会计监督论文参考文献英语

会计论文外文参考文献

会计论文外文参考文献都有哪些呢？下面是我整理的会计论文外文参考文献，欢迎参考借鉴！

[1]徐静.我国企业社会责任会计信息披露探析[J].企业导报.2012(15) :22-25.

[2]张明霞.李云鹏.企业社会责任会计信息披露问题研究[J].经济研究导刊.2011(20)：40-43.

[3] 路秀平.任会来.我国社会责任会计信息披露模式现实选择 [J]. 会计之友 (上旬刊).2012(12)：89-92.

[4]马海波.英美社会责任会计信息披露特色比较研究[J].财会学习.2012(10)：18-22.

[5]陈长宏.陈环.张科.论食品质量与食品安全性[J].现代农业科技.2013(12)：112-114.

[6]黎勇平.企业社会责任会计信息披露与企业市场价值的相关性研究 [J]. 南华大学2012:33-34.

[7]刘勇.我国企业社会责任会计信息披露研究[D].西北大学 2013.

[8]周新颖.我国煤炭行业上市公司社会责任会计信息披露研究[D].南华大学 2011.

[9]刘尚林.公梅.企业社会责任会计信息披露模式的选择[J].财会月刊.2009(36)：68-71.

[10]金曼.我国社会责任会计核算体系的研究[D].上海海事大学 2013.

[11]陈锡江.企业社会责任成本研究[D].西南财经大学 2010.

[1]吴水澎，陈汉文，邵贤弟.企业内部控制理论的发展与启示[J].会计研宄，2000(5)：2-8.

[2]林钟高，郑军.基于契约视角的企业内部控制研究[J].会计研宄，2007 (10)： 53-60.

[3]杨雄胜.内部控制理论研宄新视野[J].会计研宄，2005(07)： 49-54+97.

[4]林斌，饶静.上市公司为什么自愿披露内部控制鉴证报告.一基于信号传递理论的实证研宄[J].会计研究，2009 (2)： 45-52.

[5]刘志梧，许良虎.内部控制概念口径分析及内部控制评价指标框架构建[J].财会月刊，2012 (04)： 52-53.

[6]池国华.中国上市公司内部控制指数的功能定位与系统构建[J].管理世界，2011(06)：172-173.

[7]李斌.上市公司内部控制评价研究[J].统计与决策，2009(22)： 176-178.

[8]孙志梅，李秀莲，王昕.基于AHP法的国有企业内部控制评价指标体系构建[J].财会通讯，2012 (19)： 23-25.

[9]蔡吉甫.我国上市公司内部控制信息披露的实证研究[J].审计与经济研宄，2005(02)：85-88.

[10]杨有红，毛新述.自愿性内部控制信息披露的有用性研宄[A].中国会计学会内部控制专业委员会.首届内部控制专题学术研讨会论文集[C].中国会计学会内部控制专业委员会，2009: 13.

[11]黄新銮，梁步腾，姚杰.中美内部控制法律框架的比较与借鉴[J].会计研宄，2008(9)： 88-91.

免责声明：本文仅代表作者个人观点,与本网无关。

管理会计是指通过一系列专门方法，利用财务会计提供的资料及其他资料进行加工、整理和报告，并帮助决策者作出各种专门决策的一个会计分支，还在苦恼管理会计的论文参考文献搜索哪些比较实用，就看看我为你们搜集整理出来的管理会计论文参考文献实用范例吧，希望对你有帮助。

[1] 邓桂清. 走出财务管理、管理会计、成本会计内容重叠的困惑[J]. 中国集体经济. 2010(10)

[2] 刘明. 试析管理会计学科体系的重构[J]. 科技资讯. 2009(34)

[3] 胡玉明，叶志锋，范海峰. 中国管理会计理论与实践：1978年至2008年[J]. 会计研究. 2008(09)

[4] 宫昕璐，张媛. 管理会计理论研究综述[J]. 财会通讯(学术版). 2008(04)

[5] 高晨，汤谷良. 管理控制工具的整合模式：理论分析与中国企业的.创新--基于中国国有企业的多案例研究[J]. 会计研究. 2007(08)

[6] 余绪缨. 关于培养高层次管理会计人才的认识与实践[J]. 财会月刊. 2007(22)

[7] 余绪缨. 管理会计学科建设的方向及其相关理论的新认识[J]. 财会通讯(综合版). 2007(02)

[8] 于增彪，王竞达，袁光华. 中国管理会计的未来发展：研究方法、热点实务和人才培养[J]. 首都经济贸易大学学报. 2006(01)

[9] 郝桂岩. 对管理会计规范化的几点思考[J]. 财会月刊. 2005(27)

[10] 李艳. 管理会计规范化的本质研究[J]. 特区经济. 2005(07)

[11] 颉茂华. 管理会计理论框架及其要素的构建[J]. 财会通讯(学术版). 2005(05)

[12] 王斌，高晨. 论管理会计工具整合系统[J]. 会计研究. 2004(04)

[13] 余绪缨. 现代管理会计新发展的主要特点[J]. 财会通讯. 2004(05)

[14] 余绪缨. 现代管理会计研究的新思维[J]. 财务与会计. 2004(02)

[15] 胡玉明. 管理会计发展的历史演进[J]. 财会通讯. 2004(01)

[16] 杜颖，张佳林. 经济增加值在企业业绩评价中的应用[J]. 财经理论与实践. 2003(01)

[17] 《管理会计应用与发展典型案例研究》课题组. 我国集团公司预算管理运行体系的新模式--中原石油勘探局案例研究[J]. 会计研究. 2001(08)

[18] 王斌，李苹莉. 关于企业预算目标确定及其分解的理论分析[J]. 会计研究. 2001(08)

[19] 《管理会计应用与发展的典型案例研究》课题组，林斌，刘运国，谭光明，张玉虎. 作业成本法在我国铁路运输企业应用的案例研究[J]. 会计研究. 2001(02)

[20] 胡玉明. 21世纪管理会计主题的转变--从企业价值增值到企业核心能力培植[J]. 外国经济与管理. 2001(01)

我是在VIP英语论文找他们帮忙的，半个月的时间就帮我搞定了，之后导师要什么参考文献，数据演示和截图，他们都给我搞好了，觉得服务挺周到的，呵呵wqtedlmapz

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).