会计专业外文文献翻译--中小企业环境成本会计的实施

外文文献翻译译文原文：Environmental CostsToday, the importance of the environment is widely recognized by companies. With an increase in environmental legislation, corporations realize that they have to factor the environment into their everyday management decisions. However, because some corporations are too focused on earnings and financial costs, the impact of their operations on the environment can only be taken into account if it is quantified in dollar terms —this is significant since environmental costs are often grossly underestimated. According to a 2006 Statistic Canada study, Canadian firms are estimated to have spent a total of $8.6 billion on environmental protection, including 44per cent for capital expenditures and 56 per cent for operating expenditures. This underestimation is due to widespread “hidden” costs. In a study published in 2001, U.S. researcher revealed that for every dollar of environmental costs identified as such by companies, there were hidden environmental costs of $10. Companies can’t manage what they can’t measure; therefore, they need to measure their environmental costs in order to manage and reduce them; or perhaps, turn environmental management into a strategic advantage.What to include in environmental costsThe first challenge is how to define environmental costs. One solution is to use a classification developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1995. This classification makes a distinction between internal costs (borne by a company) and external costs (assumed by society as a whole, but generated by the company’s operations). Internal costs include conventional costs (e.g., direct and indirect materials, energy, etc.), potentially hidden costs (e.g., site investigation and preparation, audit, disclosure of information, follow-up of data, etc.), potential costs (e.g., penalties, fines, legal fees, etc.) and costs related to corporate image and relationships (e.g., reputation, campaign to influence perceptions, etc.). Moreover, external costs refer to environ mental degradation and to adverse impacts forhumanbeings, their property and their welfare. There is a debate about whether or not external costs should be part of corpora cost management. However, more stringent regulations in terms of environmental liability are increasingly internalizing costs that have heretofore been considered external. This distinction between internal and external costs is crucial to measuring environmental costs.Life-cycle costing, environmental balance, full-cost accounting, total-cost accounting and activity-based costing are costing methods used by companies. These methods are not mutually exclusive and a number of parameters are common to several methods.Life-cycle costingLife-cycle costing is based on a more global approach of life-cycle analysis. There are two major methods based on a product’s life cycle, e.g. from research and development to disposal (the “cradle to grave” approach) or its reuse/ recycling by the producer (the “cradle to cradle” or C2C approach), tak ing into account factors such as transportation. Life-cycle analysis, a method recognized by ISO 14000 standards, consists in analyzing each and every flow of input and output materials for each product. More specifically, in environmental terms, this approach analyzes the actual and potential impacts of these flows on the environment. As such, it includes three stages: (i) an inventory of all flows related to energy, water, raw materials, air and emissions; (ii) a follow-up of the qualitative or quantitative measure of the induced environmental impact; and (iii) an interpretation of the results and an assessment of opportunities for reducing environmental impacts. This approach only makes it possible to include environmental impacts, and not environmental costs.Life-cycle costing recognizes the environmental costs generated by a company throughout a product’s life cycle, using two types of analysis jointly (on a weighted or unweighted basis) or individually: (i) the financial life-cycle cost that discounts monetary impacts from the environment to the firm, and (ii) the environmental life-cycle cost that monetizes all environmental impacts that were identified during the life-cycle analysis, e.g., impaired resources. Life-cycle costing demonstrates that costs can be several times higher than investments over a product’s life cycle. Thismakes life-cycle costing especially relevant for products with a long lifespan or with relatively high operating costs, such as real estate and highways. In addition, the discounting of costs, e.g. the recognition of time, makes it possible to compare the costs of two products. However, this advantage may also be the main drawback of this method, as it raises the problem of correctly planning for future costs and selecting an appropriate discount rate. In fact, discounting specific environmental costs is controversial, since environmental impacts increase over time. It is therefore not unusual for costs to be nil today, but exceedingly high a few years from now, which is contrary to the very principle of discounting. Accordingly, discounting environmental costs could lead to minimizing financial interest for projects that reduce future environmental costs.Moreover, these two methods raise the same problem of uncertainty as to future repercussions. It may be a good idea to use sensitivity analyses, scenarios, and ranges to allow for the probability that certain contingencies will occur. A more meaningful restriction relates to the fact that these methods exclude consideration of all types of costs. Intangible costs, including those driven by relations with stakeholders, are not considered, nor are contingent costs, since it is not easy to relate such costs to a specific phase in the life-cycle of a product, making it highly improbable that they will be included in life cycle methods.Environmental balanceThe environmental balance method consists in identifying, and then measuring, the flows of inputs and outputs of a firm, a service, a process or a product in terms of energy, water, materials, waste or emissions. It can therefore be used at the inventory stage of the life-cycle analysis or as an initial step of many other methods. The underlying assumption of this method is based on the law of conservation of thermodynamic masses—total inputs are by definition equal to total outputs plus the net accumulation of materials in the system. All inputs become outputs, hence the term “balance.” The part of a flow that actually goes into the production of goods can be used to indicate the percentage loss of materials and, accordingly, the opportunities to improve the production process. Similarly, a large number ofenvironmental performance indicators can be determined from the data produced by an environmental balance. Traditionally, an environmental balance is performed in physical, non-monetary terms (kilograms, kilowatts, etc.). Moreover, a sub-category of environmental balance, called material flow analysis (MFA), allows a company to include an allocation stage of flows to each of its various products.Two major criticisms have been levelled at the environmental balance method. First, its input/output analyses fail to measure environmental impacts, as they relate strictly to a company’s use of natural resources without regard to their valu e for the environment. The second major criticism is that this method fails to provide monetary information. However, the value of flows could be estimated in monetary terms if required. In addition, the environmental balance is generally used only as a prerequisite to the use of other methods.Full-cost accountingThe full cost represents an allocation of all costs to a product (materials, labour, overhead, etc.) including potential and actual environmental costs. With this approach, it is possible to obtain enhanced operational knowledge and to select products with a lower cost (whether it be environmental or not). However, in environmental terms, full cost often refers to a consideration of the monetary value of external costs. This raises the problem of how complex it is to monetize the cost of externalities.Total-cost assessmentThe total-cost assessment method, developed by the Tellus Institute, is similar to full-cost accounting. Whereas the latter approach is generally used to measure the cost of products, total-cost assessment is often carried out to measure the cost of capital investments. Additionally, the classification of costs used for a total-cost assessment requires the identification of costs that are specifically related to the environment. The full-cost accounting method deals with all of the costs related to a product, and does not require that environmental costs be identified.The major advantage of total-cost assessment is that it includes more of the costs relating to a capital investment or a product than life-cycle costing, e.g. intangible and contingent costs, while still taking the entire life cycle into account. Thus, it measuresdirect and indirect costs, contingent and intangible costs with due consideration for risks and, accordingly, the related probabilities that they will occur. In addition, external costs can be included in a total-cost assessment, and this method can be applied simply by using software containing a database to assess external costs related to pollutants and compute them according to the probability that they will occur. Activity-based costingOne of the primary problems with measuring and managing environmental costs is related to the allocation of such costs to the activities or products that generated them. In fact, many companies treat environmental costs as overhead and don’t identify them as related to the environment, which contributes heavily to the underestimation of environmental costs. Activity-based costing can therefore enable a firm to allocate environmental costs to activities, and then to products, overcoming any inaccuracies related to their inclusion in overhead. It should be noted, though, that using this approach requires the prior identification of environmental costs. Activity-based costing can be used the traditional way or by inserting an “environmental” driver to allocate environmental costs either to activities first and products second, or from an “environmental” activity to the products that generate the costs.How to measure external environmental costsAlthough there are several methods to measure external costs, the three major methods are: 1) control costs, 2) restoration costs and 3) damage costs.1) Control costsThe underlying assumption for this method is that the cost of environmental impacts (including pollution) for a company would be equal to the cost of installing, operating and maintaining technologies that might have enabled the company to avoid such damage to the environment. The logic is based on marginal cost, e.g. the cost of an additional unit of damage is estimated by the cost that the company would have been required to spend to avoid such damage. This is the most simple method of measuring external costs, and the easiest to justify, as it generates the cost that a company would actually have incurred to avoid the production of externalities or thatit will incur in future should regulations require it to reduce the damage that it causes. One way to obtain these costs is to refer to the costs incurred by businesses in countries where regulations are more stringent or to engineering or environmental consultant studies. However, this method does not really estimate the cost of environmental damages, but rather a theoretical value for the company.2) Restoration costsIt is also possible to estimate externalities based on the cost of restoration or treatment of the damage that has been caused. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez struck a reef in 1989, the 11 million gallons of oil that were spilled generated over $1.25 billion in restoration costs. Still, the applicability of this method is restricted by the lack of data on costs incurred by the company and other firms in the industry.3) Damage costsThis methodology is used to estimate the cost of the damage per se. It includes a number of methods designed to estimate, scientifically or economically, the cost of damages to the environment. The methods include, notably a) the market price method and b) the conditional assessment method.a) Market price method: The cost is equal to the value of similar goods on the market. One example would be the difference in price between two perfectly identical homes, on perfectly identical lots, one of which is polluted. The difference in the selling price of the two homes (and of all other homes in the vicinity) would constitute, under this method, an estimate of the cost of the pollution-related damage. However, the absence of a market for most environmental assets makes this method hard to apply.b) Conditional assessment method: This method implies that an affected population is asked directly how much it would be willing to pay (willingness to pay) or to accept (willingness to avoid) for an improvement or a deterioration in the quality of its environment. The sum of the amounts provided is deemed to represent the cost of the externalities. This method is therefore based on a survey and remains highly subjective.Selecting methods of measurementThere are a large number of differences between these various methods. Indeed, not all of them make it possible to monetize environmental costs or to consider all types of costs. Similarly, some methods only allow for the identification and/or allocation of environmental costs.Environmental costs represent an increasingly large portion of the costs incurred by companies (internal costs) and society as a whole (external costs). Several methods exist to measure the costs incurred by companies, including those based on a product’s life cycle, environmental balance, full-cost accounting, total-cost accounting and activity-based costing. Moreover, the environmental costs borne by society, but related to a company’s operations, can also be taken into consideration using a method such as cost of control, of restoration or of the damage itself. The selection of these methods should be combined with the company’s existing methods to avoid excessive costs that relate to a change in method. A cost-benefit analysis on whether to change or modify a cost-management method should be performed. However, it is important to realize that the measurement and management of environmental costs allow companies to allocate such costs to activities and to the products that generated them and, accordingly, to avoid making non-optimal decisions about selling prices, product mix and capital investment. Similarly, they also enable the company to increase stakeholders’ awareness of the costs incurred by the company and to encourage management and employees alike to reduce environmental costs.Source:Rannou.clemenceHenri,Henri.Jean-Francois. Environmental Costs[J].CMA Management,2010,(84):28-32.译文：环境成本现今，公司环境的重要性被广泛的认可。

成本会计外文翻译外文文献英文文献中小企业环境成本会计的实施IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL COSTACCOUNTING IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZEDCOMPANIES1(ENVIRONMENTAL COST ACCOUNTING IN SMESSince its inception some 30 years ago, Environmental Cost Accounting (ECA) has reached a stage of development where individual ECA systemsare 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 basisfor 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 becontinuously 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 areenvironmentally 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 notfocus on environmental impact as such. To arrive at a practical solution to the implementation of ECA in a company’s existingaccounting system, and to comply with the problem ofdistinguishing 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 integration1of 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 manycompanies, the priority would be monetary (environmental) informationfor 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.Table 1. Criteria of small and medium-sized enterprisesNumber of employees TurnoverUp to 500 employees Turnover up to EUR 50mManagement Organization- Owner-cum-entrepreneur -Divisional organization is rare- Varies from a patriarchal management -Short flow of information stylein traditional companies and teamwork -Strong personal commitment in start-up companies -Instruction and controlling with- Top-down planning in old companies direct personal contact- Delegation is rare- Low level of formality- High flexibilityFinance Personnel- family company -easy to survey number of employees- limited possibilities of financing -wide expertise-high satisfaction of employeesSupply chain Innovation-closely involved in local -high potential of innovationeconomic cycles in special fields- intense relationship with customersand suppliers2Keeping these characteristics in mind, the chosen ECA approachshould be easy to apply, should facilitate the handling of complex structures and at the same time be suited to the special needs of SMEs.Despite their size SMEs are increasingly implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems like SAP R/3, Oracle and Peoplesoft. ERP systems support business processes across organizational, temporal and geographical boundaries using one integrated database. The primary use of ERP systems is for planning and controlling production and administration processes of an enterprise. In SMEs however, they are often individually designed and thus not standardized making the integration of for instance software that supports ECA implementation problematic. Examples could be tools like the “eco-ef ficiency” approach ofIMU (2003) or Umberto (2003) because these solutions work with the database of more comprehensive software solutions like SAP, Oracle, Navision or others. Umberto software for example (see Umberto, 2003)would require large investments and great background knowledge of ECA –which is not available in most SMEs.The ECA approach suggested in this chapter is based on anintegrative solution –meaning that an individually developed database is used, and the ECA solution adopted draws on the existing cost accounting procedures in the company. In contrast to other ECA approaches, the aim was to create an accounting system that enables the companies to individually obtain the relevant cost information. The aim of the research was thus to find out what cost information is relevant for the company’s decision on environmental issues andhow to obtain it.2(METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING ECASetting up an ECA system requires a systematic procedure. Theproject thus developed a method for implementing ECA in the companiesthat participated in the project; this is shown in Figure 1. During the implementation of the project it proved convenient to form a core team assigned with corresponding tasks drawing on employees in various departments. Such a team should consist of one or two persons from the production department as well as two from accounting and corporate environmental issues, if available. Depending on the stage of theproject and kind of inquiry being considered, additional corporate members may be added to the project team to respond to issues such as IT, logistics, warehousing etc.Phase 1: Production Process Visualization3At the beginning, the project team must be briefed thoroughly on the current corporate situation and on the accounting situation. To this end, the existing corporate accounting structure and the related corporate information transfer should be analyzed thoroughly. Following theconcept of an input/output analysis, how materials find their ways into and out of the company is assessed. The next step is to present the flow of material and goods discovered and assessed in a flow model. To ensure the completeness and integrity of such a systematic analysis, any input and output is to be taken into consideration. Only a detailed analysisof material and energy flows from the point they enter the company until they leave it as products, waste, waste water or emissions enables the company to detect cost-saving potentials that at later stages of the project may involve more efficient material use, advanced process reliability and overview, improved capacity loads, reduced wastedisposal costs, better transparency of costs and more reliable assessment of legal issues. As a first approach, simplified corporate flow models, standardized stand-alone models for supplier(s), warehouse and isolated production segments were established and only combinedafter completion. With such standard elements and prototypes defined, a company can readily develop an integrated flow model with production process(es), production lines or a production process as a whole. From the view of later adoption of the existing corporate accounting to ECA,such visualization helps detect, determine, assess and then separate primary from secondary processes.Phase 2: Modification of AccountingIn addition to the visualization of material and energy flows, modeling principal and peripheral corporate processes helps prevent problems involving too high shares of overhead costs on the net product result. The flow model allows processes to be determined directly or at least partially identified as cost drivers. This allows identifying and separating repetitive processing activity with comparably few options from those with more likely ones for potential improvement.By focusing on principal issues of corporate cost priorities and on those costs that have been assessed and assigned to their causes least appropriately so far, corporate procedures such as preparing bids, setting up production machinery, ordering (raw) material and related process parameters such as order positions, setting up cycles of machinery, and order items can be defined accurately. Putting several partial processes with their isolated costs into4context allows principal processes to emerge; these form the basisof process-oriented accounting. Ultimately, the cost drivers of the processes assessed are the actual reference points for assigning and accounting overhead costs. The percentage surcharges on costs such as labor costs are replaced by process parameters measuring efficiency (see Foster and Gupta, 1990).Some corporate processes such as management, controlling and personnel remain inadequately assessed with cost drivers assigned to product-related cost accounting. Therefore, costs of the processes mentioned, irrelevant to the measure of production activity, have to be assessed and surcharged with a conventional percentage.At manufacturing companies participating in the project, computer-integrated manufacturing systems allow a more flexible and scope-oriented production (eco-monies of scope), whereas before only homogenous quantities (of products) could be produced under reasonable economic conditions (economies of scale). ECA inevitably preventseffects of allocation, complexity and digression and becomes a valuable controlling instrument where classical/conventional accounting arrangements systematically fail to facilitate proper decisions.Thus, individually adopted process-based accounting produces potentially valuable information for any kind of decision about internal processing or external sourcing (e.g. make-or-buy decisions).Phase 3: Harmonization of Corporate Data – Compiling andAcquisitionOn the way to a transparent and systematic information system, it is convenient to check core corporate information systems of procurement and logistics, production planning, and waste disposal with reference to their capability to provide the necessary precise figures for the determined material/energy flow model and for previously identified principal and peripheral processes. During the course of the project, afew modifications within existing information systems were, in most cases, sufficient to comply with these requirements; otherwise, a completely new software module would have had to be installed without prior analysis to satisfy the data requirements.Phase 4: Database conceptsWithin the concept of a transparent accounting system, process-based accounting can provide comprehensive and systematic information both on corporate material/ energy flows5and so-called overhead costs. To deliver reliable figures over time, it is essential to integrate a permanent integration of the algorithms discussed above into the corporate information system(s). Such permanent integration and its practical use may be achieved by applying one of three software solutions (see Figure 2).For small companies with specific production processes, anintegrated concept is best suited, i.e. conventional andenvironmental/process-oriented accounting merge together in one common system solution.For medium-sized companies, with already existing integrated production/ accounting platforms, an interface solution to such a system might be suitable. ECA, then, is set up as an independent software module outside the existing corporate ERP system and needs to be fed data continuously. By using identical conventions for inventory-datadefinitions within the ECA software, misinterpretation of data can be avoided.Phase 5: Training and CoachingFor the permanent use of ECA, continuous training of employees onall matters discussed remains essential. To achieve a long-term potential of improved efficiency, the users of ECA applications and systems must be able to continuously detect and integrate corporate process modifications and changes in order to integrate them into ECA and, later, to process them properly.6中小企业环境成本会计的实施一、中小企业的环境成本会计自从成立三十年以来，环境成本会计已经发展到一定阶段，环境会计成本体系已经从以环境成本评估为基础的会计制度核心中分离出来(参考Fichter et al., 1997, Letmathe和 Wagner , 2002)。

DOI:10.1007/s00267-003-2625-2PROFILEEconomic Values and Corporate Financial StatementsV ANESSA MAGNESSSchool of Business ManagementRyerson University350VictoriaSt.Toronto, Ontario M5B2K3, CanadaABSTRACT/Corporate financial statements do not include environmental values. This deficiency has contributed to the criticism that company managers do not include environmental impacts in the internal decision-making process. The accounting profession has not developed effective environmental reporting guidelines. This situation contributes to a second problem: the apparent inability of corporate reports to provide useful information to external parties. It has been suggested that by using nonmarket valuation methodologies, financial statements can be used to measure progress toward sustainable development. Nonmarket valuations are not generally accepted by the accounting profession. They are too subjective to support effective decisions, and too costly to obtain.Furthermore, demand for this sort of information appears small. Some of these issues may be resolved overtime. The most serious challenge, however, concerns how enhanced financial reports would be used. Financial statements are supposed to help investors assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of future cash flows. A substantial portion of environmental value is based on nonuse benefits, much of which will never be realized in company cash flows. In other words, the role of financial statements would have to change. Furthermore, since there is no general agreement as to the meaning of “sustainable development,” efforts to operationalize the term have been fraught with difficulty. Moreover, monetization of environmental values could jeopardize their preservation, leaving some to question the overall objective of this form of reporting. For these reasons, while it is to be hoped that better reporting of environmental impacts will be forthcoming, the greatest advances will likely be outside the financial statements themselves.Key words: Environmental accounting; Social responsibility; Social responsibility reportingOne goal of accounting is to secure economic growth by luring investment dollars and labor resources away from low value uses toward higher value ones (Scott1997,Wildavsky1994). Accounting procedures were designed to track and report business activity with this as the overriding objective. There was no theoretical framework, however, providing guidance as to what information company managersshould disclose in financial statements. Initial attempts to develop external reporting theory focused on the needs of a very narrow segment of society: shareholders and creditors. There is a history, however, of company annual reports including nonfinancial disclosures on human resource management, community involvement, and environmental issues. This history gave rise to what is now called “social responsibility acc ounting.”Of all social responsibility issues appearing in financial statements over time, environmental information has been the most persistent. Accounting literature, both early and recent, stresses the need for information externalities (Mobley1970, Estes1972, Ramanathan76, CICA1997) or business impacts that are omitted from accounting records but borne by outside parties, as these may result in future monetary claims against a company. Accounting procedures rely on market-based transactions, however. Given the nonmarket nature of environmental values, the development of a generally accepted disclosure format has been fraught with difficulty. While accounting users draw their information from a variety of sources, not just the financial statements (Ball and Brown 1968), the annual report remains the most common medium for communication for the general users of accounting information (CICA1994), and for financial analysts in particular (Barron and others1999). So if the accounting profession is to maintain its usefulness in the business community, it must compete with these other sources to provide investment related information in a timely and cost-effective manner(Beaver1973,Rockness1985). On the part of the companies themselves, the persistence of environment-related information implies two significant changes in managers’views of the annual corporate report:(1)that they now address a much broader based group of accounting users and(2)that environmental matters warrant a regular place in these reports.This article begins with a review of methods used by economists to quantify environmental values and the impact of business activity upon those values. Company efforts to incorporate these values into the accounting framework for both internal and external decision-making purposes are then discussed. While existing accounting procedures can accommodate such values, these methods raise both theoretical and practical issues for the accounting profession. These issues, and the idea that tailoring financial statements to reflect environmental values could help in the pursuit of sustainable development, are discussed in the following pages.Economic Valuation MethodologiesOne way to assess the value of an environmental resource, such as a park, is the travel cost method (TCM). The TCM uses a regression model to relate the number of visits to a site with the costs associated with those trips. In its crudest form, the TCM measures only the direct costs associated with travel and makes several strict assumptions, the most contentious of which is that time itself has no value. In truth,TC models are sensitive to assumptions concerning time (Bishop and Heberlein 1979, Fletcher and others 1990). However, it is not clear that one way of integrating time into the models is superior to any other (Fletcher and others 1990). Furthermore, the divergence between perceptions of site availability, distance, and cost from actual measures affects the reliability of TC models. Perceptions play a significant role in decision-making (Fletcher and others1990). Economists, however, have tended to work with real measures (Fletcher and others 1990), thus introducing measurement error into the model.Clawson and Knetch (1966) said that once a TC model has been devised to estimate demand for a recreational experience, it is simple to adapt it to measure the value of the resource area itself. However, any problems or errors in the recreational experience model will transfer into the resource value model. Nevertheless the TC method has been used extensively to measure demand for national parks in the United States (Clawson and Knetch 1966). It has also been used to estimate the value of environmental amenities such as the Louisiana wetlands ( Costanza and Wainger 1991) and fishing opportunities in the Adirondacks( Mullen and Menz 1985). Assessments of the environmental impacts on human welfare, such as changes in health, aesthetics, or recreational opportunities, are complicated by the interrelationship of diverse disciplines. For example, an estimation ( in dollars ) of the impact of air pollution on humans depends upon three functional relationships(Freeman1993) involving a combination of scientific and behavioral analyses. These relationships are between:(1) the rate of discharge into the environment, and a change in environmental quality;(2) a change in environmental quality and a change in the flows of environmental services (such as the loss of a clear view or a change in health ); and(3) a change in environmental services and a change in utility.While the travel cost method, with its emphasis on use values, is not sufficiently sensitive to quantify all of these relationships, hedonic pricing (discussed below ), is designed to capture their net effect.The hedonic method estimates the implicit prices of characteristics which differentiate closely related products. For example, if the value of a piece of real estate can be viewed as the discounted stream of costs and benefits associated with its attributes, then a change in any of those attributes, such as local air quality, should be reflected in a change in price. Complications associated with this method pertain to the quality of the data (Freeman 1993). Imprecision in the parameter estimates arises from the inability to mix and match in dependent variables, such as house size and number of rooms (Freeman 1993). Furthermore, the stochastic nature of the measurements creates serious problems with this estimation procedure(Freeman1993).The hedonic approach assumes that individuals have complete information aboutthe asset being valued (Freeman 1993). For example, in the real estate market it is assumed that individuals have complete information about the houses available for sale. In reality, buyers /sellers of houses accept or reject offers as they are received. The seller sets an asking price without knowing if there are buyers who would have paid more, and a buyer makes an offer to purchase, not knowing if the seller would have accepted less. In other words it is incorrect to assume the transaction price reflects the minimum willingness to accept, or the maximum willingness to pay for any of the attributes of the house (Freeman1993).。

外文翻译外文出处Business & Economic Review,2006（4）:21-27外文作者布莱恩.斯坦科，艾琳.布罗根,艾琳,亚历山大,约瑟芬.蔡.梅齐原文：Environmental AccountingHere's why projected cleanup costs from hazardous waste sites will be findingtheir way onto the balance sheets of Corporate America.Monitoring the production and disposal of hazardous waste has been a top priority of the United States government and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since the mid-1970s, largely as a result of the Love Canal environmental disaster. Unfortunately, the remediation of hazardous waste sites is not finished, and cleanup cost estimates range anywhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion. American corporations will ultimately be held accountable for these costs. What remains to be seen, however, is exactly who, when, and how much.In terms of corporate responsibilities, this article discusses requirements regarding the financial reporting of environmental liabilities and current initiativesthat should improve the measurement and disclosure of these liabilities. Investors and business professionals alike must understand the significance of these obligations asthey relate to current and future corporate financial statements.Financial ReportingFinancial reporting requirements have evolved over time under several governing bodies. The Securities Act of 1934 created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and gave it the authority to administer federal securities laws and prescribe accounting principles and reporting practices. Companies that are considered under the jurisdiction of the SEC include any company whose stock is publicly traded. As a result, these companies are required to follow SEC disclosure requirements in their filings.The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is responsible for establishing the current standards of financial accounting and reporting. The standards or pronouncements that the FASB issues, "Statements of Financial Accounting Standards" (SFASs), are officially recognized as authoritative by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the national professional organization of CPAs.Until recently, the AICPA played a prominent role in the accounting and reporting environment. But as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the AlCPA's Auditing Standards Board (ASB) was limited in its role of establishing Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. Auditing and related professional practice standards as they pertain to public companies are now established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), a private-sector, nonprofit corporation created to oversee the auditors of public companies in order to protect the interests of investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, fair, and independent audit reports.Evolution of Environmental Accounting StandardsThe common definition of "environmental accounting" is "the identification, measurement, and allocation of environmental costs, the integration of these environmental costs into business decisions, and the subsequent communication of the information to a company's stakeholders" (AICPA).Typical environmental costs include off-site waste disposal costs, cleanup costs, litigation costs, and other related costs.The first accounting standards or interpretation of standards that could be applied to environmental liabilities were enacted by the FASB in 1975 and 1976. These rules covered a generic grouping of contingent liabilities (including environmental liabilities). Initially the FASB stated that contingent liabilities arising from environmental cleanup costs should be accounted for and disclosed according to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies" (FASB 1975). One year later, the FASB issued Interpretation (FIN) No. 14, "Reasonable Estimation of the Amount of a Loss" (FASB 1976), offeringadditional guidance regarding loss contingencies. Essentially, the standard required losses to be accrued for when they became "probable and reasonably estimable." SFAS No. 5 is still followed today by accountants who are considering the measurement and disclosure of environmental liabilities.SuperfundPrior to Congress passing legislation granting the EPA authority to identify and sanction Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), most reported environmental liabilities were minimal. That changed in 1980 when Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), commonly known as the Superfund Act. CERCLA established strict regulatory requirements regarding the release of hazardous substances from existing or future waste sites.Six years later, Congress amended CERCLA with the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA).This strengthened the EPA’s authority and increased the agency’s fund balance. Under the new Superfund Act, the EPA became responsible for identifying and listing those locations throughout the United States where hazardous substances or waste either have caused or may cause damage to the environment. The EPA, through administrative or legal action, seeks to require PRPs to accept responsibility for the remediation of contaminated sites.Under CERCLA, a PRP is defined as any individual or company that is potentially responsible for, or contributed to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site. According to Paul D. Hutchinson, this can include:• Current owners or operato rs of facilities where hazardous substances have been deposited• Owners or operators of facilities at the time hazardous substances were deposited• Generators of hazardous substances deposited at facilities• Transporters of hazardous substances to facilities• Persons who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at facilitiesOnce the EPA identifies a PRP, a liability-based program is used to address the cleanup of the site. Under the liability-based program, a potentially responsible party is classified into one of three categories:• Strict Liability - the PRP is liable for cleanup costs even when there was no negligence• Joint and Several Liability – any one party can be forced to bear the full cost of the remedy, even if several parties contributed to the waste at a site• Retroactive Liability - the provisions apply to actions that took place before CERCLA was passedAfter the EPA identifies the PRPs and their respective liability, it sends notification to the SEC and the respective companies or individuals.Regulation S-K and FRR 36With the increased environmental regulation, the accounting regulatory bodies began to issue standards regarding the reporting and disclosure of environmental liabilities. In 1982, the SEC integrated all of its environmental disclosure requirements into Regulation S-K, requiring disclosure if pollution expenditures had a material effect on the company's earnings. Regulation S-K Item 101, known as the Description of Business, requires registrants to disclose, among other things, the material effects of complying or failing to comply with environmental requirements on the capital expenditures, earnings, and competitive position of the registrant and its subsidiaries. S-K Item 103 requires registrants to describe any material concerning pending legal proceedings unless the legal proceedings involve ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business. S-K Item 303, often referred to as Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, requires the disclosure of environmental contingencies that may reasonably have a material impact on net sales, revenue, or income from continuing operations.In 1989, the SEC provided further guidance by issuing Financial Reporting Release (FRR) 36. FRR 36 discusses and illustrates various disclosure requirements for the Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) component of the SEC annual report 10-K filing and the shareholder annual report.Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 92Even with this increase in regulation, companies were still finding it difficult to estimate liabilities that needed to be disclosed. In response, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No.92 (SAB 92) to further clarify its disclosure requirements. SAB 92 specifically discussed the disclosure of environmental liabilities in the balance sheet. The SEC's position on the disclosure of environmental liabilities was strengthened through an agreement with the EPA in 1990. Essentially, the EPA would provide the SEC with certain quarterly information, including names of PRPs, a list of all cases filed under CERCLA, and a list of civil and criminal cases under federal environmental laws. In exchange for this information, the SEC agreed to target the enforcement of environmental disclosures.AICPA Statement of Position 96-1By 1996, the EPA had identified more than 36,000 hazardous waste sites in the United States. The EPA then took what they considered to be the most severe of the contaminated sites and developed the National Priorities List (NPL). This list contained 1,405 sites, each referred to as a Superfund site. From these Superfund sites alone, the EPA proceeded to identify 15,000 PRPs connected to these sites. These PRPs would eventually be responsible for cleanup costs that would range from $35 million to $1 billion per site. The release of this information revealed to the accounting profession that the remedial liabilities of the PRPs were significant and, therefore, required better accounting and disclosure. As a result, the AICPA issued Statement of Position (SOP) 96-1, "Environmental Remediation Liabilities," which provided specific guidance on estimation and the financial reporting of environmental accruals and contingencies.Analysis of the Standards (Past and Present)(A) Recognition of Environmental LiabilitiesRecognition pertains to when a liability should be reported in the financial statements. Contingent liabilities are obligations that are dependent upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of one or more future events to confirm the amount payable, the payee, the date payable or its existence. The most significant liability thata firm faces in relation to environmental accounting comprises the remediation costs. Remediation costs typically include cleanup costs, litigation costs, and other costs associated with legal compliance.FAS No. 5，mentioned earlier，requires that a provision for a loss contingency be recorded and a liability recognized in financial statements when both of the following conditions are met:• It is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements• The amount of the loss can be reasonably estimatedFASB Interpretation (FIN) No. 14 provides additional guidance on how to recognize a loss contingency when the estimated loss is within a specified range. It recommends that the minimum amount of the range be accrued, unless some amount within the range appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range.The AICPA SOP 96-1 expands the types of costs that may be appropriately accrued and the ability to consider technologies under development in order to help assess the ultimate cost of remediation efforts more accurately. PRPs must now use a more conservative approach (increase the probability of loss recognition) than under the prior provisions of SFAS No. 5 to ascertain if they should accrue such liabilities. According to the SOP 96-1, the probability criterion of SFAS No. 5 is met if the EPA has decided (or probably will) that the company must participate in remediation. Liabilities must now be recognized when litigation has commenced or an assertion of a claim is probable whenever the PRP is associated with that site. In addition, PRPs must now accrue potential environmental remediation liabilities "up front," all at once, rather than recognize the expenses when they are actually paid.(B) Accounting for Recognized Environmental LiabilitiesWhen a company has determined that an environmental obligation exists, it must be measured and accounted for based on available information. Key accounting issues related to the recognition of environmental liabilities are highlighted below: Estimates of the Environmental LiabilityAccording to AlCPA's SOP 96-1, once a liability is determined, its magnitude must be estimated. In developing the estimates, according to Kathleen Blackburn Hethcox, Richard Riley, and Jan R. Williams writing in National Public Accountant, the factors below should be considered:• The extent and type of hazardous substances at the site, and the costs to be included in the estimate• The effect of expected future events or developments• The range of technologies that can be used in remediation• The number and financial condition of other PRPs• T he effect of potential recoveriesEarly estimates of loss can be revised later if new information gives cause for a change. The revisions should be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate, thereby only affecting current and future financial reporting. No retroactive restatement of prior year financial statements is allowed under SOP 96-1. The SOP 96-1 also recommends that for various stages of remediation, benchmarks be used to evaluate the extent of the amount that can be estimated. At a minimum, the estimate should be evaluated as each benchmark occurs; which includes identification of the company as a PRP, receipt of a unilateral administrative order requiring a removal action, participation in a remedial investigation (Rl) or feasibility study (FS) as a PRP, completion of a feasibility study, and issuance of a record of decision.Source: Brian B Stanko, Erin Brogan, Erin Alexander, and Josephine Choy-Mee Chay.Environmental Accounting[J]. Buinese & Economic Review, 2006,(4):21-27. 译文：环境会计本文讲述了，为什么从预算有害废物的清除成本可以看出美国公司编制资产负债表的方式。

文献出处：Kilonzo JM, Ouma D. Financial Management Practices on growth of Small and Medium Enterprises: A case of Manufacturing Enterprises in Nairobi County, Kenya[J]. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 2015, 17(8): 65-71第一部分为译文，第二部分为原文。

默认格式：中文五号宋体，英文五号Times New Roma，行间距1.5倍。

中小企业财务管理实践：肯尼亚内罗毕县制造业企业案例摘要：中小企业对国内经济社会发展做出了重要贡献。

本研究的目的是确定中小企业采用的财务管理做法及其对增长的影响程度。

本研究的具体目标是确定营运资金管理实践，投资实践，财务计划实践，会计信息系统，财务报告和分析实践对中小企业增长的影响。

内罗毕县记录显示，该县有五万多家小微企业。

肯尼亚制造业协会1999年的基线研究报告（KAM 2009）在肯尼亚记录了745家活跃的制造业中小企业，在内罗毕县有410人。

使用向中小型企业的业主/经理管理的问卷调查，从41家中小企业收集了主要数据。

使用简单的随机抽样技术来选择中小企业。

使用描述性和推论统计分析数据。

研究确定，75％的中小企业出售其产品现金，82％保持现金限额，92％有手动库存登记，35％的企业投资长期资产，45％的企业用内部资金进行商业融资。

55％没有正式的会计制度，74％的会计师没有合格的会计师准备财务报表。

在财务管理实践中，工业化部应引入中小企业能力建设方案。

关键词：中小企业（SME），财务管理实务，内罗毕县中小企业为任何国家的经济和社会发展做出重要贡献。

据国际劳工组织（2008年），日本约有80％的劳动力和德国的50％的工人在中小企业工作。

对于发展中国家，中小企业对乌干达（20％），肯尼亚（19.5％）和尼日利亚（24.5％）的国内生产总值做出了重大贡献。

【财务会计管理】企业环境成本会计外文翻译xxxx年xx月xx日xxxxxxxx集团企业有限公司Please enter your company's name and contentvIMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL COSTACCOUNTING IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZEDCOMPANIES1．ENVIRONMENTAL COST ACCOUNTING IN SMESSince 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 maingroups 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. T o 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.Table 1. Criteria of small and medium-sized enterprisesNumber of employees TurnoverUp to 500 employees Turnover up to EUR 50mManagement Organization- Owner-cum-entrepreneur -Divisional organization is rare- Varies from a patriarchal management -Short flow of information stylein traditional companies and teamwork -Strong personal commitmentin start-up companies -Instruction and controlling with- Top-down planning in old companies direct personal contact- Delegation is rare- Low level of formality- High flexibilityFinance Personnel- family company -easy to survey number ofemployees- limited possibilities of financing -wide expertise-high satisfaction of employeesSupply chain Innovation-closely involved in local -high potential of innovationeconomic cycles in special fields- intense relationship with customersand suppliersKeeping these characteristics in mind, the chosen ECA approach should be easy to apply, should facilitate the handling of complex structures and at the same time be suited to the special needs of SMEs.Despite their size SMEs are increasingly implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems like SAP R/3, Oracle and Peoplesoft. ERP systems support business processes across organizational, temporal and geographical boundaries using one integrated database. The primary use of ERP systems is for planning and controlling production and administration processes of an enterprise. In SMEs however, they are often individually designed and thus not standardized making the integration of for instance software that supports ECA implementation problematic. Examples could be tools like the “eco-efficiency” approach of IMU (2003) or Umberto (2003) because these solutions work with the database of more comprehensive software solutions like SAP, Oracle, Navision or others. Umberto software for example (see Umberto, 2003) would require large investments and great backgroundknowledge of ECA – which is not available in most SMEs.The ECA approach suggested in this chapter is based on an integrative solution –meaning that an individually developed database is used, and the ECA solution adopted draws on the existing cost accounting procedures in the company. In contrast to other ECA approaches, the aim was to create an accounting system that enables the companies to individually obtain the relevant cost information. The aim of the research was thus to find out what cost information is relevant for the company’s decision on environmental issues and how to obtain it.2．METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING ECASetting up an ECA system requires a systematic procedure. The project thus developed a method for implementing ECA in the companies that participated in the project; this is shown in Figure 1. During the implementation of the project it proved convenient to form a core team assigned with corresponding tasks drawing on employees in various departments. Such a team should consist of one or two persons from the production department as well as two from accounting and corporate environmental issues, if available. Depending on the stage of the project and kind of inquiry being considered, additional corporate members may be added to the project team to respond to issues such as IT, logistics, warehousing etc.Phase 1: Production Process VisualizationAt the beginning, the project team must be briefed thoroughly on thecurrent corporate situation and on the accounting situation. To this end, the existing corporate accounting structure and the related corporate information transfer should be analyzed thoroughly. Following the concept of an input/output analysis, how materials find their ways into and out of the company is assessed. The next step is to present the flow of material and goods discovered and assessed in a flow model. T o ensure the completeness and integrity of such a systematic analysis, any input and output is to be taken into consideration. Only a detailed analysis of material and energy flows from the point they enter the company until they leave it as products, waste, waste water or emissions enables the company to detect cost-saving potentials that at later stages of the project may involve more efficient material use, advanced process reliability and overview, improved capacity loads, reduced waste disposal costs, better transparency of costs and more reliable assessment of legal issues. As a first approach, simplified corporate flow models, standardized stand-alone models for supplier(s), warehouse and isolated production segments were established and only combined after completion. With such standard elements and prototypes defined, a company can readily develop an integrated flow model with production process(es), production lines or a production process as a whole. From the view of later adoption of the existing corporate accounting to ECA, such visualization helps detect, determine, assess and then separate primary from secondary processes.Phase 2: Modification of AccountingIn addition to the visualization of material and energy flows, modeling principal and peripheral corporate processes helps prevent problems involving too high shares of overhead costs on the net product result. The flow model allows processes to be determined directly or at least partially identified as cost drivers. This allows identifying and separating repetitive processing activity with comparably few options from those with more likely ones for potential improvement.By focusing on principal issues of corporate cost priorities and on those costs that have been assessed and assigned to their causes least appropriately so far, corporate procedures such as preparing bids, setting up production machinery, ordering (raw) material and related process parameters such as order positions, setting up cycles of machinery, and order items can be defined accurately. Putting several partial processes with their isolated costs into context allows principal processes to emerge; these form the basis of process-oriented accounting. Ultimately, the cost drivers of the processes assessed are the actual reference points for assigning and accounting overhead costs. The percentage surcharges on costs such as labor costs are replaced by process parameters measuring efficiency (see Foster and Gupta, 1990).Some corporate processes such as management, controlling and personnel remain inadequately assessed with cost drivers assigned to product-related cost accounting. Therefore, costs of the processes mentioned, irrelevant to the measure of production activity, have to be assessed and surcharged with aconventional percentage.At manufacturing companies participating in the project, computer-integrated manufacturing systems allow a more flexible and scope-oriented production (eco-monies of scope), whereas before only homogenous quantities (of products) could be produced under reasonable economic conditions (economies of scale). ECA inevitably prevents effects of allocation, complexity and digression and becomes a valuable controlling instrument where classical/conventional accounting arrangements systematically fail to facilitate proper decisions.Thus, individually adopted process-based accounting produces potentially valuable information for any kind of decision about internal processing or external sourcing (e.g. make-or-buy decisions).Phase 3: Harmonization of Corporate Data – Compiling and Acquisition On the way to a transparent and systematic information system, it is convenient to check core corporate information systems of procurement and logistics, production planning, and waste disposal with reference to their capability to provide the necessary precise figures for the determined material/energy flow model and for previously identified principal and peripheral processes. During the course of the project, a few modifications within existing information systems were, in most cases, sufficient to comply with these requirements; otherwise, a completely new software module would have had to be installed without prior analysis to satisfy the data requirements.Phase 4: Database conceptsWithin the concept of a transparent accounting system, process-based accounting can provide comprehensive and systematic information both on corporate material/ energy flows and so-called overhead costs. To deliver reliable figures over time, it is essential to integrate a permanent integration of the algorithms discussed above into the corporate information system(s). Such permanent integration and its practical use may be achieved by applying one of three software solutions (see Figure 2).For small companies with specific production processes, an integrated concept is best suited, i.e. conventional and environmental/process-oriented accounting merge together in one common system solution.For medium-sized companies, with already existing integrated production/ accounting platforms, an interface solution to such a system might be suitable. ECA, then, is set up as an independent software module outside the existing corporate ERP system and needs to be fed data continuously. By using identical conventions for inventory-data definitions within the ECA software, misinterpretation of data can be avoided.Phase 5: Training and CoachingFor the permanent use of ECA, continuous training of employees on all matters discussed remains essential. T o achieve a long-term potential of improved efficiency, the users of ECA applications and systems must be able to continuously detect and integrate corporate process modifications andchanges in order to integrate them into ECA and, later, to process them properly.中小企业环境成本会计的实施一、中小企业的环境成本会计自从成立三十年以来，环境成本会计已经发展到一定阶段，环境会计成本体系已经从以环境成本评估为基础的会计制度核心中分离出来（参考Fichter et al., 1997, Letmathe 和Wagner , 2002）。

【财务会计管理】环境会计方面的外文文献xxxx年xx月xx日xxxxxxxx集团企业有限公司Please enter your company's name and contentvEVOLUTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT PROGRAMJ. H. MadayT. L. KuusinenOctober 1991Presented at theEnvironmental Auditing ConferenceOctober 22-23, 1991Seattle, WashingtonWork supported bythe U.S. Department of Energyunder Contract DE-ACO6-76RLO 1830Pacific Northwest LaboratoryRichland, Washington 99352DISCLAIMERThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States。

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.Evolution of an Environmental Audit ProgramJoseph H. Maday, Jr. (ASQC-CQA)Technical Group Leader - Quality Verification DepartmentandTapio KuusinenSenior Research ScientistEnvironmental Policy and Compliance GroupPacific Northwest LaboratoryRichland, Washington 99352ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis document was prepared under the direction of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency’s (EPA)Small Business Division. There were numerous reviewers from government and private organizations.Additionally, the following provided important advice and/or reference materials:* Small Business Ombudsman, Maine Department of Environmental Protection* Tennessee Small Business Assistance Program* New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection* Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction (OTA)* Iowa Waste Reduction Center, University of Northern Iowa* Florida Small Business Assistance ProgramThe products and services included in this document were contributed for review by commercial andgovernment sources. The project team is thankful for their timely cooperation.ABSTRACTInternational and national standards, and in some cases corporate policies require that planned and scheduled audits be performed to verify all aspects of environmental compliance and to determine effective implementation of the environmental management program. An example of this can be found in the definition of auditing as provided by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Policy Statement on Environmental Auditing. It defines environmental auditing as follows:"Environmental auditing is a systematic, documented, periodic and objective review by regulated entities of facility operations and practices related to meetingenvironmental requirements. Audits can be designed to accomplish any or all of the following: verify compliance with environmental requirements, evaluate the effectiveness of environmental management systems already in place, or assess risksfrom regulated and unregulated materials and practices.Auditing serves as a quality assurance check to help improve the effectiveness of basic environmental management by verifying that management practices are in place, functioning and adequate. ''Many specifications further emphasize that the audit be performed to written procedures or checklists (to provide later documentation) by personnel who do not have direct responsibility for performing the activities being audited. The results of such audits are generally required to be documented, reported to, and reviewed by, responsible management. Follow-up action will be taken where indicated. The responsible organization can then take follow-up action as needed.An effective auditing program is a useful tool for improving environmental compliance. If developed properly, the program will point out areas of weakness and areas ofpotential problems. An auditing program will also identify environmental compliance activities that meet or exceed expectations.At the Pacific Northwest Laboratory(PNL), Environmental Audits used to consist of nontechnical auditors auditing to findings published in General Accounting Office reports. Today's practice of deploying a composite team of technical specialists and nontechncial auditors to audit to specific environmental programmatic requirements provides, we believe, a significant improvement.国际和国家的标准, 而且在一些情形企业的政策需要那计划了的和预定的稽核是运行到查证所有的环境服从的方面和决定环境管理的有效落实计画。

环境会计核算模式研究外文文献翻译最新译文字数3000多字文献出处：Mount R. Environmental reporting and accounting in Australia: Progress, prospects and research priorities [J]. Science of the T otal Environment, 2015, 7（3）: 338-349.原文The Research of Environmental Accounting ModeMount RAbstractEnvironmental accounting research began in the 1970 s. Bemons wrote the social cost of pollution control research on conversion and marin's article 1973 accounting problems of pollution, has opened the prologue of environmental accounting research. Into the 80 s countries have serious consequences for the environmental pollution, more alert, intuitive understanding, many large multinational companies began to prepare the annual environmental special expense budgets, to solve the problem of environmental protection. In June 1992, the United Nations held a conference on environment and development in Brazil, through the convention on environmental protection, "21st century agenda", will determine the sustainable development as a guide to the common development of the global strategy and action. Was held in March 1995, the international accounting and reporting standard thirteenth session of the intergovernmental expert working group, the main issue is the environment accounting; it marks the environmental problems in the development of the world as a important subject has to depth development.Keywords: Environmental accounting; Measurement; The internalization of external costs. Information disclosure1 IntroductionWith the progress of science and technology, the development of productivity, the surge of population, more and more serious damage to natural, human caused global warming, acid rain, flood, abnormal climate phenomena, such as have constitute a serious threat to human survival and development. These widespread environmental problems derived from the social and economic activities of the whole world, and as the main economic activities of enterprises lack by accounting systemarrangement, etc, necessary constraints, did not effectively take responsibility to society, natural environment pollution. It caused the world attention to people of insight, hope to carry out international cooperation norms and constraints in enterprise production and business operation activities affect the environment resources. Then, in 1998 Geneva, Switzerland, the United Nations international accounting and reporting standard intergovernmental expert working group on the 15th meeting, discuss and passed about environmental accounting and reporting system, complete the international guide - the announcement of the position of environmental accounting and reporting. Out of this guide pointed out the direction for the research of environmental accounting. After that, to solve the problem of environmental accounting, many experts and scholars put forward the view of the environmental accounting system should be established.Environmental accounting system is generally divided into two aspects of macroscopic and microscopic. Macro environment accounting is a social perspective to look at the value of resources and environment and ecological environment balanceproblems. At the same time, the micro environmental accounting as a macro environment accounting support, reflected the enterprise as a member of the society, should assume due to the business activities on the environment pollution caused by the responsibility and obligation. This requires the micro field should reflect the enterprise environment accounting system, adopts appropriate recognition and measurement method, comprehensive, continuous, systematically reflect the enterprise's environmental expenditure and income, and the environmental behavior of enterprises to supervise and analysis of information relevant to the user to provide comprehensive enterprise information, meet the requirements of the public enterprise shall bear the obligation of environmental protection demands.2 The overview of current researchEnvironmental accounting as a new branch of accounting is a combination of environment, environmental economics and development economics, accounting concepts and knowledge. Accordingly, environmental accounting in addition to adhering to the basic principle and basic method of accounting, it at the same time toabsorb and reference to include the environment, environmental economics (and its branch disciplines such as economics and pollution hazards economics, resource economics, ecological economics), in the field of development economics and other disciplines and a series of concepts and methods, on this basis to form a set of environmental accounting theory and method system. Environmental accounting theory and method of system involves the environment accounting hypothesis, accounting target, environment accounting object,etc. Core at the same time, involved in the field of environmental accounting measurement problem, given the environment accounting measurement are different from the traditional accounting, environment accounting measurement basis has the characteristics of multiplicity: opportunity cost, marginal cost and replacement costs can act as environmental accounting measurement basis. In addition, in view of the fuzziness of environmental accounting measurement can be reference to the principle of environmental economics explained; About environmental accounting report, there are two main types: supplementary report mode and independent mode. In addition, about the content of the environmental cost accounting management involves both environmental financial accounting recognition, measurement, and embodies the environmental management accounting cost control, investment decision-making, and the requirements of performance evaluation. Environmental accounting is an important part of implementing sustainable development strategy. Under the concept of sustainable development, the enterprise should be the environmental protection work through to the whole process of production and operation of the enterprise. At the same time, the assessment on the operator's fiduciary duty, should not only consider the economic accountability, should also include the social and environmental accountability.2.1 Environmental accounting research in the United StatesThe research and application of the environmental accounting is in the leading level in the world. This is mainly due to the United States environmental protection agency (hereinafter referred to as the EPA) strong impetus. Under the impetus of the EPA, many research institutions and associationreleased the stakeholders actionagenda: studio of environmental cost accounting and capital budget of a report. The report, for the development of environmental accounting, needs to solve the problem of four centers: (1) the good understanding of related terms and concepts;(2) to create internal and external management incentives;(3) education, guidance and promotion;(4) the development and dissemination of analysis tools, methods and systems. Since then, the EPA environmental accounting project along the direction of theoretical research and practical experience summed up two. In the first, first expounds the significance of environmental accounting, define the basic concepts of environment accounting. Second, EPA within the enterprise environment cost can be divided into traditional costs, hidden costs, or costs, image and public relations costs four categories, in addition to the external social costs. Finally, analyzes how the environment accounting for cost allocation, capital budgeting, process or product design, etc. The EPA argues that successful environmental management system must carry on the measurement of all environmental costs, and applied to a variety of decision-making; In the second aspect, the EPA has obtained results can be further divided into three types: one is the individual case study, to summarize the successful experience of the world's leading enterprises. Two is case set, is mainly the study of some of the same industry company; it is through the field observation and interview, questionnaire survey form a benchmark study. The combination of theory with practice to make the environment more accurately find out the problems existing in the accounting job, determine the direction of further improvement.2.2 South Korea's environmental accountingSince the mid - 1990 - s, South Korean some company began to research environmental accounting. This is mainly originated from South Korea the increased cost of environmental pollution prevention. South Korean company’s pollution p revention and control of cost from 1993 to 1999 at double-digit rate has increased dramatically, which makes the enterprise product cost rising, seriously affected the market competitiveness. On the other hand, due to the government regulation force increasing environmental regulations make financial institutions such as the external creditors more focus on enterprise environmental risk and performance, underpressure to companies to look for cost effective optimization method to improve environmental performance. Based on this, many companies have begun to realize the advance of the importance of environmental management strategy and environmental performance report, but the practice is in its infancy. Environmental accounting practice in order to promote South Korea, South Korea's environment ministry (KMOE) issued a covering the scope of environmental accounting related about "the accounting standards of environmental costs and liabilities" report, the purpose is to provide theoretical basis and the introduction of environmental accounting in South Korea relevant methods, mainly includes the definition of environmental accounting, environmental accounting conceptual framework, and the field environment accounting practices and environmental accounting in South Korea, and other standard draft.3 Environmental accounting theory basisEnvironmental accounting is closely connected withaccounting, the accounting profession of the environmental accounting mainly embodied in environmental accounting as a branch of accounting, the recognition and measurement should be the product of the multi-discipline together, its basic value can be activities to the environment and related economic activity provides reflect and control. Mainly embodied in five aspects:3.1 Environmental accounting is a new branch of accountingHere involves three levels of content: first, the environmental accounting as a branch of enterprise accounting, on the whole reflects the existing enterprise accounting (including financial accounting, management accounting, etc.), the basic principle and basic methods, and only in special cases should be considered the influence of environmental factors; Second, the economic development, the more important accounting, this concept applies not only to environmental accounting, but also in the environmental accounting factors coordination, balance social interests, enterprise and play an important role in environmental effects; Third, environment accounting is aimed at companies, administrative institution of environmental effect and influence is relatively small, or only play the role of enterprises andenvironmental work, so in the future a period of administrative institutions to establish the necessity of environmental accounting is low. This from another Angle, interpretation of environmental accounting is a branch of accounting.3.2 Environmental accounting is the product of the combination of interdisciplinary developmentEnvironmental accounting is the environment, environmental economics and development economics, theproduct of the combination of accounting. Accordingly, environmental accounting in addition to adhering to the basic principle and basic method of accounting, it at the same time to absorb and reference to include the environment, environmental economics (and its branch disciplines such as economics and pollution hazards economics, resource economics, ecological economics), in the field of development economics and other disciplines and a series of concepts and methods, on this basis to form a set of environmental accounting theory and method system.3.3 Environmental accounting to make the scope of the accounting entity is broaderEnvironmental accounting and financial accounting is the same need to consider the concept of accounting entity. This due to the accounting entity concept as the main body of accounting in the enterprises, to undertake the rights and obligations of assets and liabilities. For environmental accounting, the body is not just a for-profit economic organization, and should be considered a social unit and link in the total system, need a certain amount of social responsibility, and environmental accounting entity concept is beyond the scope of general enterprise accounting entity and should as far as possible from the perspective of social and environmental control of the enterprise the management activities. Otherwise, environmental accounting will be established. At the same time, the accounting should not only on the enterprise's economic benefit, but also examine environmental benefits as well as the reflection of the enterprise the combination of two kinds of benefits, which is reflected in the environmental accounting measurement model selection. Concrete embodiment in should adopt the method ofmonetary measurement, and to use the real measurement. In the monetary measurement should not only use the strong historical cost, reliabilityand need to consider the adoption of other measurement model.译文环境会计核算模式研究作者：Mount R摘要环境会计的研究始于70 年代。

绿色会计成本的措施摘要在过去，大型公司和中小企业的环境问题往往是被忽略的。

然而，在最近的几年，环境会计或简称“绿色会计”秉承着越来越多的关注。

许多企业，尤其是中小型企业（中小企业）现在对“绿色”感兴趣，许多投资者将环境责任看成是高价值的。

从业务和管理的变化看，许多环境成本能够显著减少或消除作为业务的决策，从而投资于更环保的工艺技术中，然后重新设计流程。

工业和绿色运动正朝着倾斜可持续发展的关键概念达成共识。

更好的自然资源和绿色帐目会为环境与经济之间的相互作用提供有价值的见解。

然而，在组织实施绿色会计，由于某种原因导致抵抗，如缺乏意识，缺乏道德教育，忽视等，如在马来西亚的中小企业。

本文重点围绕企业绿色会计在财务报告的问题进行研究。

本文的主要目的是勾勒出一套在环境管理会计事务所的制度和加以解决绿色会计的措施。

关键词：绿色会计;环境会计;绿色成本;马来西亚的中小企业1.引言绿色会计是有关环境信息和环境生态审计制度，并已被定义为“识别，跟踪，分析和重新移植的材料和成本与组织的环境因素有关的信息。

绿色会计是比较新的和发展的领域。

然而，马来西亚的绿色会计被认为是处于起步阶段，因为，绿色会计的组织，由于某种原因导致抵抗性，如缺乏认识，缺乏绿色和道德教育的忽视，等等，如中小企业在马来西亚的实施。

绿色会计处理有关的环境和社会影响的会计和管理问题，规定和限制，安全，环保和经济上可行的能源生产和供应。

绿色会计的首要任务是解决社会环境问题，并可能对实现在任何国家的可持续发展和环境，影响了公司在面对社会和环境责任问题行为的因素。

国际会计师联合会将绿色会计环境定义为“通过适当的环境相关的会计制度和办法的制定和实施管理的经济绩效，虽然这可能包括报告和审计的一些企业，绿色交流计数通常会涉及到生命周期成本，全成本核算，效益评估和环境管理战略规划”。

此外，联合国可持续发展司强调，绿色会计系统产生的信息用于内部决策，这种信息可以是物质的或货币的焦点。

中小企业会计准则的应用外文文献翻译(含：英文原文及中文译文)文献出处：Nerudova D, Bohusova H. The application of an accounting standard for SMEs[J]. International Journal of Liability & Scientific Enquiry, 2009, 2(2):233-246.英文原文The application of an accounting standard for SMEsDanuse Nerudova and Hana BohusovaAbstractSmall and medium-sized companies have a very important position in the European Union (EU) economy, mainly in the area of employment. Their activities in the internal market are limited by a great deal of obstacles. The most important obstacles are the different national accounting and tax systems. At present, it is obvious that a certain degree of accounting and tax harmonization has to take place. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) is designed to apply to the general-purpose harmonized financial statements of all profit-oriented SMEs. General-purpose financial statements are directed toward the common information needs (an entity’s financial position, performance, cash flow) of a wide range of users (shareholders, creditors,employees). Determining taxable income requires special-purpose financial statements designed to comply with the tax laws and regulations in a particular jurisdiction. An entity taxable income is defined by the laws and regulations of the country or other jurisdictions in which it is domiciled. Tax authorities are also important external users of the financial statements of SMEs. Profit or loss recognized under IFRS for SMEs could be a starting point for determining taxable income. Keywords: small- and medium-sized enterprises; SMEs; taxable income; International Financial Reporting Standards; IFRS; cash flow; tax; accounting.1 IntroductionSmall- and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) comprise a substantial part of thecompanies operating in the European Union (EU) member states. Based on the latest statistics, there are 25 million SMEsoperating in 27 member states, which represent 234 D. Nerudováand H. Bohušov á99% of all business. These companies create more than 100 million jobs in the EU (Eurostat, 2003). In some industry sectors, such as textiles or construction, they even create more than 75% of the jobs. SMEs are considered the key factor of economic growth and employment in the EU. Therefore, they have received a great deal of attention in the EU in the last ten years. The structure of the EU 25 businesseconomy by the number of persons employed is shown in Table.There are 988 787 SMEs (with less than 250 employees), which represent 99.81% of all the enterprises operating in the Czech market (Czech Statistical Office, 2003). SMEs employ 1 961 000 people, which represent a 62.21% share of the total employment in the Czech Republic. The share is even 80% higher than the other sectors of the national economy –agriculture 85% and restaurant services 89.34%. For this reason, SMEs also play a very important role in the Czech Republic not only in the area of employment, but also in the economy as a whole.The increase in the importance of SMEs in the EU economy has propelled the European Commission to commission several studies, such as COM (2001)582 final and COM (2005)532 final in this area. These studies have dealt with the SMEs’position in the internal market and have identified the obstacles which these types of enterprises face while operating in the internal market. The existence of obstacles mainly in the form of 25 different accounting and tax systems, which generate disproportionate high compliance costs for SMEs (in comparison with large enterprises), is the reason why SMEs are less involved in cross-border activities and operate less in the internal market in comparison with large enterprises. The studies have revealed that SMEs operate mainly in the domestic (national) markets. It seems that in today’s globalised world, a higher involvement of SMEs in cross-borderactivities and its higher operation on the internal market could bring an increase in their competitiveness and performance, which would remarkably influence the economy and growth of the EU as a whole.The aims of the paper are to evaluate the Exposure Draft (ED) of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for SMEs and design some modifications of SME financial reporting harmonization. The theoretical background of the paper presents the objectives of SME financial reporting harmonization and the efforts of the European Commission to harmonies the area of corporate taxation and introduce the recommended taxation models of EU companies. This paper contains a research on the implementation used in harmonising SME financial reporting. The full IFRS is transformed for SMEs by the simplification of some standards and by the omission of irrelevant standards. Finally, the paper summarises the results of the research and suggests alternative solutions.2 The characteristics of SMEsThe application of an accounting standard for SMEs 235 At present, various definitions which have been developed for application in different countries can be found. The criteria often used for classifying enterprises are turnover, the number of employees, capital base, profits, etc. Whether an enterprise appears to be large, medium or small differs widely across the countries and depends on their degree of development and the generalscale of economic activity.1 According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005), the characteristics of SMEs reflect not only economic, but also the cultural and social dimensions of a country. The paper uses the definition of SMEs which has been introduced in the EU by the adoption of the Commission There is at present relatively little cross-country experience with generalised approaches to SMEs’taxation and accounting. On the other hand, there are available literature on the challenges faced in designing tax regimes for SMEs. Different accounting and tax systems which trigger high compliance costs represent the barrier for SMEs wishing to take part in cross-border activities in the EU.The efforts to unify the accounting systems of the EU member states are connected with the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC) –the harmonisation of accounting and taxes is confirmed in the Treaty of Rome signed in 1957. The aim was to coordinate the protective rules of companies not only in the interest of shareholders and third parties (creditors, employees), but also in the interest of equal competitive conditions and equal business relations in the member states.The first harmonisation efforts in the area of accounting were accomplished by the adoption of directives (Fourth Directive No. 78/660/EEC, Seventh Directive No. 83/349/EEC and Eighth Directive No.84/253/EEC). They create the code of EU accounting legislation and represent the basic harmonisation tool of the European Commission. These directives comprise elements from the continental legal system typified by Germany or France, as well as the elements from the Anglo-Saxon system. Both approaches differ mainly in the area of financial statements’arrangements.The most important directive in the area of accounting is represented by the fourth directive, which concerns the financial statements of large and medium-sized capital companies. The directive reflects the compromises between the continental and Anglo-Saxon approaches –the structure and form of financial statements are variable and its final form is left to national competence.Since the 1970s, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) has played a very important role in the area of accounting harmonisation. The IASC was followed in 2001 by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which was asked to create unified International Accounting Standards (IAS) and later, the IFRS.The efforts to harmonise taxation systems for SMEs within the EU have started mainly in 2001, when the European Commission introduced the green paper which surveyed the tax obstacles for the companies in the internal market. Until that time, the European Commission was always trying to harmonise or coordinate the system of direct taxation in generalwithout any special emphasis on SMEs. After the publication of the abovementioned study in 2001, the European Commission suggested four possible models of corporate tax harmonisation.2 One of them –Home State Taxation (HST) –was aimed at SMEs. Under that system, the companies will use for the taxation of their European activities the rules which are valid in the country where the company has a seat or headquarters. HST is voluntary –companies could opt to use domestic taxation rules or not.The model does not represent harmonisation, for under this system, 27 different national taxation systems, would still exist. The application of the model could also increase tax competition in order to attract the companies that would tax their profits from the European activities in the country. The European Commission has prepared the pilot project, under which the model should be tested for five years in selected countries. However, no member state applied to participate; therefore, the Commission turned its attention to a second model –the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). At present, the CCCTB represents the priority of the European Commission –the draft of the CCCTB directive should be finished by the end of 2008. The problem is that the model is mainly aimed at large companies and will probably not be reachable for SMEs (for details, see Nerudová, 2007).At present, the directives connected with accounting are undergoingthe revision. The aims are to adopt the directives to the requirements connected with the internalisation of the business environment and harmonise the directives with IFRS. In 2003, Directive No. 2003/51/EC was adopted, which enables the member states which do not apply IAS/IFRS on all companies to use the similar financial reporting systems.The situation in the area of accounting harmonisation is solved for large companies listed on the world stock markets. SMEs have a legal obligation to prepare financial statements in accordance with a set of accounting principles accepted in their country. Those statements are available to creditors, suppliers and the government in their country, but they could be difficult to understand for creditors, suppliers and those in other countries.The financial statements of SMEs that are comparable from one country to the next are needed for the following reasons. Firstly, financial institutions make loans across borders and operate on a multinational level. Secondly, vendors want to evaluate the financial health of buzzers in other countries before they sell goods or services on credit. Credit rating agencies try to develop ratings uniformly across borders. Furthermore, many SMEs have overseas suppliers and use a supplier’s financial statement to assess the prospects of a viable long-term business relationship. V enture capital firms also provide funding to SMEs across borders.Many SMEs have external investors who are not involved in the day-to-day management of the entity. Global accounting standards for general-purpose financial statements and the resulting comparability are especially important when those external investors are located in a different jurisdiction from the entity and when they have interests in other SMEs. Moreover, global standards also improve the consistency in audit quality and facilitate education and training. On the other hand, good accounting and more disclosures add to SMEs’burdens rather than reduce them; SMEs are also often concerned about the competitive harmfulness of greater transparency.The benefit of global financial reporting standards is not limited to enterprises whose securities are traded in public capital markets. SMEs –and those who use their financial statements –can benefit from a common set of accounting standards different from full IFRS. Users may have less interest in some information in general-purpose financial statements prepared in accordance with full IFRS than the users of financial statements of publicly traded entities (users of the financial statements of SMEs may have greater interest in short-term cash flows, liquidity, balance sheet strength and interest coverage or they may need some information that is not ordinarily presented in the financial statement of publicly traded companies).The differences between full IFRS and IFRS for SMEs must bedetermined on the basis of users’needs and cost-benefit analyses as quotes (Bohušová, 2007). There can be found different attitudes to the introduction of standards for SMEs in accounting theory. As stated by Březinová(2004), it is very important to consider who the users of financial statements are while making the decision about the application of accounting standards for SMEs. Also, V eerle (2005) and Street and Larson (2004) were in opposition to SMEs’accounting harmonisation based on full IFRS, which is applied in Malta, Cyprus or Croatia (mainly because of the different needs of users of the information from the financial statements). With quotes (Březinová, 2004), the basic problem is the approaches to the valuation methods used by IFRS for companies which are not the subjects of public interest. The philosophy of IFRS is primarily to provide the information for financial investors and supervising institutions while the standards for SMEs (which are not the subjects of public interest) should reflect the needs of different accounting information users (owners, managers, state, tax authorities, insurance companies, creditors, etc.). On the contrary, Haller (2002) asked whether the size of the enterprise is the reason for the application of different methodical approaches to financial statements. Furthermore, Oberreiter (2005) expressed doubt about the harmonisation of the standards for SMEs mainly because of its local character. According to the author, SMEs lack the ambition to become large or listed companies.He suggested different approaches to the individual SMEs.3 BackgroundSince 2004, the IASB has been working on a project to develop accounting standards suitable for enterprises that are not obliged to prepare financial statements in accordance with IAS/IFRS. In June 2004, the discussion paper Preliminary Views on Accounting Standards for SMEs was published. The responses (120 responses) to the discussion paper showed a clear demand for an IFRS for SMEs and the preference to adopt the IFRS for SMEs rather than locally or regionally developed standards. Based on the responses to the discussion paper, the enterprises which should prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS for SMEs were defined. They were defined by the IASB as enterprises that either do not have public accountability or publish general-purpose financial statements for external users.The IASB definition of SMEs does not include quantified size criteria for determining what a small or medium-sized entity is because those standards could be used in over 100 countries (from the reasons already mentioned). It is not feasible to develop a quantified test that would be applicable and long-lasting in all of those countries. In deciding which entities should be required or permitted to use the IFRS for SMEs, jurisdiction may prescribe the quantified size criteria in a particular country. Despite this fact, the IASB approach focuses on ‘the typicalSME’with about 50 employees. It is a quantified size test for defining SMEs, but rather, for helping it decide the kind of transactions, events and conditions that should be explicitly addressed in the IFRS for SMEs.中文译文中小企业会计准则的应用Danuse Nerudova和Hana Bohusova摘要中小企业在欧盟经济中占有非常重要的地位，主要集中在就业领域。