Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
Status Quo and Potential of XBRL for Businessand Information Systems EngineeringThe eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) was recently mandated in the USA asthe standard for electronic financial reporting. Since June 2009, the US Securities andExchange Commission (SEC) has required all listed companies to provide their financialreports in XBRL. Similarly, from 2011 all German companies will be mandated to use XBRL inthe context of reporting to tax authorities. The growing importance of XBRL is themotivation for this paper, exploring the progress of research conducted in the XBRL domain.The results of this study show that the majority of the 57 analyzed XBRL-related academicpapers adopt an empirical research design, with researchers using methods such asdescriptive statistical analyses, interviews, and case studies to analyze the internationalacceptance and adoption of XBRL as a financial reporting standard. The paper provides acomprehensive and structured overview of current XBRL research and deliversrecommendations for future research topics for both the academic and practitionercommunities. This paper also identifies the lack of an integrated, data-oriented, andtechnical approach in current global XBRL research which is necessary to meet therequirements of financial reporting in the future and to which Business and InformationSystems Engineering (BISE) may contribute.
DOI 10.1007/s12599-011-0169-1
The Authors
Dipl.-Kfm. André Gräning (�)Faculty of Business and EconomicsTechnische Universität DresdenHelmholtzstraße 1001069 [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Carsten FeldenFaculty of Business AdministrationTechnische UniversitätBergakademie FreibergLessingstraße 4509599 [email protected]
Dr. Maciej PiechockiInternational Financial ReportingStandards (IFRS) FoundationCannon Street 30EC4M 6XH LondonUnited [email protected]
Received: 2010-01-04Accepted: 2011-02-28Accepted after four revisions by Prof.Dr. Peter Buxmann.Published online: 2011-07-12
This article is also available in Ger-man in print and via http://www.wirtschaftsinformatik.de: Gräning A,Felden C, Piechocki M (2011) Sta-tus Quo und Potenziale der eXten-sible Business Reporting Languagefür die Wirtschaftsinformatik. WIRT-SCHAFTSINFORMATIK. doi: 10.1007/s11576-011-0282-2.
Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article(doi: 10.1007/s12599-011-0169-1)contains supplementary material,which is available to authorizedusers.
The statements represent the au-thor’s M. Piechocki view and do notreflect the opinion of the IFRS Foun-dation.
© Gabler Verlag 2011
1 Introduction
“. . . what if everyone would use one stan-dard? What if you could turn a financialreport into a database? What if a piece ofbusiness information, once entered into acomputer anywhere, never needed to beretyped as it moved through the businesssupply chain?” (Kernan 2009, p. 4)
In the late 1990s, this idea was thestumbling block to the development ofthe eXtensible Business Reporting Lan-guage (XBRL), which is an XML-basedtechnology for the creation, dissemina-tion, and publication as well as for theevaluation and comparison of financialinformation. By means of XBRL, infor-mation recipients focus on a single dataformat and can load company-specific fi-nancial information directly into infor-mation systems and/or decision supportsystems using the Internet. Furthermore,the economic justification of XBRL canbe seen in the simplification of qualitativeproduction and use of extensive companyinformation. This means that you canreadily use financial data for analysis indatabases and reporting systems withoutcomplex and error-prone manual pro-cessing. In this context, XBRL is seenas the key element, both to increase the
Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011 231
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
Fig. 1 Detailed approach for the literature review
transparency of financial reporting fromand within companies and to increasemarket efficiency (Wagenhofer 2003).
After ten years of development, the Se-curity Exchange Commission (SEC) de-fined XBRL as a mandatory format for fi-nancial reporting in the U.S. within theInteractive Data Program (SEC 2009).Thus, national and international com-panies listed in the U.S. are required toprepare and publish their financial re-ports using XBRL. This is done with theclaim to use XBRL as a binding and ex-clusive format in the U.S. in future. How-ever, recent financial reports show a veryhigh potential for error when filing inXBRL format. The financial reports of500 listed companies studied in this con-text show more than 18,000 faults of dif-ferent kinds (McCann 2010). Moreover,particularly medium-sized companies donot know enough about the XBRL tech-nology and can only react poorly (John-son 2008), which is to be expected fromGerman large and medium-sized enter-prises as well.
In Germany, there has been a grow-ing interest from the Bundesanzeiger touse XBRL in financial reporting since2007. Although XBRL is not exclusivelycompulsory in this country to date,DATEV for instance collected more than450,000 financial reports in XBRL andsubmitted them to the Bundesanzeigeror made them available to banks forcredit analyses (Kesselmeier and Frank2009, p. 73). In addition, the Germantax authorities chose XBRL as the stan-dard for data transmission within thefederal-state project KONSENS (Koor-dinierte neue Software-Entwicklung für dieSteuerverwaltung; engl. coordinated newsoftware development for the tax ad-ministration) (XBRL 2008). Accordingly,the electronic reporting of tax accountshas been accomplished with XBRL since2011. This decision will affect approx-imately two million companies whichhave to extend their IT in general and
their financial and accounting systems inparticular for using XBRL. A standard so-lution, such as those in electronic tax re-turn (elster), is not expected. This resultsin consequences for companies in termsof their IT strategy, which also includeseconomic aspects.
From the perspective of a design-oriented business and information sys-tems engineering (BISE) discipline,XBRL itself as well as its possible ap-plications have to be investigated anddeveloped in to the extent in which it isused as an integrated format in IT sys-tems. Concepts of data description anddata management are necessary to enablecompanies to adopt XBRL within theirsystems in order to take advantage of theassociated potential. In this context, thisstudy aims to identify the status quo ofXBRL research in a first step. In partic-ular, the facts resulting from a system-atic literature review will show what isachieved by XBRL research and whetherthe above-mentioned demands are partof the research. Here, the used researchmethods, addressed contents, and the re-search design of previous contributionsprovide further information on futureresearch topics.
As a demarcating fact it should be men-tioned that the contribution exclusivelyaddresses XBRL research. For a presen-tation of the standard itself, e.g. from atechnical point of view, we refer to De-breceny et al. (2009) or Hoffman (2006).
Subsequent to this introduction, Sect. 2explains the methodical approach of thesystematic literature review. Then, Sect. 3focuses on the discussion of recent re-search, before future research topics arediscussed in Sect. 4. Section 5 summa-rizes the paper.
2 Methodology
The methodology is based on the system-atic literature review approach recom-mended by Webster and Watson (2002)
and Fettke (2006) which provides a the-matic and structured overview. Conse-quently, the paper focuses on researchtopics in the context of XBRL (concept-centric).
As a starting point of the study, lit-erature databases are used. These weresearched through using specific keywordsin the abstracts, titles, and full texts ofstored contributions. At this point, theauthors are aware of the fact that other ar-ticles may exist. However, we assume thatthe paper provides an almost completeoverview due to the chosen form of lit-erature review, the selected databases andthe mechanisms mentioned below.
For the search we used the databases:� EBSCOhost – Academic Source Com-
plete (ASC),� EBSCOhost – Business Source Com-
plete (BSC),� Springer Link (SL),� ScienceDirect (SD), and� the WISO (WAS) Database.In addition, the references from the rel-evant contributions were integrated intothe search process. The detailed approachis shown in Fig. 1.
First, the databases were queried basedon the search terms XBRL and eXten-sible Business Reporting Language. Thisresulted in 791 articles. Subsequently,one of the authors checked the resultsfor duplicates. Using the bibliographicsoftware RefWorks® and manual testing,448 articles remained. These articles werereviewed manually by two authors asto their suitability. Books, articles fromnewspapers, book reviews, and short re-ports with only a few lines as well as otherdocuments erroneously deemed relevantin terms of content during the databasesearch, were excluded. This step resultedin a reduction to 217 articles.
For further consideration, the remain-ing articles were subjected to a clear sci-entific review process. This limitationwas set in order to both reflect the ac-tual state of research and also guaran-tee a high scientific quality of the articles
232 Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
Fig. 2 Frequency of scientific articles dealing with XBRL over time
used for further investigation. Possiblebook chapters and contributions fromnon-scientific journals or online maga-zines (e.g., CFO.com) were not consid-ered in this context. This led to a reduc-tion to 70 articles.
In a next step two authors manuallyand independently analyzed the particu-lar articles completely. In case of a disputeregarding the suitability and relevance ofan article, the third author was involvedin the decision. In doing so, only thosepublications were considered that scien-tifically dealt with XBRL. Articles justmentioning XBRL, for instance, withoutdealing with the issue in a scientific way,were excluded. This resulted in 52 articlesto be considered as relevant. Another fivefollowed after studying the references ofthe 51 contributions, so that the litera-ture analysis is based on 57 articles from37 journals.1
The classification of the identified pub-lications was based on Palvia et al. (2004,pp. 529–530) considering the dimensionsof research design, research methodol-ogy, and research content.
The dimension research design pro-vides an overview of the underlying ap-proach of the work under considera-tion. A categorization is made accord-ing to empirical-quantitative, empirical-qualitative, and non-empirical research.Non-empirical work is divided intodesign-oriented papers and conceptualwork.
The dimension research methodologydescribes the methods used in the in-vestigation. A differentiation is made be-tween conventional methods of data col-lection and data analysis in empiricalwork (e.g., survey, interview, descriptivestatistics, test statistics, content analy-
sis, case study) and other methodologi-cal approaches (e.g., prototyping, simula-tion, modeling, literature review) in non-empirical research (Palvia et al. 2004,p. 529; Vessey et al. 2002, pp. 142–145).
The dimension research content is de-rived from a content classification of thecontributions.
3 Evaluation of Publications
All analyzed articles relate to a period be-tween 2001 and 2010. Figure 2 visualizesthe frequencies over time.2
The figure shows a significant increasein publications in 2009. This peak can beattributed to a special focus issue of theInternational Journal of Disclosure & Gov-ernance as well as to the availability of thefirst empirical data from real XBRL basedfinancial reports from 2008.
In the course of the investigation itturned out that the majority of all exam-ined publications follow an empirical re-search design (25). Here, 18 publicationsare based on a quantitative and 7 on aqualitative research design. In addition,21 articles show a non-empirical researchdesign and can be categorized as eitherdesign-oriented research (9) or concep-tual research (12). Contributions that donot explicitly explain their research de-sign and could not be assigned even aftera detailed examination were classified asOther (11).
The used research methods are descrip-tive methods (16), surveys (3), experi-ments (2), case study research (4), or in-terview research (3). Also methodologi-cal approaches, such as prototyping (7),simulation (1), and literature analysis &theory-based research (8), are taken intoaccount. Contributions without an ex-
plicitly identifiable research methodologywere classified as other (15).3
With regard to research topics, we ob-served a substantive differentiation incontributions on the research with XBRLas well as contributions on research onXBRL. The articles on research on XBRLcan be further divided into research onstandards, reporting, and others. Table 1provides a summarizing overview of allidentified articles classified according totheir research content.
Publications on research with XBRLaim to adapt the characteristics of XBRLand transfer these to other fields. Thisis either done through the developmentof new, domain-specific languages or byderiving methods which functionally in-clude XBRL.
Authors conducting research on XBRLconsider XBRL as the standard and inves-tigate its adoption and diffusion. Further-more, they address specific issues thatconcern the reporting process. To thisend they examine technical aspects, eval-uate quality issues, or discuss changesby XBRL for instance. Other publica-tions deal with issues concerning re-search, teaching, and what is XBRL.
3.1 Research with XBRL
In the context of domain-specific lan-guages, Gräning and Kienegger (2007)describe the suitability of XBRL for en-ergy reporting in the European Union(EU). In this article, XBRL is appliedto make use of structures from theDatamine project on the basis of XBRLtaxonomies for the reporting of the en-ergy performance of buildings (Gräningand Kienegger 2007, pp. 374 f).
Boritz and No (2004) develop the eX-tensible Assurance Reporting Language
1A complete list of journals can be found in Table A-3.2However, it has to be mentioned that the temporal restriction is not intended, but naturally results from the history of XBRL.3A complete overview of research methods and research design can be found in Tables A-1 and A-2.
Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011 233
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
Table 1 Classification according to research content
Types Topics # References
WithXBRL
Domain specific languages 6 Bonsón et al. (2008); Boritz and No (2004); Branson (2002); Cho and Roberts (2010); Gräning andKienegger (2007); Mena et al. (2010)
Method development 1 Spies (2010)
OnXBRL
Research on standards
Adoption & diffusion 13 Apostolou and Nanopoulos (2009); Bonsón et al. (2009a, 2009b); Bonsón et al. (2010); Cohen(2004); Gray and Miller (2009); Lester (2007); Piechocki et al. (2009); Pinsker and Li (2008);Troshani and Doolin (2007); Troshani and Lymer (2010); Vasile et al. (2009); Yoon et al. (2011)
Reporting
Quality assurance 7 Boritz and No (2008); Boritz and No (2009); Bovee et al. (2002); Debreceny et al. (2010); Fengyi etal. (2005); Plumlee and Plumlee (2008); Watson (2009)
Changes through XBRL 7 Hodge et al. (2004); Mejzlik and Istvanfyova (2008); Pinsker and Wheeler (2009); Premuroso andBhattacharya (2008); Ray and Das (2009); Schuster and O’Connell (2006); Wagenhofer (2003)
XBRL as technology 6 Berkeley et al. (2009); Boritz and No (2005); Bovee et al. (2005); Cohen (2009); Piechocki et al.(2009); Woodroof and Searcy (2001)
Other
“What is XBRL” 6 Deshmukh (2004); Farewell (2006); Kranich and Schmitz (2003); Nutz and Strauß (2002); Pinsker(2003); Ramin and Kesselmeyer (2007)
Research 6 Alles et al. (2008); Baldwin et al. (2006); Debreceny et al. (2005); Debreceny and Gray (2001);Doolin and Troshani (2004); Williams et al. (2006)
Teaching 2 Pinsker (2004); Taylor and Dzuranin (2010);
Other 3 Burnett et al. (2006); Fahy et al. (2009); Locke and Lowe (2007)
(XARL) as an extended reporting lan-guage with concepts enhancing the in-tegrity of XBRL documents by addi-tional descriptions (Boritz and No 2004,p. 209).
Mena et al. (2010) describe the use ofXBRL to improve the quality of projectdocumentation in Spain. In this context,the requirements of the national standardUNE 157001:2002 General criteria to de-velop projects (Mena et al. 2010, p. 277)are transferred to the XBRL as XPDRL forthe documentation of projects and thetransfer of project-related data.
As part of method development Spies(2010) reverts to the description of re-porting concepts of XBRL taxonomiesand develops an ontology-based report-ing approach that is able to transfer bothstructured and unstructured data basedon XBRL technology.
3.2 Research on XBRL
3.2.1 Research on Standards
The adoption and diffusion of XBRL isconsidered in 13 contributions. Apos-tolou and Nanopoulos (2009) deal with
the distribution of XBRL in terms of theInternational Financial Reporting Stan-dards (IFRS) and identify advantages forcompanies in Europe. The study showsthe benefits of XBRL for transparent fi-nancial reporting. At the same time, theauthors consider the potential of XBRLadoption as being restricted and there-fore do not see XBRL as a trigger forchanging from many to just one globalreporting standard.
Piechocki and Gräning (2008) discussthe problem of critical mass which is nec-essary for an enforcement of XBRL asa standard. On the basis of descriptivedata, the authors examine the penguinand bandwagon effect.4 Considering geo-graphical distribution, in their view thecritical mass is reached. However, there isa lack of diffusion among users of finan-cial information. Reasons for these phe-nomena are not mentioned.
Gray and Miller (2009) conduct expertinterviews in companies in order to gaininsights regarding the degree of adoptionof XBRL. The results support a low adop-tion by companies and point out an in-sufficient information supply of the ad-dressed users as a major cause.
Troshani and Doolin (2007) as well asTroshani and Lymer (2010) analyze thediffusion of XBRL in Australia. Troshaniand Doolin (2007) compare the resultswith theories of innovation research.They point to a strong influence of gov-ernment agencies in the dissemination ofXBRL in Australia. Troshani and Lymer(2010) observe the impact of adoptionand diffusion on social networks and dis-cuss the implications for the standardiza-tion process (Troshani and Lymer 2010,pp. 154 ff).
Pinsker and Li (2008) deal with thecost-effectiveness of using XBRL. Theyexamine the positive and negative effectsfor companies and support their researchwith expert interviews. Respondents esti-mate the benefits associated with XBRLto be larger than the expected implemen-tation costs and consider XBRL to bea key technology (Pinsker and Li 2008,p. 49).
Bonsón et al. (2010) discuss the use ofXBRL in the context of the Common Re-porting (COREP)5 and Basel II, focus-ing on the advantages regarding the useof XBRL as the standard format for re-porting to and from the European bank-
4In networking theory the penguin effect describes a waiting attitude concerning the adoption of a standard (Choi 1997, pp. 407 ff). The bandwagoneffect refers to reaching a critical mass regarding the diffusion of a standard (Granovetter 1978, pp. 1420 ff).5Common Reporting contains a taxonomy based on XBRL with the rules of Basel II for reporting between financial institutes and the particularsupervisory authorities and was commissioned by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS).
234 Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
ing supervisory authorities. In this con-text, Bonsón et al. (2009b) examine mod-els for the adoption of XBRL from theperspective of regulators. They describea voluntary model and a compulsorymodel, with the voluntary model invit-ing to report with XBRL and the com-pulsory model requiring reporting withXBRL (Bonsón et al. 2009b, p. 39). Bothmodels are compared on the basis of rel-evant criteria and discussed with regardto adoption. According to the results, auniform approach for all countries is notdesirable as the political, economic, andsocial conditions are different. The deci-sion for one of the two models, however,is the regulators’ and supervisors’ choice(Bonsón et al. 2009b, p. 40).
Yoon et al. (2011) deal with the ques-tion of whether the use of XBRL mayreduce the information asymmetry pre-vailing in the Korean stock market. Theyuse financial reports submitted in XBRLby Korean companies and test previ-ously derived hypotheses using statisti-cal methods. Their results show that, inparticular for large enterprises, the effectof reducing information asymmetries isobservable, whereas the significance de-creases in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises.
3.2.2 Reporting
The category quality assurance in Table 1includes the contributions that mainlydeal with data and reporting quality ofXBRL-based financial reports. In the con-text of this study, Bovee et al. (2002) in-vestigate how the XBRL-C&I taxonomyis likely to reflect the requirements of ex-isting accounting standards. Here a com-parison between 67 paper-based financialreports and the XBRL-C&I taxonomy in2001 is carried out. The results show apoor compatibility between the two me-dia.
Watson (2009) analyzes individual sub-reports (balance sheet, profit and lossstatement, etc.) of 209 publicly tradedIndian firms. The results show signifi-cant errors in XBRL-based financial re-ports. In the same manner, however, inthe context of the Voluntary Filing Pro-gram of the SEC in 2008, Boritz and No(2008) investigate the quality of XBRL-based financial reports. The article ex-amines the validity with respect to theFinancial Reporting Taxonomy Architec-ture (FRTA) and the validity of company-specific XBRL taxonomies. The results
show differences between the tested tax-onomies and the FRTA. Reasons for thiscan be primarily seen in the unneces-sary use of company-specific taxonomyextensions (Boritz and No 2008, p. 48).In relation to data quality, Debreceny etal. (2010) aim to provide starting pointsfor improving data quality. The study isbased on financial reports of firms fromdifferent industry sectors and identifiesdifferent types of errors. In their results,the authors point to the preventability ofmany errors and weaknesses in the un-derlying taxonomy.
Fengyi et al. (2005) focus on the use ofXBRL to improve the quality of the sub-mitted financial information. This aimis achieved within their eChain bank ac-counting systems framework through theintegration of XBRL in conjunction withweb services and web intelligence (Fengyiet al. 2005, pp. 295 ff).
The category changes through XBRL in-cludes publications where the authorsdiscuss the possible impacts and associ-ated changes of an Internet-based finan-cial reporting using XBRL. Here, Wagen-hofer (2003) argues transaction costs de-crease through a web-based and seman-tic financial reporting. In a second step,he discusses the issue of standardizationof financial reporting with respect to con-tent and questions the necessity of the ex-istence of a variety of accounting regula-tions. In his view, a uniform accountingstandard may support the use of XBRL.
Another sub-field deals with corporategovernance and corporate reporting andthe changes in these fields. Ray and Das(2009) discuss the use of XBRL as partof their Corporate Reporting Frameworkand observe changes in terms of trans-parency, integrity, and the ability to re-port financial data through the use ofXBRL (Ray and Das 2009, p. 109).
The studies by Hodge et al. (2004) pro-vide starting points for achieving a highertransparency in the use of XBRL. Pinskerand Wheeler (2009) also test the effect ofusing XBRL and show that the group us-ing XBRL is more efficient and more ef-fective than a comparison group work-ing in a paper-based way (Pinsker andWheeler 2009, pp. 253 ff). The study con-firms the findings of Hodge et al. (2004).
The category of XBRL as technology in-cludes articles that deal with technical is-sues such as taxonomy extensions, taxon-omy design, and the integration of XBRLin IT systems. In this context, Bovee etal. (2005) develop the Financial Report-ing and Auditing Agent with Net Knowl-edge (FRAANK). This prototype scans
the Internet for XBRL instances throughan agent in order to make these availablein bundles for financial analysis. Cohen(2009) deals with the lack of integrationof the XBRL General Ledger (XBRL GL)in ERP systems and points to further po-tential of XBRL since – despite the use ofXBRL – the consolidation of financial re-ports requires manual intervention, andthus comparability and transparency aremissing. Piechocki et al. (2009) discussthe technical possibilities for the designof taxonomies by means of investigatingexisting taxonomies with the help of fourcase studies. Their results show that theexpansion of core taxonomies provides agreater flexibility but raises costs of anal-ysis and the authors point to the problemof extending XBRL taxonomies.
Boritz and No (2005) develop a WebServices Security Architecture as an ap-proach to a secure, Internet-based finan-cial reporting. In a framework the au-thors show how XBRL, or XARL respec-tively, should be integrated using specificprotocols (e.g., WSDL, SOAP) and howthis is supposed to work.
3.2.3 Others
The publications that explain XBRL (6),that is those presenting and discussingthe functionality, the environment, andthe advantages and disadvantages ofXBRL in the form of scientific papersbased on the reproduction of literature,are, e.g., Nutz and Strauß (2002) andKranich and Schmitz (2003).
Publications from the categories re-search (6) and teaching (2) deal withoverviews of relevant research topics andapproaches on how XBRL should be in-tegrated into Accounting Education. Alleset al. (2008) identify various scientificdisciplines, indicate synergies that ex-ist between the various disciplines, andshow how these should be deepened. Fur-thermore, Baldwin et al. (2006), Debre-ceny and Gray (2001), and Debreceny etal. (2005) identify future research topicsas regards XBRL. Baldwin et al. (2006)present a list including topics such as dataquality, use and dissemination as wellas the Reporting Industry Supply Chain(Baldwin et al. 2006, p. 108). Debre-ceny et al. (2005) refer to issues thatdeal with the taxonomy itself, the exten-sions, and the storage of the instances.These and other issues can also be foundin Doolin and Troshani (2004) who dis-tinguish research with XBRL accordingto the categories “as a technology, as
Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011 235
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
a standard, as a business tool [and] ineducation” (Doolin and Troshani 2004,p. 100). Williams et al. (2006) considerXBRL from the perspective of informa-tion management and conclude implica-tions for research from the analysis ofprojects with XBRL.
As part of the category teaching,Pinsker (2004) provides an approachabout how XBRL may be involved inteaching. Moreover, Taylor and Dzu-ranin (2010) show how the necessaryknowledge may be conveyed in a bet-ter way within the subject of Account-ing Information Systems by using XBRLsince both technical (taxonomies, dataexchange, data storage) and content con-cepts (legislation, etc.) must be included.
Doolin and Troshani (2004), Debre-ceny and Gray (2001), Debreceny et al.(2005), and Baldwin et al. (2006) alreadydescribe what XBRL research is meant toachieve. Compared to the identified cat-egories, however, a sufficient differenceexists regarding the topics proposed bythese papers. In the following, this differ-ence gives cause for the discussion of fu-ture research topics.
4 Future Research Topics
4.1 Future Research on Adoption andDiffusion
4.1.1 Factors Influencing the Diffusionof XBRL
The analysis illustrates the influence ofregulatory and supervisory authorities(SEC, Australian Prudential RegulationAuthority, CEBS) as key drivers for theimplementation of XBRL as a standard.Bonsón et al. (2009a, 2009b) discuss thisaspect in the context of the compulsoryand voluntary models presented in theircontribution. There is a lack of com-parative studies that indicate the processof standardization of XBRL with similarstandards. Hence, the question arises ofwhether it is in the nature of XBRL orwhether it may be regarded as a causalweakness of XBRL that regulators arenecessary for enforcement. Accordingly,and also with regard to the obligation ofXBRL reporting in Germany, investiga-tions are indispensable which differenti-ate the adoption and diffusion of XBRLby country and identify other factors ac-celerating or decelerating the diffusion ofXBRL. In addition to supervisory author-ities, regulators, or standardization orga-nizations, it is essential that these studies
involve companies in order to use the lat-ter’s experience in the course of an obvi-ously non-voluntary adoption of XBRL.Associated with this, the existing ap-proaches by Pinsker and Li (2008) are notsignificant as regards the expected imple-mentation costs since the results allow noconclusions as to actual costs incurred inthe adoption. Accordingly, research po-tential exists regarding the investigationof actually emerging economic advan-tages and disadvantages over the entirereporting chain.
4.2 Future Research on Reporting
4.2.1 Quality Assurance of FutureReporting with XBRL
Many papers address the quality of re-porting with XBRL. Publications from2008 to 2010 address quality problemsrelating to the reported data. However,only Debreceny et al. (2010) identify thesources of the errors. Others only point tothe fact that there are significant sourcesof error. However, there has been no re-search that deals with the developmentof concepts and methods for preventingerrors. In addition, no existing publica-tion provides a critical reflection of XBRLin terms of data quality in conjunctionwith taxonomy development and taxon-omy design. This issue was already iden-tified by Debreceny et al. (2005) as an es-sential research topic. Nevertheless, thereis a lack of investigations comparing re-ports of various taxonomies in terms ofdata quality and thus providing startingpoints, such as whether a particular tax-onomy design or a particular group ofusers causes significantly less or more er-rors.
4.2.2 Comparability of XBRL-BasedFinancial Reports
As regards the comparability, algorithmsare necessary to approach the financialanalysis. Here, the problems caused bycompany specific taxonomy extensionsmust be considered as well as the possibil-ity of different assessment approaches byaccounting standards. For example, tech-niques of “structural alignment” or se-mantic concepts may provide approachesto XBRL-based financial analysis.
Based on the issue of transparency, itshould be mentioned that despite thelarge number of publications there arehardly any qualitative or quantitativestudies which focus on the real potential
of transparency of XBRL and compare itto existing mechanisms in reporting.
4.2.3 Approaches to the Integration ofXBRL in Financial and AccountingSystems
The examined articles describe the chal-lenges and exclusively point to problems.However, only Bovee et al. (2005) providea prototypical approach for data analy-sis. Predominantly, though, concepts aremissing for the integration and extrac-tion of XBRL data to and from exist-ing information systems. This is becauseXBRL can only realize its full potentialwhen it is used as an integrated stan-dard in information systems and wheneven the processing of the data in thesystems is done by use of XBRL. Onlyin this way may consolidated companyreports become dispensable and can fi-nancial reporting be performed directlyout of the systems. Thus, additional re-search is needed in terms of technical ap-proaches that take into account these as-pects.
4.2.4 XBRL Assurance
In addition, the principles of digital doc-uments (Grundsätze der Prüfung digitalerUnterlagen, GdPdU) and thus the field ofXBRL assurance represent a relevant is-sue. Currently, the accuracy of XBRL re-ports (and thus, for example, the choiceof individual reporting concepts/tags) isverified using the classical submission(HTML or paper-based). Here a need canbe identified to further develop XBRLin a way to support the verification ofdigital documents in a simplified man-ner and also to enable automated testingprocedures of the relevant report, for in-stance. In the discussion, the principlesof proper accounting systems (Grund-sätze ordnungsgemäßer Buchführungssys-teme, GoBS) are often associated withthis issue. Moreover, the extent has tobe examined to which XBRL also con-tributes to the provision of long-termrevision-proof and legally-relevant infor-mation with the meaning of pervasive in-formation.
4.2.5 Taxonomy Development andTaxonomy Design
Furthermore, the progressive develop-ment in taxonomy modeling leads to achange in reporting. The reported data
236 Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
of taxonomy models are no longer con-sidered document-oriented, but are di-vided into multi-dimensional perspec-tives. Experiences from logical model-ing, especially multi-dimensional mod-eling from online analytical processing(OLAP), can then be transferred to tax-onomy design. This leads to business-intelligence-oriented research.
4.3 Future Research in Other Fields
In essence, it seems advisable to dis-cuss the concepts of information valuechain, information chain, informationsupply chain, and financial reporting sup-ply chain. The terms are often used withinthe papers. However, they are not consid-ered in a differentiated way. For example,there is a contradictory use of terms, suchas that the supply chain has the charac-teristic of a bullwhip effect (The bullwhipeffect refers to the fact that informationasymmetries in an information chain in-crease from source to destination. Theterm takes a central role in supply chainmanagement since it indicates the ne-cessity of integration and coordinationalong the supply chain; Lee et al. 1997,pp. 93 ff.) which, however, does not ex-ist in the context of XBRL. Furthermore,the concept of a value chain is to be ques-tioned, since so far only the author of areport provides data without being inter-connected with the receiver of the reportthrough the processes described. Here, itis up to discussion what can be consid-ered the subject of value creation that ismeant to result from such a value chain.In addition, this discussion supports avalue-creation-oriented control of infor-mation logistics.
5 Summary
The importance of XBRL as financial re-porting standard is increasing, and thusalso the relevance of the discussion of thisstandard. Therefore, this paper aims topresent the state of research on XBRL interms of research design, research meth-ods, and research content. To this end, lit-erature databases were searched and weidentified 57 articles from 37 journals.
The research gaps identified throughthe systematic literature review highlightthe need for discussion of future researchtopics. Especially in view of the largenumber of empirical contributions thereis a strong demand for design-orientedconcepts. It has to be clearly stated that
the approaches to an integrative use ofXBRL and the associated integration, ex-traction, and analysis of data appear es-pecially urgent. Only in this way the fullpotential of XBRL becomes available. Inthis context, also economic issues are im-portant, which, in addition to the ex-isting technical advantages, also considerthe economic viewpoint. Other future re-search topics support the use of XBRLand require further empirical studies thathelp practitioners and researchers to bet-ter understand the use of XBRL.
In particular, the discipline of BISE cantake a central role in future and mayprominently position itself on the Eu-ropean side in XBRL research next tothe U.S. subject of Accounting Informa-tion Systems. Its focus on the designand use of computer-based informationand communication systems in compa-nies and public administration is in ac-cordance with what is currently requiredin XBRL research.
References
Alles MG, Kogan A, Vasarhelyi MA (2008)Exploiting comparative advantage:a paradigm for value added researchin accounting information systems. Inter-national Journal of Accounting InformationSystems 9(4):202–215
Apostolou AK, Nanopoulos KA (2009) Inter-active financial reporting using XBRL: anoverview of the global markets and Europe.International Journal of Disclosure & Gover-nance 6(3):262–272
Baldwin AA, Brown CE, Trinkle BS (2006) XBRL:an impacts framework and research chal-lenge. Journal of Emerging Technologies inAccounting 3:97–116
Berkeley A, Donahue DF, Moyer PD, BolgianoMC (2009) XBRL reaches tipping point.Journal of Securities Operations & Custody2(2):128–133
Bonsón E, Cortijo V, Escobar T (2008) The roleof XBRL in enhanced business reporting(EBR). Journal of Emerging Technologies inAccounting 5:161–173
Bonsón E, Cortijo V, Escobar T (2009a) To-wards the global adoption of XBRL usinginternational financial reporting standards(IFRS). International Journal of AccountingInformation Systems 10(1):46–60
Bonsón E, Cortijo V, Escobar T, Flores F (2009b)Implementing XBRL successfully by man-date and voluntarily. Online 33(1):37–40
Bonsón E, Cortijo V, Escobar T, Flores F, Mon-real S (2010) Solvency II and XBRL: newrules and technologies in insurance super-vision. Journal of Financial Regulation andCompliance 18(2):144–157
Boritz JE, No WG (2004) Assurance on XMLbased information services: XARL. Cana-dian Accounting Perspective 3(2):207–233
Boritz JE, No WG (2005) Security in XML-basedfinancial reporting services on the Inter-net. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy24(1):11–35
Boritz JE, No WG (2008) The SEC’s XBRL vol-untary filing program on EDGAR: a case for
AbstractAndré Gräning, Carsten Felden,Maciej Piechocki
Status Quo and Potentialof XBRL for Businessand Information SystemsEngineering
The paper examines the current state ofresearch as regards the eXtensible Busi-ness Reporting Language (XBRL) byusing the literature review methodol-ogy. The results show that an empirical-quantitative research design is usedmost of the time. The contributionsvary in substance in terms of researchon XBRL and research with XBRL. Re-search with XBRL focuses on the de-velopment of conceptual XBRL exten-sions. Work on XBRL considers, for ex-ample, the changes in reporting as aresult of XBRL as well as the acceptanceand enforcement of financial reportingstandards. The results point to open is-sues and are relevant for research andpractice.
Keywords: XBRL, eBusiness standard,Financial reporting, Literature review
Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011 237
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
quality assurance. Current Issues in Audit-ing 2(2):36–50
Boritz JE, No WG (2009) Assurance on XBRL-related documents: the case of united tech-nologies corporation. J Inf Syst 23(2):49–78
Bovee M, Ettredge ML, Srivastava RP, Vasarhe-lyi MA (2002) Does the year 2000 XBRLtaxonomy accommodate current businessfinancial-reporting practice? J Inf Syst16(2):165–182
Bovee M, Kogan A, Nelson K, Srivastava RP,Vasarhelyi MA (2005) Financial reportingand auditing agent with net knowledge(FRAANK) and extensible business report-ing language (XBRL). J Inf Syst 19(1):19–41
Branson M (2002) Using XBRL for data report-ing. Statistical Journal of the UN EconomicCommission for Europe 19(3):201
Burnett RD, Friedman M, Murthy U (2006) Fi-nancial reports: why you need XBRL. Jour-nal of Corporate Accounting & Finance (Wi-ley) 17(5):33–40
Cho CH, Roberts RW (2010) Environmental re-porting on the Internet by America’s Toxic100: legitimacy and self-presentation. In-ternational Journal of Accounting Informa-tion Systems 11(1):1–16
Choi JP (1997) Herd behavior, the “pen-guin effect” and the suppression of in-formational diffusion: an analysis of in-formational externalities and payoff inter-dependency. RAND Journal of Economics28(3):407–425
Cohen E (2004) Compromise or customize:XBRL’s paradoxical power. CAP Forum on E-Business 3(2):187–206
Cohen E (2009) XBRL’s Global ledger frame-work: exploring the standardized missinglink to ERP integration. International Jour-nal of Disclosure & Governance 6(3):188–206
Debreceny R, Gray GL (2001) The productionand use of semantically rich accounting re-ports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. Inter-national Journal of Accounting InformationSystems 2(1):47–74
Debreceny R, Chandra A, Cheh JJ, Guithues-Amrhein D, Hannon NJ, Hutchison PD, Jan-vrin D, Jones RA, Lamberton B, Lymer A,Mascha M, Nehmer R, Roohani S, SrivastavaRP, Trabelsi S, Tribunella T, Trites G, Vasarhe-lyi MA (2005) Financial reporting in XBRLon the SEC’s EDGAR system: a critique andevaluation. J Inf Syst 19(2):191–210
Debreceny R, Felden C, Ochocki B, PiechockiM, Piechocki M (2009) XBRL for interactivedata: engineering the information valuechain. Springer, Berlin
Debreceny R, Farewell S, Piechocki M, FeldenC, Gräning A (2010) Does it add up? Earlyevidence on the data quality of XBRL fil-ings to the SEC. J Account Public Policy29(3):296–306
Deshmukh A (2004) Xbrl. Communications ofAIS 2004(13):196–219
Doolin B, Troshani I (2004) XBRL. a researchnote. Qualitative Research in Accounting &Management 1(2):93–104
Fahy M, Feller J, Finnegan P, Murphy C (2009)Co-operatively re-engineering a financialservices information supply chain: a casestudy. Canadian Journal of AdministrativeSciences (Canadian Journal of Administra-tive Sciences) 26(2):125–135
Farewell SM (2006) An Introduction to XBRLthrough the use of research and technicalassignments. J Inf Syst 20(1):161–185
Fengyi L, Sheng ORL, Wu S (2005) An in-tegrated framework for eChain bank ac-counting systems. Industrial Management& Data Systems 105(3):291–306
Fettke P (2006) State-of-the-Art des State-of-the-Art: Eine Untersuchung der For-schungsmethode “Review” innerhalb derWirtschaftsinformatik. Wirtschaftsinforma-tik 48(4):257–266
Gräning A, Kienegger H (2007) Standardisie-rung der europaweiten Berichterstattungim Rahmen der Messung der Gesamtener-gieeffizienz von Gebäuden. WIRTSCHAFTS-INFORMATIK 49(5):370–379
Granovetter M (1978) Threshold models ofcollective behavior. American Journal ofSociology 83:1420–1443
Gray GL, Miller DW (2009) XBRL: solving real-world problems. International Journal ofDisclosure & Governance 6(3):207–223
Hodge FD, Kennedy JJ, Maines LA (2004) Doessearch-facilitating technology improve thetransparency of financial reporting? Ac-counting Review 79(3):687–703
Hoffman C (2006) Financial reporting usingXBRL, IFRS and US GAAP Edition. Lulu.com
Johnson S (2008) CFOs anticipate a filingcrunch. http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/11877821?f=related. Accessed: 2009-01-10
Kernan K (2009) The story of our new lan-guage: personalities, cultures, and politicscombine to create a common, global lan-guage for business. American Institute ofCertified Public Accountants: pp 1–30
Kesselmeier B, Frank R (2009) Kapitalmarkt-kommunikation. SchlüsseltechnologieXBRL IT & Kommunikation 2:72
Kranich P Schmitz H (2003) Die extensiblebusiness reporting language. Wirtschafts-informatik 1:77–80
Lee HL, Padmanabhan V, Whang S (1997)The bullwhip effect in supply chains. SloanManagement Review 38(3):93–102
Lester WF (2007) Xbrl: the new languageof corporate financial reporting. BusinessCommunication Quarterly 70(2):226–231
Locke J, Lowe A (2007) XBRL: an (open) sourceof enlightenment or disillusion? EuropeanAccounting Review 16(3):585–623
McCann D (2010) 18,000 Tagging errors inXBRL filings so far. http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14529555?f=most_read
Mejzlik L, Istvanfyova J (2008) XBRL – the toolfor automated semantic readability of elec-tronic financial statements. InternationalJournal of Technology Transfer & Commer-cialisation 7(1):7–7
Mena Á, López F, Framiñan JM, Flores F, Gal-lego JM (2010) XPDRL project: improvingthe project documentation quality in theSpanish architectural engineering and con-struction sector. Autom Constr 19(2):270–282
Nutz A, Strauß M (2002) eXtensible busi-ness reporting language (XBRL) Konzeptund praktischer Einsatz. WIRTSCHAFTSIN-FORMATIK 44(5):447–457
Palvia P, Leary D, Mao E, Midha V, PinjaniP, Salam AF (2004) Research methodolo-gies in MIS: an update. Communicationsof the Association for Information Systems14:526–542
Piechocki M, Gräning A (2008) Standardisa-tion level of the eXtensible business report-ing language. Business Information Tech-nology 9(1):5–16
Piechocki M, Felden C, Gräning A, DebrecenyR (2009) Design and standardisation ofXBRL solutions for governance and trans-parency. International Journal of Disclosure& Governance 6(3):224–240
Pinsker R (2003) XBRL awareness in auditing:a sleeping giant? Managerial Auditing Jour-nal 18(9):732–736
Pinsker R (2004) Teaching XBRL to graduatebusiness students: a hands-on approach.
Journal of STEM Education: Innovations &Research 5(1):5–17
Pinsker R, Li S (2008) Costs and benefits ofXbrl adoption: early evidence. CommunACM 51(3):47–50
Pinsker R, Wheeler P (2009) Nonprofessionalinvestors’ perceptions of the efficiencyand effectiveness of XBRL-enabled finan-cial statement analysis and of firms provid-ing XBRL-formatted information. Interna-tional Journal of Disclosure & Governance6(3):241–261
Plumlee RD, Plumlee MA (2008) Assuranceon XBRL for financial reporting. AccountingHorizons 22(3):353–368
Premuroso RF, Bhattacharya S (2008) Do earlyand voluntary filers of financial informationin XBRL format signal superior corporategovernance and operating performance?.International Journal of Accounting Infor-mation Systems 9(1):1–20
Ramin KP, Kesselmeyer B (2007) XBRL als in-ternetbasierter Standard für die Finanzbe-richterstattung. KoR Zeitschrift für interna-tionale und kapitalmarktorientierte Rech-nungslegung 7(10):560–571
Ray S, Das S (2009) Corporate reportingframework (CRF): benchmarking tata mo-tors against AB Volvo and exploring futurechallenges decision (0304-0941). Das Deci-sion 36(1):101–129
Schuster P, O’Connell V (2006) The trend to-ward voluntary corporate disclosures. Man-agement Accounting Quarterly 7(2):1–9
SEC (2009) Final rule: interactive data toimprove financial reporting. http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9002.pdf.Accessed 2009-07-20
Spies M (2010) An ontology modelling per-spective on business reporting. Inf Syst35(4):404–416
Taylor EZ, Dzuranin AC (2010) Interactivefinancial reporting: an introduction toeXtensible business reporting language(XBRL). Issues in Accounting Education25(1):71–83
Troshani I, Doolin B (2007) Innovation dif-fusion: a stakeholder and social networkview. European Journal of Innovation Man-agement 10(2):176–200
Troshani I, Lymer A (2010) Translation in XBRLstandardization. Information Technology &People 23(2):136–164
Vasile F, Petronel AC, Georgel TC (2009)The normalization of financial data ex-change over the Internet: adopting inter-national standard Xbrl. Annals of the uni-versity of Oradea. Economic Science Series18(4):935–939
Vessey I, Ramesh V, Glass RL (2002) Researchin information systems: an empirical studyof diversity in the discipline and its jour-nals. Journal of Management InformationSystems 19(2):129–174
Wagenhofer A (2003) Economic conse-quences of Internet financial reporting.Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR)55(4):262–279
Watson LA (2009) Sorry wrong number –study finds financial results of 209 listedIndian companies don’t add up. Interna-tional Journal of Disclosure & Governance6(3):185–187
Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing thepast preparing the future: writing a litera-ture review. MIS Quarterly 26(2):xiii–xxiii
Williams SP, Scifleet PA, Hardy CA (2006)Online business reporting: an informationmanagement perspective. Int J Inf Manage26(2):91–101
238 Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011
BISE – STATE OF THE ART
Woodroof J, Searcy D (2001) Continuous au-dit: model development and implementa-tion within a debt covenant compliancedomain. International Journal of Account-ing Information Systems 2(3):169–191
Yoon H, Zo H, Ciganek AP (2011) Does XBRLadoption reduce information asymmetry?Journal of Business Research 64(2):157–163
XBRL (2008) E-Bilanz nach SteuBAG mit XBRL.http://www.xbrl.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=7.Accessed 2010-7-20
Business & Information Systems Engineering 4|2011 239
Table A-1 Classification according to research design
Research Design References
em
piric
al (2
5)
quantitative
(18)
Apostolou u. Nanopoulos (2009); Baldwin et al.
(2006); Bonsón et al. (2009b); Boritz u. No (2008);
Bovee et al. (2002); Cho u. Roberts (2010);
Debreceny et al. (2010); Debreceny et al. (2005);
Debreceny u. Gray (2001); Deshmukh A (2004);
Piechocki u. Gräning (2008); Piechocki et al. (2009);
Pinsker (2003); Pinsker u. Li (2008); Premuroso u.
Bhattacharya (2008); Wagenhofer (2003); Watson
(2009); Yoon et al. (2011)
qualitative (7) Boritz u. No (2009); Fahy et al. (2009); Gray u. Miller
(2009); Hodge et al. (2004); Pinsker u. Wheeler
(2009); Troshani u. Doolin (2007); Troshani u. Lymer
(2010)
non-e
mp
iric
al(2
1)
Design-
orientied (9)
Bonsón et al. (2008); Boritz u. No (2004); Bovee et
al. (2005); Fengyi et al. (2005); Gräning u. Kienegger
(2007); Mena et al (2010); Ray u. Das (2009); Spies
(2010); Woodroof u. Searcy (2001),
conceptual
(12)
Alles et al. (2008); Bonsón et al. (2009a); Boritz u.
No (2005); Cohen (2009); Doolin u. Troshani (2004);
Farewell (2006); Locke u. Lowe (2007); Nutz u.
Strauß (2002); Pinsker (2004); Plumlee u. Plumlee
(2008); Vasile et al. (2009); Williams et al. (2006)
others (11) Berkeley et al. (2009); Bonsón et al. (2010); Branson
(2002); Burnett et al. (2006); Cohen (2004); Kranich
u. Schmitz (2003); Lester (2007); Mejzlik u.
Istvanfyova (2008); Ramin u. Kesselmeyer (2007);
Schuster u. O'Connell (2006); Taylor u. Dzuranin
(2010)
Table A-2 Classification according to research methods
Research methods References (multiple entires possible)
Survey (3) Pinsker (2003); Pinsker u. Li (2008); Watson (2009)
Interview Debreceny et al. (2005); Gray u. Miller (2009); Troshani u. Doolin (2007); Troshani u. Lymer (2010); Williams et al. (2006)
descriptive
Methodology (16)
Apostolou u. Nanopoulos (2009); Bonsón et al. (2009b); Boritz u. No (2009); Boritz u. No (2008); Bovee et al. (2002); Cho u. Roberts (2010); Debreceny et al. (2010); Debreceny et al. (2005); Debreceny u. Gray (2001); Locke u. Lowe (2007); Piechocki et al. (2009); Piechocki u. Gräning (2008); Plumlee u. Plumlee (2008); Premuroso u. Bhattacharya (2008); Watson (2009); Yoon et al. (2011)
Experiment (2) Hodge et al. (2004); Pinsker u. Wheeler (2009)
Case Study (5) Boritz u. No (2009); Branson (2002); Fahy et al. (2009); Piechocki et al. (2009); Williams et al. (2006)
Prototyping (7) Boritz u. No (2004); Bovee et al. (2005); Fengyi et al. (2005); Gräning u. Kienegger (2007); Mena et al (2010); Spies (2009); Woodroof u. Searcy (2001)
Simulation (1) Bovee et al. (2005)
Modells and
Frameworks (7)
Alles et al. (2008); Bonsón et al. (2008); Bonsón et al. (2009a); Boritz u. No (2005); Ray u. Das (2009); Vasile et al. (2009); Woodroof u. Searcy (2001)
Literature Review or
theory based research
(9)
Baldwin et al. (2006); Debreceny et al. (2005); Farewell (2006); Gray u. Miller (2009); Locke u. Lowe (2007); Pinsker u. Wheeler (2009); Premuroso u. Bhattacharya (2008); Ray u. Das (2009); Wagenhofer (2003)
Others (15) Berkeley et al. (2009); Bonsón et al. (2010); Burnett et al. (2006); Cohen (2004); Cohen (2009); Deshmukh (2004); Doolin u. Troshani (2004); Kranich u. Schmitz (2003); Lester (2007) Mejzlik u. Istvanfyova (2008); Nutz u. Strauß (2002); Pinsker (2004); Ramin u. Kesselmeyer (2007); Schuster u. O'Connell (2006); Taylor u. Dzuranin (2010)
Table A-3 Number of Paper sorted by Scientific Journal
# Zeitschrift Anzahl
1 Accounting Horizon 1
2 Accounting Review 1
3 Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series
1
4 Automation in Construction 1
5 BIT - Business Information Technology 1
6 Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 1
7 CAP Forum on E-Business 2
8 Communications of AIS 1
9 Communications of the ACM 1
10 Current Issues in Auditing 2
11 Decision (0304-0941) 1
12 European Accounting Review 1
13 European Journal of Innovation Management 1
14 Industrial Management & Data Systems 1
15 Information Systems 1
16 Information Technology & People 1
17 International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
6
18 International Journal of Disclosure & Governance 6
19 International Journal of Information Management 1
20 International Journal of Technology Transfer & Commercialisation
1
21 Issues in Accounting Education 1
22 Journal of Accounting & Public Policy 2
23 Journal of Business Research 1
24 Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance (Wiley) 1
25 Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 2
26 Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 1
27 Journal of Information Systems 5
28 Journal of Securities Operations & Custody 1
29 Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research 1
30 Management Accounting Quarterly 1
31 Managerial Auditing Journal 1
32 Online 1
33 Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 1
34 Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR) 1
35 Statistical Journal of the UN Economic Commission for Europe
1
36 WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 3
37 Zeitschrift für internationale und kapitalmarktorientierte Rechnungslegung
1
