The Big4 Company works with XBRL in two ways: 1. For SME they do the filing. These companies often have a package for accounting. 2. Providing assurance on XBRL documents. They filed the first XBRL report for another Big4 company ever. This was an compliance statement, there was no continuous assurance involved. Current situation for SME Client does its own accounting. The trial balance is read into the accounting software. Then mapping is done on paper. Because the definition is already in the trial balance, this process is simultaneous to assembling the XBRL document. But there is no efficiency gain for the companies with this approach. GL There are pilots with XBRL GL. The problem with GL is that it takes 3-4 times more memory and processing. Cost is not a barrier, because the added value is visible. There are benefits on transaction level; checks on control measures and more complex analysis. The situation now is that XBRL starts from the trial balance, not from transaction level. The tax services are interested in replacing their XML audit files with XBRL GL. But all this is still theory, when the technique is proven, then further expansion will go fast. There are 2 projects Deloitte succeeded, but it was not efficient. In the end an instance document was created. Internal systems at the chamber of commerce and the tax services. This is still in a test stage and there were many initiated problems, mostly with the software companies. They are trying to embed as many as possible, with less as possible manual implementation and all IT. SBR history SBR is an initiative from the government with the purpose to lessen the administrative burden. There was said that it would save 750 million euro. But the real savings are not within the companies, unless XBRL GL is implemented.
auditing. But both literature as well as the people interviewed agreed that the added value of XBRL lies in the internal use. Adoption The multi domain approach in The Netherlands with the SBR program initially seemed to cause a lagging position regarding the use of XBRL. But now the benefits for harmonization and standardization are becoming visible. Current situation With the SBR program in The Netherlands with the bolt-on approach, the focus is still on the rear end of the business reporting supply chain, and XBRL is used for external reporting only. Most often this is done with a “save as” method. Future All of the interviewees independently stated that this research was conducted three years too early. They expect that when reporting in XBRL will be regulated and required by law, and when that goes smoothly, the focus of the companies will shift towards the benefits of XBRL for their internal processes. Research Limitations Because of the lack of implementation of XBRL for internal use in The Netherlands, case studies were used to fill this gap. These projects may not be representative for the situation in The Netherlands for most firms. Another limitation could be that companies already use XBRL for internal purposes, but they have not published about this. XBLR FR is for open, external communication and therefore not a competitive issue. XBRL GL is for internal use, and for the reason of operational sensitivity, it is a competitive issues and could be companies reluctant about publishing about their pilots with GL. But if this was the case, the experts interviewed for this research would have known this and could have mentioned this project, but anonymously. The people interviewed for this research are all advocates of XBRL. There was nobody interviewed that was against XBRL. This could result in conclusions that are biased. On the