会计专业外语论文

您好，会计论文分为很多的写作的方向，不知道您具体需要的是哪个方面的，是财务管理还是审计，是会计电算化还是会计理论，请您明确一下您论文的写作方向，以便我们为您提供更有效的帮助。

Accounting, the Environment and Sustainability（会计、环境与可持续发展） Sustainability relates to both present and future generations. It is discuss that the needs of all peoples are met. Those needs are both social and environmental. The link between accounting and environmental degradation is well-established in the literature (see, for example, Eden, 1996; Gray et all 1993). The crucial point is that accounting which takes the business agenda as given should include much environmental and social accounting. Thus, central to any discussion of accounting and the environment is a basic, challenging, and deeply unsettling question: do we believe that the organizations which accounting serves and supports can deliver environmental security and sustainability? At the same time as the technical implementation of social accounting and reporting has been developing the philosophical basis for such accounting has also been developed. Thus, Benston (1982, 1984) and Schreuder and Ramanathan (1984) consider the extent to which accountants should be involved in this accounting. Donaldson (1982) argues that such accounting can be justified by means of the social contract as benefiting society at large. Batley and Tozer (1990) and Geno (1995) have argued that “sustainability” is the “cornerstone” of environmental accounting. 6. Social and Environmental Reporting（社会与环境报告） The questions of how business should report its social performance and how that performance should be assessed have been dominant themes in the social accounting literature (Gray et al, 1996) and the social issues in management literature (Wood 1991) over the past decade. We are now witnessing both a number of initiatives that seek to set guidelines or standards for social accounting, for example the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). If there is one area which accounting researchers have embraced with enthusiasm it is the phenomenal growth in environmental reporting by organizations. The research in this area has been dominated, initially at any rate, primarily by studies descriptive in orientation. Such studies typically employ some variant of content analysis (see, for example, Milne and Adler, 1999; Gray et all, 1995). Both country specific studies and comparative studies have recorded an upward trend in environmental disclosure both through the annual report and through stand-alone environmental reports. However, analyses of the phenomenon ( Hackston and Milne1996; Fekrat et al1996; Pava and Krause 1996 ; Adams et al 1998) confirm that such reporting is principally restricted to the very largest companies and is, to a degree at least, country and industry variant. Research into environmental disclosure is developing rapidly with examinations of the impact of pressure groups (Tilt, 1994) and other external forces (Gray et all, 1995; Deegan and Gordon, 1996), exploration of user’s needs (Epstein and Freedman, 1994; Deegan and Rankin, 1997), focus on particular aspects of reporting such as environmental policies (Tilt, 1997), exploration of the truthfulness of environmental disclosure (Deegan and Rankin, 1996) and much needed theoretical development (see, for example, Patten, 1992; Roberts, 1992; Gray et al, 1995, Buhr, 1998; Adams et al, 1998; Brown and Deegan, 1998; Neu et all, 1998). Environmental reporting takes place in a predominantly voluntary regime and with the continuing interest in voluntary guidelines for such reporting (see, for example, KPMG 1997), such survey of practice are crucial in keeping attention focused on the doubtful quality and, especially, the global paucity of such reporting. If environmental reporting is important (for social accountability reasons even if it is of dubious “financial user need” value) then the predominant view of business – that environmental reporting is adequate in voluntary regime – must be challenged. Whilst the early research into environmental disclosure appeared to be so delighted that any such disclosure was taking place, this acquiescence has given way to a more critical analysis of practice. This analysis, primarily informed by the “critical school” (Laughlin, 1999), comprises three main themes. The first two of these themes are, in essence, the same critique made of social accounting. First, accounts of any kind are necessarily partial and biased constructions of a complex world. Not only do such constructions, by making some things visible, make other things invisible (Broadbent, 1994) but they are most likely to limit and even destroy the essential nature of the thing accounted for. (See, for example, Maunders and Burritt, 1991; Maunders, 1996; Cooper, 1992; Johnson, 1998). Second, the critical theorist would argue that environmental reporting is voluntary activity it can only reflect those aspects of environmental performance which organizations are willing to release. It can, therefore, only be a legitimation device and not an accountability mechanism. Consequently, the critical theorist argue, environmental accounting- including environmental reporting- is almost certain to do more environmental harm than it does good. These two themes are now developing into an important – if, as yet, unresolved – theoretical debate which seeks to counter the inherent managerialism of most accounting (and environmental accounting) research. The final theme in the critique of environmental disclosure develops the issue of the voluntary nature of environmental disclosure and brings a much-needed re-assessment of the importance and role of law in the construction of society. Specifically, Gallhofer and Haslam (1997) could be taken to use researchers’ views on the role of regulation in governing environmental reporting as an indicator of the researcher’s managerialist or alternative perspective. In essence, a non-managerialist environmental reporting would have to challenge an organization’s legitimacy and, in particular, the legitimacy of the means by which it earned the reported profit and gained its growth. The critical challenges to environmental reporting are not ill-founded when they remark that too little environmental reporting research examines this question to any substantial degree. One of the more inexplicable, although exceptionally welcome, consequences of the growing environmental agenda has been the re- emergence of a serious interest in social accounting. This is not the place to try and review, in any detail, the broad social accounting literature (see, for example, Gray et al 1996) – although a few general observations seems opposite. Social Accounting had its principal heyday in the 1970s but, although some researchers maintained an active interest in the field, it virtually disappeared from the popular consciousness of accounting academe during the 1980s and 1990s. Its re-emergence seems to be a response to a number of factors. One such factor seems to be the recognition that separation of environmental from social issues is difficult at best and pernicious at worst. As environmental issues are explored more carefully, the underlying implications for employment, communities, health and safety and even the organization’s very posture on ethics and social responsibility inevitably resurface. Equally, corporate practice has re-discovered social accounting and when organizations as diverse as Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop and Shell commit to social accounting, the wider business community begins to take notice. Finally, as we shall see, the environmental debate leads us inexorably towards discussions of sustainability. Such discussions must, by definition, embrace social accounting matters. The recent research literature on social accounting is still a little sparse but examples exist. The Adams/Roberts project has maintained a focus across both social and environmental disclosure (see, for example, Adams et al, 1998; Gray et al 1995; Hackston and Milne, 1996). Work by Roberts (1992), Pinkston and Carroll (1996), Patten (1995), Epstein and Freedman (1994), Mathews (1995) and Robertson & Nicholson (1996) continues to keep the social responsibility accounting debate moving forward whilst simultaneously, we are starting to see a re-emergence of normative work designed to guide how social accounting might be accomplished and what it might look like (See, Zadek et al, 1997; Gray et al, 1997; Gonella et al, 1998).

你可以知网里找找，不过里面很多资料都是不对外开放的，你只能看到一部分，你可以百度搜：普刊学术中心，其中有不少免费论文，选择你的领域后看下有没有合适你自己的参考论文。其实会计专业的毕业论文很简单的，尤其是本科毕业论文，放的很宽松，实在不行你自己先拟定一个提纲，然后适当找几本书来抄下，一般都能够过

盈余管理的动因及规范措施【摘要】盈余管理，企业管理当局基于自身的私人利益，借助会计政策的选择和会计估计的变更，来左右财务报告的过程或行为，或者说是企业管理当局在遵循会计准则的基础上,通过对企业对外报告的会计收益信息进行控制或调整,以达到主体自身利益最大化的行为【关键词】盈余管理，最大利益，会计法规盈余管理简言之就是一种谋取最大利益的行为。企业管理当局基于自身的私人利益，借助会计政策的选择和会计估计的变更，来左右财务报告的过程或行为，或者说是企业管理当局在遵循会计准则的基础上,通过对企业对外报告的会计收益信息进行控制或调整,以达到主体自身利益最大化的行为。 在目前，我们对盈余管理的理解有两种观点：一种是认为适度的盈余管理，是一个企业不断走向成熟的标志，它体现了企业的有关利益主体用合法手段来追求自身利益的实现。另一种观点认为，盈余管理使盈利成为数字游戏，导致会计信息失真，更有一些上市公司将“盈余管理”演变为“利润操纵”，给利益相关者的决策造成严重误导，应严格加以限制。一、盈余管理的客观条件（一） 会计准则、会计制度等会计法规本身的不完善 第一，会计准则与会计制度的制定过程本身可能存在不合理因素。例如，会计准则制定机构的人员组成如果不具有广泛的代表性，会计准则就可能出现偏向性。同时，在会计准则制定过程中，各种利益的代表者为了使准则对自己更有利，都会提出各自的要求，准则制定机构为了在利益相关方之间求得平衡，就必须赋予企业一定的会计政策选择权 第二，会计准则和会计制度本身固有的特点为盈余管理行为提供了机会。企业经营方式不同，经营活动范围不同，社会、法律和金融环境日趋复杂，使得同类会计事项更具个性，会计准则不可能事无巨细，只有对同一会计事项的处理设计出多种备选的会计处理方法，这样就为企业在对会计事项的确认、计量以及会计报告的编报等方面提供了更大的选择范围。同时，会计准则与会计实践之间的时滞性，也会使得企业对某些会计事项的确认和计量等方面采取有利于自己的会计政策，从而使财务报告带有很大的弹性。 第三，各项会计以及相关法规之间存在一定程度的不协调，也导致企业会按照有利于自己的原则选择会计处理程序和方法。 （二） 现行会计理论与会计方法固有的缺陷 第一，现行会计确认基础所固有的缺陷。权责发生制是国际上通用的会计确认基础，这一基础理论虽然较好地解决了收入与费用的配比问题，但在确认的过程中不可避免地加入了一些主观性。第二，现行会计信息重要性原则和稳健性原则固有的缺陷。重要性原则允许企业对不重要的项目可以例外处理或灵活处理，这样就给企业提供了盈余管理的空间，把重要项目按非重要项目处理，从而影响企业财务报告的公允表达。稳健性原则的运用，使得企业平滑收益和计提秘密准备金的操作更容易。企业有可能为了显示持续稳定的盈利趋势，压低经营状况好的年度报告利润，将其转移到亏损年度或经营状况差的年度。企业还可能利用稳健性原则通过过多的计提短期投资跌价准备及存货跌价准备等方法人为地低估企业资产或高估负债。第三，现行会计方法含有估计因素所固有的缺陷。如对坏帐损失、存货跌价损失、或有损失等，常不得不借助于假定和估计的方法，涉及到职业判断，会计估计的变更同样为盈余管理行为提供了条件。 （三） 会计信息具有严重的不对称性 在现代企业制度下，企业管理当局成为企业事实上的控制者，也是会计信息的垄断提供者，他们为了达到自己预期的目的，实现其自身效益的最大化而实施盈余管理。另一方面，从会计信息的使用者来说，在我国国有企业规模和数量所占比重都非常大的情况下，由于所有者缺位、所有权虚化等原因，实际上缺乏对高质量会计信息需求的内在动力。而在证券市场上，应有的理性投资者的缺失，也为企业实施盈余管理行为提供了空间和可能。 二、盈余管理的动因1.筹资动因 按《公司法》的有关规定，首发新股“公司在最近三年内连续盈利并可以向股东支付股利”，“公司预期利润可达同期银行存款利率”。股票上市须“开业时间在三年以上，最近三年连续盈利”。上市公司增发新股“最近三个会计年度加权平均净资产收益率平均不低于10%，且最后一个会计年度加权平均净资产收益率不低于10%。公司“最近三年连续亏损”则暂停上市。因此许多上市公司为了上市，获得配股资格或避免被摘牌，不得不进行相应的盈余管理。 2.债务契约动因 对于公司制的企业，用所获得的资金进行投资，投资成功后，股东可得大部分剩余，而债权人只能获得固定的利息；如果投资失败，股东在破产时可不必偿还全部债务，而债权人要承担全部后果。因此，债权人为了减少代理成本和风险，保证到期收回本息，在贷款时，往往要求债务人提供经注册会计师审计的财务会计报告，并在债务合同中订有一系列以会计数据定义的保护性条款，如流动比率、利息保障倍数、营运资本、固定资产、现金流动等方面的限制。另外，还规定不能过度发放股利、不进行超额贷款以及计提一定比例的偿债准备金等。 如果债务人不能履行合同中的条款，则视为违约。因此，企业管理当局将选择可增加资产或收入及减少负债或费用的会计政策，来保证一定的盈利水平，以避免产生违约行为。盈余管理实际上成为企业减少违约风险的一个工具。 3.政治成本动因 某些企业财务报告提供的数据会成为对其进行管制和监控的信号，一旦财务成果高于或低于一定的界限，企业就会招致严厉的政策限制，必然会影响到企业的正常生产经营，企业管理当局就有可能调整当期报告盈余。比如微软公司通过递延确认实际所得收入来下调盈利，逃避美国反垄断机构的指控就是一例。 另外，企业的高层管理人员，为了增加企业未来预期的盈利能力、提高自己的经营业绩、巩固自己的地位，往往会采用增大收益的盈余管理行为。 4.避税动因 所得税是促使企业管理当局采取盈余管理行为的一个较为明显的因素。企业为了节约税负、减少现金流出，往往尽量降低报告净收益。 另外，我国企业所得税实行33%的比例税率，还规定了两档照顾性税率。若年应税所得额在3万元（含3万元）以下，暂减按18%征税；若年应税所得额在3万元至10万元（含10万元），暂减按27%征税。这样，通过对应税所得额的管理便会达到避税的目的。在《外商投资企业和外国企业所得税法》及其实施细则中，也有详细的税收优惠政策，企业管理当局仍然会通过对利润的管理，如推迟开始获利年度调增两年免税期内的利润，享受到更多的税收优惠。 5.恶意误导市场动因 企业股票上市后，为使股票价格能达到预期的波动，常通过不实的财务报表来达到目的。例如：我国资本市场中的银广厦事件。三、规范盈余管理的措施（一）完善公司组织结构 我国上市公司董事会与经理层往往重叠，这样就使董事会及监事会功能弱化，公司经理人实际上集公司决策、管理、监督大权于一身。在审计委托人、被审计人与审计机构三者之间的委托代理关系中，公司经营管理层实际上由被审计人变成了审计委托人，即由公司经理层聘请审计机构来审计自己，并且审计费用等事项由公司经理层决定。会计人员出于自身利益的考虑，往往受制于经理操纵财务报表，提供虚假信息。 （二） 改进对公司业绩的评价方法 考核公司盈利能力和经营成果应以营业利润为主，而不是净利润或利润总额，尽管对营业利润也会加以操纵，但相对而言，该指标较净利润和利润总额要实在得多。 （三） 完善会计准则与方法1. 不良资产剔除法 所谓不良资产，是指待摊费用、待处理流动资产净损失、待处理固定资产净损失、开办费、递延资产等虚拟资产和高龄应收帐款、存货跌价损失、投资损失等可能产生潜亏的资产项目。如果不良资产总额接近或超过净资产，或者不良资产的增加额（增加幅度）超过净利润的增加额（增加幅度），则说明企业当期的利润有水分。 2. 关联交易剔除法 即将来自关联企业的营业收入和利润予以剔除，分析企业的盈利能力多大程度依赖关联企业。如果主要依赖关联企业，就应当特别关注关联交易的定价政策，分析企业是否以不等价交换的方式与关联方进行交易以调节盈余。 3.异常利润剔除法 即将其他业务利润、投资收益、补贴收入、营业外收入从企业的利润总额中扣除，以分析企业利润来源的稳定性。 4. 现金流量分析法 即将经营活动产生的现金流量、投资活动产生的现金流量、现金净流量，分别与主营业务利润、投资收益和净利润进行比较分析，以判断企业的盈余质量。 （四） 改革现有的关于上市、配股、停牌的规定 应建立一个包括货币量指标和实物量指标、财务数据和生产经营数据的多参数控制体系，以综合衡量和测定公司财务状况和经营业绩，以公平、公正、公开地确认其配股资格。同样摘牌的条件是“连续三年亏损”，这样有些公司便可能通过盈余管理先多转费用，为第三年“转亏”做准备，以避免摘牌。因此，也应建立一套指标体系，这样可以避免由于指标单一而使管理当局容易进行利润操纵。 （五） 加强会计人员职业道德教育 过度的盈余管理甚至“操纵利润”引发的信用危机，实质上是腐败及各经济集团利益相互交织作用的结果，注册会计师只不过是各种利益集团手中利用的工具而已。因此，要规范盈余管理行为，首先一定要加强会计人员职业道德教育，加大执法力度。 （六） 建立法律诉讼体系，加大执法力度 要建立企业、注册会计师民事赔偿机制，企业过度的盈余管理，注册会计师因徇私舞弊或重大过失而不能发现上市公司过度的盈余管理甚至舞弊，致使投资者和债权人蒙受损失的，应当承担民事赔偿责任甚至刑事责任。总之，在目前的市场经济环境下，无论国内国外，盈余管理都不可能完全消除。只能通过不断地推出一些完善措施来加以规范，同时提高各利益相关者识别盈余管理的能力，以期将盈余管理降到最低水平。参考文献； [1]王爱香,《科学时报》科学时报社,2008年12月出版 [2]全国注册会计师考试《经济法》,09年版 [3]全国注册会计师考试《会计》,09年版 [4]全国注册会计师考试《税法》,09年版

q我 帮你