=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1734/fmt-proceedings-2016-paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1734/fmt-proceedings-2016-paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-1734
|authors=Monika Kovarova-Simecek,Tassilo Pellegrini
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/fmt/Kovarova-Simecek16
}}
==Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1734/fmt-proceedings-2016-paper1.pdf
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian listed
Companies – The Case of XBRL
Tassilo Pellegrini
Monika Kovarova-Simecek UAS St. Poelten
UAS St. Poelten Matthias Coprvinus Str. 15
Matthias Coprvinus Str. 15 3100 St. Poelten, Austria
3100 St. Poelten, Austria Tassilo.Pellegrini@fhstp.ac.at
Monika.Kovarova-Simecek@fhstp.ac.at
Abstract companies have used a variety of electronic publication
formats to provide financial data to the public. Formats like
The requirements towards financial reporting (FR) PDF and HTML have gained a broad acceptance among the
have considerably changed within the last 15 investor relations community and are being used widely for
years. Stakeholders demand not only accurate and documentation and communication purposes. But as stated
reliable information in shorter intervals, but also by Rodriguez [17], “(...) investors are explicitly given
customized reports meeting their information prominence on the website and although ample investor
needs. Thus, companies need to develop strategies relation information is provided, the attention to investor
to cope with the new affordances of professional relations is not exclusive, and there are other stakeholders
investor relations and stakeholder management. featured on the companies’ websites”, like consumers,
We conducted a survey among publicly listed employees or regulatory agencies. All these stakeholders
Austrian firms, investigating whether they have differing information needs, and it is difficult to meet
perceive a need to develop new reporting practices these needs by one standardized financial report. Hence,
and if they have already started to deal with new conventional formats go hand in hand with certain
sorts of reporting standards, especially XBRL. The deficiencies when it comes to the customization of reports
survey examined the state of the art in XBRL for specific target groups and the flexible reusability of
diffusion and adoption among Austrian companies financial data contained in these publications. In short,
analysing supporting and inhibiting factors for its conventional technologies limit the scale and scope of
application and rejection. The results of the survey reporting innovations, making it difficult to react to the
indicate a great awareness for the need of target- changing affordances of the financial reporting
group oriented financial reporting and a high environment.
relevance of technical reporting standards in the Over recent years, various business reporting standards
future. However, Austrian firms show poor have been developed that among other things address the
preparedness for the new technological reuse of financial data. The most comprehensive and
requirements. It’s probable that initiatives are mature format is XBRL, the eXtensible Business Reporting
needed to stimulate the adoption of the new Language, an expressive XML-vocabulary optimized to
technological standards and pave the way towards represent financial data at a highly granular level. XBRL
a next generation reporting. separates the presentation layer from the data contained in
it, and thus increases the usability of financial data for
1 INTRODUCTION purposes such as reporting, analytics and targeted
contextualisation. Dunne et al. [4] argue that: “Documents
With the increasing proliferation of the Internet as a
rendered by XBRL are digitally-enabled so that it is easier
universal medium for information exchange and
for stakeholders to extract information directly into
presentation the affordances of financial reporting (FR) of
spreadsheets, or any other XBRL-enabled software, without
publicly listed companies have changed. As various
the need to re-key data thus providing significant
stakeholders along the information value chain demand
improvements in information flows and enhancing inter-
more information in shorter intervals [15], companies have
company comparability.” Accordingly, XBRL is perceived
to develop new reporting strategies that transcend the
to be a promising standard that meets the requirements of
limitations of static, paper-based reporting and harness the
new reporting routines and also challenges existing (de-
capabilities of digital publishing media. For over a decade
facto) standards in the domain of financial reporting
Copyright © by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted only for private [4;9;18].
and academic purposes. This paper contributes to the increasing number of works
In: W. Aigner, G. Schmiedl, K. Blumenstein, M. Zeppelzauer (eds.): investigating the diffusion of XBRL as an enabling
Proceedings of the 9th Forum Media Technology 2016, St. Pölten, technology for new reporting routines and practices.
Austria, 24-11-2016, published at http://ceur-ws.org
9
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
Several country-specific studies have already been provided from static documents provided in paper or PDF. In
(for details see sec. 2), but no attention has so far been paid addition, this new approach would avoid that firms can
to the adoption of XBRL in Austria. filter financial information provided to stakeholders and
To close this gap, we conducted a survey among publicly e.g. present less favourable information in footnotes of
listed Austrian firms whether they perceive a need to financial reports which are not as strongly received as the
develop new reporting practices and if they have already main body of financial reports [12;18]. XBRL promises to
started to adjust to the new circumstances. Aside these improve the transparency and accuracy of financial
general insights, the survey investigated the state of the art reporting and allows a higher protection for financial data
in XBRL adoption among Austrian companies, analysing users. If companies manage to reach stakeholders in an
supporting and inhibiting factors for its application and intelligible way, they gain their trust and could enhance the
rejection. company value [14].
The paper is structured as follows: Chapter 2 gives a Despite several efforts to establish XBRL as an
brief introduction into XBRL, explaining its evolution and electronic reporting standard, its broad adoption is still in
core features. Chapter 3 discusses related work dealing with its infancy and its impact is still subject to debate. In the
the diffusion and adoption of XBRL and associated following sections we provide a comparison between the
institutional setups. In chapter 4 the authors explain the United States of America and Europe according to
survey’s methodology and present the survey results. similarities and differences in the adoption of XBRL.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion and conclusion. According to Kernan [11], “XBRL is evolving everywhere,
but unevenly, driven by various stakeholders such as
2 EXTENDED BUSINESS REPORTING governments, stock exchanges, banks and other industry
LANGUAGE – DESCRIPTION AND sectors”.
EVOLUTION
2.1. XBRL Diffusion in the US
Since 1999 the US based company XBRL International Inc.
has been standardising XBRL currently providing it to the In the United States of America the Securities and
public under version 2.1. XBRL is a scripting language Exchange Commission (SEC) has started in 2009 to use
based on XML “intended for modelling, exchanging and XBRL as mandatory reporting standard for electronic
automatically processing business and financial records, thus stimulating the steady uptake of XBRL among
information” [7]. XBRL allows representing financial US publicly listed companies [19]. Prior to this in 2008 the
metadata in a standardized, machine-processable form by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a public
linking reporting facts to standard financial taxonomies agency assessing risks in the nation's financial system,
(such as IFRS1 and US-GAAP2) and extend these started to collect XBRL records from over 8000 banks on a
statements with individual metadata according to a quarterly basis [11]. Since then, numerous studies
company’s specific reporting needs [2]. Thus, XBRL investigated the impact of XBRL diffusion among the US
allows maximum flexibility in the contextualization and financial industry. Some of the latest results are presented
reuse of financial data for various reporting purposes [8]. below.
XBRL should be considered as a specific reporting Baldwin & Trinkle [1] interviewed a Delphi panel on the
extension to general purpose electronic business languages potential impacts of XBRL on the financial industry. They
like EDIFACT (Electronic Data Interchange for conclude that “XBRL is very likely to impact corporations,
Administration, Commerce and Transport) or ebXML financial reporting, users of financial reports and auditing.
(Electronic Business using eXtensible Markup Language) The most likely impacts of XBRL include: increased
whose main purpose is to represent and align processes accessibility of financial reports, easier regulatory
between supply chain partners in a standardized way. compliance, enhanced availability of financial reports,
Recently, new methodologies have been introduced to facilitation of continuous reporting, and improved
further extend the expressivity of XBRL by enriching it efficiency in investment and business decision making.”
with other standardized vocabularies and data sources. This Sinnet [20] conducted a survey among 442 US
so called Linked Data approach [16;7] is a profound companies and concludes that XBRL literacy among US
technological leap in the customization of financial reports companies is rising. According to his findings, “companies
according to the specific needs of various target groups. As have reduced the amount of outsourcing services used to
noted by Guillox et al. [9], “(…) the extensibility offers a create their XBRL filings, and they expect to further reduce
role back to the human in the process of instituting outsourcing over the coming year. Significantly, over half
regulatory procedures and filing submissions“. Investors, of large accelerated filers do not expect to use XBRL
suppliers, employees, customers, regulators, financial professional services for their next annual filing. This trend
analysts, researchers might receive comprehensive, yet suggests that larger filers continue to become confident that
customized financial data without selecting the data needed they can be self-sufficient with the preparation and review
of their XBRL reports.”
By analyzing the impact of XBRL on analyst forecast
1
See also http://www.ifrs.org, accessed 2016-10-10 behaviour Liu et al. [13] found “a significant positive
2
See also http://usgaap.pro/, accessed 2016-10-10 association between mandatory XBRL adoption and both
10
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
analyst following and forecast accuracy.” According to the dissemination of financial information in their countries;
authors “the findings not only support the SEC’s [...]” [5].
requirement of detailed tagging of footnotes but also show In 2007 Rodriguez et al. [17] conducted a study on
that the benefits of adopting XBRL are realized regardless financial reporting strategies among Spanish regional
of errors found and concerns raised at the early stage of governments. Back then, none of the surveyed 13
adoption” (ibid.). governmental bodies used XBRL, XML or XLS for the
Interestingly, Dhole et al. [3] come to a somewhat disclosure of financial information. The authors come to the
contradictory conclusion. Their survey results conducted conclusion that “new technologies such as the Internet are
among US XBRL filings indicates that the existing not relevant for Spanish regional governments as a means
adoption of XBRL among US companies lead to a decline of disclosing their financial information among the
of financial statement comparability, also due to the different users” (ibid., p. 163). Since then various initiatives
company-specific extension taxonomies. Additionally, they originating from the Bank of Spain in cooperation with the
found that selling, general and administrative expense Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce have taken
comparability declined after the mandate, while place whose aim it was to stimulate the adoption of XBRL
depreciation comparability did not change. among the public and the private sector. According to
Escobar-Rodriguez & Gago Rodriguez [6] “the use of the
2.2. XBRL Diffusion in Europe standard is spreading to all areas. In the public sector,
taxonomy for the rendering of accounts by the Local
In Europe the circumstances for the diffusion of XBRL Entities of the Ministry of Economy and Finance has been
differ profoundly as compared to the US. It is characterised developed, on the initiative of the General Inspectorate of
by a nationally fragmented, regulatory landscape, making it the Administration of the State, the Ministry of Economy
difficult to establish a common reporting standard and Finance, and the General Directorate of Financial
throughout the European Union. In a workshop conducted Coordination with the Autonomous Communities and with
in 2011 by the financial service provider ICAEW and the Local Entities. In the private sector, the taxonomies of the
University of Birmingham the organizers came to the Institute of Accounting and Auditing of Accounts of the
conclusion that “[...] there are significant barriers to a pan- Ministry of Economy and Finance (ICAC) and of the
European adoption of XBRL for company reporting in the National Commission of the Securities Market (CNMV) are
style of the U.S. SEC’s mandatory requirement. The significant.”
democratic right of member states to determine their own Guilloux et al. [9] investigate the contestation of two
filing arrangements (through Officially Appointed technical reporting standards - EDIFACT and XBRL -
Mechanisms) is both a vital core principle of the EU’s among French government agencies for purposes of
operating practices and yet a barrier to a timely and collecting business data for regulatory purposes. By
effective response to the challenge of pan European conducting an actor-network-analysis the authors illustrated
security market supervision, in which XBRL could play a the institutional diffusion of XBRL as an informal
role. It is also important to take into account that different competitor to the official EDIFACT standard. According to
regulator implementations have different goals, which must their findings “[s]ome proponents originally believed that
be well defined to determine precisely what is to be made companies would voluntarily adopt XBRL to enhance
mandatory” [10]. information for investors, but it came apparent that only
To overcome these obstacles various initiatives have regulators had a clear business case for adoption and
been launched at the national and international level to businesses would not volunteer to be accountable” (ibid.,
promote the adoption of XBRL. At the international level 269). They conclude that “the newness of XBRL’s
the European Committee of Central Balance-Sheet Data technology just as regulators need to respond to an
Offices (ECCBSO) has established the ERICA working economic crisis and its [XBRL] adoption by French
group to monitor the usefulness of XBRL as a tool to regulators not using EDIFACT create an opportunity for the
reduce the reporting burden for IFRS. The group is chaired challenger to make significant network gains over the long
by the Banco de España and comprised of the following term” (ibid., p. 257).
members: Banco de Portugal, Banque de France, Banque For the UK Dunne et al. [4] collected 1733
Nationale de Belgique - Nationale Bank van België, Cerved questionnaires from business accountants, tax practitioners,
Group spa - Centrale dei Bilanci, Banca d’Italia, Deutsche auditors and financial professionals. They come to the
Bundesbank, Oesterreichische Nationalbank, Bank of conclusion that “awareness of XBRL, and second
Greece and the European Central Bank. In an activity report generation reporting more generally, resides in key
from 2010 they come to the conclusion that “[...] the champions but there is little diffusion outside this narrow
European commitment to XBRL has meant the creation of set of stakeholders. Regulatory engagement seems to be the
the XBRL Europe entity, with the aim of coordinating the only impetus for diffusion and better channels of
efforts of the different European XBRL jurisdictions. communication within stakeholder networks, such as
Finally, some Central Balance Sheet Data offices belonging between regulators, preparers, users and the XBRL
to the Committee have developed and are continuing to community are needed” (ibid., p. 167)
play a key role in the diffusion of XBRL as a new tool for This brief overview of the XBRL diffusion in the US
and Europe outlines a twofold scenario. On the one side, we
11
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
see various governmental initiatives that aim at stimulating the future (Table 2). Additionally, the respondents were
the adoption of XBRL as technical reporting standard, on asked how they estimate the relevance of technical
the other side awareness about XBRL exists, but the reporting standards (Table 3) and which challenges they
voluntary uptake of XBRL by companies and their expect in the context of the implementation of new
stakeholders is lagging despite the multiple benefits of the technical reporting standards (Table 4). The third section of
standard in fulfilling the requirements of a “second the questionnaire examines the knowledge and adoption of
generation reporting” [4]. ICAEW [10] conclude that XBRL among the Austrian companies and the level of
“[t]agging business data using XBRL is part of the larger expertise among the respondents (Table 5). This part is
movement to create a semantic web to free data for followed by detailed questions that address respondents
exchange and automated re-use. It has made significant who know and are more or less familiar with XBRL. This
progress, but faces important institutional and infrastructure section covered two general questions on reasons for and
challenges in becoming ubiquitous in business reporting against the implementation of XBRL and two further
settings in Europe.” questions on advantages and disadvantages associated with
the adoption of XBRL.
3. ADOPTION OF XBRL AMONG LISTED The following chapter explores the key research findings
AUSTRIAN COMPANIES of the survey, detailing the estimated trends in financial
reporting and technical reporting standards and the
diffusion and adoption of XBRL among Austrian listed
3.1. Sample selection and methodology of the research companies.
The literature shows that adjustments of regulatory
requirements, innovations in technical reporting standards Table 1: Sample structure
and new presentation forms of financial reports are
predominantly relevant for companies listed at stock Outline criteria n (%)
markets [21]. For listed companies, financial 1. Market
communications is a core strategic issue, and thus 1a. ATX Prime 19 (76.0)
developments in this field are of high relevance. Therefore, 1b. Mid or Standard Market 6 (24.0)
the questionnaire survey addresses primarily this group and
was designed to demonstrate its perspectives. 2. Industry
The quantitative online survey was conducted among 2a. Basic Industries 6 (24.0)
Austrian listed companies from January to February 2016. 2b. Industrial Goods & Services 8 (32.0)
At the time, the Austrian stock exchange listed a total of 57 2c. Consumer Products 3 (12.0)
companies from which 39 (68%) were listed in ATX Prime, 2d. Consumer Services 1 (4.0)
9 (16%) in the Mid Market and 9 (16%) in the Standard 2e. Financials 4 (16.0)
Market. We received a total of 37 responses from which 25 2f. Technology & Telecom 2 (8.0)
responses were evaluable. Accordingly, the overall 2g. Utilities 1 (4.0)
response rate was 44%. Since the survey focus results in a
relatively small sample size, the methodological approach 3. Working area of respondents
remains descriptive. The results presented and discussed 3a. Investor Relations 19 (76.0)
here should be interpreted in the light of this fact. However, 3b. Public Relations 1 (4.0)
the research findings provide an overview comparable with 3c. Controlling 3 (12.0)
international research and a basis for further studies. 3d. Misc. 2 (8.0)
The questions were derived from extant literature and
reflect (1) the current role of financial reporting, the 4. Management level of respondents
estimated trends in financial reporting, the relevance of 4a. Top Management 7 (28.0)
technical reporting standards in the companies, and the 4b. Middle Management 9 (36.0)
challenges associated with the new requirements, (2) the 4c. Lower Management 4 (16.0)
diffusion and adoption of XBRL among Austrian listed 4d. Staff sections 4 (16.0)
companies, and (3) the reasons for and against the 4e. Misc. 1 (4.0)
implementation of XBRL in companies and the promoting
and inhibiting factors in this context. 5. Role of FR within the company
The first section of the questionnaire covered 5a. FR is used to fulfil the legal requirements only 3 (12.00)
demographic information such as the company size, stock 5b. We plan to make FR an integral component of our communication
market, industry, working area and management level of strategy 5 (20.00)
5c. We established FR as a central component of our communication
the respondents, and the role of financial reporting in the strategy 17 (68.00)
company. Table 1 provides some basic information
regarding the sample structure and the frequency Note: This table displays the frequencies regarding (1) the market, in which the
companies are listed, (2) the industry, in which the companies are active, (3) the
distribution in terms of demographic data. The second part working area, (4) the management level of the respondents, and (5) the role of
of the questionnaire contained seven general questions that financial reporting within the company.
cover the expected development of financial reporting in
12
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
3.2. Research Findings complexity of financial reporting will be a new challenge
for controlling, investor relations, public relations and IT
departments. Automatization on top of new technical
3.2.1. Estimated trends in financial reporting and the standards such as XBRL, seem to be the necessary
relevance of technical reporting standards applications to manage these upcoming affordances.
The first section of the survey investigated the current role Implementation of new technological reporting standards
of financial reporting in Austrian listed companies. Table can be entailed with multiple challenges. Table 2 illustrates
1(5) demonstrates that for 68% of all companies, Financial the corresponding frequency distribution.
Reporting (FR) plays a crucial role in the corporate
communication and goes far beyond the fulfilment of legal Table 3: Challenges of implementation of technical
requirements. Further 20% are aware of the strategic reporting standards
relevance of financial reporting and plan to make financial
reporting an integral component of the company’s Question Yes No
communication strategy. Only 12% of the respondents use n (%) n (%)
financial reporting for fulfilling legal requirements only. What challenges do companies have to face by implementing technical
Thus, for the majority of Austrian listed companies reporting standards? (n=25)
financial reporting is important not only in the a. Adjustment of existing workflow and conventions
communication to investors and regulators, but also to other 22 (88.0) 3 (12.0)
stakeholders affected by the financial prosperity of a b. Education and training of staff in charge
company such as employees, suppliers etc. There is a high 21 (84.0) 4 (16.0)
level of awareness that financial reporting is a decisive c. Development of a new policy for the use of financial data
factor in the relations between the company and its 10 (40.0) 15 (60.0)
environment. d. Missing IT expertise
5 (20.0) 20 (80.0)
Table 2: Estimated trends in financial reporting e. Inestimable follow-up costs
8 (32.0) 17 (68.0)
Trend n Mean Mdn SD f. Guarantee of data security
Min Max Skewness Kurtosis 21 (84.0) 4 (16.0)
Greater need for FR 25 1.96 2.00 0.735 Note: This table reports the descriptive statistics (frequencies) of challenges
1 3 0.064 -1.035 associated with the implementation of new technical reporting standards by all
Increase frequency 25 2.84 3.00 0.898 respondents independent of their XBRL knowledge (n = 25).
1 4 -0.413 -0.389
New forms of presentation 25 2.20 2.00 0.816 The two main hurdles to the adoption of technical reporting
1 4 0.599 0.362 standards seem to be related to staff and processes (Table
New forms of narration 25 2.08 2.00 0.759 3). 88% of all respondents think that the education and
1 4 0.483 0.444 training for staff in charge and the need of adjustment of
Increase personalization 25 2.00 2.00 0.957 existing workflows and reporting conventions are the two
1 4 0.619 -0.485 most important challenges. Thus, XBRL might be rather a
Increase automation 25 1.88 2.00 0.666 challenge for HR, organisation and change management
1 3 0.134 -0.557 than for IT management. Another challenge for a sizeable
Increase standardization 25 1.72 2.00 0.614 portion of respondents (80%) is a technical issue
1 3 0.224 -0.445 concerning the data safety (low data volatility) and data
security (controlled accessibility). Inestimable follow-up
Note: This table summarises views of all respondents regarding the estimated trends in
financial reporting. Means reflects a Likert scale where 1 = fully agree, 2 = somewhat
costs and the development of a new financial data policy
agree, 3 = rather disagree, 4 = disagree. As shown by the skewness and kurtosis, the seem to concern 36% of all respondents. Missing IT
data is not normally distributed and mirror clear tendencies. expertise consider 20% of all respondents a challenge.
The second section examined the estimated trends in the 3.2.2. Diffusion and adoption of XBRL among Austrian
context of financial reporting in the future. A vast majority listed companies
of the respondents agree or fully agree that technical
standardisation (92%) and automatization (84%) in The third section was dedicated to the diffusion and
financial reporting frequency will increase in the future. adoption of XBRL. Generally speaking, 88% of all
The need for a higher technical standardisation and respondents estimate the relevance of technical reporting
automatization could result from the assumption that the standards as high or very high. Table 4 illustrates the
need for financial information will increase in general corresponding frequency distribution.
(76%) and will have to be more personalized and target- Despite the general awareness about the importance of
group oriented (72%) which requires new forms of technical reporting standards, the results indicate a poor
narration (76%) and presentation (72%) in financial knowledge of XBRL among Austrian listed firms. As
reporting. Thus, managing the higher amount and illustrated in Table 5(1), a sizeable portion of the
13
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
respondents (72%) don’t know XBRL at all. Only 7 out of Table 6: Reasons for and against the implementation of
25 respondents (28%) know XBRL, whereas none of the XBRL
respondents consider him- or herself an expert. The level of
expertise among those who know XBRL is predominantly Question n (%)
low (71.4%) or non-existent (14.3%). Only 14.3% describe 1. What were the reasons for the implementation of XBRL? (n=3)
their level of expertise as middle (Table 5(2)). 1a. We deliberately decided to adopt XBRL 0 (0.00)
1b. We were forced to adopt XBRL 0 (0.00)
Table 4: Estimated relevance of technical reporting 1c. XBRL came in the course of a technical upgrade
standards 1 (25.00)
1d. XBRL was part new reporting routines 1 (25.00)
No. Mean Mdn SD 1e. Misc. reasons for XBRL adoption 2 (50.00)
Min Max Skewness Kurtosis
How do you estimate the relevance of technical 2. What were the reasons against the implementation of XBRL? (n=4)
reporting standards in the future? 2a. No need for XBRL 0 (0.00)
24 1.92 2.00 0.504 2b. We use other standards (e.g. Edifact, ebXML) 0 (0.00)
1 3 -0.196 1.463 2c. XBRL is no issue 4 (66.67)
2d. Implementation costs 1 (16.67)
Note: This table reports the views of all respondents who rated the relevance of
technical reporting standards in the future from 1 to 4 regarding. Means reflects a 2e. Immaturity of the technology 1 (16.67)
Likert scale where 1 = very high, 2 = high, 3 = low, 4 = negligible, 5 = don’t know. n 2f. Missing expertise 0 (0.00)
= 24 instead of 25, because only scale 1-4 was taken into account.
2g. Security issues 0 (0.00)
2h. Misc. reasons against XBRL adoption 0 (0.00)
Considering the adoption of XBRL, the survey shows that
XBRL has not been an issue of financial reporting practice Note: This table displays the frequencies regarding (1) the reasons for and
at the beginning of 2016 (Table 5(3)). Only one company (2) reasons against the implementation of XBRL among respondents who
already reacted to the upcoming challenges and applies the (1) know XBRL and has already adopted or plan to adopt XBRL within
new technical standard (14.3%). 28.6% of the companies the next 5 years (n = 3) and (2) know XBRL and have no plans to adopt
XBRL (n = 4).
are aware of the upcoming challenges and plan to adopt
XBRL within the next 5 years. The vast majority of 59.2%
is hardly aware of the requirements and possible solutions. From the latter three respondents, no company adopted
Table 5(3) illustrates that the respondents have neither XBRL deliberately (Table 6(1)). If XBRL was adopted,
concrete plans to adopt XBRL for the time being (42.8%) then as part of new reporting routines or in the course of
nor state that they will adopt XBRL at all (14.3%). Just one technological upgrades. The intention to improve financial
respondent has already adopted XBRL (14.3%). And just reporting to and communication with stakeholders doesn’t
two respondents plan to adopt XBRL within the next five seem to have played a role at all. Thus, the adoption of
years (28.6%). XBRL does not seem to be the result of a new
communication culture, but rather a technical issue. Despite
Table 5: Diffusion and adoption of XBRL the low adoption rate, no special inhibiting reasons could be
identified (Table 6(2)). XBRL is rather not an issue at all
Question n (%) (66.67%) or doesn’t seem to be a mature technology
1. Do you know XBRL? (n=25) (16.67%).
1a. Yes 7 (28.00)
1b. No 18 (72.00) 3.2.3. Awareness of the benefits and barriers of the
adoption of XBRL
2. What is your level of XBRL expertise? (n=7)
2a. High 0 (0.00) In the last phase we compared the perceived benefits and
2b. Middle 1 (14.30) obstacles of XBRL between those respondents who have
2c. Low 5 (71.40) adopted or plan to adopt XBRL, and those respondents who
2d. Non-existent 1 (14.30) know XBRL but have no concrete adoption strategy yet
(Table 7).
3. To what extent has XBRL been installed in your company? (n=7) The three respondents who know XBRL replied that
3a. We already use XBRL 1 (14.30) reusability and comparability of financial data, higher
3b. We plan to adopt XBRL within the next 5 years flexibility and analytical capabilities, and decrease of
2 (28.60) processing errors are seen as the main advantages of
3c. We have no plans to adopt XBRL for the time being XBRL. Further benefits of the new technology that were
3 (42.80) recognized by the respondents are decrease of reporting
3d. We won’t adopt XBRL 1 (14.30) costs, improved data portability between data systems,
improved findability of the data, acceleration of data
Note: This table reports the frequencies regarding (1) the spread of knowledge of processing and reporting processes, and miscellaneous.
XBRL among the respondents, (2) the self estimated level of XBRL expertise among Trustworthiness of the data source or improved data
the respondents who know XBRL, and (3) the level of XBRL adoption within the
investigated companies knowing XBRL.
portability between data systems are not considered an
14
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
advantage at all. A considerable portion of respondents see On the contrary, the four respondents with no specific
the additional costs to occur as the main drawback, whereas adoption plans perceive the comparability of financial data
for some the implementation costs are expected to be the as the main benefit. Obstacles are implementation costs,
greatest strain, followed by the cost of XBRL-software and additional training demand for employees and costs for
additional training costs for employees. Further XBRL software.
disadvantages seen by the respondents are security issues,
complexity of XBRL and disruption of reporting routines. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Missing software tools or volatility of XBRL are not seen
as disadvantages at all. 25% of respondents see also other, The survey results correspond with the findings of research
not specific aspects as disadvantages of XBRL. conducted in the US and other European countries in the
recent years. The situation among Austrian listed
Table 7: Benefits and obstacles of XBRL companies doesn’t differ significantly from other countries
implementation and stock markets. Moreover, the survey results confirm the
Know and Know, but have not general lack of knowledge about XBRL which stands in
adopted XBRL (yet) adopted contradiction to the great awareness for the need of target-
(n=3) XBRL ( n=4) group oriented financial reporting and high relevance of
Yes No Yes No technical reporting standards in the future. This finding is
1. What are the benefits of XBRL? surprising and worrying with respect to the length of time
1a. Reusability of financial data XBRL has been a topic of discussion among researchers
2 1 1 3 and governmental and professional entities. Only one third
1b. Comparability of financial data of all respondents know XBRL, whereas XBRL has been a
1 2 2 2 topic of the AICPA, the SEC, the IASB, and other major
1c. Acceleration of data processing entities since 2004 and experts think that we reached the
0 3 0 4 tipping point toward the use of XBRL [12]. That leaves the
1d. Higher flexibility and analytical capabilities impression that the discourse in the previous years failed to
2 1 1 3 reach the Austrian companies.
1e. Improved findability of financial data Another fact confirmed by the survey is that private
1 2 1 3 initiatives to implement XBRL hardly exist and can’t be
1f. Improved data portability between IT systems expected. If new information technologies should be
1 2 1 3 adopted for more accurate, reliable and customized
1g. Improved cross-system integrity of data financial reporting, external initiatives seem to be necessary
0 3 0 4 to enhance the adoption of XBRL in private companies.
1h. Trustworthiness of the data source Neglecting the demand for new reporting standards with
0 3 0 4 respect to customized financial information provided by
1i. Decrease of reporting costs new technical standards such as XBRL might weaken a
2 1 0 4 company’s position in the stock market and in the public
1j. Decrease of processing errors perception. The high share of international investors in the
2 1 1 3 Austrian stock market might even amplify the negative
1k. Misc. 1 2 1 3 aspects on not adopting XBRL and a new reporting culture.
International investors compare reporting standards in an
2. What are the obstacles hindering the adoption of XBRL? international context and tend to prefer companies and
2a. Additional training for employees stock markets that answer investors’ and stakeholders’
1 2 2 2 demand for new financial reporting standards. However,
2b. Implementation costs reacting to these new affordances means in the current
2 1 3 1 environment a strategic advantage and could strengthen the
2c. Disruption of reporting routines company’s position and enhance its value.
1 2 0 4
2d. Costs for XBRL software REFERENCES
1 2 3 1
[1] Baldwin, A. A., & Trinkle, B. S. (2011). The Impact of
2e. Complexity of standards
XBRL: A Delphi Investigation. The International
0 3 1 3
2f. Volatility of standards
Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 11.
http://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v11_1
0 3 0 4
[2] Debreceny, R. et al. (2009). XBRL for interactive data:
2g. Missing software tools
engineering the information value chain. London ; New
0 3 0 4
York: Springer.
2h. Security issues 0 3 1 3
[3] Dhole, S. et al. (2015). Effects of the SEC’s XBRL
2i. Misc. 2 1 2 2
Note: This table shows the (1) advantages and (2) disadvantages of XBL estimated mandate on financial reporting comparability.
by respondents who know XBRL and already adopted or plan to adopt XBRL within International Journal of Accounting Information
the next 5 years (n = 3) and know XBRL and have no plans to adopt XBRL (n = 4).
15
Adoption of Technical Reporting Standards Among Austrian Listed Companies – The Case of XBRL
Systems, 19, p. 29–44. Financial Services Concerning Fostering Accuracy and
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2015.11.002 Transparency in Financial Reporting. Retrieved
[4] Dunne, T. et al. (2013). Stakeholder engagement in February 15, 2016 from
internet financial reporting: The diffusion of XBRL in http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/032906b
the UK. The British Accounting Review, 45(3), p. m.pdf
167–182. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.06.012 [15] Oades, C. (2008). Information management challenges
[5] ERICA (2010). XBRL in European CBSO. Document for the professional accountant in business. Business
nº 6. III WORKING GROUP ON IFRS IMPACT Information Review, 25(3), p. 160–164.
AND CBSO DATABASES. Innsbruck, 7th – 8th http://doi.org/10.1177/0266382108095041
October 2010. [16] O’Riain, S., Curry, E., & Harth, A. (2012). XBRL and
https://www.nbb.be/doc/ba/xbrl/pub/2010_10_wgiii_x open data for global financial ecosystems: A linked
brl.pdf data approach. International Journal of Accounting
[6] Escobar-Rodriguez, T.; Gago-Rodriguez, S. (2010). Information Systems, 13(2), p. 141–162.
“We were the first to support a major innovation". http://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.02.002
Research into the motivations of Spanisch pioneers in [17] Rodriguez Bolivar, M. P., Caba Perez, C., & Lopez
XBRL. Revista de Contabilidad, 15(1), p. 91-108. Hernandez, A. M. (2007). E-Government and Public
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=359733642003 Financial Reporting: The Case of Spanish Regional
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.06.012 Governments. The American Review of Public
[7] García, R., & Gil, R. (2010). Linking XBRL Financial Administration, 37(2), p. 142–177.
Data. In D. Wood, Linking Enterprise Data , p. 103– http://doi.org/10.1177/0275074006293193
125. Boston, MA: Springer US. Abgerufen von [18] Rodriguez Bolivar, M. P. (2009). Evaluating Corporate
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-7665-9_6 Environmental Reporting on the Internet: The Utility
[8] Graning, A., Felden, C., & Piechocki, M. (2011). and Resource Industries in Spain. Business & Society,
Status Quo and Potential of XBRL for Business and 48(2), p. 179–205.
Information Systems Engineering. http://doi.org/10.1177/0007650307305370
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 53(4), p. 225–234. [19] SEC (2009). Interactive Data to Improve Financial
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-011-0282-2 Reporting. Final rule. RIN 3235-AJ71. April 13, 2009.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-7665-9_6 https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9002.pdf
[9] Guilloux, V., Locke, J., & Lowe, A. (2013). Digital [20] Sinnett, William M. (2013). SEC REPORTING AND
business reporting standards: mapping the battle in THE IMPACT OF XBRL: 2013 SURVEY. Financial
France. European Journal of Information Systems, Executives Research Foundation (FERF).
22(3), p. 257–277. http://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.5 http://www.financialexecutives.org/ferf/download/201
[10] ICAEW (2011). The future of XBRL in Europe: 3%20Final/2013-022.pdf
Impetus, institutions and interrelationships. Workshop [21] Zitzmann, A., Fischer, T., Decker, T. (2009).
on the future of XBRL in Europe. ICAEW and Rechtsfragen der IR. In: Kirchhoff, Klaus; Piwinger,
University of Birmingham (ISARG), 25th January Manfred (Hg.). Praxishandbuch Investor Relations.
2011. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag, p. 93-13
http://www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/files/about%
20icaew/what%20we%20do/thought%20leadership/the
%20future%20of%20xbrl%20in%20europe%20final%
20summary%20for%20release.ashx
[11] Kernan, K. (2008). XBRL Around the World. In:
Journal of Accountancy, October 1, 2008.
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2008/oct/
xbrlaroundtheworld.html
http://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.5
[12] Lester, W. F. (2007). XBRL: The New Language of
Corporate Financial Reporting. Business
Communication Quarterly, 70(2), p. 226–231.
http://doi.org/10.1177/10805699070700020603
[13] Liu, C., Wang, T., & Yao, L. J. (2014). XBRL’s
impact on analyst forecast behavior: An empirical
study. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 33(1),
p. 69–82.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.10.004
[14] Melancon, B. (2006). Testimony of Barry Melancon,
President and CEO, AICPA, before the Capital
Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored
Enterprises Subcommittee of the House Committee on
16