Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 30 June 2011
Received in revised form
14 February 2012
Accepted 16 February 2012
Available online 16 March 2012
Environmental protection has been an issue of serious concern for many years. It is not a trend, but the
responsibility of corporations. This responsibility for environmental protection should be internalized
into business operations d prior to production d in order to reect the true cost of the nal product.
Due to the use of traditional cost accounting, many organizations have not estimated their environmental costs precisely. Therefore environmental accounting systems such as carbon management
accounting, environmental management accounting and greenhouse-gas accounting have attracted
worldwide attention. In this paper, we propose an integrated concept d the Activity-Based Costing
approach d to solve the problem of environmental and cost evaluation. We include a case study of an
existing pulp and paper company in Taiwan to show that the activity-based costing method estimates
emissions of waste and the environmental costs of a nal product more accurately than traditional
approaches do. The method can, therefore, provide information for use in existing environmental
accounting systems and help managers incorporate environmental costs into their decision-making
processes.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Activity-Based Costing
Environmental cost
External costs of carbon emission
1. Introduction
Global warming is one of the major environmental problems of
the 21st century. Santers et al. (1996) studies provide hard
evidence that demonstrates how human activities have globalscale consequences. Scientists have contributed to the scientic
underpinning of this issue by reporting (in the conclusion to the
1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report) a
discernible human inuence on the global climate (IPCC, 1995).
Human beings are harming the environment through polluting
groundwater, contaminating rivers that drain into the sea and
emitting carbon, etc.
Until the Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005, the application
of price mechanisms was the most important instrument for
carbon reduction and greenhouse-gas reduction. Many countries,
such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland, etc., are
signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. Recognizing the necessity to
protect the environment through timely and effective intervention,
governments in most developed countries have responded to
public concerns by introducing regulations designed to restrict
environmentally harmful activities (Osborn and Datta, 2006). These
103
104
105
Product 1
e1
Paper production
operations ( Machine 3 )
e2
Pulping operations
(virgin pulps)
e3
Power
generation
operation
e4
Coal Ash
e7
Gas
production
Operations
e5
CO2
e8
Resources
Resource 1
Resource 2
Resource 3
Resource n
Resource
Drivers
First Stage
Activity Center
Activity
Activity Cost Pool
Activities
Cost Element
Second Stage
Activity
Drivers
CO1
CO2
CO3
Sludge
e6
CO4
COn
Cost objects
106
Table 1
An array of arrows for the example cost tracing graph.
e1
e2
e3
e4
e5
e6
e7
e8
Table 2
Costs by category.
e1
e2
e3
e4
e5
e6
e7
e8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Steam consumption
(ton)
Power consumption
(KW)
Air pollution
charge
Coal ash
Sludge
Waste residue
271,002
Machine 1
7162
Pulp
2,867,300
179,483
2,535,142
1,405,512
12,878
3638
12,781
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine 3
855,700
1,658,500
755,800
Total
4,391,139
Machine 2
Machine 3
Power
generation
Total
36,459
Total
6,137,300
paths between ei and ej. For example, the value of p(1, 5) is 3, which
means that there are three paths between e1 and e5. The three paths
are: <e1, e2>, <e2, e5>, <e1, e2>, <e2, e4>, <e4, e5>, and <e1,
e3>, <e3, e4>, <e4, e5>.
We use d(ei, ej) to denote the amount of entity ej required by
each unit of entity ei. Some entities are required by others in an
indirect way. For example, the entity e5 is required not only directly
by e2, but also indirectly by e2 through e4. We use td(ei, ej) to denote
the total amount of entity ej required by each unit of entity ei in both
direct and indirect ways. The value of td(ei, ej) can be calculated
using Eq. (1):
8
0;
>
<
1;
td ei ; ej
P
>
:
cek Outei
d ei; ek td ek ; ej
pi; j 0
ei ej
pi; j>0^ei sej
(1)
cek Outei
d ei; ek TCek
Virgin pulp
Recycling pulp
Total
1439.085
10,516.601
11,955.686
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine 3
Total
ei ;N^Outei f
ei N
ei ;N^Outei sf
Table 3
Total outputs of machines.
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine 3
Total
Product 1
Product 2
Product 3
Total
0
0
539.380
539.380
2403.456
6376.297
1323.866
10,103.619
243.270
0
0
243.270
2646.726
6376.297
1863.246
10,886.269
(2)
PC ei ; ej td ei ; ej EC ej ; ej N
CO 2
Power
Virgin pulp
materials
Pulping
operations
(Virgin pulps)
Recycled pulp
raw materials
Pulping
operations
Steam
Coal ash
Gas production
operations
Coal ash
Heavy oil
Environmental
cost estimating
Steam
Power
Virgin pulps,
Recycling
pulps
(Recycling pulps)
(3)
2646.726
6376.297
1863.246
10,886.269
For example, td(e4, e1) 0, td(e3, e3) 1, and d(e1, e5) d(e1, e2)
td(e2, e5) d(e1, e3)td(e3, e5).
An activity may also produce some pollutants and therefore
entail an environmental cost. Assume ej is a pollutant and EC(ej) is
the environmental cost of ej. The total environmental cost of any
entity ei, TC(ei) can then be calculated using Eq. (2):
8
0;
>
<
ECeP
i ;
TCei
>
:
Paper
production
operations
(Machine 1)
Paper
production
operations
(Machine 2)
Paper
production
operations
(Machine 3)
Product 1
Product 2
Product 3
Virgin pulp
Recycling pulp
Total
Product 1
Product 2
Product 3
Total
664.375
0
664.375
794.710
10,227.545
11,022.255
0
289.056
289.056
1439.085
10,516.601
11,955.686
7. A worked example
In this section, we offer a worked example of estimating environmental costs with ABC using a pulp and paper company to
illustrate the process. Fig. 3 illustrates the production processes in
a pulp and paper company. Related information is shown in
Tables 2e4.
Fig. 3 presents the process boundaries. The production of
pulp and paper requires the use of power and steam. The steam
consumption ratio at paper mills enables the generation of heat
and power (CHP) to be efciently used in power generation and
paper production operations (Machines 1, 2 and 3). At the
beginning of the process, a coal-red power station produces
electricity by burning coal and heavy oil to generate steam that
generates power (i.e. provides the electricity that supports paper
production operations). Not all thermal energy is transformed
into mechanical power, since a large amount of carbon dioxide,
coal, sludge, etc. is produced as a side-effect. In addition, paper
production operations need virgin pulp and recycling pulp. The
output is a range of grades of paper products from three
machines (1, 2 and 3).
Cost tracing graphs were generated for each product using the
information above. Fig. 2 is the cost tracing graph for product 1.
To save space, the other cost tracing graphs are not included in
this paper. Notice that, since the environmental cost of product 2
varies according to the machine used in its manufacture, we treat
product 2 (which is manufactured by different machines) as
having a number of variants: product 2-1, product 2-2, and
product 2-3.
We rst calculate each activity driver, d(ei, ej), for each existing
<ei, ej>, where ei FWA and ej A. For example, according to
Table 2, since the steam consumption for power generation is
107
PC ei ; ej
dei ; ek d ek ; ej EC ej ;
ej N
(4)
cek Inej
With Table 8 and Eq. (4), we can calculate all the partial environmental costs for each nal product. The environmental cost
structures of the nal products are shown in Table 9.
From Table 9, we know that the total costs of products 1, 2 and 3
are: NT$98.954, NT$417.452 and NT$486.343, respectively. As
indicated in Table 9, the costs associated with the four factors (air
pollution, coal ash, sludge and waste residue) are variable for each
nal product. These data, which are usually bundled up as general
overheads by conventional cost accounting, is information which is
useful in existing environmental accounting systems and which
may help managers in decision-making about their production and
environment strategies.
Table 5
Activity drivers.
d(power generation operations, gas production operations) 12,781/6,137,300 0.00208
d(machine 1, gas production operations) 7162/2646.726 2.70
d(machine 2, gas production operations) 12,878/6376.297 2.019
d(machine 3, gas production operations) 3638/1863.246 1.95
d(virgin pulp operations, power generation operations) 2,867,300/(1.2 1439.085 10,516.601) 1.2 281.02
d(recycling pulp operations, power generation operations) 2,867,300/(1.2 1439.085 10,516.601) 234.18
d(machine 1, power generation operations) 855,700/2646.726 323.30
d(machine 2, power generation operations) 1,658,500/6376.297 260.10
d(machine 3, power generation operations) 755,800/1863.246 405.63
d(product 1, machine 3) 1
d(product 2-1, machine 1) 1
d(product 2-2, machine 2) 1
d(product 2-3, machine 3) 1
d(product 3, machine 1) 1
d(product 1, virgin pulp operations) 644.375/539.380 1.19
d(product 2-1, virgin pulp operations) 794.710/10,103.619 0.0786
d(product 2-2, virgin pulp operations) 794.710/10,103.619 0.0786
d(product 2-3, virgin pulp operations) 794.710/10,103.619 0.0786
d(product 2-1, recycling pulp operations) 10,227.545/10,103.619 1.012
d(product 2-2, recycling pulp operations) 10,227.545/10,103.619 1.012
d(product 2-3, recycling pulp operations) 10,227.545/10,103.619 1.012
d(product 3, recycling pulp operations) 289.056/243.270 1.188
108
Table 6
Activities required by each nal product.
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
1
2-1
2-2
2-3
3
Gas production
operations
Power generation
operations
Virgin pulp
operations
Recycling pulp
operations
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine 3
3.489
3.911
3.099
3.333
3.951
740.044
582.378
519.178
664.708
601.506
1.1900
0.0786
0.0786
0.0786
0
0
1.012
1.012
1.012
1.188
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Note:
td(machine 1, gas production operations) 323.30 0.00208 + 2.70 1 0.6725 + 2.70 3.3725
td(machine 2, gas production operations) 260.10 0.00208 + 2.019 1 0.5410 + 2.019 2.56
td(machine 3, gas production operations) 405.63 0.00208 + 1.95 1 0.8437 + 1.95 2.7937
td(virgin pulp operations, gas production operations) 281.02 0.002080.5845
td(recycling pulp operations, gas production operations) 234.18 0.002080.4871
Gas production operations:
td(Product 1, gas production operations) 1 2.7937 + 1.19 0.5845 3.489
td(Product 2-1, gas production operations) 1 3.3725 + 0.0786 0.5845 + 1.012 0.4871 3.911
td(Product 2-2, gas production operations) 1 2.56 + 0.0786 0.5845 + 1.012 0.4871 3.099
td(Product 2-3, gas production operations) 1 2.7937 + 0.0786 0.5845 + 1.012 0.4871 3.333
td(Product 3, gas production operations) 1 3.3725 + 1.188 0.4871 3.951
Power generation operations:
td (Production 1, power generation operations) 1 405.63 + 1.19 281.02 740.044
td(Production 2-1, power generation operations) 1 323.30 + 0.0786 281.02 + 1.012 234.18 582.378
td(Production 2-2, power generation operations) 1 260.10 + 0.0786 281.02 + 1.012 234.18 519.178
td(Production 2-3, power generation operations) 1 405.63 + 0.0786 281.02 + 1.012 234.18 664.708
td(Production 3, power generation operations) 1 323.30 + 1.188 234.18 601.506
Virgin pulp operations and recycling pulp operations: please refer to Table 5
Table 7
Unit environment costs from different pollution products caused by different activities.
d(gas production operations, CO2) EC(CO2)
dgas production operations; CO2 ECCO2
109
Table 8
Total environmental cost of activities.
TC(gas production operations) d(gas production operations, CO2) EC(CO2) d(gas production operations, coal ash) EC(coal ash) 7.433 4.922 12.355
TC(power generation operations) d(power generation operations, gas production operations) TC(gas production operations) 0.00208 12.355 0.0257
TC(virgin pulp operations) d(virgin pulp operations, sludge) EC(sludge) d(virgin pulp operations, power generation operations) TC(power generation
operations) 46.93 281.02 0.0257 54.15
TC(recycling pulp operations) d(recycling pulp operations, sludge) EC(sludge) d(recycling pulp operations, waste residue) EC(waste residue) d(recycling pulp
operations, power generation operations) TC(power generation operations) 234.65 133.64 234.18 0.0257 374.308
TC(machine 1) d(machine 1, gas production operations) TC(gas production operations) d(machine 1, power generation operations) TC(power generation
operations) 2.7 12.355 323.30 0.0257 41.6585
TC(machine 2) d(machine 2, gas production operations) TC(gas production operations) d(machine 2, power generation operations) TC(power generation
operations) 2.019 12.355 260.10 0.0257 31.624
TC(machine 3) d(machine 3, gas production operations) TC(gas production operations) d(machine 3, power generation operations) TC(power generation
operations) 1.95 12.355 405.63 0.0257 34.51
TC(product 1) d(product 1, virgin pulp operations) TC(virgin pulp operations) d(product 1, machine 3) TC(machine 3) 1.19 54.15 1 34.51 98.9485
TC(product 2-1) d(product 2-1, virgin pulp operations) TC(virgin pulp operations) d(product 2-1, recycling pulp operations) TC(recycling pulp operations)
d(product 2-1, machine 1) TC(machine 1) 0.0786 54.15 1.012 374.308 1 41.6585 424.7135
TC(product 2-2) d(product 2-2, virgin pulp operations) TC(virgin pulp operations) d(product 2-2, recycling pulp operations) TC(recycling pulp operations)
d(product 2-2, machine 2) TC(machine 2) 0.0786 54.15 1.012 374.308 1 31.624 414.679
TC(product 2-3) d(product 2-3, virgin pulp operations) TC(virgin pulp operations) d(product 2-3, recycling pulp operations) TC(recycling pulp operations)
d(product 2-3, machine 3) TC(machine 3) 0.0786 54.15 1.012 374.308 1 34.51 417.565
TC(product 3) d(product 1, recycling pulp operations) TC(recycling pulp operations) d(product 3, machine 1) TC(machine 1) 1.188 374.308 1 41.6585
486.3364
Table 9
Environmental cost structures of nal products.
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2 (avg)
3
Air pollution
charge
Coal ash
Sludge
Waste
residue
Total
25.934
29.070
23.035
24.774
24.698
29.368
17.173
19.250
15.253
16.405
16.355
19.447
55.847
241.155
241.155
241.155
241.155
278.764
0
135.244
135.244
135.244
135.244
158.764
98.954
424.719
414.687
417.578
417.452
486.343
8. Conclusions
In contrast to conventional accounting, which has been criticized for not including environmental impacts (Schaltegger and
Burritt, 2000), we propose an ABC approach, at a company level,
which is able to track pollutants created by each product and
calculate their cost. By tracing costs through activities, the ABC
approach not only produces more accurate estimations of the
environmental costs of nal products, but also represents a specic
110
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of
Taiwan for nancial support for this research under Contract No:
NSC100-2410-H-008-007-MY3.
References
Adams, C.A., 2004. The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance
portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 17 (5), 731e757.
BDI, McKinsey, 2007. Costs and Potentials of Greenhouse Gas Abatement in
Germany. McKinsey & Company, Inc., Dusseldorf.
de Beer, P., Friend, F., 2006. Environmental accounting: a management tool for
enhancing corporate environmental and economic performance. Ecological
Economics 58 (3), 548e560.
Bennett, M., Rikhardsson, P., Schaltegger, S. (Eds.), 2003. Environmental Management Accounting: Purpose and Progress. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Burritt, R.L., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., 2002. Towards a comprehensive framework for
Environmental Management Accounting, links between business actors and
Environmental Management Accounting tools. Australian Accounting Review
12 (27), 39e50.
Burritt, R.L., Herzig, C., Tadeo, B.D., 2009. Environmental Management Accounting
for cleaner production: the case of a Philippine rice mill. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17 (4), 431e439.
Burritt, R.L., Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Pohjohla, T., Csutora, M. (Eds.), 2011a.
Environmental Management Accounting and Supply Chain Management.
Springer, Dordrecht.
Burritt, R.L., Schaltegger, S., Zvezdov, D., 2011b. Carbon Management Accounting:
explaining practice in leading German companies. Australian Accounting
Review 21 (1), 80e98.
Burritt, R.L., 2004. Environmental Management Accounting: roadblocks on the way
to the green and pleasant land. Business Strategy and the Environment 13,
13e32.
Cao, P., Toyabe, S., Kurashima, S., Okada, M., Akazawa, K., 2006. A modied method
of activity-based costing for objectively reducing cost drivers in hospitals.
Methods Inf Med 45 (4), 462e469.
Capehart, B.L., Turner, W.C., Kennedy, W.J., 2006. Guide to Energy Management:
International Version, fth ed.. Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA.
Collins, L., 1998. Environmentalism and restructuring of the global pulp and paper
industry. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geogra 89 (4), 401e415.
Cooper, R., Kaplan, R.S., 1991a. The Design of Cost Management Systems: Text,
Cases, and Readings. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cooper, R., Kaplan, R.S., 1991b. Prot priorities from activity-based costing. Harvard
Business Review 69, 130e135.
Cooper, R., Kaplan, R.S., 2000. The Design of Cost Management System, second ed..
Prentice Hall College Div, London.
Cooper, R., 1988a. The rise of activity-based costing e part one: what is an activitybased cost system? Journal of Cost Management 2 (2), 45e54.
Cooper, R., 1988b. The rise of activity-based costing-part two: when do I need an
activity-based costing system? Journal of Cost Management for the
Manufacturing Industry, 41e48.
Downie, J., Stubbs, W., in press. Evaluation of Australian companies scope 3
greenhouse gas emissions assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, doi:10.
1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.010. Available online 24 September 2011.
Farla, J., Blok, K., Schipper, L., 1997. Energy efciency developments in the pulp and
paper industry, a crosscountry comparison using physical indicators. Energy
Policy 25 (7e9), 745e758.
Gale, R., 2006. Environmental costs at a Canadian paper mill: a case study of
Environmental Management Accounting (EMA). Journal of Cleaner Production
14 (14), 1237e1251.
Gentil, E.C., Aoustin, E., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Greenhouse gas accounting and
waste management. Waste Management & Research 27 (8), 696e706.
Ghosal, V., Nair-Reichert, U., 2009. Investments in modernization, innovation and
gains in productivity: evidence from rms in the global paper industry.
Research Policy 38 (3), 536e547.
Gujral, S., Dongre, K., Bhindare, S., Subramanian, P.G., Narayan, H.K.V., Mahajan, A.,
Batura, R., Hingnekar, C., Chabbria, M., Nair, C.N., 2010. Activity-based costing
methodology as tool for costing in hematopathology laboratory. Indian Journal
of Pathology and Microbiology 53 (1), 68e74.
Gustavsson, L., Karjalainen, T., Marland, G., Savolainen, I., Schlamadinger, B.,
Apps, M., 2000. Project-based greenhouse-gas accounting: guiding principles
with a focus on baselines and additionality. Energy Policy 28 (13), 935e946.
Hekkert, M.P., Vandenreek, J., Worrell, E., Turkenburg, W.C., 2002. The impact of
material efcient end-use technologies on paper use and carbon emissions.
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 36 (3), 241e266.
Hmida, F., Vernadat, F., 2009. A constraint approach (exible CSP) for alternative
cost estimation of a mechanical product. International Journal of Production
Research 47 (2), 305e320.
Hoeller, P., Wallin, M., 1991. Energy prices, taxes and carbon dioxide emissions.
OECD Economic Studies 17, 91e104.
Hundal, M.S., 1997. Product costing: a comparison of conventional and activitybased costing methods. Journal of Engineering Design 8 (1), 91e103.
IIED, 1995. The Sustainable Paper Cycle. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London, UK.
Ince, P.J., 1999. Global cycle changes the rules for U.S. pulp and paper. American
Papermaker 81 (12), 37e42.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1995. IPCC Second Assessment:
Climate Change 1995. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment:
Climate Change 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jasch, C., 2003. The use of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) for
identifying environmental costs. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (6),
667e676.
Johnson, H.T., Kaplan, R.S., 1987. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kee, R., Matherly, C.M., 2003. Integrating the cost of secondary support activities
into an activity-based costing system. The Journal of Cost Analysis & Management, 21e42.
Kee, R., Schmidt, C., 2000. A comparative analysis of utilizing activity-based costing
and the theory of constraints for making product-mix decisions. International
Journal of Production Economics 63 (1), 1e17.
Kee, R., 1995. Integrating activity-based costing with the theory of constraints to
enhance production-related decision making. Accounting Horizons 9 (4),
48e61.
Liao, C.N., 2007. Modelling a mixed system of air pollution fee and tradable permits
for controlling nitrogen oxide: a case study of Taiwan. The Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics 51 (4), 475e490.
Lin, B.Y., Chao, T.H., Yao, Y., Tu, S.M., Wu, C.C., Chern, J.Y., Chao, S.H., Shaw, K.Y., 2007.
How can activity-based costing methodology be performed as a powerful tool
to calculate costs and secure appropriate patient care? Journal of Medical
Systems 31 (2), 85e90.
Malmi, T., 1999. Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: an exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish rms accounting. Organizations and Society
24 (8), 649e672.
Martin, S., 2011. Paper Chase. Natural Resources & Sustainability. http://static.
reuseit.com/PDFs/paper_chase.pdf.
Mathews, M.R., 1997. Twenty-ve years of social and environmental accounting
research: is there a silver Jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 10 (4), 481e531.
Merrild, H., Damgaard, A., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of paper: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management &
Research 27 (8), 746e753.
Metcalf, G., Paltsev, S., Reilly, J., Jacoby, H., Holak, J., 2008. Analysis of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Tax Proposals. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global
Change; Report 160.
Nilsson, L.J., Larson, E.D., Gilbreath, K.R., Gupta, A., September 1995. Energy Efciency and the Pulp and Paper Industry. Report IE962. Executive summary is
111