Preparers’ readiness for ESEF reporting: Early evidence from the Warsaw Stock Exchange

• Authors: Daria Miścikowska

Title variants

PL

Gotowość sporządzających do raportowania w formacie ESEF: wczesne dowody z Giełdy Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie

Abstracts

PL

W związku z wprowadzeniem Europejskiego Jednolitego Formatu Elektronicznego (ESEF) w Unii Europejskiej zbadano gotowość emitentów papierów wartościowych będących przedmiotem obrotu na rynkach regulowanych UE do zgłaszania rocznych skonsolidowanych sprawozdań finansowych sporządzonych zgodnie z Międzynarodowymi Standardami Sprawozdawczości Finansowej (MSSF) z wykorzystaniem technologii Inline XBRL. Artykuł zawiera wstępne informacje o wyborze strategii wdrażania Inline XBRL. Badanie zostało przeprowadzone w formie ankiety internetowej, a dowody pozyskano od emitentów papierów wartościowych notowanych na Giełdzie Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie, których sprawozdania finansowe zostały sporządzone zgodnie z MSSF. W badaniu wzięło udział 35 przedstawicieli spółek publicznych, z których 25 wypełniło poprawnie kwestionariusz ankiety. Wyniki ujawniają, że w okresie objętym badaniem zdecydowana większość ankietowanych organizacji była już w trakcie dostosowywania swoich procedur, praktyk i infrastruktury korporacyjnej do wymogów raportowania w ESEF. W kontekście przygotowania teoretycznego jednym z istotnych wniosków wynikających z badania jest to, że respondenci zdobywali swoją wiedzę ekspercką w obszarze formatu ESEF głównie podczas webinarów i konferencji, szkoleń, kursów czy warsztatów. Natomiast w odniesieniu do przygotowania praktycznego wyniki wskazują, że respondenci zamierzają korzystać z gotowych narzędzi lub zatrudnić zewnętrznych usługodawców w celu stworzenia dokumentów instancji Inline XBRL. Ich decyzja o wyborze strategii wdrożenia Inline XBRL opartych na outsourcingu i podejściu typu bolt-on miała na celu dostosowanie się do nowych przepisów oraz zapobiegnięcie zmianom istniejących procedur i praktyk sprawozdawczych przedsiębiorstw. Niniejsze badanie wnosi zatem wkład do wcześniejszej literatury dotyczącej przyjmowania i wdrażania standardów XBRL i Inline XBRL poprzez skoncentrowanie się na perspektywie podmiotów bezpośrednio zaangażowanych w obowiązkowe przejście na system raportowania w formacie ESEF. 

EN

Due to the recent introduction of the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF) in the European Union (EU), the study aims to explore the readiness of issuers of securities traded on EU-regulated markets to report their annual consolidated financial statements prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) using the Inline XBRL technology. The paper also offers preliminary insights into their selection of Inline XBRL implementation strategies. The study was conducted in the form of an online survey, with evidence being solicited from issuers of securities listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange in Poland, whose financial reports were prepared in conformity with IFRS. In doing so, 35 representatives of public companies participated in our study, 25 of whom correctly completed the questionnaires. The results reveal that during the time frame of the study, the vast majority of surveyed organizations have already been in the process of adjusting their corporate procedures, practices, and infrastructures to the ESEF reporting requirements. In the context of theoretical preparedness, one of the significant findings to emerge from this study is that respondents acquired their expert knowledge in the field of ESEF mainly from webinars, conferences, training courses, and workshops. In turn, relating to practical readiness, the results indicate that respondents intended to use off-the-shelf tools or employ third-party service providers to produce Inline XBRL instance documents. Their decision to choose Inline XBRL implementation strategies, based on outsourcing and the bolt-on approach, aimed to comply with new regulations or to prevent modification of existing corporate reporting procedures and practices. Therefore, this study contributes to prior literature on XBRL and Inline XBRL standards adoption as well as implementation by focusing on the perspective of actors directly involved in the mandatory transition to the ESEF reporting regime.

Keywords

PL

Inline XBRL; cyfrowa sprawozdawczość przedsiębiorstw; ESEF; Polska

EN

Inline XBRL; digital corporate reporting; ESEF; Poland

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Ekonomia Międzynarodowa
• Year: 2021
• Issue: 35
• Pages: 194-234

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Daria Miścikowska

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Doctoral School of Social Sciences – Academia Rerum Socialium

References

• Abed S.R. (2018), The perception of XBRL technology in the Jordanian context: an exploratory study, “Research Journal of Applied Sciences”, 13(1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.36478/rjasci.2018.1.4
• Allam A., Lymer A. (2003), Developments in Internet Financial Reporting: review and analysis across five developed countries, “The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research”, 3(6): 165–199. https://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v3_6
• Attewell P. (1992), Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing, “Organization Science”, 3(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.1.1
• Baldwin A.A., Brown C.E., Trinkle B.S. (2006), XBRL: an impacts framework and research challenge, “Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting”, 3(1): 97–116. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta.2006.3.1.97
• Baldwin A.A., Trinkle B.S. (2011), The impact of XBRL: a Delphi investigation, “The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research”, 11: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v11_1
• Bartley J., Chen A.Y.S., Taylor E. (2010), Are you prepared for XBRL? Lessons from the field, “Financial Executive”, 26(8): 30–33.
• Bartolacci F., Caputo A., Fradeani A., Soverchia M. (2021), Twenty years of XBRL: what we know and where we are going, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 29(5): 1113–1145. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-04-2020-0846
• Basoglu K.A., White C.E.S. Jr. (2015), Inline XBRL versus XBRL for SEC reporting, “Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting”, 12(1): 189–199. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51254
• Bergeron B. (2003), Essentials of XBRL: Financial reporting in the 21st century, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey.
• Bonsón E., Cortijo V., Escobar T. (2009), Towards the global adoption of XBRL using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), “International Journal of Accounting Information Systems”, 10(1): 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2008.10.002
• Bonsón E., Cortijo V., Escobar T., Flores F., Monreal S. (2010), Solvency II and XBRL: new rules and technologies in insurance supervision, “Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance”, 18(2): 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/13581981011034005
• Bonsón-Ponte E., Escobar-Rodríguez T., Flores-Muñoz F. (2007), The role of metadata language implementation in the European banking supervision network, “International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations”, 4(3): 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJNVO.2007.015163
• Brands K. (2012), Global XBRL Reporting Update, “Strategic Finance”, 93(11): 64–65.
• Callaghan J., Nehmer R. (2009), Financial and governance characteristics of voluntary XBRL adopters in the United States, “International Journal of Disclosure and Governance”, 6(4): 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2009.15
• Chojnacka E. (2011), Czynniki wpływające na pozyskiwanie kapitału własnego, “Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia”, 47: 427–437.
• Chojnacka E., Jadanowska E. (2020), Użyteczność i korzyści ujawniania informacji niefinansowych – wyniki badania ankietowego przeprowadzonego wśród spółek notowanych na Giełdzie Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 106(162): 45–65.
• Chojnacka E., Wolszon U., Zimnicki T. (2018), Sprawozdanie finansowe według polskiego prawa bilansowego. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń.
• Cohen E.E. (2009), XBRL’ s Global Ledger framework: exploring the standardized missing link to ERP integration, “International Journal of Disclosure and Governance”, 6: 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2009.5
• Cong Y., Omar A., Sun H-L. (2019), Does IT outsourcing affect the accuracy and speed of financial disclosures? Evidence from preparer-side XBRL filing decisions, “Journal of Information Systems”, 33(2): 45–61. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-52080
• Daikeler J., Bošnjak M., Lozar Manfreda K. (2020), Web versus other survey modes: an updated and extended meta-analysis comparing response rates, “Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology”, 8(3): 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz008
• Debreceny R., Farewell S.M., Piechocki M., Felden C., Gräning A., d’Eri A. (2011), Flex or break? Extensions in XBRL disclosures to SEC, “Accounting Horizons”, 25(4): 631–657. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50068
• Debreceny R., Farewell S., Scarlata A, Stone D. (2020), Knowledge and skills in complex assurance engagements: the case of XBRL, “Journal of Information Systems”, 34(1): 21–45. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-52461
• Debreceny R., Felden C., Ochocki B., Piechocki M., Piechocki M. (2009), XBRL for Interactive Data. Engineering the Information Value Chain. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01437-6
• Debreceny R., Gray G.L., Rahman A. (2002), The determinants of Internet financial reporting, “Journal of Accounting and Public Policy”, 21(4–5): 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(02)00067-4
• Di Fabio C., Roncagliolo E., Avallone F., Ramassa P. (2019), XBRL implementation in the European Union: exploring preparers’ points of view, [in:] Cabitza F., Batini C., Magni M. (eds), Organizing for the digital world. Lecture notes in information systems and organization, vol. 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90503-7_4
• Du H., Vasarhelyi M.A., Zheng X. (2013), XBRL mandate: thousands of filing errors and so what?, “Journal of Information Systems”, 27(1): 61–78. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-50399
• Dunne T., Helliar C., Lymer A., Mousa R. (2013), Stakeholder engagement in internet financial reporting: the diffusion of XBRL in the UK, “The British Accounting Review”, 45(3): 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.06.012
• Dziawgo D. (2011), Relacje inwestorskie. Ewolucja – funkcjonowanie – wyzwania, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
• EC (2004), Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32004L0109&from=EN (accessed 24 January 2021).
• EC (2013), Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Directive 2004/109/EC of the European and of the Council on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and Commission Directive 2007/14/EC laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013L0050&from=EN (accessed 24 January 2021).
• EC (2018), Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2019/815 of 17 December 2018 supplementing Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the specification of a single electronic reporting format, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019R0815&from=EN (accessed 24 January 2021).
• EC (2020), Commission Interpretative Communication on the preparation, audit and publication of the financial statements included in the annual financial reports drawn up in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_2020_379_R_0001 (accessed: 24 January 2021).
• EC (2020), Daily news 11/12/2020, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_20_2389 (accessed 31 January 2021).
• El Ansary M., Oubrich M., Orlando B., Fiano F. (2020), The determinants of XBRL adoption: a meta-analysis, “International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting”, 12(1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMFA.2020.106999
• Enachi M., Andone I.I. (2015), The progress of XBRL in Europe – projects, users and prospects, “Procedia Economics and Finance”, 20: 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00064-7
• Eni L.C. (2015), Empirical research: exploring extensible business reporting language and views of Romanian accountants, “Procedia Economics and Finance”, 32: 1675–1699. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01495-1
• Escobar- Rodríguez T., Gago-Rodríguez S. (2012), “We were the first to support a major is innovation”. Research into the motivations of Spanish pioneers in XBRL, “Revista de Contabilidad”, 15(1): 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(12)70039-0
• ESMA (2015), Consultation Paper on the Regulatory Technical Standards on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF), https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/2015/11/2015-1463_esma_consultation_paper_on_esef.pdf (accessed 26 January 2021).
• ESMA (2016), Feedback Statement on the Consultation Paper on the Regulatory Technical Standard on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF), https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/2016-1668_esma_feedback_statement_on_the_rts_on_esef_0.pdf (accessed 26 January 2021).
• ESMA (2017), Final Report on the RTS on the European Single Electronic Format, https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma32-60-204_final_report_on_rts_on_esef.pdf (accessed 27 January 2021).
• ESMA (2020a), Final Report on the draft RTS amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 as regards the 2020 update of the taxonomy laid down in the RTS on ESEF, https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma32-60-607_final_report_draft_rts_amending_rts_on_esef_2020.pdf (accessed 27 January 2021).
• ESMA (2020b), ESEF Reporting Manual. Preparation of Annual Financial Reports in Inline XBRL, https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma32-60-254_esef_reporting_manual.pdf.pdf (accessed 31 January 2021).
• ESMA (2020c), ESEF XBRL Taxonomy Documentation. Structure and content of the 2020 ESEF XBRL Taxonomy, https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma32-60-676_esef_xbrl_taxonomy_documentation_2020.pdf (accessed 31 January 2021).
• Evans J.R., Mathur A. (2018), The value of online surveys: a look back and a look ahead, “Internet Research”, 28(4): 854–887. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2018-0089
• Fan W., Yan Z. (2010), Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review, “Computers in Human Behavior”, 26(2): 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015
• Felden C. (2011), Characteristics of XBRL adoption in Germany, “Journal of Management Control”, 22: 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-011-0134-7
• Garbellotto G. (2006), Broaden your view of XBRL’s representational capabilities, “Strategic Finance”, 88(4): 59–61.
• Garbellotto G. (2008), Turning obligation into opportunity, “Strategic Finance”, 90(2): 57–58.
• Garbellotto G. (2009a), How to make your data interactive, “Strategic Finance”, 90(9): 56–57.
• Garbellotto G. (2009b), XBRL implementation strategies: the bolt-on approach, “Strategic Finance”, 90(11): 56–57.
• Garbellotto G. (2009c), XBRL implementation strategies: the built-in approach, “Strategic Finance”, 91(2): 56–57.
• Garbellotto G. (2009d), XBRL implementation strategies: the deeply embedded approach, “Strategic Finance”, 91(5): 56–61.
• Garner D., Henderson D., Sheetz S.D., Trinkle B.S. (2013), The different levels of XBRL adoption, “Management Accounting Quarterly”, 14(2): 1–10.
• Ghani E.K., Said J., Muhammad K. (2014), Enhancing corporate governance via XBRL: preparers’ perception on compatibility expectation, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 145: 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.06.039
• Gideon L. (2012), The art of question phrasing, [in:] L. Gideon (ed.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2
• GPW (n.d.), Lista spółek, https://www.gpw.pl/spolki (accessed 16 October 2020).
• Gray G.L., Miller D.W. (2009), XBRL: solving real-world problems, “International Journal of Disclosure and Governance”, 6(3): 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2009.8
• Groves R.M., Cialdini R.B., Couper M.P. (1992), Understanding the decision to participate in a survey, “Public Opinion Quarterly”, 56(4): 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1086/269338
• Gunn J. (2007), XBRL: opportunities and challenges in enhancing financial reporting and assurance processes, “Current Issues in Auditing”, 1(1): A36–A43. https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia.2007.1.1.A36
• Henderson D., Sheetz S.D., Trinkle B.S. (2012), The determinants of inter-organizational and internal in-house adoption of XBRL: a structural equation model, “International Journal of Accounting Information Systems”, 13(2): 109–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.02.001
• Hoitash R., Hoitash U., Morris L. (2021), eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): a review and implications for future research, “Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory”, 40(2): 107–132. https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-2019-517
• Hsieh T., Wang Z., Abdolmohammadi M.J. (2019), Factors associated with companies’ choices of XBRL implementation strategies: evidence from the U.S. Market, “Journal of Information Systems”, 33(3): 75–91. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-52185
• IFRS Foundation (2017), Using the IFRS Taxonomy. A preparer’s guide, https://www.ifrs.org/-/media/feature/resources-for/preparers/xbrl-using-the-ifrs-taxonomy-a-preparers-guide-december-2017.pdf?la=en (accessed 31 January 2021).
• Ilias A., Ghani E.K. (2015), Examining the adoption of Extensible Business Reporting Language among public listed companies in Malaysia, “Procedia Economics and Finance”, 28: 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01078-3
• Janvrin D., No W.G. (2012), XBRL implementation: a field investigation to identify research opportunities, “Journal of Information Systems”, 26(1): 169–197. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-10252
• Kernan K. (2008), XBRL around the world, “Journal of Accountancy”, 206(4): 62–66.
• Kobiela-Pionnier K. (2020), Jednolity europejski format raportowania – nowe wyzwanie dla spółek stosujących MSSF, „Rachunkowość”, 7: 3–17.
• Lampathaki F., Mouzakitis S., Gionis G., Charalabidis Y., Askounis D. (2009), Business to business interoperability: a current review of XML data integration standards, “Computer Standards & Interfaces”, 31(6): 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2008.12.006
• Li S., Nwaeze E.T. (2015), The association between extensions in XBRL disclosures and financial information environment, “Journal of Information Systems”, 29(3): 73–99. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51005
• Liu C. (2013), XBRL: a new global paradigm for business financial reporting, “Journal of Global Information Management”, 21(3): 60–80. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2013070104
• Liu C., Luo X., Sia C.L., O’Farrell G., Teo H.H. (2014), The impact of XBRL adoption in PR China, “Decision Support Systems”, 59(1): 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.12.003
• Liu C., Luo X.R., Wang F.L. (2017), An empirical investigation on the impact of XBRL adoption on information asymmetry: evidence from Europe, “Decision Support Systems”, 93: 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.09.004
• Locke J., Rowbottom N., Troshani I. (2018), Sites of translation in digital reporting, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 31(7): 2006–2030. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2017-3005
• Lozar Manfreda K., Bosnjak M., Berzelak J., Haas I., Vehovar V. (2008), Web surveys versus other surveys modes: a meta-analysis comparing response rates, “International Journal of Market Research”, 50(1): 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000107
• Łada M. (2011), Model implementacji metod rachunkowości zarządczej zorientowanych na relacje z klientami – wyniki badań empirycznych, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 62(118): 167–178.
• Markelevich A., Shaw L., Weihs H. (2015), The Israeli XBRL adoption experience, “Accounting Perspectives”, 14(2): 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12044
• Ministry of Justice (n.d.), Przeglądanie dokumentów finansowych, https://ekrs.ms.gov.pl/rdf/pd/search_df (accessed 16 October 2020).
• Mousa R. (2016), The evolution of electronic filing process at the UK’s HM Revenue and Customs: the case of XBRL adoption, “eJournal of Tax Research”, 14(1): 206–234.
• Nel G.F., Steenkamp L.P. (2008), An exploratory study of chartered accountants’ awareness and understanding of XBRL, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 16(1): 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/10222529200800005
• Perdana A., Robb A., Rohde F. (2015a), An integrative review and synthesis of XBRL research in academic journals, “Journal of Information Systems”, 29(1): 115–153. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-50884
• Perdana A., Robb A., Rohde F. (2015b), XBRL diffusion in social media: discourses and community learning, “Journal of Information Systems”, 29(2): 71–106. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-50996
• Petrovčič A., Petrič G., Lozar Manfreda K. (2016), The effect of email invitation elements on response rate in a web survey within an online community, “Computers in Human Behavior”, 56: 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.025
• Piechocki M., Felden C., Gräning A., Debreceny R. (2009), Design and standardisation of XBRL solutions for governance and transparency, “International Journal of Disclosure and Governance”, 6: 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2009.9
• Pinsker R. (2003), XBRL awareness in auditing: a sleeping giant?, “Managerial Auditing Journal”, 18(9): 732–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900310500497
• Pinsker R., Li S. (2008), Costs and benefits of XBRL adoption: early evidence, “Communication of the ACM”, 51(3): 47–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1325555.1325565
• Premuroso R.F., Bhattacharya S. (2008), Do early and voluntary filers of financial information in XBRL format signal superior corporate governance and operating performance?, “International Journal of Accounting Information Systems”, 9(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2008.01.002
• Reja U., Lozar Manfreda K., Hlebec V., Vehovar V. (2003), Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questionnaires, “Developments in Applied Statistics (Metodološki zvezki)”, 19: 159–177.
• Roohani S., Xianming Z., Capozzoli E.A., Lamberton B. (2010), Analysis of XBRL literature: a decade of progress and puzzle, “The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research”, 10: 131–147. https://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v10_6
• Roos M. (2010), Using XBRL in a statistical context. The case of the Dutch Taxonomy Project, “Journal of Official Statistics”, 26(3): 559–575.
• Rowbottom N., Locke J., Troshani I. (2021), When the tail wags the dog? Digitalisation and corporate reporting, “Accounting, Organizations and Society”, 92: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2021.101226
• Saunders M., Lewis P., Thornhill A. (2009), Research methods for business students (5th ed.), Pearson Education, London.
• Schmidt K., Gummer T., Roßmann J. (2020), Effects of respondent and survey characteristics on the response quality of an open-ended attitude question in web surveys, “methods, data, analyses”, 14(1): 3–34.
• Schoenherr T., Ellram L.M., Tate W.L. (2015), A note on the use of the research firms to enable empirical data collection, “Journal of Business Logistics”, 36(3): 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12092
• Singerová J. (2015), XBRL: different approach of utilization, “Procedia Economics and Finance”, 25: 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00721-2
• Sledgianowski D., Fonfeder R., Lam J. (2010a), Outsourcing XBRL financial statement filing: a case study of practices in two public firms, “Issues in Information Systems”, 11(11): 347–351.
• Sledgianowski D., Fonfeder R., Slavin N. (2010b), Implementing XBRL reporting, “The CPA Journal”, 80(8): 68–72.
• Smith B., Pierce A. (2005), An investigation of the integrity of Internet Financial Reporting, “The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research”, 5(9): 47–78. https://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v5_2
• Steenkamp L.P., Nel G.F. (2012), The adoption of XBRL in South Africa: an empirical study, “The Electronic Library”, 30(3): 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471211241672
• Troshani I., Locke J., Rowbottom N. (2018), Transformation of accounting through digital standardization: tracing the construction of the IFRS taxonomy, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 32(1): 133–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2016-2794
• Troshani I., Rao S. (2007), Drivers and inhibitors to XBRL adoption: a qualitative approach to build a theory in under-researched areas, “International Journal of E-Business Research”, 3(4): 98–111. https://doi.org/10.4018/jebr.2007100106
• Troshani I., Rowbottom N. (2021), Digital corporate reporting: research developments and implications, “Australian Accounting Review”, 31(3): 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12334
• Tuten T.L. (1998), Getting a foot in the electronic door: the process of reading or deleting electronic mail, “Journal of Technical Writing and Communication”, 28(3): 237–250. https://doi.org/10.2190/6TN4-PWHK-F24Y-6G5F
• Valentinetti D., Rea M.A. (2011), Adopting XBRL in Italy: early evidence of fit between Italian GAAP Taxonomy and current reporting practices of non-listed companies, “The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research”, 11: 45–67. https://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v11_3
• Valentinetti D., Rea M.A. (2013), XBRL for financial reporting: evidence on Italian GAAP versus IFRS, “Accounting Perspectives”, 12(3): 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12008
• Walston J.T., Lissitz R.W., Rudner L.M. (2006), The influence of web-based questionnaire presentation variations on survey cooperation and perception of survey quality, “Journal of Official Statistics”, 22(2): 271–291.
• Wang P., Ramiller N.C. (2009), Community learning in information technology innovation, MIS Quarterly, 33(4): 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650324
• XBRL International (2019a), CIPC to implement iXBRL project’s second stage, https://www.xbrl.org/news/cipc-to-implement-ixbrl-projects-second-stage/ (accessed 2 February 2022).
• XBRL International (2019b), Updates on XBRL implementations in Asia, https://www.xbrl.org/news/updates-on-xbrl-implementations-in-asia/ (accessed 2 February 2022).
• Zhou R., Wang X., Zhang L., Guo H. (2017), Who tends to answer open-ended questions in an e-service survey? The contribution of close-ended answers, “Behaviour & Information Technology”, 36(12): 1274–1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1381165

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/2082-4440.35.03

Biblioteka Nauki

2130950