以弥补现行成本模式的不足。

文章以JX公司为例，论述了作业成本法和经济增加值相融合模式的具体应用步骤方法及其应用领域。

关键词：作业成本法经济增加值结合运用一、作业成本法（ABC）和经济增加值（EVA）（一）作业成本法（ABC）。

近代以来，伴随着科学技术的迅猛发展，生产制造技术的不断提高以及消费者需求的多样化，企业所处的市场环境越来越复杂，产品竞争加剧，传统成本会计模式核算的产品成本扭曲了产品的真实成本。

在这一背景下，20世纪80年代，美国的卡普兰、库珀提出了作业成本法。

作业成本法认为产品是作业动因的结果，而作业消耗了资源。

作业成本法和传统成本法的主要区别在于对间接费用的分配标准不同，传统成本法通常以产品产量（人工工资、机器工时等）为分配依据，而作业成本法是以作业为标准进行分配。

具体核算程序为：（1）将不能直接归属于成本对象的资源成本分配给作业；（2）将作业成本分配给成本对象。

作业成本法的好处在于提高了成本信息的精确度，克服了传统成本法对间接费用分配依据不充分、因果关系不清晰、分配标准单一的弊端，随着企业信息化技术的不断发展和完善，以作业成本法为基础的作业基础管理在越来越多的企业中得到了广泛运用。

（二）经济增加值（EVA）。

EVA在上世纪80年代由约耳·斯特恩和G·贝内特·斯图尔特三世所领导的思腾思特公司提出，是在传统剩余收益计算方法基础上发展起来的一种特殊计算方法。

其核心理念为：一个组织要真正为其所有者带来价值，其资本收益必须大于所投入资本的全部成本。

作业成本法在企业的应用作业成本法（Activity-based costing，简称ABC）是一种用来计算产品或服务成本的方法，它基于活动成本的概念，将成本分配给产品或服务，以更准确地反映实际成本。

作业成本法在企业的应用已经越来越广泛，它可以帮助企业更有效地管理成本，优化资源配置，提高经营效益。

本文将就作业成本法在企业的应用进行介绍和探讨。

一、作业成本法的原理作业成本法是基于活动的成本分配方法，它将企业的活动划分为许多细小的活动，并通过这些活动来确定产品或服务的成本。

作业成本法的核心理念是认为成本是由活动产生的，不同的产品或服务所需的活动也不同，因此成本也应该根据活动的不同分配。

作业成本法的原理可以用以下几个步骤来说明：1. 确定活动：首先需要识别企业的所有活动，包括生产活动、销售活动、管理活动等。

2. 确定活动成本驱动因素：针对每个活动确定影响其成本的驱动因素，例如生产活动可能受生产批量、设备使用时间等影响，销售活动可能受销售数量、销售渠道等影响。

3. 分配成本：根据活动成本驱动因素的变化情况，将成本分配给相应的产品或服务。

通过以上步骤，作业成本法可以更准确地计算产品或服务的成本，帮助企业更有效地管理成本并优化资源配置。

二、作业成本法在企业的应用1. 更准确的产品成本计算作业成本法可以更准确地计算产品的成本，将间接成本与产品的实际使用联系起来，避免了传统成本法中直接以产量或产值来分配成本的不足。

通过作业成本法，企业可以更清晰地了解每个产品所需的活动成本，有针对性地进行成本控制和定价策略制定。

2. 优化资源配置作业成本法可以帮助企业更好地理解活动与成本之间的关系，从而更好地优化资源配置。

通过对活动成本的分析，企业可以清楚地了解哪些活动是造成成本的主要来源，能够有针对性地对这些活动进行优化和改进，达到最佳的资源配置效果。

3. 改进绩效评价作业成本法可以为企业提供更准确的成本信息，帮助企业更准确地了解每个产品或服务的盈利能力。

管理会计应用指引第602号——经济增加值法经济增加值法（Economic Value Added，EVA）是由斯特恩·斯图尔特（Stern Stewart & Co.）公司于1982年提出的一种管理会计方法，用于衡量企业的经济价值创造能力。

EVA认为，企业应该通过创造超过资本成本的利润来创造价值。

EVA将企业的绩效与其所花费的资本进行比较，从而评估企业创造的价值。

EVA的计算方式是：EVA =净利润- （资本投入×资本成本率）。

其中，净利润是指企业在特定时间内的收入减去相关成本后的剩余利润；资本投入是企业在特定时间内投入的资本总额，包括所有的股本、债务和租赁资本；资本成本率是企业的权益资本和债务资本的加权平均成本。

经济增加值法的核心思想是，企业应该追求投资回报率高于资本成本率的经营效益，只有在这种情况下，企业才能够创造出真正的价值。

EVA可以帮助企业管理者更好地理解企业的经济表现，明确企业的核心竞争优势，并制定相应的经营策略。

与传统的利润计算方法相比，EVA有以下几个优点。

首先，EVA考虑了资本的机会成本，弥补了传统利润计算方法忽略了这一因素的不足。

其次，EVA使企业能够更加准确地衡量自己的经济价值，帮助企业管理者更好地评估企业的绩效。

此外，EVA可以衡量企业经营决策的成果，从而为企业决策者提供更加有效的信息。

在实际运用中，企业可以根据自己的具体情况对EVA进行进一步的改进和调整。

例如，可以将EVA与复合增长率（Compound Annual Growth Rate）相结合，以更好地评估企业的整体发展状况。

此外，企业可以将EVA应用于不同的层级和部门，帮助管理者了解各个层级或部门的价值创造能力，从而实现全面的绩效管理。

需要注意的是，EVA作为一种管理会计方法，虽然具有一定的优势，但也存在一定的局限性。

首先，EVA的计算依赖于净利润等财务指标，这些指标往往受到各种因素的影响，可能无法全面准确地反映企业的价值创造能力。

经济增加值名词解释经济增加值（Economic Value Added，简称EVA）是一种用于衡量企业经济价值创造能力的指标，代表了企业经营管理的效益和财务健康状况。

EVA的核心概念源自于企业价值观念的转变，传统的财务指标如净利润只是衡量了企业总体经营绩效的指标，并不能完全反映企业的价值创造。

EVA通过从股本成本中扣除资本成本，从而补偿了资本的机会成本，体现了企业经济价值的净增加。

具体来说，EVA可以通过以下公式计算：EVA = 净利润 - 资本成本 ×资本回报率其中，净利润代表企业经营活动的盈利能力，资本成本是企业为获得资金所支付的利息和股息，资本回报率则是企业通过利用资金创造的价值比率。

EVA的正值表示企业实现了对资本的充分利用并创造了经济价值，说明企业经济效益较好；负值则代表企业未能充分利用资本或者利润水平低于资本成本，相当于对资本所有者价值的减少。

EVA的优点在于，它能够体现经营者创造价值的能力，并且与其所处行业、企业规模等因素相对独立。

通过对EVA的监测和分析，企业管理者可以更加准确地评估和改进企业经营管理，促进持续增长。

然而，EVA也存在一些限制。

首先，EVA需要准确的财务数据和相关计算，对于某些行业和企业来说可能难以获得。

其次，由于EVA是基于财务数据的指标，对于一些创新型企业和新兴产业来说，财务数据可能不能完全反映企业的价值创造。

最后，EVA不能单独作为企业经营管理的唯一指标，需要结合其他指标如市场份额、客户满意度等进行综合评估。

总的来说，经济增加值是一项重要的财务指标，能够帮助企业评估自身的价值创造能力和经营管理效果。

然而，应当结合企业具体情况，综合运用多种指标进行评估，以更全面准确地了解企业的经济价值和持续增长潜力。

经济增加值在企业价值管理中的应用1. 前言企业价值管理是企业管理中的重要方向之一，其核心是在于通过控制和提高公司的价值来提高企业绩效和竞争力，从而实现企业可持续发展。

经济增加值（Economic Value Added，EVA）则是企业价值管理的重要工具之一，有助于公司提高整体经济效益并提升公司竞争力。

2. 什么是经济增加值？经济增加值（EVA）是一种基于财务分析的企业绩效度量方法。

EVA是指企业在运作其业务时所创造的价值，它反映的是企业利润与成本的正常水平之差。

通过EVA来衡量企业在竞争市场中的表现，得出的结果反映出企业盈利和经营效率。

简单来说，EVA就是企业在扣除了所有成本和资本投资后所得到的净收益。

3. 经济增加值的计算公式EVA的计算公式非常简单，通常由以下几个变量构成：EVA= (净营业收入-总成本) - 资本投入*资本成本率其中：•净营业收入：指企业在一定时期内的销售额减去相关成本（如直接材料成本，人工成本等）之后得到的金额。

•总成本：包括固定成本和变动成本。

固定成本指在任何时候都必须发生、与企业产量无关的成本，如租金、利息等；变动成本则是与企业产量相关的成本，如材料成本、工资等。

•资本投入：指企业在一定时期内所使用的资本，包括营运资金和长期投资资本。

•资本成本率：指企业为了筹措资金，所支付的资本成本。

通常是指企业借款的利率。

以上变量的计算都需要根据实际情况进行，最终得到的EVA是一个可以度量企业绩效的指标。

4. 经济增加值在企业价值管理中的应用经济增加值在企业价值管理中的应用体现在以下几个方面：4.1 通过EVA实现财务管理优化EVA的计算需要涉及到企业的财务数据，这可以促使企业对自己的财务管理进行系统优化。

企业可以通过EVA将财务数据定量化，从而有效实现财务管理的优化，加强对成本和收益的监督，从而提高企业效益。

4.2 EVA可以促进企业经营决策企业可以通过EVA指标评估不同业务的贡献，以此来优化企业战略，实现在不同业务领域中的资源分配最优化。

经济增加值（Economic Value Added , 简称 EVA）是上世纪80年代以来出现的业经营业绩评价方法之一，也是最引人注目和应用最广泛的评价模型。

EVA也称经济利经济组织价值和财富创造的度量标准。

迄今为止EVA在西方企业界和金融界都得到了不用和验证。

一、企业价值评估模型简介在企业价值评估的体系中，根据所评估的因素与对象的不同，有以下三种占主要模型。

（一）从资产角度的价值评估从资产角度对公司价值进行评估是上世纪三十年代以来形成的投资价值分析法，一个公司的价值是其净资产的市场评估，即对资产负债表中的净资产参照市场价值进行出真正的公司资产价值。

调整方法采取模拟市场交易的办法，通过市场调查，在同类市评估对象可以进行比较的参照物，通过分析、比较和调整，从而计算出该资产的重估价（二）从获利能力的价值评估从获利能力角度的价值评估不是将公司的价值看作一个静态的指标，而是认为在时期中，由于各种外部和内部的因素使得公司的盈利能力在长期中处于变动状态，公司一种不稳定的状态，因此，公司的价值应该由公司未来的盈利能力来决定。

其公式为：其中，NPV为净现值，为第t期净现金流量，K为贴现率，t为公司存续期。

该模型以统计分析方法为基础，着重分析公司的长期获利水平，这更接近公司价着眼于公司的未来，是一种动态分析的方法，也符合现代市场经济中公司发展的特点。

（三）从风险角度的价值评估从风险角度对公司价值进行评估主要考虑风险对收益的影响，将风险作为确定股票价值量，认为只有通过确定风险才能确定相应的收益，进而确定股票的市场价值。

最大的成资本——资产定价模型（CAPM）。

其公式为：预期收益率=无风险收益率+×（市场平均收益率—无风险收益率）由上式可以看出，预期收益率的大小取决于的大小。

在该模型中，系数的公式为其中，COV（XY）为该股票的收益率与股票平均收益率的协方差，为股市平均收益该模型从一种全新的角度提供了分析股票市场价值的方法，系数使我们对公司的了较为准确的价值尺度。