A review of the literature of quality‐related costs indicates the domination of the prevention‐appraisal‐failure categorisation of costs, a similar pre‐occupation with in‐house costs and little consideration of supplier and customer‐related costs. Most of the data are of questionable value because not suitably qualified by detailing inclusions and methods of computation, and there is scant coverage of measurement and cost collection, or warnings of limitations in costing exercises. Failure to discuss definitions, and lack of guidance on cost collection and treatment of overheads and valuation of scrap are all notable omissions in the literature so far.