9 – Standard costing
Publisher Summary 
This chapter discusses standard costing. A standard cost is defined as a predetermined calculation of how much costs should be under specified working conditions. The Terminology goes on to explain that a standard cost is built up from an assessment of the value of cost elements and correlates technical specifications and the quantification of materials, labor and other costs to the prices and/or wage rates expected to apply during this period in which the standard cost is expected to be used. The Terminology envisages that such standards would be used as established control tools through variance analysis, inventory valuation and even for fixing prices. Standards can be set for direct materials, both price and usage, for direct labor, and for indirect fixed or variable conversion expenses. Within the context of the operating of standard costing, the difference between the goal set and the results achieved can be quantified, analyzed, and hopefully, unambiguously communicated. At the very outset, the emphasis on analysis is vital because whereas the variance itself directs attention to its existence, it is the skill in analysis that correctly draws attention to the reason.
Behavioral Properties of Variance Controls
The behavioral implications of variance controls have generally been ignored. This paper examines the characteristics of variance controls, traces their use in modern organizations, and suggests further areas for application and improvement.
Factors Likely to Influence Tort Litigation in the European Union
As the European Union moves towards harmonization in a variety of business, political, and regulatory settings, an opportunity exists to influence the form of tort liability found in these nations. The opportunity should not be missed, with rising concern that U.S. influences will set into motion costly litigiousness, particularly as EU member nations pull back on the level of social programmes available to cover costs typically included in tort claims. To assist policymakers in their deliberations about European Union tort directives, this paper provides discussion of the frequently cited key differences between the U.S. tort systems and what is found in most EU member nations. The discussion is focused on available evidence regarding the influences of these differences as well as important areas of future research. The most important areas seem to be (1) the need to enforce European Law when no defined regulatory body exists for this purpose; (2) the connection between government social programmes and the need for tort liability compensation; (3) and the influence of rules governing payment of legal costs and lawyer fees.