会计英语期末论文

什么是会计？会计是一种商业语言，它反映的一定是当前经济的现实内容，现实的经济业务事项如何真实展示和说明才是会计的重要问题，有观点认为：“会计是以货币为主要计量单位，以凭证为依据，采用专门的技术方法，对一定主体的经济活动进行全面，综合，连续，系统的核算与监督，并定期向有关方面提供会计信息的一种经济管理活动。” 如果我们将它更简单的称述出来，它就是：“会计是一种经济管理活动”，更简洁一点则：“会计是活动”它有统一性，确定性，强制性。综上所述，会计不仅仅是一种活动，也是一种制度。要学好会计，就要掌握科学的学习方法是学好这门课程的关键所在：一．掌握会计的基本概念，基本理论。基本方法，基本技能。 二．注意好三个联系：1.注意各项经济业务之间的联系2.注意各帐户之间的联系，3.注意会计核算方法之间的联系：三、处理三个关系1. 处理好全面与重点的关系2. 处理好理解与记忆的关系3. 处理好自学与面授的关系会计的未来是什么？对我而言，会计的未来就是今天的努力。我不会预测未来的结果如何，但我必须在今天就要努力，未来的工作环境会不断变化，就业环境也会越来越严峻，竞争必然有上进与淘汰，会计这个岗位需要与时俱进的人才，落后就会被淘汰.我的妈妈是一位老会计了、她曾跟我说：“不按照法规制度办事的会计，不是合格的会计；只按法规制度办事的会计，不是称职的会计；维护企业的利益，实质重于形式；执行法规制度，形式重于实质；处理一切繁杂的事情的最好方法就是抓住本质，化繁为简”。这就是我们会计的工作环境，难与易只是一步之遥，看我们如何去做了。经过半个学期的学习，我对会计的认识又进了一步，就拿财务报表来说: 财务报表亦称对外会计报表，是会计主体对外提供的反映会计主体财务状况和经营的会计报表， 财务报表主要是反映企业一定期间的经营成果和财务状况变动，对财务报表可以从六个方面来看，以发现问题或作出判断。一看利润表，对比今年收入与去年收入的增长是否在合理的范围内。二看企业的坏账准备。三看长期投资是否正常。四看其他应收款是否清晰。五看是否有关联交易，六看现金流量表是否能正常地反映资金的流向，注意今后现金注入和流出的原因和事项。What is an accounting? accounting is a business language, it must be reflected by the current economic reality content business, the reality of economic issues how to display and description is true about important issues, there are views “ accounting is in money as the main unit of measure to voucher on the basis of special techniques, a principal economic activities for a comprehensive, integrated, continuous, checking and supervision, and regularly to provide accounting information in an economic and administrative activities. ”If we put it out with a simpler name called, it is: “ accounting is an economic management activities ”, a little clearer: ” “ accounting is active, it has a unity, mandatory. All things considered, the accounting is more than a practice.To learn accounting, you have to master the science of learning is to learn the key to this course:1. to grasp the basic concepts of accounting, the basic theory. The basic method, basic skills. 2. Note three contact:1. to note that various economic links between the business2. to note that the links between the accounts,3. pay attention to accounting methods between contact:III. handling three relationships1. to deal with the relationship between the full and focal points2. to deal with a good understanding and memory3. to deal with the relationship between the self-study and face to faceWhat is the future of accounting? as I'm concerned, the accounting future is today's hard work. I'm not going to predict the future, but I have to work hard in today's working environment in the future will continue to change, and the employment situation will also be aggravating, and upward mobility and competition is bound to be eliminated and accounting this post and talents who are falling behind isMy mother is an old accounting, she once told me: “ not in accordance with the accounting rules and regulations, is not a qualified accountant; just press the accounting rules and regulations, is not a qualified accountant; protection of interests of substance over form; enforcement system in the form of the substance is more important than; to deal with all complicated things the best way to capture the essence, simplify ”. This is our accounting working environment with easy-to-just a short walk away, look at our how to do it.Now that half a semester of study, my understanding of accounting and one step further and take it to the financial statements:Financial statements also called external financial statements, is transactions'effect for banjiachi transactions'effect financial position and operating in the financial statements,The financial statements reflect company period operating results and financial position of the change in the financial statements are available from six ways to discover problems or judgment.A look at the income statement of income and this year, compared to last year revenue growth falls within a reasonable range.The second of bebts.Three long-term investment is working.Four look at other students'payment is clear.Five for any related party transactions,Six at the cash flow statement is to reflect the movement of funds, cash injection and look for the causes and issues.

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).