成本會(huì)計(jì)、道德責(zé)任與會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　2200單詞，12500英文字符，中文3400字</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處: Pashang H, Österlund U, Johansson K. Cost Accounting, Ethical Accountability, and Accounting Principles [J]. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing,

2、 2014, 10(1): 20-31.</p><p>　　http://www.wenku1.com/news/132AD72FF6F1129D.html</p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　Cost Accounting, Ethical Accountability, and Accounting Princi

3、ples</p><p>　　Hossein Pashang, Urban Österlund, Kjell Johansson</p><p>　　This essay explains why cost accounting, ethical accountability, and accounting principles are interrelated concepts

4、. During the past two decades, the relationship between accounting systems and discharge of accountability has increasingly drawn the attention of researchers. However, researchers have shown a marginal interest in the i

5、nclusion and examination of the theme of cost accounting, and in particular, no interest has been oriented to explore the potential role of cost accounting in servi</p><p>　　Keywords: accountability deficit,

6、 principle of invested cost, ethical accountability</p><p>　　Perspectives and Problems of the Essay</p><p>　　This essay is concerned with a set of problems related to the accountability of the a

7、ccounting communication of the invested costs. Firms invest in certain areas, and in many occasions, avoid investing in areas which may be vital for the survival of business life in society. The accounting systems of the

8、 firms do not communicate the invested costs and do not inform the users of accounts about the circumstances in which cost investments were avoided. The accountability gap between firms’ investme</p><p>　　To

9、 the point is the notion that language of cost accounting is considered being central in the establishment of accountability for investments. The users of accounts need information about the invested resources and the gi

10、vers of accounts are accountable to inform the users of the nature of their investments. By reflecting on the symbolic capability of cost accounting, we will attempt to improve costing-based accountability communication.

11、</p><p>　　In this essay, we are concerned with the analysis of cost accounting as an independent subject that can serve communication of the ethical accountability in a more trustful way. We will argue that

12、academic research interest for decision-making-based models of costs together with the wide-ranging critics of the technical aspects of cost accounting (Kaplan, 1984, 1988) had the consequence of neglecting the instituti

13、onal, ethical, and potential role of cost accounting in the provisions of accounts </p><p>　　We try to get to grips with accountability deficits by addressing three main questions. The first question is of a

14、 conceptual nature. We will argue that misunderstanding of the conceptual and technical features of cost accounting is one of the problems that caused accountability deficits. Cost accounting is guided by accounting prin

15、ciples and that paradigm of cost accounting is not detached from the paradigm of financial accounting. Few people can dispute the notion that cost accounting is an ex</p><p>　　The second question is related

16、to the notion of accountability deficits. Those who invest costs and put to use the firms resources are also accountable for reporting how these resources are used. Cost accounting and cost accountability are not separab

17、le and the separation and misconception of the two are causes of the accountability deficits. Relevant to the points, which will be gradually developed in this essay, is the notion that accounting of the invested costs i

18、s the most informative and ch</p><p>　　The third question is of evaluative or analytical type. What is the potential capacity of cost accounting to serve a broader requirement with regard to accountability e

19、xplanation? As has been mentioned, cost accounting can provide useful information about the discharge of accountability. To be more concrete on this point, accounting of the invested costs, for example, on products/servi

20、ces, on assets, on personnel, on control tools, on education, on sustainability and social activities,etc., prov</p><p>　　Thus, this essay pursues to provide some reasons and aspirations for the understandin

21、g of cost accounting as the main subject of accounting scholarship. One objective is to bring forward the potential role and usefulness of cost accounting in serving ethical accountability. Another objective is to contri

22、bute with the consideration that paradigm of cost accounting is essentially independent and conceptually different from the paradigm of behavioral cost models.</p><p>　　To the point is the notion that the ov

23、erall purpose of this essay should not be searched in the descriptions of the advantages of the traditional cost accounting. The advantages of cost accounting, in our view, should be drawn from its broader potential role

24、s, or its symbolic capacity, in solving the current problem of accountability deficits. The principal focus of this essay is thus to highlight this hidden and often purposely suppressed potential.</p><p>　　T

25、his essay is arranged in five sections. It begins with a review of literature and follows with the paradigmatic definition of cost accounting with an emphasis on its professional and objectivity nature. In the third sect

26、ion, the legal connotation of cost accounting will be highlighted. In the forth section, the history of the origin of cost accounting will be presented. In the final sections, the potential role of cost accounting in ser

27、ving ethical accountability will be brought forward. The es</p><p>　　Literature Review</p><p>　　In textbooks of business education, cost accounting is almost a neglected topic (Drury, 2007; Horn

28、gren, Foster, & Datar, 1994; Anderson, Needles, & Caldwell, 1996). The dominant theme of education is managerial models of costs with an exclusive focus on decision-making and control. The T-account perspective o

29、f cost accounting is totally eliminated from the textbooks, which means that cost information is not disclosed for the purpose of independent examinations. The adopted managerial emphasis pr</p><p>　　In some

30、 of the management accounting textbooks, cost accounting appears as a coherent paradigm of “managerial accounting”. Such interpretation was boosted by the so-called gurus of the cost accounting, such as Kaplan (1984) who

31、 defined cost accounting as a useless model among several other managerial cost models. For example, Kaplan stressed that return on investment (ROI) is the only useful and widespread cost accounting upon which a firm’s i

32、ncentive-based payment is modeled. Firstly, it should</p><p>　　As a result of this type of misconceptions and definitional ambiguity (see March (1987) for further remarks), cost accounting was repeatedly pre

33、sented in articles and other textbooks as static and timeless inscriptions with recurring format as if it is similar with managerial accounting. It is constantly equated with diverse cost models and key ratios which thei

34、r scope does not expand beyond a simple equation and timeless presentation of facts. Cost accounting, as it is treated in the current te</p><p>　　The theme of cost accounting is also neglected in research. T

35、he unjustified critical views of cost accounting, which were formed by references into the narrowly understood managerial decision-making discourse, resulted in the abandonment of cost accounting as an object of research

36、. For example, a number of influential writers, such as Horngren, Drury, Johansson, and Kaplan, provoked and intensively boosted the idea that cost accounting is not relevant for decision-making. This type of authoritat&

37、lt;/p><p>　　In the dominant and authoritative cost accounting literature, it is repeatedly recommended that the theme of cost accounting to be conceived either as irrelevant (Johnson & Kaplan, 1987) or as s

38、ubservience of managerial decision-making and profit maximization (Horngren et al., 1994; Drury, 2007). In particular, the notion of “irrelevant”, repeatedly emphasized in the literature, had some practical bearing. A ph

39、ilosophical statement stressed by James (2000) may contribute to interpreting the prac</p><p>　　According to James (2000), “our conceptions of things are no more than our idea of their sensible effects” (p.

40、xv). That is to say that the “sensible effects” of the recommended proposition of the “relevant lost” repeatedly promoted by gurus of cost accounting, were nothing more than: (1) to increase the accountability deficit of

41、 reporting upon the invested costs; and (2) to help establish a new rule of the game for cost reporting.</p><p>　　The remodelling of cost accounting as new rules of the game emerged under the headline of ABC

42、 system. In terms of this transformation, it is thought that practical reasoning, practical experience, and objectivity of cost information should be replaced by behavioral assumptions. James (2000) further argued that c

43、onceptions of things have “conceivable bearing upon the conduct of experience” (p. xv). There is no doubt that ABC system is a product of the conceptual experiment for the purpose of cond</p><p>　　Review of

44、the literature, presented so far, has contributed with two points. Efforts for the elimination of cost accounting stopped the research for improving the cost accounting. The behavioral cost models cannot serve accountabi

45、lity of the invested costs. Problem of “fact selections” makes these models irrelevant for the communication of ethical accountability.</p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p>　　成本會(huì)計(jì)、道德責(zé)任與會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則<

46、/p><p>　　Hossein Pashang, Urban Osterlund, Kjell Johansson</p><p>　　本文闡述了為什么成本會(huì)計(jì)，道德責(zé)任和會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則是相互關(guān)聯(lián)概念。在過(guò)去的二十年里，會(huì)計(jì)制度和履行責(zé)任之間的關(guān)系已越來(lái)越引起研究者的關(guān)注。然而，研究人員對(duì)成本會(huì)計(jì)這一主題顯示出了巨大的興趣，特別是，對(duì)于探索成本會(huì)計(jì)的潛在作用，關(guān)于履行責(zé)任顯示出了興趣。在本文中，我

47、們將推斷，傳統(tǒng)的成本會(huì)計(jì)從根本上不同于管理成本會(huì)計(jì)。傳統(tǒng)的成本會(huì)計(jì)是建立在倫理、法律、專(zhuān)業(yè)和原則導(dǎo)向基礎(chǔ)上的。探索兩個(gè)成本會(huì)計(jì)話(huà)語(yǔ)之間的差異，我們對(duì)成本會(huì)計(jì)的潛在作用的理解已經(jīng)被嚴(yán)重歪曲了，本文將用我們的學(xué)術(shù)教育水平打消當(dāng)前持懷疑態(tài)度的觀點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：責(zé)任缺失，投資成本的原則，道德責(zé)任</p><p><b>　　本文的觀點(diǎn)與問(wèn)題</b></

48、p><p>　　本文關(guān)注會(huì)計(jì)溝通投資成本的責(zé)任等一系列問(wèn)題。公司投資某些領(lǐng)域，在很多場(chǎng)合下，需要避免投資領(lǐng)域可能對(duì)企業(yè)的生存產(chǎn)生重大威脅。公司的會(huì)計(jì)制度不考慮投資成本也不告知投資者情況，以避免不必要的投資成本。公司對(duì)于資源的投資與通信資源投資的責(zé)任差距在于成本會(huì)計(jì)的不斷擴(kuò)大。我們將這種差距看成嚴(yán)重的責(zé)任缺失，并提高問(wèn)責(zé)的投資成本，試圖對(duì)成本類(lèi)別做一個(gè)系統(tǒng)的評(píng)估。</p><p>　　成本會(huì)計(jì)這

49、一概念的主要內(nèi)容是以建立投資問(wèn)責(zé)制為中心。賬戶(hù)的使用者需要熟悉投入的資源，賬戶(hù)的主人應(yīng)當(dāng)告知賬戶(hù)使用者他們投資的性質(zhì)。通過(guò)反映成本會(huì)計(jì)的象征功能，我們將試圖改善基于成本的責(zé)任溝通。</p><p>　　在本文中，我們將成本會(huì)計(jì)作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立課題進(jìn)行研究，這樣，他就能以一種更加深信不疑的方式為道德責(zé)任提供信息。我們認(rèn)為基于學(xué)術(shù)研究興趣基礎(chǔ)上的決定，成本模型與成本會(huì)計(jì)的技術(shù)方面受到了廣泛的批評(píng)(卡普蘭,1984,198

50、8)，是由于忽視了制度性、道德和成本會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)定賬戶(hù)在公司發(fā)展中的潛在作用。行為成本模型的優(yōu)勢(shì)，例如成本核算(ABC)作為主導(dǎo)范式，弱化了我們的獨(dú)立判斷能力，傳統(tǒng)的成本會(huì)計(jì)能獨(dú)立應(yīng)用于解決責(zé)任缺失，他隸屬于當(dāng)前的會(huì)計(jì)溝通領(lǐng)域。</p><p>　　我們?cè)噲D解決三個(gè)主要問(wèn)題認(rèn)真處理責(zé)任缺失。第一個(gè)問(wèn)題是概念本質(zhì)。我們認(rèn)為,對(duì)于成本核算概念和技術(shù)特點(diǎn)的誤解是造成責(zé)任缺失的一個(gè)問(wèn)題。成本會(huì)計(jì)是由會(huì)計(jì)原則和不脫離財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)的范

51、式成本核算范式來(lái)指導(dǎo)的。幾乎沒(méi)有人會(huì)對(duì)成本會(huì)計(jì)是財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)的延伸這一概念產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議(利特爾頓,1958)。財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)的任務(wù)是根據(jù)組織業(yè)績(jī)提供各種類(lèi)別的聚合數(shù)據(jù)。成本會(huì)計(jì)的任務(wù)是，分解財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)以達(dá)到豐富會(huì)計(jì)溝通內(nèi)容的目的。從概念的角度來(lái)看,在接下來(lái)的論述中我們將重點(diǎn)探討成本會(huì)計(jì)的概念，使之不斷超越其傳統(tǒng)的角色功能。我們認(rèn)為,豐富成本會(huì)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)的結(jié)果將大大提高會(huì)計(jì)信息的有用性。</p><p>　　第二個(gè)問(wèn)題與責(zé)任缺失的

52、概念相關(guān)。那些投資成本，以及使用公司資源的人也應(yīng)負(fù)責(zé)報(bào)告這些資源是如何使用的。成本會(huì)計(jì)和成本責(zé)任不可分離的，分離二者以及誤解是責(zé)任缺失的原因。相同的觀點(diǎn),將會(huì)在本文中逐步形成,會(huì)計(jì)投資成本的概念是最豐富且具有挑戰(zhàn)性的考慮性主題。了解一個(gè)公司投資成本和投資成本溝通之間的差距對(duì)于理解責(zé)任缺失至關(guān)重要。責(zé)任缺失的概念,基于實(shí)證經(jīng)驗(yàn)與理論主張?jiān)诒疚闹械靡酝茢?。一方?成本信息是披露企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略與經(jīng)營(yíng)決策責(zé)任的基本核心。另一方面,公司表現(xiàn)出持久傾向抑

53、制生產(chǎn)投資成本的完整信息等會(huì)計(jì)方面的問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　第三個(gè)問(wèn)題是評(píng)價(jià)或分析類(lèi)型。成本會(huì)計(jì)的潛在能力是為責(zé)任概念的解釋提供更廣泛的要求。正如以上已提到的,成本會(huì)計(jì)可以為履行責(zé)任提供有用的信息。更具體的說(shuō),會(huì)計(jì)的投資成本,例如,在產(chǎn)品/服務(wù),在資產(chǎn)、人員、控制工具,在教育、可持續(xù)性和社會(huì)活動(dòng)等,為用戶(hù)會(huì)計(jì)評(píng)估管理資產(chǎn)提供一個(gè)解釋方案。</p><p>　　因此,本文的目的在于為會(huì)計(jì)

54、學(xué)界的一門(mén)主要學(xué)科——成本會(huì)計(jì)提供推理與期望。目標(biāo)之一是提出成本會(huì)計(jì)的潛在作用，以及成本會(huì)計(jì)提供倫理責(zé)任的實(shí)用性。另一個(gè)目標(biāo)是其貢獻(xiàn)，即提供成本會(huì)計(jì)范式在本質(zhì)上是獨(dú)立的,卻在概念上不同于行為成本模型的范式。</p><p>　　本文的的主要目的不應(yīng)當(dāng)是描述傳統(tǒng)成本會(huì)計(jì)的優(yōu)勢(shì)。成本會(huì)計(jì)的優(yōu)勢(shì),在我們看來(lái),應(yīng)該來(lái)源于其更廣泛潛在的作用,或其象征能力,以解決當(dāng)前責(zé)任缺失的問(wèn)題。因此，本文的主要重點(diǎn)是挖掘隱藏的和蓄意壓制

55、的潛能。</p><p>　　本文分為五個(gè)部分。首先是文獻(xiàn)回顧以及解釋成本會(huì)計(jì)的定義和客觀本質(zhì)。第三部分,成本會(huì)計(jì)的法律內(nèi)涵將突出顯示。第四部分,成本會(huì)計(jì)的歷史源起。最后部分,將提出成本會(huì)計(jì)服務(wù)倫理責(zé)任的潛在作用。本文提出了三個(gè)新的指導(dǎo)原則,即有助于指導(dǎo)成本會(huì)計(jì)的倫理責(zé)任。</p><p><b>　　文獻(xiàn)綜述</b></p><p>　　商業(yè)

56、教育教科書(shū)中，成本會(huì)計(jì)幾乎是被忽視的一個(gè)主題（Drury, 2007; Horngren, Foster, & Datar, 1994; Anderson, Needles, &Caldwell, 1996）。占主導(dǎo)地位的教育主題是成本的管理模型獨(dú)家關(guān)注決策的制定與控制。成本會(huì)計(jì)的T型帳戶(hù)角度已經(jīng)完全從教科書(shū)中消除,這意味著為了獨(dú)立審核，成本信息未得到披露。管理的重點(diǎn)為詳細(xì)的成本核算提供了有限的空間,而未給責(zé)任之間的溝通

57、創(chuàng)造空間。然而，教學(xué)管理的重點(diǎn)和行為建模的成本,轉(zhuǎn)換成了對(duì)成本會(huì)計(jì)重要性的疏忽。事實(shí)上,管理重點(diǎn)已在成本會(huì)計(jì)混亂時(shí)丟失。學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)和探究成本會(huì)計(jì)這一主題，包括他的的起源、法律內(nèi)涵,及其潛在的問(wèn)責(zé)制的潛在作用等都是有限的。</p><p>　　在一些管理會(huì)計(jì)教科書(shū)中,成本會(huì)計(jì)是一個(gè)連貫范式的“管理會(huì)計(jì)”。這種解釋得益于所謂的成本會(huì)計(jì)大師,如卡普蘭(1984)，他將成本會(huì)計(jì)定義為在其他管理成本模型中一個(gè)無(wú)用的模型。例如

58、,卡普蘭強(qiáng)調(diào),投資利潤(rùn)率(ROI)是唯一有用的，廣泛的成本會(huì)計(jì)建立在一個(gè)公司基于激勵(lì)的付款模型之上。首先,投資利潤(rùn)率應(yīng)該說(shuō)不是一個(gè)成本會(huì)計(jì);它的計(jì)算建立在成本會(huì)計(jì)的基礎(chǔ)上。其次,投資利潤(rùn)率是功利表現(xiàn)的一個(gè)算術(shù)方法,而成本核算的基礎(chǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)是實(shí)用與協(xié)會(huì)的會(huì)計(jì)原則。第三,成本會(huì)計(jì)通常是相互關(guān)聯(lián)的,在某種程度上，復(fù)雜的大型系統(tǒng)賬戶(hù),項(xiàng)目，類(lèi)別以及投資利潤(rùn)率是一個(gè)使用有限的簡(jiǎn)單的主要比率。</p><p>　　由于這種誤解和

59、定義含糊不清(見(jiàn)3月(1987)進(jìn)一步評(píng)論),成本會(huì)計(jì)多次在文章和其他教材如靜態(tài)和永恒的銘文中反復(fù)出現(xiàn)，這種格式類(lèi)似于管理會(huì)計(jì)。它經(jīng)常被等同于多元成本模型和關(guān)鍵比率。成本會(huì)計(jì),因?yàn)樗霈F(xiàn)在目前的教科書(shū)中,對(duì)其潛在作用方面只是部分理解,調(diào)用問(wèn)責(zé)也是深信不疑的、相關(guān)聯(lián)的、具有時(shí)限性與動(dòng)態(tài)的現(xiàn)象。</p><p>　　成本會(huì)計(jì)這一主題也常常在研究中被忽視。成本會(huì)計(jì)中不合理的關(guān)鍵性的觀點(diǎn),引用到管理決策中,導(dǎo)致放棄成本會(huì)

60、計(jì)作為研究對(duì)象。例如,一些有影響力的作家,如霍恩格倫,特魯利,約翰遜,和卡普蘭,強(qiáng)烈推動(dòng)了成本會(huì)計(jì)與管理決策制定不相關(guān)這一思想的發(fā)展。這種類(lèi)型的權(quán)威命題對(duì)于技術(shù)觀點(diǎn)的確立起到了很到的作用(通常是關(guān)于費(fèi)用的問(wèn)題)。因此,它無(wú)法解釋實(shí)際的成本會(huì)計(jì),法律、歷史和制度現(xiàn)象。根據(jù)特魯里街和Tayles”(2000)對(duì)187個(gè)英國(guó)公司的調(diào)查,91%的公司基于傳統(tǒng)的成本會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則和程序提供了組織相關(guān)的成本信息,。只有9%實(shí)行雙重系統(tǒng)，即傳統(tǒng)的成本會(huì)計(jì)伴

61、隨著額外的成本模型出現(xiàn)(雙重熊)。利用非實(shí)際性與虛構(gòu)的成本模型提高成本信息的科學(xué)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)性,一群?jiǎn)渭兊难芯空呔芙^將其研究重點(diǎn)放在專(zhuān)業(yè)和傳統(tǒng)成本會(huì)計(jì)上。相反,他們把精力放在研究一些成本思想與報(bào)告模型上。</p><p>　　在具有主導(dǎo)地位和權(quán)威的成本會(huì)計(jì)文獻(xiàn)中，多次提出這樣的建議，成本會(huì)計(jì)這一主題構(gòu)想是無(wú)關(guān)緊要的(Johnson &卡普蘭,1987)，或作為管理決策制定與利潤(rùn)擴(kuò)大化的從屬 (Horngren e

62、t al .,1994;特魯里街,2007)。特別是，“無(wú)關(guān)緊要”的概念在文獻(xiàn)中反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)。詹姆斯(2000)的哲學(xué)性陳述可能有助于解釋的實(shí)際 “無(wú)關(guān)緊要”的概念。</p><p>　　根據(jù)詹姆斯(2000)的觀點(diǎn)“,我們觀念的東西僅僅是我們對(duì)于他們意識(shí)影響的想法”(p .15)。也就是說(shuō),“意識(shí)影響”命題的“相關(guān)損失”不斷由成本會(huì)計(jì)專(zhuān)家證實(shí),無(wú)非是:(1)增加投資成本責(zé)任缺失;(2)幫助建立一個(gè)關(guān)于成本報(bào)告的新的

63、游戲規(guī)則。</p><p>　　成本會(huì)計(jì)的重構(gòu)作為一個(gè)新的游戲規(guī)則出現(xiàn)于成本制度這一標(biāo)題下。根據(jù)這種轉(zhuǎn)變,人們認(rèn)為實(shí)際推理、實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)與成本信息的客觀性應(yīng)該被行為假設(shè)取而代之。詹姆斯(2000)進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為觀念的東西具有“可以想象的經(jīng)驗(yàn)行為之上”(p .15)。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),成本制度是概念性實(shí)驗(yàn)上的一個(gè)產(chǎn)品，目的是指導(dǎo)人們操作實(shí)踐。也就是說(shuō),成本制度的目的是管理人們的操作實(shí)踐，需要采用科學(xué)感知成本的需求，而不是服務(wù)溝通責(zé)

64、任的投資成本。事實(shí)上，成本制度被認(rèn)為是支持正確的、一致性和邏輯/經(jīng)驗(yàn)成本對(duì)象(活動(dòng))和決策制定之間的實(shí)驗(yàn)室條件。可以解釋為，成本制度是一種特殊的設(shè)計(jì),適用于個(gè)人的行為,不是通過(guò)事實(shí)的選擇，而是通過(guò)科學(xué)確定的形式進(jìn)行選擇?；蛟S,實(shí)際選擇的問(wèn)題導(dǎo)致的后果是ABC變得更加實(shí)際。</p><p>　　回顧文獻(xiàn),到目前為止在兩個(gè)方面有了成就。努力消除成本會(huì)計(jì)停止研究提高成本會(huì)計(jì)。行為成本模型不能提供問(wèn)責(zé)的投資成本?！皩?shí)際選