环境会计【外文翻译】

合集下载

企业环境成本会计外文翻译

企业环境成本会计外文翻译ACCOUNTING IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZEDCOMPANIES1．ENVIRONMENTAL COST ACCOUNTING IN SMESSince its inception some 30 years ago, Environmental Cost Accountin g (ECA) has reached a stage of development where individual ECA syste ms 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, nei ther the older concepts of full costs accounting nor the relatively recent o ne of direct costing appear to represent an appropriate basis for the imple mentation of ECA. Similar to developments in conventional accounting, th e theoretical and conceptual sphere of ECA has focused on process-based accounting since the 1990s (see Hallay and Pfriem, 1992, Fischer and Bla sius, 1995, BMU/UBA, 1996, Heller et al., 1995, Letmathe, 1998, Spengl er and H.hre, 1998).Taking available concepts of ECA into consideration, process-based c oncepts seem the best option regarding the establishment of ECA (see He upel and Wendisch , 2002). These concepts, however, have to be continuo usly revised to ensure that they work well when applied in small and me dium-sized companies.Based on the framework for Environmental Management Accounting presented in Burritt et al. (2002), our concept of ECA focuses on two ma in groups of environmentally related impacts. These are environmentally i nduced financial effects and company-related effects on environmental syst ems (see Burritt and Schaltegger, 2000, p.58). Each of these impacts relat e to specific categories of financial and environmental information. The e nvironmentally induced financial effects are represented by monetary environmental information and the effects on environmental systems are represe nted by physical environmental information. Conventional accounting deals with both –monetary as well as physical units –but does not focus on environmental impact as such. To arrive at a practical solution to the implementation of ECA in a company’s existing accounting system, and t o comply with the problem of distinguishing between monetary and physi cal aspects, an integrated concept is required. As physical information is often the basis for the monetary information (e.g. kilograms of a raw mat erial are the basis for the monetary valuation of raw material consumptio n), the integration of this information into the accounting system database is essential. From there, the generation of physical environmental and mo netary (environmental) information would in many cases be feasible. For many companies, the priority would be monetary (environmental) informati on for use in for instance decisions regarding resource consumptions and investments. The use of ECA in small and medium-sized enterprises (SM E) is still relatively rare, so practical examples available in the literature are few and far between. One problem is that the definitions of SMEs va ry between countries (see Kosmider, 1993 and Reinemann, 1999). In our work the criteria shown in Table 1 are used to describe small and mediu m-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 i s rare- Varies from a patriarchal management -Short flow of inform ation stylein traditional companies and teamwork -Strong personal commitm entin start-up companies -Instruction and controllin g 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 innovati oneconomic cycles in special fields- intense relationship with customersand suppliersKeeping these characteristics in mind, the chosen ECA approach shou ld be easy to apply, should facilitate the handling of complex structures a nd at the same time be suited to the special needs of SMEs.Despite their size SMEs are increasingly implementing Enterprise Res ource Planning (ERP) systems like SAP R/3, Oracle and Peoplesoft. ERP systems support business processes across organizational, temporal and geo graphical boundaries using one integrated database. The primary use of E RP systems is for planning and controlling production and administrationprocesses 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 b e tools like the “eco-efficiency”approach of IMU (2003) or Umberto (2 003) because these solutions work with the database of more comprehensi ve software solutions like SAP, Oracle, Navision or others. Umberto softw are 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 an integrati ve solution –meaning that an individually developed database is used, a nd the ECA solution adopted draws on the existing cost accounting proce dures 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 o n environmental issues and how to obtain it.2．METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING ECASetting up an ECA system requires a systematic procedure. The proje ct thus developed a method for implementing ECA in the companies that participated in the project; this is shown in Figure 1. During the impleme ntation of the project it proved convenient to form a core team assigned with corresponding tasks drawing on employees in various departments. S uch a team should consist of one or two persons from the production dep artment as well as two from accounting and corporate environmental issue s, if available. Depending on the stage of the project and kind of inquiry being considered, additional corporate members may be added to the pro ject 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 the current corporate situation and on the accounting situation. To this end, t he existing corporate accounting structure and the related corporate inform ation 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. To ensure the complete ness and integrity of such a systematic analysis, any input and output is t o be taken into consideration. Only a detailed analysis of material and en ergy flows from the point they enter the company until they leave it as p roducts, waste, waste water or emissions enables the company to detect c ost-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, simplifi ed corporate flow models, standardized stand-alone models for supplier(s), warehouse and isolated production segments were established and only c ombined after completion. With such standard elements and prototypes def ined, a company can readily develop an integrated flow model with produ ction process(es), production lines or a production process as a whole. Fr om the view of later adoption of the existing corporate accounting to EC A, such visualization helps detect, determine, assess and then separate pri mary from secondary processes.Phase 2: Modification of AccountingIn addition to the visualization of material and energy flows, modelin g principal and peripheral corporate processes helps prevent problems invo lving too high shares of overhead costs on the net product result. The flo w model allows processes to be determined directly or at least partially i dentified as cost drivers. This allows identifying and separating repetitiveprocessing activity with comparably few options from those with more lik ely ones for potential improvement.At manufacturing companies participating in the project, computer-inte grated manufacturing systems allow a more flexible and scope-oriented pr oduction (eco-monies of scope), whereas before only homogenous quantitie s (of products) could be produced under reasonable economic conditions (economies of scale). ECA inevitably prevents effects of allocation, compl exity and digression and becomes a valuable controlling instrument where classical/conventional accounting arrangements systematically fail to facilit ate proper decisions.Thus, individually adopted process-based accounting produces potential ly 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 Acquisi tionPhase 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 integrat ion of the algorithms discussed above into the corporate information syste m(s). Such permanent integration and its practical use may be achieved b y 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-oriente d accounting merge together in one common system solution.For medium-sized companies, with already existing integrated producti on/ accounting platforms, an interface solution to such a system might be suitable. ECA, then, is set up as an independent software module outsidethe existing corporate ERP system and needs to be fed data continuousl y. 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. To achieve a long-term potential o f 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 th em 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，环境成本会计差不多进展到一定时期，环境会计成本体系差不多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）。

外文：环境会计

环境会计我们现在在哪里，我们将走向何方作者：Joy E. Hecht国民收入核算制度不断改变，利率处于上升趋势，增加对经济和环境之间联系的理解。

环境成本会计领域取得了大的进步是在过去20年里，成为数十个几个国家一个变化而神秘的努力，并且在一些国家建立起来。

但是这种观点可能结合国家的经济作用账目环境问题纳入他们的收入，既不是快速销售，也不是很快的过程，自从20世纪60年代就已经进行讨论。

尽管本文介绍了困难和争议，但是利息在不断变化的国民收入核算体系中增长，以促进了解的经济与环境的关系为什么要改变？世界各国政府在发展被称为国民收入账户经济数据系统作为计算总的宏观经济指标，例如国内产品。

建设一个国家的经济把环境放入这样一个账户，是对一些明显的作为国家确定、联合国与国际通用的账户的弊端在全国系统账户体系（SNA）的一个回应。

SNA的一个缺陷往往是他们对环境的保护成本无法确定。

因此，花的钱，比如说，把污染控制设备的烟囱来算作增加国内生产总值，即使开支不是经济生产，一些争论这样说。

这些批评者要求从其他人的账户内区分“防御性”的支出。

更误导人的是，事实上一些环境商品没有被销售，虽然他们提供了经济价值。

薪材聚集在森林，肉类和鱼类聚集消费，药用植物就是例子。

那么，饮用水和灌溉水，其销售价格反映分配和处理基础设施的成本，而不是水本身。

虽然有些国家也把这些商品放在的国民收入账户中，但是没有这样做的标准存在。

当商品包括在账目中，他们仍然不能被从那些有销售的中分辨出来。

衡量是环境服务困难的，例如的水的保护由森林承担，和农作物是由昆虫提供的。

虽然有些专家呼吁将其列入对环境调整账目，通常既没有经济价值，也不是服务退化涵盖的。

另一方面，然而，替代品和服务的需要，以取代他们，例如水处理植物，对GDP是有贡献的，可是令人误解。

还有一个问题是，国家收入账户对待制造折旧资本和自然折旧资本是不同的。

体育资本建筑物或一台机器，例如，在计算折旧按照传统的会计核算原则，而所有的自然是资本消耗计为收入。

环境会计文章翻译

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).。

环境会计【外文翻译】

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。

第五组环境会计

优点：独立的环境会计报告采用第三方鉴证方式，有助于保证环境信息的质量，使利益关系人获得可靠的信息，从而进行相关决策。独立的环境会计报告既能提供量化的财务信息，又能用文字补充说明一些措施、政策和方法，使用者可以结合财务主表全面了解企业的经济效益和社会效益，对企业的环境工作和环境发展前景做出正确判断。
李姗姗李叶梅赵耿
宋方方
宋天乐
胡纯
独立的环境会计报告
独立的环境会计报告主要包括以下几部分：（1）企业简介，主要介绍企业概况。（2）环境政策和环境目标，主要披露企业适用的环境政策和环境目标以及执行环境政策和实现环境目标的情况。（3）环境财务信息，主要用会计报表反映与企业环境保护活动相关的财务信息以及企业未来的环境支出预算等。（4）环境绩效，主要是对企业排放废物造成污染所形成的社会成本增加以及消除污染所形成的环境改善等环境业绩的评价。
企业环境会计信息的披露方式

（一）补充式环境会计报告补充式环境会计报告是指在现行财务报告中增加专门的会计科目、在报表附注中加以说明等方式报告企业环境信息。（二）独立的环境会计报告独立的环境会计报告是指采用一定的方法和形式单独编制的报告，可以采用表格、文字、图形等多种方法，最终形成一系列的货币指标全面反映企业承担的环境受托责任。
环境会计
环境会计的概念
环境会计(Environmental Accounting)又称绿色会计(Green Accounting )，是以自然资源耗费应如何补偿为中心而展开的会计，它试图将会计学与环境经济学相结合，通过有效的价值管理，达到协调经济发展和保护环境的目的。其基本目标是实现经济效益、环境效益和社会效益的多目标协调，实现可持续发展。

环境会计

Background
Environmental accounting is set up on the basis of environmental resources deterioration and criticism of traditional accounting. In traditional accounting,there is a price and can be reflected in the accounting statement only if it has property ownership.But like the air, the oceans and the ozonosphere,they are essential to human while they Don’t have ownership,and they can’t involve in the accounting contents. That means these things’using and damaging by enterprises are not charged to operating costs.This not only inflates profits, even more serious is this would be an incentive for the behavior of sacrificing environment for current interest. 环境会计是在环境资源恶化和批评传统会计的基础上产生的。环境会计是在环境资源恶化和批评传统会计的基础上产生的。传统会计中，只有存在财产所有权才有价格，才能在会计账表中得以反映，传统会计中，只有存在财产所有权才有价格，才能在会计账表中得以反映，而如空气、海洋、而如空气、海洋、臭氧层等对人类至关重要但无所有权的事物却不能成为会计核算的内容，企业对这些事物的使用和损害并不记入经营成本，核算的内容，企业对这些事物的使用和损害并不记入经营成本，这不仅使利润虚增，更为严重的是对以牺牲环境来取得目前利益的行为的一种鼓励。虚增，更为严重的是对以牺牲环境来取得目前利益的行为的一种鼓励。

外文原文：环境会计

Environmental AccountingWhere We Are Now, Where We Are HeadingBy Joy E. HechtInterest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment.The field of environmental accounting has made great strides in the past two decades, moving from a rather arcane endeavor to one tested in dozens of countries and well established in a few. But the idea that nations might integrate the economic role of the environment into their income accounts is neither a quick sell nor a quick process; it has been under discussion since the 1960s. Despite controversies described in this article, however, interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment.Why Change?Governments around the world develop economic data systems known as national income accounts to calculate macroeconomic indicators such as gross domestic product. Building a nation's economic use of the environment into such accounts is a response to several perceived flaws in the System of National as defined by the United Nations and used internationally. One flaw in the SNA often cited is that the cost of environmental protection cannot be identified. Consequently, money spent, say, to put pollution control devices on smokestacks increases GDP, even though the expenditure is not economically productive, some argue. These critics call for differentiating “defensive” expenditures from others within the account s.Also misleading is the fact that some environmental goods are not marketed though they provide economic value. Fuelwood gathered in forests, meat and fish gathered for consumption, and medicinal plants are examples. So are drinking and irrigation water, whose sale prices reflect the cost of distribution and treatment infrastructure, but not the water itself. While some countries do include such goods in their national income accounts, no standard practices exist for doing so. When nonmarketed goods are included in the accounts, they still cannot be distinguished from those that are marketed.Valuing environmental services such as the watershed protection that forests afford and the crop fertilization that insects provide is difficult. Though some experts call for their inclusion in environmentally adjusted accounts, typically neither the economic value nor the degradation of these services is included. On the other hand, however, the alternate goods and services needed to replace them-water treatment plants, for example—do contribute to GDP, which can be rather misleading.Still another problem is that national income accounts treat the depreciation of manufacturedcapital and natural capital differently. Physical capital—a building or a machine, for instance—is depreciated in accordance with conventional business accounting principles, while all consumption of natural capital is accounted for as income. Thus the accounts of a country that harvests its forests unsustainably will show high income for a few years, but will not reflect the destruction of the productive forest asset. While opinions vary on how to depreciate natural capital, they converge on the need to do so.Which Indicators Are Useful?Some proponents advocate simple “flag” indicators to alert policymakers to the broad role of the environment in the economy, for example, comparing conventional GDP with environmentally adjusted GDP, or conventional savings with so-called “genuine” savings that account for environmental factors. Both of these indicators can provide valuable warnings of the impacts of environmental degradation on an economy. However, such flags are less useful in determining the source of environmental harm or identifying a policy response. For this reason, many economists place primary importance not on the bottom line, but on the underlying data used to build environmental accounts. These data can help answer such questions as how natural catastrophes like the fires that raged in Indonesia in the summer of 1998 may affect economic growth, or how environmental protection policies such as green taxes may affect the economy.Who Is Doing This?Environmental accounting is underway in several dozen countries, where bureaucrats, statisticians, and other proponents both foreign and domestic have initiated activities over the past few decades. Several countries have made continuous investments in data systems, which are integrated into existing statistical systems and economic planning activities. Others have made more limited efforts to calculate a few indicators, or analyze a single sector. Some of the earliest research on environmental accounting was done at RFF by Henry Peskin, working on the design of accounts for the United States.One of the first countries to build environmental accounts is Norway, which began collecting data on energy sources, fisheries, forests, and minerals in the 1970s to address resource scarcity. Over time, the Norwegians have expanded their accounts to include data on air pollutant emissions. Their accounts feed into a model of the national economy, which policymakers use to assess the energy implications of alternate growth strategies. Inclusion of these data also allows them to anticipate the impacts of different growth patterns on compliance with international conventions on pollutant emissions.More recently, a number of resource-dependent countries have become interested in measuring depreciation of their natural assets and adjusting their GDPs environmentally. One impetus for their interest was the 1989 s tudy “Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts,” in which Robert Repetto and his colleagues at the World Resources Institute estimated the depreciation of Indonesia’s forests, petroleum reserves, and soil assets. Onceadjusted to a ccount for that depreciation, Indonesia’s GDP and growth rates both sank significantly below conventional figures. While “Wasting Assets” called many to action, it also operated as a brake, leading many economists and statisticians to warn against a focus on green GDP, because it tells decisionmakers nothing about the causes or solutions for environmental problems.Since that time, several developing countries have made long-term commitments to broad-based environmental accounting. Namibia began work on resource accounts in 1994, addressing such questions as whether the government has been able to capture rents from the minerals and fisheries sectors, how to allocate scarce water supplies, and how rangeland degradation affects the value of livestock.The Philippines began work on environmental accounts in 1990. The approach used there is to build all economic inputs and outputs into the accounts, including nonmarketed goods and services of the environment. Thus Filipinos estimate monetary values for such items as gathered fuelwood and the waste disposal services provided by air, water, and land; they then add in direct consumption of such services as recreation and aesthetic appreciation of the natural world. While their methodology is controversial, these accounts have provided Philippine government agencies and researchers with a rich array of data for policymaking cymaking and analysis.The United States has not been a leader in the environmental accounting arena. At the start of the Clinton administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) made a foray into environmental accounting in the minerals sector, but this preliminary attempt became embroiled in political controversy and faced opposition from the minerals industry. Congress then asked the National Research Council (NRC) to form a blue ribbon panel to consider what the nation should do in the way of environmental accounting. Since then, Congressional appropriations to BEA have been accompanied by an explicit prohibition on environmental accounting work. The ban may be lifted, however, once the recommendations of the NRC study are made public.How to Account?How environmental accounting is being done varies in a number of respects, notably the magnitude of the investment required, the objectivity of the data, the ability to compare different kinds of environmental impacts, and the kinds of policy purposes to which they may be applied. Here are some of the methods currently in use.Natural Resource Accounts. These include data on stocks of natural resources and changes in them caused by either natural processes or human use. Such accounts typically cover agricultural land, fisheries, forests, minerals and petroleum, and water. In some countries tries, the accounts also include monetary data on the value of such resources. But attempts at valuation raise significant technical difficulties. It is fairly easy to track the value of resource flows when the goods are sold in markets, as in the case of timber and fish. Valuing changes in the stocks, however, is more difficult because they could be the result either of a physical change in the resource or of a fluctuation in market price.For environmental goods and services that are not sold, it is that much harder to establish the value either of the flow or of a change in stock. However, even physical data can be linked to the economy for policy purposes. For example, changes in income can sometimes be traced to changes in the resource base or to the impact of environmental catastrophes on the economy.Emissions accounting . Developed by the Dutch, the National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts (NAMEA) structures the accounts in a matrix, which identifies pollutant emissions by economic sector, Eurostat, the statistical arm of the European Union, is helping EU members apply this approach as part of its environmental accounting program. The physical data in the NAMEA system are used to assess the impact of different growth strategies on environmental quality. Data can also be separated by type of pollutant emission to understand the impact on domestic, transborder, or global environments. If emissions are valued in monetary terms, these values can be used to determine the economic cost of avoiding environmental degradation in the first place, as well as to compare costs and benefits of environmental protection.Disaggregation of conventional national accounts.Sometimes data in the conventional accounts are taken apart to identify expenditures specifically related to the environment, such as those incurred to prevent or mitigate harm, to buy and install protection equipment, or to pay for charges and subsidies. Over time, revelation of these data makes it possible to observe links between changes in environmental policy and costs of environmental protection, as well as to track the evolution of the environmental protection industry.While these data are of obvious interest, some people argue that looking at them in isolation can be misleading. For example, while end-of-pipe pollution control equipment is easily observed, new factories and vehicles increasingly are lowering their pollutant emissions through product redesign or process change rather than relying on special equipment. In such cases, no pollution control expenditures would show up in the accounts, yet environmental performance might be better than in a case where expenditures do show up.Value of nonmarketed environmental goods and services. Considerable controversy exists over whether to include the imputed value of nonmarketed environmental goods and services in environmental accounts, such as the benefits of an unpolluted lake or a scenic vista. On the one hand, the value of these items is crucial if the accounts are to be used to assess tradeoffs between economic and environmental goals. Otherwise, the accounts can end up reflecting the costs of protecting the environment without in any way reflecting the benefits. On the other hand, some people feel that valuation is a modeling activity that goes beyond conventional accounting and should not be directly linked to the SNA .The concern underlying their view is that it is difficult to standardize valuation methods, so the resulting accounts may not be comparable across countries or economic sectors within a country.Green GDP.Developing a gross domestic product that includes the environment is also a matter of controversy. Most people actively involved in building environmental accountsminimize its importance .Because environmental accounting methods are not standardized, a green GDP can have a different meaning in each project that calculates it, so values are not comparable across countries. GDP Moreover, while a green GDP can draw attention to policy problems, it is not useful for figuring out how to resolve them. Nevertheless, most accounting projects that include monetary values do calculate this indicator .Great interest in it exists despite its limitations.Toward Consensus on MethodEnvironmental accounting would receive a substantial boost if an international consensus could be reached on methodology .The UN Statistics Department has coordinated some of the ongoing efforts toward this end since the 1980s. In 1993, the UN published the System for Integrated Economic and Environmental Accounting (SEEA) as an annex to the 1993 revision of the SNA.SEEA is structured as a series of methodological options, which include most of the different accounting activities described above; users choose the options most appropriate to their needs.No consensus exists on the various methods that the UN recommended. In fact, SEEA is now undergoing revision by the so-called “London Group,” co mprised primarily of national income accountants and statisticians from OECD countries. The group's work will be an important step toward consensus on accounting methods, but the process will be lengthy: Development of the conventional SNA took some forty yearsToward Widespread UseA number of steps can be taken now toward the goal of ensuring that environmental accounting is as well established as the SNA. First, information must circulate freely about existing environmental accounts and how they are contributing to economic and environmental policy. Ongoing work needs to be identified and systematically reviewed and analyzed to learn lessons, which may inform the design and implementation of future accounting activities. The Green Accounting Initiative of the World Conservation Union has embarked on this effort, and a number of other organizations are calling for similar activities. Use of the World Wide Web may facilitate access to unpublished work, although it will require a concerted effort to obtain accounting reports and seek permission to load them on the Internet.Second, development of a core of internationally standardized methods will contribute to willingness to adopt environmental accounting. Experts in the—field--including economists, environmentalists, academics, and others outside of the national statistical offices—should take a proactive role in tracking the work of the London Group and insist that the standard-setting process involve participants representing a spectrum of viewpoints, countries, and interested stakeholders. An opportunity exists for research institutes to take a lead in identifying the financial resources needed to facilitate a broader standard setting process, and to elicit a full range of voices to build a consensus on methodology.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the more countries institutionalize construction of environmental accounts, the greater the momentum for more of the same.Still, building accounts--like developing any timeseries statistics—will not happen overnight. Their construction will require sustained institutional and financial commitment to ensure that the investment lasts long enough to yield results. But the experiences of Norway, Namibia, and the Philippines show that such a commitment can pay off; it is a commitment that more countries around the world need to make.Joy E. Hecht coordinates the Green Accounting Initiative at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. /greenacct.html. While on the RFF staff in 1980–81, she began working on environmental accounting. This article is based on a talk she gave last fall as part of RFF's Wednesday Seminar Series.。

精编【财务会计管理】企业环境成本会计外文翻译

【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）。

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

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。

环境会计——精选推荐

环境会计环境会计又称绿色会计，它是以货币为主要计量单位，以有关法律、法规为依据，计量、记录环境污染、环境防治、环境开发的成本费用，同时对环境的维护和开发形成的效益进行合理计量与报告，从而综合评估环境绩效及环境活动对企业财务成果影响的一门新兴学科。

它试图将会计学与环境经济学相结合，通过有效的价值管理，达到协调经济发展和环境保护的目的。

环境会计免费编辑添加义项名B 添加义项基本信息中文名环境会计外文名Environmental accounting目录1简介2概念3基本模式4目标定位5确认计量6产生背景7科学特性8开展必要9实施手段10发展战略11披露问题12对应措施13国情选择14差异15整体评论环境会计环境会计是以环境资产、环境费用、环境效益等会计要素为核算内容的一门专业会计。

环境会计核算各会计要素，都采用一定的方法折算为货币进行计量。

但环境会计货币计量单位的货币含义不完全是建立在劳动价值理论基础上的。

按照劳动价值理论，只有交换的商品，其价值才能以社会必要劳动时间来衡量，对于非交换、非人类劳动的物品，是不计量的，会计不需对其进行核算。

然而这些非交换、非人类劳动的物品有相当部分是环境会计的核算内容，因此环境会计必须建立能够计量非交换、非劳动物品的价值理论。

按照《现代会计百科辞典》收录的词条，环境会计是"从社会利益角度计量和报导企业、事业机关等单位的社会活动对环境的影响及管理情况的一项管理活动。

它旨在指导经济资源作最有效运用及最佳调配，以提高社会整体效益"。

该辞典还收录了绿色会计词条，认为绿色会计是"在为了交易和促进公共福利，为了创造未来用途的财富以及保护资源时，根据资源者和资源所有者一致同意的惯例来核算、计量这些资源耗费情况的管理活动"。

国外将利用货币工具对环境问题进行管理的范畴统称为环境会计，包括宏观和微观两个方面。

宏观环境会计主要着眼于国民经济中与自然资源和环境有关的内容，是运用物理和货币单位对国家自然资源的消耗进行的计量，因此，也常被称为"自然资源会计"。

环境会计信息披露外文文献翻译中英文.pdf

外文文献翻译原文及译文(本文档归max118 网hh2018 所有，仅供下载使用)中文标题：印度环境会计披露实践的影响因素：来自NIFTY 公司的经验证据文献出处：The IUP Journal of Accounting Research & Audit Practices, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2016译文字数：3900 多字原文Factors Influencing Environmental Accounting and Disclosure Practices in India: Empirical Evidence from NIFTY CompaniesB Omnamasivaya* and M S V PrasadThe study examines the factors determining the level of environmental disclosure information by taking a sample of NIFTY 50 companies from National Stock Exchange (NSE). The environmental information disclosure is measured by using an Environmental Accounting Disclosure Index (EADI) and the variables used in the study are profitability, corporate size, age, financial leverage, industry type, legal ownership and foreign operations. The relationship is tested using multiple regression analysis. The results show that there is a positive relationship between EADI and profitability, financial leverage, industry type and legal ownership, and a negative relationship between EADI and corporate size, age and foreign operations.IntroductionClimate change is one of the greatest challenges that the world is facing today. Climate change is the variation in the global climate over time. The climate change creates manifold problems like global warming, glacier meltdown, soil erosion, land degradation, deforestation, loss of biodiversity and all kinds of pollution. Human influence on the nature is one of the major causes of such problems. Indiscriminate use of resourcesand undue influence on nature in the name of development can be identified as the prime causes of climate change. As a result, in the last few decades, the adverse effect of environmental pollution on economic development has become a public concern all over the world (Goswami, 2014).The state of world‘s environment and the impact of mankind on the ecology of the world have led to increased public concern and scrutiny of the operations and performance of organizations. Globally, corporations are expected to include environmental concerns in business operations and interaction with stakeholders. As a result, firms can no longer ignore the problems of the society in which they operate. This has thus instituted a social contract between organizations and the environment, thereby making environmental responsibility a corporate dictate (Olayinka and Oluwamayowa, 2014).Every business has responsibility to use the resources at judiciously. Every enterprise needs to behave like a good corporate citizen, and the corporate behavior is judged by its actions related to the community, the steps taken to protect the environment or pollution control. In the context of the Indian corporate sector, companies are not performing as good citizens. Due to this reason many laws have been laid down by the government for making the companies good corporate citizens and fulfill their social responsibility (Chauhan, 2005).In India, the economic reforms initiated in the 1990s have unwittingly contributed to a rise in environmental problems. The awareness level of stakeholders and public regarding the environmental issues has increased the pressure on companies to disclose environmental information. As a result, the companies have started disclosing the environmental information in annual reports and sustainability reports to satisfy all their stakeholders.The Indian government has taken several steps to protect the environment. It has set up the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) with the aim to coordinate, among the states and the various ministries, the issues relating to environmental protection and antipollution measures. Necessary legislation has also been passed. In India, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) were established under the Water Act. The CPCB has identified 17 categories of industries which are highly polluting (Joshi et al., 2011).In India, specific environmental accounting rules or environmental disclosure guidelines for communication to different stakeholder groups are not available for Indian companies. There is no mandatory requirement for quantitative disclosure of (financial) environmental information in annual reports either under the Companies Act or as per the Indian Accounting Standards. Furthermore there are 23 stockexchanges in India which are controlled by the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992. Each of these stock exchanges has different listing requirement for Indian companies to disclose environmental information. Therefore, any environmental disclosure by Indian companies is purely voluntary (Makori and Jagongo, 2013). Against this backdrop, the present study examines the factors determining the level of environmental disclosure information in India.Legitimacy TheoryIn order to explain the reasons for environmental disclosure, we use legitimacy theory. There are many theories which explain the various reasons for social and environmental accounting disclosures, but legitimacy theory is the most suitable theory to explain the environmental disclosure. Organizations cannot survive without meeting the societal expectations. The society expects that the organizations should be proactive in protecting the environment and minimizing the environmental hazards. In case organizations fail to meet the societal expectations, there is a severe threat to their existence. Nowadays Indian companies are legitimizing because of the awareness about environmental disclosure practices in the society. Therefore, Indian companies are taking several steps to protect the environment and are disclosing the relevant environmental information in their annual reports and company websites.Legitimacy relates to the environmental issues which are disclosedin the companies’ annual reports. This indicates the management concerns towards the community. Therefore, the management of different companies or managers have different ideas or thoughts about what the society expects and managers will adapt different strategies to show the society that the organization is meeting the expectations of the community (Zain, 2006).The theory of legitimacy is based on two fundamental ideas: companies need to legitimize their activities, and the process of legitimacy that confers benefits to businesses. Thus, the first element is compatible with the idea that environmental disclosure is related to the social pressure. In this context, the need for legitimacy is not the same for all companies due to the degree of social pressure the company is exposed to, and the level of response to this pressure. There are a number of factors which determine the degree of social pressure on companies and their responses to the pressure. These factors are potential determinants of corporate social disclosure. The second component is based on the idea that companies can expect to benefit by a legitimate behavior based on the social responsibility activity. In addition to that, the legitimacy theory provides a comprehensive framework to explain both the determinants and consequences of social disclosure (Mohamed et al., 2014).Literature ReviewKokubu et al. (2001) examined the annual reports of 1,203 companies to investigate the determinants of environmental disclosure. Environmental disclosure was measured by using an environmental disclosure index and the six independent variables used in the study were company size, financial performance, strength of consumer relations, dependence on debt, dependence on the capital market and type of industry. The study found that company size and industry type influence environmental disclosure.Elijido-Ten (2004) conducted a study on the determinants of environmental disclosures by using 40 Malaysian companies by applying stakeholder theory. The environmental disclosure was measured by using an environmental disclosure index. The study used three determinants: stakeholder power, strategic posture and economic performance. The study found that both top management and government power were the determinants of environmental disclosure, and it was also found that there was no relationship between economic performance and environmental disclosure.Yuen et al. (2009) examined 200 companies to investigate the relationship between firm characteristics and voluntary disclosure. Voluntary disclosure practices were measured by using a disclosure index and the independent variables used in the study were concentration of ownership, ownership by state, individual ownership, firm size, leverage,profitability and type of industry. The study found that individual ownership, audit committee, firm size, and leverage positively related to voluntary disclosure.Galani et al. (2011) examined the relationship between environmental disclosure and firm size by using 100 Greek companies. Environmental disclosure was measured by using environmental disclosure index and the independent variables tested in the study were profitability, size and listing status. The study found that there was a positive significant relationship between environmental disclosure and size of the firm and it was also found that there was no relationship between environmental disclosure and profitability listing requirements.Joshi et al. (2011) analyzed as ma ny as 45 Indian companies’ annual reports to investigate the factors influencing environmental disclosure. The environmental disclosure was measured using environmental disclosure index and the independent variables used in the study were profitability, size, accounting firm, industry, foreign operations, age, ownership and financial leverage. The study found that size and industry were significant determinants for environmental disclosure.Rouf (2011) examined the relationship between firm-specific characteristics and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD) by taking 176 Bangladesh companies. CSRD was measured by using the CSRD index and the variables in the study were independent directorsand firm size. The study found that there was a positive relationship between CSRD and independent directors and firm size did not affect CSRD.Abdo and Al-Drugi (2012) studied whether any company characteristics influenced environmental disclosures by using 43 Libyan oil and gas companies. Environmental disclosures were measured using content analysis through word count and four characteristics were selected: company’s size, privatization, age, and nationality. The study found that there was a positive association between environmental disclosure and company’s size, company’s privatization, and company’s nationality; and it was also found that the age of the company was significant and negatively related to the level of environmental disclosure.Oba and Fodio (2012) examined the relationship between board characteristics and quality of environmental disclosure by taking 21 companies in Nigeria. Environmental disclosure was measured by using an environmental disclosure index and the independent variables used in the study were board size, foreign directors, gender mix, and board independence. The study found that there was no relationship between board size and environmental disclosure.Suttipun and Stanton (2012) conducted a study on the determinants of environmental disclosure by using 75 Thai companies. The environmental disclosure was measured by word count and the fiveindependent variables used in the study were size of the company, type of industry, ownership status, profitability and country of origin of the company. The study found that there was a positive relationship between environmental disclosure and size of the company.Development of HypothesesCorporate SizeMany of the researchers found a positive relationship between environmental disclosure and size, and many studies supported that large- sized firms disclose more on environment (e.g., Kokubu et al. 2001; Joshi et al., 2011; Suttipun and Stanton, 2012; Makori and Jagongo, 2013; Akbaş , 2014; and Sulaimana et al., 2014).There is a contrast between small enterprises and large enterprises. Large companies require more funds and for that they raise funds through external sources. For attracting the investors and to reduce the agency cost, large companies disclose more information and therefore get public support (Joshi et al., 2011).ProfitabilityThe profitability of a firm is an important factor in determining the environmental disclosure practices. As for whether environmental issues are important or not, it is argued that when the profit is low, the importance of environmental issues is low (Joshi et al., 2011). Many studies have reported that there is a positive relationship betweenprofitability and environmental disclosure (e.g., Nurhayati et al., 2015). A very few studies did not support that (e.g., Galani et al. 2011; Rouf, 2011; Akbaş , 2014; and Sulaimana et al., 2014).Many studies have used the profitability ratios like Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Investment (ROI), Return on Equity (ROE), Net Profit Margin and Dividend Per Share (DPS) to measure the firm profitability. This study uses ROE to measure profitability.Financial LeverageThe agency theory states that with the increase of debt proportion in capital structure, the greater is likely to be the conflict of interest between shareholders, creditors and managers; and the higher the agency cost, the greater is the incentive for managers to disclose more information. From the perspective of social and environmental responsibilities, companies with higher financial leverage are willing to disclose more environmental information to maintain good relationship with stakeholders (Joshi et al., 2011).Many studies have supported the association between financial leverage and environmental disclosure (Joshi et al., 2011; and Sulaimana et al., 2014). They reported that financial leverage has no impact on the disclosure level in India. Kokubu et al. (2001) stated that debt did not significantly influence the corporate environmental reports in Japan. However, this study uses debt-equity ratio for measuring financialleverage.Industry TypeMany studies have examined whether the industry influences the disclosure of environmental information, and many studies have supported strongly that environmental-sensitive companies disclose more environmental information than non-environmental-sensitive companies. Joshi et al. (2011) stated that environmental-sensitive companies in India are likely to disclose more environmental protection information than others. Akbaş (2014) reported that t here is a significant positive relationship between industry membership and the extent of environmental disclosure.ConclusionThe study examined the factors influencing EADI by taking a sample of 50 companies listed on NSE. The environmental accounting disclosure is measured by EADI, and the independent variables used in the study are corporate size, age, profitability, financial leverage, legal ownership, industry and foreign operations. The relationship is tested using multiple regression analysis. The R2 under the model is 0.6033, which indicates that the model is capable of explaining 60.33% of variability in the disclosure of environmental information in the sample companies. The adjusted R2 indicates that 53.72% of variation in the dependent variable is explained by the variations in the independentvariables. The results of multiple regression reveal that there is a positive relationship between EADI and profitability, financial leverage, industry type, and legal ownership, and a negative relationship between EADI and corporate size, age and foreign operations.Limitations: The main limitation of the study is that the data was selected only for one year. The sample size was also limited. Another limitation of the study is that there are many variables which may influence environmental disclosure like board of directors, CEO’s role, audit firm size, etc., but we have selected very few variables.Future Scope: There is huge scope for further research on environmental accounting disclosure in the Indian context, as there is less amount of research on this subject. Further research can focus on the relationship between environmental accounting disclosure practices and financial performance of the companies.译文印度环境会计披露实践的影响因素：来自NIFTY 公司的经验证据B Omnamasivaya，M S V Prasad该研究通过从国家证券交易所（NSE）获取NIFTY 50 公司的样本来分析环境披露信息水平的影响因素。

重视大自然的价值

CPA环境会计O ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING071 Hong Kong Institute ofCertified Public Accountants香港会计师公会重视大自然的价值自然资本会计(Natural Capital Accounting)是计量公司对环境影响的方法，本文探讨赋予自然资源价值的益处与挑战。

文/Nicky Burridge插图/Gianfranco Bonadies试想想一家矿业公司在它拥有开采权的土地开采铜矿,然后从铜矿制成产品出售。

从账面上来看，这家公司可能有不错的利润，但采矿对环境造成的负面影响，则难以从账目以货币价值得知。

香港科技大学环境及可持续发展学部客席教授J•罗伯特•吉布森(J Robert Gibson)说："如果把相关影响以货币价值一并计算，这家公司的业绩或许会差很多。

”自然资本会计是指在公司资产负债表上记录货币交易、资产和负债等一般信息外，也计量公司对自然环境依赖程度的会计方式。

传统企业的社会责任聚焦在对环境和社会的影响上，而自然资本会计则不同，它还计算环境对企业可能产生的影响。

“自然资本”涵盖空气、水、土地、矿物和森林，以至生物多样性和生态系统健康等方面。

自然资本会计的实践仍处于起步阶段，至今全球只有少数公司实行。

国际会计师联合会(International Federation of Accountants,I FAC)副总监斯塔西斯•古尔德(Stathis Gould)认为：“事实上，多数企业在运作和决策上都没有考虑到自然资本的可持续性。

”他说道，“许多企业都没有评估业务对自然资本的依赖程度，以及这种依赖所带来的机会和风险。

”自然效益专家认为实行自然资本会计可以为公司带来很多益处。

自然资本联盟(Natural CapitalCoalition)是由多方组成的国际平台，支持商界建立自然与社会资本估值方法，其会员组织之一气候披露标准委员会(Climate Disclosure StandardsBoard)的常务理事马尔迪•麦克布赖恩(Mardi McBrien)指出,自然资本会计让公司计算其商业模式对自然资源的依赖程度和公司行为的影响，从而做岀更明智的知情决策。

日本环境会计和欧盟EAMS计划介绍

❖ 1993 年 7月--欧盟首次将 1836/93EMAS规章作为一项环境工具提出来。欧共体（EEA）国家工业领域中的企业和组织可以自愿参该加计划。
❖ 1993至1995年--建立实施该计划的主管和鉴定组织。
❖ 1995年4 月--工业领域中的企业和组织可以自愿参加计划。
❖ 1996年--颁布了ISO14001国际环境管理体系，如果参与 ISO 14001 的机构申请加入EMAS，可以简化其申请程序。
初步环境评估
环境政策和计划
修改环境计划
环境管理体系
环境审核
环境报告书
审核登记注册
26
第二部分欧盟EMAS
EMAS的几个主要阶段：
❖ A. 确定环境政策。描述企业环境总体目标和与环境相关的活动的原则。列出所有的重大环境问题提交要遵守的环境法规提交环境绩效持续改善计划
❖ B. 对所有环境要素进行初步环境评估，包括与组织的活动、产品和服务、评估方法、规章制度以及环境管理的程序等相关的环境要素。目的是识别主要的环境冲突，为建立环境改善计划和为以后环境污染的减少提供基准；描述企业的环境现状。
3.3环境会计的方法还十分简单，现在只能将具有重要环境影响的问题进行会计核算与报告。
3.4.还缺乏环境会计的理论研究
17
第一部分日本环境会计
4.日本环境会计对中国环境会计的启示
4.1.统一颁布实施环境会计规范是可行的。我国企业尚不重视环境影响及其对社会公众形象的破坏，统一颁布规范、标准，较日本的情况更具有必要性与紧迫性。
16
第一部分日本环境会计
3.2为了提高环境报告的可信性，开始进行第三方鉴定的做法还没有精确的规定。
审查的保证程度与报告使用者期望存在差异、第三方采用的手段、措施的范围没有明确的规范可以遵循，只有审查和被审查双方在合同中规定，鉴定工作急需规范。缺少对第三方资格的鉴定，对审查者应负的责任也没有规定。

企业环境会计是否具有商业意义？【外文翻译】

外文文献翻译译文原文：Chapter 13Does Corporate Environmental Accounting Make Business Sense?Abstract Businesses do not operate in a vacuum. They are subject to legal requirements and industry practices; they require resources to manufacture products and/or render services; they operate in an environment from which they draw their resources and which may be affected by their activities; and they operate in a community from which they draw their work force and which may also be impacted by their activities. Corporate environmental accounting is one of the tools that can be used by businesses to address these challenges. For an organisation to apply environmental accounting it must make business sense. Implementing environmental accounting may require resources. Therefore, a business must weigh up the benefits and costs thereof.This paper discusses the four elements of corporate environmental accounting, i.e. environmental management accounting, environmental financial accounting, environmental reporting and environmental financial auditing. The potential benefits that can be derived from each of these elements are discussed. Many benefits can be reaped from implementing different elements of corporate environmental accounting. Some benefits enhance internal efficiency and competitive advantage, whilst others enhance legitimisation and stakeholder relations.This paper also argues that for the full benefits of corporate environmental accounting to be reaped the elements of environmental accounting should be integrated with each other and in the day-to-day business of an organisation. The linkages and interactions among the elements of corporate environmental accounting as well as the linkages between corporate environmental accounting and the broader business processes of the company are discussed based on a diagrammatic model.13.1 IntroductionBusinesses do not operate in a vacuum. They are subject to legal requirements and industry practices; they require resources to manufacture products and/or render services; they operate in an environment from which they draw their resources and which may be affected by their activities; and they operate in a community from which they draw their work force and which may also be impacted by their activities. In order to do all this, businesses need a “license to operate”, not only from the authorities but also from all their stakeholders. This comprehensive approach to business was the basis for the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) concept (Elkington 1994) or sustainable business.Corporate environmental accounting is one of the tools that can be used by businesses to address these challenges. Although the term Environmental Accounting is sometimes used at different levels and for different components, for the purposes of this chapter corporate environmental accounting is meant to comprise four main elements, i.e. environmental management accounting, environmental financial accounting, environmental reporting and environmental financial auditing. The relationship between these elements is shown in Fig. 13.1, and will be discussed in more detail in Section 13.7.Fig. 13.1 The elements of corporate environmental accountingFor an organisation to apply environmental accounting to its fullest extent it must make business sense. Implementing environmental accounting may require resources, particularly in the initial stages. Therefore, a business must weigh up the benefits and costs thereof. However, caution should be exercised in such cost-benefit assessment, as many environmental and other factors may not easily lend themselves for quantification. One must also be careful not to focus on financial benefits only. One can even ask the question: should we at all try to rationalise implementation of environmental management measures by pointing out business benefits? Should business not implement these measures because they are socially obliged or expected to do so in terms of a normative approach (Bebbington 1997)? Whether one would only want to follow the normative approach or not, identifying business benefits from environmental accounting might help to persuade business people, who tend to think mostly in bottom-line terms, to consider the implementation thereof.Corporate environmental accounting is an element of corporate environmental management. Therefore, benefits derived from corporate environmental accounting are closely related to benefits derived from corporate environmental management. Reaping benefits from corporate environmental accounting is a dynamic concept. Some elements of environmental accounting may have more prominent benefits than others. Benefits derived from environmental accounting can be internally [e.g. efficiency and competitive advantage] or externally [e.g. stakeholder] orientated (Hart 1995). All benefits identified may not necessarily be available for all role players. However, the benefits discussed below have all been identified in some situations and may be available for companies depending on circumstances. The availability of benefits may also change over time or depend on the phase of implementation of corporate environmental accounting. Madsen and Ulhøi (2003) found that Danish companies that had implemented environmental measures in an early stage, had exhausted the …low-hanging fruit‟. T hey now had to focus on more substantive and expensive changes or technologies that would require longer pay-back time.This paper will first briefly discuss some theoretical perspectives, followed by a detailed discussion of the various elements of corporate environmental accounting and the benefits that each one may provide. Finally it will be discussed how these elements can be linked into an integrated approach to corporate environmental accounting in support of sustainable business.13.2 Some Theoretical PerspectivesWithout going into a detailed theoretical discourse it is necessary to identify some of the more pertinent theoretical frameworks that are relevant for the discussion of benefits derived from corporate environmental accounting. These include Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Porter‟s Hypothesis. These various theoretical perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but could be considered supplementary to each other (Gray et al. 1995).13.2.1 Legitimacy TheoryEarly developers of the concept of legitimacy theory were Shocker and Sethi (1974, cited by Patten 1992) and Preston and Post (1975, cited by Patten 1992). Lindblom (1993, cited by Buhr 2002) was the first to apply the concept of legitimacy theory to environmental reporting. The basic tenet of legitimacy theory is that companies cannot continue to exist and thrive if their beliefs and methods are contrary to those of the society in which they operate. This implies that there is some form of …social contract‟ between the c ompany and its society. If an organisation cannot justify its continued operation, then in a sense the community may revoke its …contract‟ to continue its operations. It then looses its …licence to operate‟. In order to ensure that society continues to vie w the company‟s activities as congruent to its own, the company should disclose its activities.13.2.2 Stakeholder TheoryFreeman (1984) made a persuasive case that systematic managerial attention to stakeholder interests is critical to firm success. Donaldson and Preston (1995) made important conceptual contributions to this concept, which form the basis of currentresearch in the field. Berman et al. (1999) developed two models on stakeholder management, namely:●The Strategic Stakeholder Management model. The nature and extent ofmanagerial concern for a stakeholder group is viewed as determined solely by the perceived ability of such concern to improve financial performance.●The Intrinsic Stakeholder Commitment model. Firms are viewed ashaving a normative [moral] commitment to treating stakeholders in a positive way, and this commitment is, in turn, seen as shaping their strategy and impacting their financial performance.Berman et al.‟s (1999) research did indicate support for the first model but failed to find support for the second model.13.2.3 Porter’s HypothesisTraditionally, responding to environmental challenges has been seen as a no-win proposition for business, with the related expenditure seen as a net cost. However, in 1991 Porter posited that stricter environmental regulation would lead to innovative approaches that would enhance competitiveness (Porter 1991 cited in Porter and Van der Linde 1995)—Porter‟s hypothesis. Porter‟s view was critiqued by various authors (Walley and Whitehead 1994; Palmer et al. 1995; Maxwell 1996) as being too simplistic. Wagner et al. (2001) moderated Porter‟s hypothesis and developed a model in which the traditionalist view and Porter‟s hypothesis were combined. The moderated Porter hypothesis forms the key concept for this paper, i.e. that companies implementing corporate environmental accounting will perceive at least some benefits from doing so.13.5 Environmental ReportingEnvironmental reporting in this context refers to reporting on environmental issues in addition to prescribed disclosures in the financial statements. Environmental reporting has been the subject of extensive development over the past decades and isaffected by many factors. Proper environmental reporting enhances compliance with legislative requirements for disclosure of environmental information. Countries such as Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Australia and Sweden (Monaghan 2004), Canada and the USA (Repetto et al. 2002) require by legislation disclosure of certain environmental information. The EU Modernisation Directive (2003/51/EC) and the Integrated P ollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/16/EC) require the disclosure of certain environmental issues by listed or larger organisations, while non-EU countries such as Australia and Japan also have regulatory requirements in this regard (KPMG 2005). It is expected that the recommendations in the King II report (Institute of Directors 2002), that contains extensive guidance on environmental reporting, will be incorporated in company legislation in South Africa in the years to come. Reports on corporate governance invariably include sustainability or triple-bottom-line [environmental, social and economic] reporting. Environmental reporting also enhances compliance with GAAP and the IFRSs.Several stock exchanges have introduced voluntary systems for environmental reporting based on which socially responsible investment indices have been developed. These include amongst others the FTSE4Good indices, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) (Howes 2004), and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange Socially Responsible Investment Index (Newton-King 2004). “Increasingly, the quality of a company‟s environmental management is being seen as an indicator to the outside world of the overall quality of its management” (Howes 2004: 107). Therefore, to be incorporated in any of these sustainability indices enhances the rating of a company in the eyes of investors and, therefore, its share price. On the other side, the UK government has instituted a policy of …naming and shaming‟ those companies that do not yet report on environmental, ethical and social issues (Howes 2004).The most widely accepted best practice for environmental reporting are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines (Cerin 2002; Edwards et al. 2002; KPMG 2005). The 3rd version of the GRI guidelines was launched in Amsterdam in October 2006 (Global Reporting Initiative 2006). Companies who voluntarily producereports in reference to or in accordance with the GRI guidelines are seen as well managed companies.It is important that environmental reports should primarily report on environmental performance rather than on environmental management systems and processes as such. Research has shown that companies with formalised environmental management systems, in general, did not perform significantly better than those without (Monaghan 2004). Over-emphasising process rather than performance is a real risk that detracts from the value of environmental reports and can often fail to reach the real objectives (Doane 2004).Proper environmental reporting builds confidence among shareholders and other stakeholders. The public image of companies with effective environmental reporting will probably have the advantage over the image of companies that either neglect environmental reporting altogether or make it a formality rather than honest and open reporting. The Co-operative Bank in the UK is proof that one has not to be big to produce good environmental reports. Its Partnership Report has received numerous commendations over the past few years, including best sustainability report in the UK and best environmental report in the UK and best social report in the UK. The effect of its philosophy of open and honest environmental reporting is evident in a much lower than average staff turnover. Since launching the Co-op‟s partnership approach in 1997, the number of customer accounts has increased by over 30% and the bank‟s profitability has doubled. An international survey by Echo Research has found that the Co-operative Bank is one of the five most trusted companies worldwide (Monaghan 2004).Several other benefits of environmental reporting have been mentioned in literature, including legitimising activities, distracting attention from other areas, boosting corporate image, preventing the promulgation of mandatory reporting regimes, building up expertise in advance of regulation, enhancing share price, political benefits, risk reduction, competitive advantage, enhancing accountability, informing the public, forestalling disclosure by others and building reputation (Clarkeand Gibson-Sweet 1999; De Villiers 1998; Gray et al. 1993). Environmental reporting also offers the opportunity for extensive stakeholder involvement in the identification and monitoring of environmental performance indicators, thereby enhancing transparency, accountability and stakeholder relations. The positive role of environmental reporting in internal motivation and acting as a catalyst has also been mentioned (Hedberg and V on Malmborg 2003).Source：Seakle k.b.Godschalk. Does Corporate Environmental Accounting Make Business Sense.Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science,2009(24),249-265.一、翻译文章译文：第13章企业环境会计是否具有商业意义？摘要：企业不能在真空中运作，他们受到法律和行业惯例的约束。

外文原文环境会计

Environmental AccountingWhere We Are Now, Where We Are HeadingBy Joy E. HechtInterest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment.The field of environmental accounting has made great strides in the past two decades, moving from a rather arcane endeavor to one tested in dozens of countries and well established in a few. But the idea that nations might integrate the economic role of the environment into their income accounts is neither a quick sell nor a quick process; it has been under discussion since the 1960s. Despite controversies described in this article, however, interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment.Why Change?Governments around the world develop economic data systems known as national income accounts to calculate macroeconomic indicators such as gross domestic product. Building a nation's economic use of the environment into such accounts is a response to several perceived flaws in the System of National as defined by the United Nations and used internationally. One flaw in the SNA often cited is that the cost of environmental protection cannot be identified. Consequently, money spent, say, to put pollution control devices on smokestacks increases GDP, even though the expenditure is not economically productive, some argue. These critics call for differentiating “defensive” expenditures from others within the account s.Also misleading is the fact that some environmental goods are not marketed though they provide economic value. Fuelwood gathered in forests, meat and fish gathered for consumption, and medicinal plants are examples. So are drinking and irrigation water, whose sale prices reflect the cost of distribution and treatment infrastructure, but not the water itself. While some countries do include such goods in their national income accounts, no standard practices exist for doing so. When nonmarketed goods are included in the accounts, they still cannot be distinguished from those that are marketed.Valuing environmental services such as the watershed protection that forests afford and the crop fertilization that insects provide is difficult. Though some experts call for their inclusion in environmentally adjusted accounts, typically neither the economic value nor the degradation of these services is included. On the other hand, however, the alternate goods and services needed to replace them-water treatment plants, for example—do contribute to GDP, which can be rather misleading.Still another problem is that national income accounts treat the depreciation of manufacturedcapital and natural capital differently. Physical capital—a building or a machine, for instance—is depreciated in accordance with conventional business accounting principles, while all consumption of natural capital is accounted for as income. Thus the accounts of a country that harvests its forests unsustainably will show high income for a few years, but will not reflect the destruction of the productive forest asset. While opinions vary on how to depreciate natural capital, they converge on the need to do so.Which Indicators Are Useful?Some proponents advocate simple “flag” indicators to alert policymakers to the broad role of the environment in the economy, for example, comparing conventional GDP with environmentally adjusted GDP, or conventional savings with so-called “genuine” savings that account for environmental factors. Both of these indicators can provide valuable warnings of the impacts of environmental degradation on an economy. However, such flags are less useful in determining the source of environmental harm or identifying a policy response. For this reason, many economists place primary importance not on the bottom line, but on the underlying data used to build environmental accounts. These data can help answer such questions as how natural catastrophes like the fires that raged in Indonesia in the summer of 1998 may affect economic growth, or how environmental protection policies such as green taxes may affect the economy.Who Is Doing This?Environmental accounting is underway in several dozen countries, where bureaucrats, statisticians, and other proponents both foreign and domestic have initiated activities over the past few decades. Several countries have made continuous investments in data systems, which are integrated into existing statistical systems and economic planning activities. Others have made more limited efforts to calculate a few indicators, or analyze a single sector. Some of the earliest research on environmental accounting was done at RFF by Henry Peskin, working on the design of accounts for the United States.One of the first countries to build environmental accounts is Norway, which began collecting data on energy sources, fisheries, forests, and minerals in the 1970s to address resource scarcity. Over time, the Norwegians have expanded their accounts to include data on air pollutant emissions. Their accounts feed into a model of the national economy, which policymakers use to assess the energy implications of alternate growth strategies. Inclusion of these data also allows them to anticipate the impacts of different growth patterns on compliance with international conventions on pollutant emissions.More recently, a number of resource-dependent countries have become interested in measuring depreciation of their natural assets and adjusting their GDPs environmentally. One impetus for their interest was the 1989 s tudy “Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts,” in which Robert Repetto and his colleagues at the World Resources Institute estimated the depreciation of Indonesia’s forests, petroleum reserves, and soil assets. Onceadjusted to a ccount for that depreciation, Indonesia’s GDP and growth rates both sank significantly below conventional figures. While “Wasting Assets” called many to action, it also operated as a brake, leading many economists and statisticians to warn against a focus on green GDP, because it tells decisionmakers nothing about the causes or solutions for environmental problems.Since that time, several developing countries have made long-term commitments to broad-based environmental accounting. Namibia began work on resource accounts in 1994, addressing such questions as whether the government has been able to capture rents from the minerals and fisheries sectors, how to allocate scarce water supplies, and how rangeland degradation affects the value of livestock.The Philippines began work on environmental accounts in 1990. The approach used there is to build all economic inputs and outputs into the accounts, including nonmarketed goods and services of the environment. Thus Filipinos estimate monetary values for such items as gathered fuelwood and the waste disposal services provided by air, water, and land; they then add in direct consumption of such services as recreation and aesthetic appreciation of the natural world. While their methodology is controversial, these accounts have provided Philippine government agencies and researchers with a rich array of data for policymaking cymaking and analysis.The United States has not been a leader in the environmental accounting arena. At the start of the Clinton administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) made a foray into environmental accounting in the minerals sector, but this preliminary attempt became embroiled in political controversy and faced opposition from the minerals industry. Congress then asked the National Research Council (NRC) to form a blue ribbon panel to consider what the nation should do in the way of environmental accounting. Since then, Congressional appropriations to BEA have been accompanied by an explicit prohibition on environmental accounting work. The ban may be lifted, however, once the recommendations of the NRC study are made public.How to Account?How environmental accounting is being done varies in a number of respects, notably the magnitude of the investment required, the objectivity of the data, the ability to compare different kinds of environmental impacts, and the kinds of policy purposes to which they may be applied. Here are some of the methods currently in use.Natural Resource Accounts. These include data on stocks of natural resources and changes in them caused by either natural processes or human use. Such accounts typically cover agricultural land, fisheries, forests, minerals and petroleum, and water. In some countries tries, the accounts also include monetary data on the value of such resources. But attempts at valuation raise significant technical difficulties. It is fairly easy to track the value of resource flows when the goods are sold in markets, as in the case of timber and fish. Valuing changes in the stocks, however, is more difficult because they could be the result either of a physical change in the resource or of a fluctuation in market price.For environmental goods and services that are not sold, it is that much harder to establish the value either of the flow or of a change in stock. However, even physical data can be linked to the economy for policy purposes. For example, changes in income can sometimes be traced to changes in the resource base or to the impact of environmental catastrophes on the economy.Emissions accounting . Developed by the Dutch, the National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts (NAMEA) structures the accounts in a matrix, which identifies pollutant emissions by economic sector, Eurostat, the statistical arm of the European Union, is helping EU members apply this approach as part of its environmental accounting program. The physical data in the NAMEA system are used to assess the impact of different growth strategies on environmental quality. Data can also be separated by type of pollutant emission to understand the impact on domestic, transborder, or global environments. If emissions are valued in monetary terms, these values can be used to determine the economic cost of avoiding environmental degradation in the first place, as well as to compare costs and benefits of environmental protection.Disaggregation of conventional national accounts.Sometimes data in the conventional accounts are taken apart to identify expenditures specifically related to the environment, such as those incurred to prevent or mitigate harm, to buy and install protection equipment, or to pay for charges and subsidies. Over time, revelation of these data makes it possible to observe links between changes in environmental policy and costs of environmental protection, as well as to track the evolution of the environmental protection industry.While these data are of obvious interest, some people argue that looking at them in isolation can be misleading. For example, while end-of-pipe pollution control equipment is easily observed, new factories and vehicles increasingly are lowering their pollutant emissions through product redesign or process change rather than relying on special equipment. In such cases, no pollution control expenditures would show up in the accounts, yet environmental performance might be better than in a case where expenditures do show up.Value of nonmarketed environmental goods and services. Considerable controversy exists over whether to include the imputed value of nonmarketed environmental goods and services in environmental accounts, such as the benefits of an unpolluted lake or a scenic vista. On the one hand, the value of these items is crucial if the accounts are to be used to assess tradeoffs between economic and environmental goals. Otherwise, the accounts can end up reflecting the costs of protecting the environment without in any way reflecting the benefits. On the other hand, some people feel that valuation is a modeling activity that goes beyond conventional accounting and should not be directly linked to the SNA .The concern underlying their view is that it is difficult to standardize valuation methods, so the resulting accounts may not be comparable across countries or economic sectors within a country.Green GDP.Developing a gross domestic product that includes the environment is also a matter of controversy. Most people actively involved in building environmental accountsminimize its importance .Because environmental accounting methods are not standardized, a green GDP can have a different meaning in each project that calculates it, so values are not comparable across countries. GDP Moreover, while a green GDP can draw attention to policy problems, it is not useful for figuring out how to resolve them. Nevertheless, most accounting projects that include monetary values do calculate this indicator .Great interest in it exists despite its limitations.Toward Consensus on MethodEnvironmental accounting would receive a substantial boost if an international consensus could be reached on methodology .The UN Statistics Department has coordinated some of the ongoing efforts toward this end since the 1980s. In 1993, the UN published the System for Integrated Economic and Environmental Accounting (SEEA) as an annex to the 1993 revision of the SNA.SEEA is structured as a series of methodological options, which include most of the different accounting activities described above; users choose the options most appropriate to their needs.No consensus exists on the various methods that the UN recommended. In fact, SEEA is now undergoing revision by the so-called “London Group,” co mprised primarily of national income accountants and statisticians from OECD countries. The group's work will be an important step toward consensus on accounting methods, but the process will be lengthy: Development of the conventional SNA took some forty yearsToward Widespread UseA number of steps can be taken now toward the goal of ensuring that environmental accounting is as well established as the SNA. First, information must circulate freely about existing environmental accounts and how they are contributing to economic and environmental policy. Ongoing work needs to be identified and systematically reviewed and analyzed to learn lessons, which may inform the design and implementation of future accounting activities. The Green Accounting Initiative of the World Conservation Union has embarked on this effort, and a number of other organizations are calling for similar activities. Use of the World Wide Web may facilitate access to unpublished work, although it will require a concerted effort to obtain accounting reports and seek permission to load them on the Internet.Second, development of a core of internationally standardized methods will contribute to willingness to adopt environmental accounting. Experts in the—field--including economists, environmentalists, academics, and others outside of the national statistical offices—should take a proactive role in tracking the work of the London Group and insist that the standard-setting process involve participants representing a spectrum of viewpoints, countries, and interested stakeholders. An opportunity exists for research institutes to take a lead in identifying the financial resources needed to facilitate a broader standard setting process, and to elicit a full range of voices to build a consensus on methodology.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the more countries institutionalize construction of environmental accounts, the greater the momentum for more of the same.Still, building accounts--like developing any timeseries statistics—will not happen overnight. Their construction will require sustained institutional and financial commitment to ensure that the investment lasts long enough to yield results. But the experiences of Norway, Namibia, and the Philippines show that such a commitment can pay off; it is a commitment that more countries around the world need to make.Joy E. Hecht coordinates the Green Accounting Initiative at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. . While on the RFF staff in 1980–81, she began working on environmental accounting. This article is based on a talk she gave last fall as part of RFF's Wednesday Seminar Series.。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

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 standardsor 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), offering additional 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 operators 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• Per sons 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 partyis 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 toestimate 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 that a firm faces in relation to environmental accounting comprises the remediation costs. Remediation costs typically include cleanup costs, litigation costs, and other costsassociated 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 BlackburnHethcox, Richard Riley, and Jan R. Williams writing in National Public Accountant, the factors below should be considered:• The extent and type of haz ardous 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• The effect o f 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.。

环境会计【外文翻译】

企业环境成本会计外文翻译

外文：环境会计

环境会计文章翻译

环境会计【外文翻译】

第五组 环境会计

环境会计

外文原文：环境会计

精编【财务会计管理】企业环境成本会计外文翻译

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

环境会计——精选推荐

环境会计信息披露外文文献翻译中英文.pdf

重视大自然的价值

日本环境会计和欧盟EAMS计划介绍

企业环境会计是否具有商业意义？【外文翻译】

外文原文环境会计

第五组环境会计