Cost Systems

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) accounting concept and framework was first created by John Elkington in the mid 1990’s, and has since changed the way for-profit, non-profit and government agencies measure the sustainability of their initiatives and company. The TBL framework is flexible and can be adopted and molded based on the specific needs of an organization. The framework is comprised of three parts, which are: social (People), environmental (Planet), and financial (Profit), commonly referred to as 3Ps. This framework does spark debate regarding the ethical problems behind measuring, quantifying and accounting for social and environmental variables, which is often not supported by many

Overhead costs are not in proportion to the production output because of the method they are using. This leads to inaccurate pricing and costing decisions. An Activity Based Costing System would help find the real relationship between the products produced and overhead.

Activity-based costing can be defined as the managers allocate costs depending on the quantity of resources a product or service consumed in the manufacture of goods and services. The activity based

Activity-based costing is a system of accounting that puts emphases on activities performed to produce products or services (Schneider, 2012). In this costing system every activity is assigned a cost (Schneider, 2012). The goal of activity-based costing is not to allot common costs to products but to measure and then price out all the resources used for activities that sustain the production and delivery of products and services to customers (Mazumder, 2007). Activity-based costing is a cost system that is useful in business because of the fact that it does account for the cost of the products, resources used to produce the product and delivery of the product.

Glaser Health Products manufactures medical items for the health care industry. Production involves machining, assembly and painting. Finished units are then packed and shipped. The financial controller is interested to introduce an activity-based costing (ABC) system to allocate (or distribute) indirect costs to products. Indirect costs, as distinct from direct costs, cannot be unambiguously linked to specific products. The controller would like to calculate product costs based on ABC for planning and control, not inventory valuation.

This paper provides a brief presentation of Activity-Based Costing methodology, how is used as well as its short comings.

Almost every single company that is in business faces a serious problem called cost allocation. Every company no matter what they sell or what service they provide faces the problem of allocating costs to defined cost objects. The cost allocation process is a very hard process for most. Cost allocation is a very complex and difficult procedure that requires the application of appropriate accounting procedures. These accounting methods sometimes will not provide objective and fair cost allocation because they have irrational bases that are not always reliable or appropriate. This is why accounting theory and practice steadily try to advance upon methods that are already in place and help develop new ones that could provide objective and fair cost allocation (Perčević & Dražić, 2008).

Cost analysis: fixed versus variable costs direct versus indirect costs; traditional costing and activity based costing

An organization costing system is a system that helps the management with the strategy planning while the system plays an important role in providing accurate cost information about the products and customers (Curtin, 2006). UPS utilizes the Activity-Based Costing (ABC) system. ABC assumes that activities cause costs and that cost objects create the demand for activities (Marx,

We will examine the given data from the case and compare the unit costs from the company’s current costing system (traditional costing) and from activity-based costing. We will also highlight other qualitative data in consideration with the numerical factors that may result to a significant change on our recommendation.

A highlight of full cost accounting is helping decision makers choice a sustainable option, and plan activities that contribute to sustainable management of public forest. Additionally, it can assist decision makers communicate at the political levels; especially when discussing budget needs. As government need to demonstrate and allocate budgets based on value of service, full cost accounting can demonstrate cost per unit of goods or service, which is important for APFS because it identifies and values the non-market goods and service

Nowadays, we know that activity based costing system assigns overhead costs to products or services products that using a two-stage process, which focuses on activities. ABC is a relatively new and very important topic in managerial accounting. ABC allows us to find a way that we could determine the profitability of every product, profitability of every customer we serve, and the profitability of our process. Contents in brief, first that comparing potential advantages of ABC versus traditional costing methods. The

Activity-based management, activity-based costing and continuous improvement, all these help in the improvement of the efficiency in manufacturing, better control of overhead costs and the accurate costing of products. With this in mind, We disagree with the advice that Chuck Davis, the firm’s controller, gave Leonard Bryner. The traditional way of costing produce average costs that severely overstated or understated. Without the accurate costs, the firm would not be able to price properly their products and that would be damaging to the firm. With activity-based costing and management, all costs are accounted for with the help activity-drivers and overhead costs are decreased. In turn, the costs that the firm has for their products are more accurate and pricing is much easier.

C. T. Horngren, A. Bhimani, S. M. Datar, G. Foster (2005), 'Activity-Based Costing', Management and Cost Accounting (Prentice Hall Europe), 345-363

During the 1980s the limitations of traditional product costing systems began to be widely publicised. These systems were designed decades ago when most companies manufactured a narrow range of products, and direct labour and materials were the dominant factory costs. Overhead costs were relatively small, and the distortions arising from inappropriate overhead allocations were not significant. Information processing costs were high, and it was therefore difficult to justify more sophisticated overhead allocation methods.