Author
Listed:
- Reinaldo Guerreiro
- Edgard Bruno Cornachione
- Armando Catelli
Abstract
Purpose - This paper focuses on the determination of the cost completion rate used to calculate the equivalent units of production in a continuous process costing system. The paper aims at two research questions. What procedures do companies utilize in practical terms? How should the completion level percentage be calculated conceptually? Design/methodology/approach - The study is a qualitative exploratory survey. The companies targeted were those noted in “Melhores e Maiores,” a ranking of the best and biggest Brazilian companies. A total of 175 questionnaires were sent to pre‐selected enterprises, each with revenues of more than US$100 million per year, and 50 usable responses were returned. Findings - A literature review of the theoretical procedures used for continuous process costing revealed no indication of an objective method for determining the completion level. The empirical research in the present study confirmed that, in practice, companies do not adopt the general procedures proposed by the theory. The best practices applied by the companies have been shown to be an adequate alternative, because the results are identical to those obtained with the proposed method. Research limitations/implications - The study bears the usual limitations of a qualitative exploratory survey regarding its generalization to other companies. Originality/value - The originality of the study is based on the assumption that cost accounting theory does not offer an objective solution for the computation of the completion level percentage and, consequently, that companies in continuous process production system do not adopt the theoretical concepts with respect to inventory evaluation of goods‐in‐process and finished goods.
Suggested Citation
Reinaldo Guerreiro & Edgard Bruno Cornachione & Armando Catelli, 2006.
"Equivalent units of production: a new look at an old issue,"
Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(3), pages 303-316, March.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:majpps:02686900610653035
DOI: 10.1108/02686900610653035
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:02686900610653035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.