ࡱ > P S E F G H I J K L M N O x bjbj44 .z V V o Y + h$ $ d Z% Z% Z% n% n% n% 8 % . n% ] F0 \ D D Z F F G G G \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ `a d V ] 9 Z% G G G G G ] Z% Z% F F L] V V V G V Z% F Z% F B ` V G \ V V 6 5m p !p F a WI n yB b] 0 ] n ` hd J hd 8 !p !p TQ hd Z% u G G V G G G G G ] ] V G G G ] G G G G hd G G G G G G G G G .# : Digital transformation of business-to-government reporting: An institutional work perspective
Indrit Troshani
University of Adelaide, Adelaide Business School
10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
Tel: +61 8 8313 5526
E-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:indrit.troshani@adelaide.edu.au" indrit.troshani@adelaide.edu.au
Marijn Janssen
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Technology Policy and Management
Jaffalaan 5, NL-2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31152781140
E-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:m.f.w.h.a.janssen@tudelft.nl" m.f.w.h.a.janssen@tudelft.nl
Andy Lymer
University of Birmingham, Birmingham Business School
University House, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
Tel.: HYPERLINK "tel:+44%20%20121%20414%206677" +44 (0) 121 414 6677
E-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:a.lymer@bham.ac.uk" a.lymer@bham.ac.uk
Lee D Parker
RMIT University, School of Accounting
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Tel.:+ 61 3 99255542
E-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:lee.parker@rmit.edu.au" lee.parker@rmit.edu.au
Digital transformation of business-to-government reporting: An institutional work perspective
Abstract
Traditional business-to-government reporting is a core remit of the accounting function but is associated with a significant administrative burden on business. This burden is a major obstacle hindering business efforts to achieve core efficiency and innovation objectives. We use the conceptual lens of institutional work to examine how traditional business-to-government reporting is abolished and how digital reporting is established to replace it in attempts to reduce administrative burden but without compromising regulation effectiveness. We adopt a comparative approach to analyse qualitative evidence from three jurisdictions, namely, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Australia. Regulators across these jurisdictions have been both pioneers and leaders internationally to transform business-to-government reporting in multi-agency settings. Our analyses illustrate how institutional work to develop digital business-to-government reporting across the jurisdictions was shaped by international influences and local factors. We also illuminate how actor engagement issues and the intertwined and mutually reinforcing nature of a mosaic of forms of institutional work shaped the path of these transformations. The study contributes to existing research by explaining how supportive conditions and structures are brought about and made to coalesce in the regulatory business reporting space for digital reporting to become established and widely adopted by business.
Keywords: institutional work, administrative burden, digital reporting, XBRL.
JEL: O33, O38
Introduction
Traditional business-to-government reporting has been widely criticised in many countries around the world for being inefficient, complex and often duplicated ADDIN EN.CITE Chen20122501(Bozanic, Dirsmith & Huddart, 2012; Chen, 2012)2501250117Chen, Y. C.A comparative study of e-government XBRL implementations: The potential of improving information transparency and efficiencyGovernment Information Quarterly553-5632942012Bozanic201231923192319217Bozanic, Z.Dirsmith, M. W.Huddart, S.The social constitution of regulation: The endogenization of insider trading lawsAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society461-4813772012(Bozanic, Dirsmith & Huddart, 2012; Chen, 2012). It has resulted in a significant administrative burden on business, a major barrier hindering achievement of core business objectives. In response, many regulators around the world have undertaken efforts to transform reporting to government to reduce administrative burdens on business. Key benefits expected from this transformation are to help business focus on core activity, to improve innovation and efficiency, and to enhance competitiveness and well-being in the broader society ADDIN EN.CITE Bharosa20153075(Arnold et al., 2011; Bharosa et al., 2015)307530756Bharosa, N.Van Wijk, R.De Winne, N.Janssen, M.Challenging the Chain: Governing the Automated Exchange and Processing of Business Information2015DelftLogius & Thauris, Delft University of TechnologyArnold201133883388338817Arnold, V.Benford, T.Canada, J.Sutton, S. G.The role of strategic enterprise risk management and organizational flexibility in easing new regulatory complianceInternational Journal of Accounting Information SystemsInternational Journal of Accounting Information Systems171-1881232011(Arnold et al., 2011; Bharosa et al., 2015).
In this study, we focus on the work that is carried out by regulators and other actors to achieve this transformation. This undertaking is challenging: it includes abolishing traditional forms of business-to-government reporting and establishing new forms of reporting that will effectively reduce administrative burden on business but without compromising regulation effectiveness.
The study addresses the research questions of how traditional business-to-government reporting is abolished and how a new form of reporting is established to replace it. The answer to these questions contributes to existing research by illuminating the nature of the efforts that are undertaken to create new forms of reporting to government, including how and why these efforts are undertaken and by whom. This helps explain how supportive conditions emerge and are made to coalesce in the regulatory business reporting arena for a new form of reporting to become established and widely adopted by business ADDIN EN.CITE Bozanic20123192(Bozanic, Dirsmith & Huddart, 2012)3192319217Bozanic, Z.Dirsmith, M. W.Huddart, S.The social constitution of regulation: The endogenization of insider trading lawsAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society461-4813772012(Bozanic, Dirsmith & Huddart, 2012).
For the purposes of the study, we conceptualise business-to-government reporting as an institution. According to Jepperson (1991) an institution is an organized, established procedure (p.143), a stable design for chronically repeated activity sequences (p.145). Institutions support the reproduction of a practice while also restricting what actors can and cannot do as they interact. This conceptualisation is justified because business-to-government reporting is a well-defined and standardised practice that governs patterns of interaction (and associated predictable outcomes) between business and government.
Business-to-government reporting is underpinned by regulation, the legal instruments including rules and laws (e.g., tax legislation) designed by an authority to control conduct in an industry or broader society ADDIN EN.CITE Bozanic20123192(Arnold et al., 2011; Bozanic, Dirsmith & Huddart, 2012)3192319217Bozanic, Z.Dirsmith, M. W.Huddart, S.The social constitution of regulation: The endogenization of insider trading lawsAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society461-4813772012Arnold201133883388338817Arnold, V.Benford, T.Canada, J.Sutton, S. G.The role of strategic enterprise risk management and organizational flexibility in easing new regulatory complianceInternational Journal of Accounting Information SystemsInternational Journal of Accounting Information Systems171-1881232011(Arnold et al., 2011; Bozanic, Dirsmith & Huddart, 2012). However, as businesses comply with regulation they incur costs. A significant portion of these costs is called administrative burden: the costs of complying with information obligations stemming from government regulation ADDIN EN.CITE OECD2007a3156(OECD, 2007a)315631566OECDCutting red tape: Comparing administrative burdens across countries. Available: http://www.paca-online.org/cop/docs/OECD_Cutting_Red_Tape_Comparing_Administrative_Burdens_across_Countries.pdf. Accessed March 10th, 20172007aParisOrganisation for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD)(OECD, 2007a, p.27). Information obligations include the systematic preparation and filing of information in government reports ADDIN EN.CITE de Winne20112498(de Winne et al., 2011)2498249817de Winne, N.Janssen, M.Bharosa, N.van Wijk, R.Hulstijn, J.Transforming Public-Private Networks: An XBRL-based Infrastructure for transforming Business-to-Government Information ExchangeInternational Journal of E-government Research35-45742011(de Winne et al., 2011). Businesses that decline to fulfil information obligations face sanctions ADDIN EN.CITE SCMN20033158(SCMN, 2003)315831586SCMNInternational Standard Cost Model Manual: Measuring and reducing administrative burdens for businesses. Available: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/34227698.pdf. Accessed March 10th, 20172003The HagueMinistry of Finance, Netherlands(SCMN, 2003). There is broad agreement that reporting to government imposes a significant administrative burden on business ADDIN EN.CITE Bharosa20153075(Bharosa et al., 2015)307530756Bharosa, N.Van Wijk, R.De Winne, N.Janssen, M.Challenging the Chain: Governing the Automated Exchange and Processing of Business Information2015DelftLogius & Thauris, Delft University of Technology(Bharosa et al., 2015).
We examine the transformation of reporting to government to reduce administrative burden on business. We adopt the conceptual lens of institutional work. Institutional work focuses on how an institution becomes a product of human action ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20092623(Hopper & Major, 2007; Lawrence, Suddaby & Leca, 2009)262326235Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Leca, B.Lawrence, T.Suddaby, R.Leca, B.Introduction: theorizing and studying institutional workInstitutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations1-272009CambridgeCambridge University PressHopper200726132613261317Hopper, T.Major, M.Extending institutional analysis through theoretical triangulation: regulation and activity-based costing in Portugese telecommunicationsEuropean Accounting ReviewEuropean Accounting Review59-971612007(Hopper & Major, 2007; Lawrence, Suddaby & Leca, 2009). Institutional work perspective can help conceptualise transformation of reporting to government as work that is carried out by actors aiming at removing an established institution, i.e., traditional reporting associated with high administrative burden, and establishing a new form of reporting that is based on different principles aiming at reducing the burden.
The new form of reporting is called digital reporting which is being implemented around the world by using XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) as key technology. XBRL is based on principles that are radically different to those powering traditional reporting. Although often presented in electronic formats (e.g., PDF), traditional reporting remains fundamentally paper-based, a key reason underpinning inefficiency, complexity, and duplication problems. XBRL facilitates structuring of information in digital reports which helps address these problems ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Alles & Piechocki, 2012; Doolin & Troshani, 2004; O'Riain, Curry & Harth, 2012; Troshani, Parker & Lymer, 2015).
Our specific focus is on the actual filing mechanism of business reports to government. We examine the transformation work and outcomes associated with the changing of technologies businesses have used to file government reports but which preserve the paper-based nature of traditional reports (e.g., PDF) to digital reporting technology that is enabled by XBRL. Whilst the content of the digital reports (determined by regulation and accounting standards) is retained in the transformation, digital business reporting has significant implications concerning the rationalisation of the ways in which business information obligations are captured and used for compliance assessment across wider government.
Examining institutional work that drives transformation from one institution to another enables unpicking interstitial elements. It directs focus on the gap between traditional reporting, i.e., the institution that dictates how business report to government, and action, that which actors are doing to challenge and abolish it and create digital reporting as a new institution. This setting is useful for closely looking at the relationship between institutions and action (structure and agency), and to better understand why and how actors are working to transform reporting to government and how their actions lead to both intended and unintended consequences ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20133193(Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013; Suddaby, Saxton & Gunz, 2015)3193319317Lawrence, T. B.Leca, B.Zilber, T. B.Institutional work: current research, new directions and overlooked issuesOrganization StudiesOrganization Studies1023-10333482013Suddaby201531983198319817Suddaby, R.Saxton, G. D.Gunz, S.Twittering change: the institutional work of domain change in accounting expertiseAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society52-684512015(Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013; Suddaby, Saxton & Gunz, 2015).
We contribute to the wider institutional research in several ways. First, we provide extensive empirical evidence based on qualitative data sourced from face-to-face interviews and documentary evidence from across three jurisdictions: Netherlands, United Kingdom (UK) and Australia. We focus specifically on these countries because of action they have undertaken aimed at reducing administrative burden as priority in their regulatory reform and policy agendas. In this process, these countries have often followed each others lead. Examining them simultaneously thus improves understanding of commonalities and differences in institutional work and the manner in which they influenced each other to generate similar and often different outcomes. Importantly, focusing on these countries side-by-side offers insight that would otherwise be difficult to provide, had they been examined separately. Furthermore, these countries are highly regarded internationally to have built up exemplary institutional capacity for transforming business-to-government reporting as wider multi-agency projects ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Katsoulacos, Makri & Bageri, 2011; OECD, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). Thus, our examination in these settings presents an ideal opportunity to better understand issues that emerge in multi-agency projects and the manner in which a multi-agency scope strengthens (or threatens) their success.
Second, our examination helps trace the specific types of institutional work alongside the institutional changes that occurred as a result. This adds to the literature by providing a nuanced understanding of the reflexive relationship between forms of institutional work (action), and resulting patterns of institutional change (structure), that is specific to business-to-government reporting. Managing and delivering business reporting (of financial and non-financial information) to regulators (or other actors) constitutes a core remit of the accounting function. There are ongoing calls for further research that improves understanding of the relationship between agency and structure in different domains ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Canning & O'Dwyer, 2016; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Suddaby, Saxton & Gunz, 2015).
Third, existing research has predominantly focused on institutional work aimed at creating and maintaining new institutions (see e.g., ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA Canning & O'Dwyer, 2016; Chiwamit, Modell & Yang, 2014; Kettunen, 2017), featuring incidental references to work that disrupts institutions (see e.g., ADDIN EN.CITE Hayne20142627(Hayne & Free, 2014)2627262717Hayne, C.Free, C.Hybridized professional groups and institutional work: COSO and the rise of enterprise risk managementAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society3093303952014Hayne & Free, 2014). This research has generally ignored institutional work forming alternative paths of institution building ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Granlund, 2011; Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence, Suddaby & Leca, 2011). Our evidence illuminates a path to institution building whereby actors purposively engaged in work that at first disrupted an existing institution, followed by work to create and maintain a new institution in its place ADDIN EN.CITE Jepperson19911171(Jepperson, 1991)117111715Jepperson, R. L.Powell, W. W.DiMaggio, P. J.Institutions, institutional effects and institutionalismThe New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis143-1631991ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press(Jepperson, 1991). This path is consistent with practice where new institutions supersede old institutions, but remains nevertheless under-researched.
This paper is structured as follows. First we discuss the theoretical underpinning of the study, followed by an overview of related research including XBRL, a key digital reporting technology. Thereafter, data collection and analysis considerations are explained before results are analysed and discussed. The paper is concluded with a discussion of the contribution, limitations and future research.
Theoretical underpinning
We examine our evidence by using the conceptual lens of institutional work ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20061189(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). We adapt Lawrence & Suddabys (2006) institutional work definition as the purposive action of individuals and organizations (p. 215) that aims at disrupting an old institution, and creating a new one with which to replace the old ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20092623(Lawrence, Suddaby & Leca, 2009)262326235Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Leca, B.Lawrence, T.Suddaby, R.Leca, B.Introduction: theorizing and studying institutional workInstitutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations1-272009CambridgeCambridge University Press(Lawrence, Suddaby & Leca, 2009).
Action is characterised as purposive, intelligent and situated while actors that undertake it are characterised as reflexive, goal-oriented and capable ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20133193(Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013)3193319317Lawrence, T. B.Leca, B.Zilber, T. B.Institutional work: current research, new directions and overlooked issuesOrganization StudiesOrganization Studies1023-10333482013(Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013), p.1024). Institutional work focuses on the internal life a process and the world inside it, rather than on the process itself as a sequence of activities ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20061189(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). Institutional work examines the creative and knowledgeable work of actors which may or may not achieve its desired end and which interacts with existing social and technological structures in unintended and unexpected ways (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 219).
The need for disrupting an institution often emerges when contradictions develop between an institution and the organisational field, the broader terrain where an institution operates ADDIN EN.CITE Jepperson19911171(Jepperson, 1991)117111715Jepperson, R. L.Powell, W. W.DiMaggio, P. J.Institutions, institutional effects and institutionalismThe New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis143-1631991ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press(Jepperson, 1991). Contradictions occur when the interests of certain actors, who also operate in the organisational field, are not served by an institution as expected. These actors will often engage in action that challenges, undermines and even rejects both the institution and its rationale ADDIN EN.CITE Oliver19923113(Oliver, 1992)3113311317Oliver, C.The antecedents of deinstitutionalizationOrganization StudiesOrganization Studies563-5881341992(Oliver, 1992). Oliver (1992) describes disruption work as a direct assault on the validity of a long standing tradition or established activity [existing institutions] (p. 567) that aims at tearing them down or rendering them ineffectual ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20061189(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 217).
Disruption work can take many forms. Actors often attempt to disconnect the rewards (sanctions) that are associated with compliance (non-compliance) from specific institutions. In other forms, disruption work disassociates an institution from its moral or normative foundations in a specific context. Disruption work can also undermine key assumptions and beliefs in the organisational field that complying (or not) with an institution is associated with benefits (costs) ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20061189(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).
Creation work establishes a new institution, the new rules which, when repeatedly activated, enable the reproduction of patterns of behaviour by actors ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20061189(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). Creation work establishes rewards (sanctions) ensuring enforcement of the new rules. Rewards and sanctions incentivise actors to comply with institutions and counteract non-compliance ADDIN EN.CITE Jepperson19911171(Jepperson, 1991)117111715Jepperson, R. L.Powell, W. W.DiMaggio, P. J.Institutions, institutional effects and institutionalismThe New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis143-1631991ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press(Jepperson, 1991). Creation work can also take many forms. Actors can engage in overt or covert political work attempting to reconstruct rules that govern how actors operate in the organisational field (e.g., rules that determine how certain resources can be accessed or how rights to resource ownership are conferred). Creation work can also attempt to reconfigure belief or normative systems (e.g., redefining identities or normative associations among actors) or altering meaning systems (e.g., concepts). Creation work is generally strengthened by maintaining work which aims at supporting, repairing or recreating the social mechanisms that insure compliance (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 230). Maintaining work can take many forms, including enabling work that facilitates, supports and supplements institutions and embedding and routinizing work which attempts to infuse institutions into actors daily routines and practices ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20061189(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).
Prior research
Institutional work in parallels earlier efforts of institutional scholars to investigate the interplay between agency and structure (see e.g., ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA Burns & Scapens, 2000; Dillard, Rigsby & Goodman, 2004; Guerreiro, Rodrigues & Craig, 2014; Modell, 2014; ADDIN EN.CITE Boulianne20093391(Boulianne & Cho, 2009)3391339117Boulianne, E.Cho, C. H.The rise and fall of WebTrustInternational Journal of Accounting Information SystemsInternational Journal of Accounting Information Systems229-2441042009 Boulianne & Cho, 2009). Institutional work, however, extends traditional institutional research by providing specific fine-grained analytical tools that specifically examine the various types of work (agency) that can be used to shape institutions (structure) ADDIN EN.CITE Chiwamit20142614(Chiwamit, Modell & Yang, 2014; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)2614261417Chiwamit, P.Modell, S.Yang, C. L.The societal relevance of management accounting innovations: economic value added and institutional work in the fields of Chinese and Thai state-owned enterprisesAccounting and Business ResearchAccounting and Business Research144-1804422014Lawrence20061189118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Chiwamit, Modell & Yang, 2014; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).
Although relatively new, institutional work has begun influencing the focus of institutional research ADDIN EN.CITE Goretzki20133213(Goretzki, Strauss & Weber, 2013)3213321317Goretzki, L.Strauss, E.Weber, J.An institutional perspective on the changes in management accountants' professional roleManagement Accounting ResearchManagement Accounting Research41-632412013(Goretzki, Strauss & Weber, 2013). For example, institutional work has been adopted as analytical lens to examine the relationship between agency and structure in relation to the creation of some accounting institutions including Economic Value Added (EVA) ADDIN EN.CITE Chiwamit20142614(Chiwamit, Modell & Yang, 2014)2614261417Chiwamit, P.Modell, S.Yang, C. L.The societal relevance of management accounting innovations: economic value added and institutional work in the fields of Chinese and Thai state-owned enterprisesAccounting and Business ResearchAccounting and Business Research144-1804422014(Chiwamit, Modell & Yang, 2014), the Committee of Sponsoring Organisations (COSO) Enterprise Risk ManagementIntegrated Framework (ERMIF) ADDIN EN.CITE Hayne20142627(Hayne & Free, 2014)2627262717Hayne, C.Free, C.Hybridized professional groups and institutional work: COSO and the rise of enterprise risk managementAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society3093303952014(Hayne & Free, 2014), domain change in accounting expertise ADDIN EN.CITE Suddaby20153198(Suddaby, Saxton & Gunz, 2015)3198319817Suddaby, R.Saxton, G. D.Gunz, S.Twittering change: the institutional work of domain change in accounting expertiseAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society52-684512015(Suddaby, Saxton & Gunz, 2015), regulatory change in the accounting profession ADDIN EN.CITE Canning20163195(Canning & O'Dwyer, 2016)3195319517Canning, M.O'Dwyer, B.Institutional work and regulatory change in the accounting professionAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society1-215412016(Canning & O'Dwyer, 2016), and interlingual translation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) ADDIN EN.CITE Kettunen20173199(Kettunen, 2017)3199319917Kettunen, J.Interlingual translation of the International Financial Reporting Standards as institutional workAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society38545612017(Kettunen, 2017).
These studies constitute some key contributions spanning different accounting domains. However, institutional work is an umbrella concept and a rallying point ADDIN EN.CITE Hwang20113194(Hwang & Colyvas, 2011)3194319417Hwang, H.Colyvas, J. A.Problematizing actors and institutions in institutional workJournal of Management InquiryJournal of Management Inquiry62-662012011(Hwang & Colyvas, 2011, p.62) that has yet to form into a coherent framework ADDIN EN.CITE Hayne20142627(Hayne & Free, 2014)2627262717Hayne, C.Free, C.Hybridized professional groups and institutional work: COSO and the rise of enterprise risk managementAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society3093303952014(Hayne & Free, 2014). New opportunities in other domains must be sought that describe and explain the nature of institutional work that is carried out to shape institutions ADDIN EN.CITE Hayne20142627(Hayne & Free, 2014; Suddaby, Saxton & Gunz, 2015)2627262717Hayne, C.Free, C.Hybridized professional groups and institutional work: COSO and the rise of enterprise risk managementAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society3093303952014Suddaby201531983198319817Suddaby, R.Saxton, G. D.Gunz, S.Twittering change: the institutional work of domain change in accounting expertiseAccounting, Organizations and SocietyAccounting, Organizations and Society52-684512015(Hayne & Free, 2014; Suddaby, Saxton & Gunz, 2015). We argue that business-to-government reporting is an important accounting domain where institutional work has become instrumental to regulators (and others) to achieve transformations aiming to reduce administrative burden on business.
The actors that populate the field of business-to-government reporting are different and the manner in which they engage or become engaged in institutional work varies since it is often driven by different motivations. Consequently, the manner in which these actors affect a particular outcome or are affected by it is also likely to vary. By focusing on action itself, an institutional work perspective can direct attention to the relational and interactive moments of institutional disruption, creation and maintenance, thereby enabling us to better understand the broader patterns of the actors motivation, intent, capacity and effort that effect institutional change ADDIN EN.CITE Hwang20113194(Hwang & Colyvas, 2011)3194319417Hwang, H.Colyvas, J. A.Problematizing actors and institutions in institutional workJournal of Management InquiryJournal of Management Inquiry62-662012011(Hwang & Colyvas, 2011).
To illustrate, the field of business-to-government reporting is densely populated by many different actors including business and intermediaries (e.g., accountants, financial advisors, bookkeepers, tax agents, payroll professionals). Intermediaries often assist business to fulfil their information obligations. Business and intermediaries are collectively referred to as preparers since they prepare and file business reports to regulators. Regulators process business reports to fulfil their regulatory functions (e.g., compliance assessment including tax revenue collection). Other relevant actors operating in the field include professional accounting bodies or industry associations which represent the interests of various business groups, and software developers who provide software applications that facilitate reporting interactions between business and regulators.
This organisational field includes organisations and bodies that have created and maintain technologies for powering software applications. For example, XBRL, a digital data standard for codifying business reporting data, was formally developed by XBRL International Inc. (XII), an international consortium that coordinates the efforts in local jurisdictions based on countries or internationally recognised business reporting regimes ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Alles & Piechocki, 2012; Locke & Lowe, 2007; Srivastava & Kogan, 2010). Local XBRL consortia of Netherlands, UK, and Australia are XBRL Netherlands, XBRL UK, and XBRL Australia, respectively, all XII members. These consortia have attempted to promote XBRL within their jurisdictions ADDIN EN.CITE Troshani20101262(Troshani & Lymer, 2010)1262126217Troshani, I.Lymer, A.Translation in XBRL standardizationInformation Technology & PeopleInformation Technology & People136-1642322010(Troshani & Lymer, 2010).
XBRL is a digital reporting technology that uses tagging to associate contextual information with data points in business reports. XBRL structures reports in ways that allow computer-based processes to automatically process financial data at a granular level ADDIN EN.CITE Turner2005354(Turner, 2005)35435412Turner, J.XBRL Specification and Guidance Stack (SGS) 1.0. Public Working Draft of 2005-05-17200815 December 2005XBRL International Inc. (XII)http://www.xbrl.org/technical/SGS-PWD-2005-05-17.htm(Turner, 2005). Digital reporting with XBRL is different to traditional reporting which relies on paper-based or electronic formats (e.g., PDF) that can only be read by humans but which require extensive, inefficient and error-prone manual intervention when further processing is needed ADDIN EN.CITE Guilloux20132562(Guilloux, Locke & Lowe, 2013)2562256217Guilloux, V.Locke, J.Lowe, A.Digital business reporting standards: mapping the battle in FranceEuropean Journal of Information SystemsEuropean Journal of Information Systems257-2772232013(Guilloux, Locke & Lowe, 2013; Locke, Rowbottom & Troshani, 2018). A key implication is that digital reports in XBRL format can be automatically exchanged and processed by disparate computer platforms and accounting applications. For example, accounting applications used by preparers and regulators can automatically and intelligently recognise specific tagged data in digital reports and extract required data without manual intervention. Another implication is that digital reports can also be rendered to formats that are suitable for human users (e.g., PDF) ADDIN EN.CITE Troshani20152748(Troshani, Parker & Lymer, 2015)2748274817Troshani, I.Parker, L. D.Lymer, A.Institutionalising XBRL for financial reporting: resorting to regulationAccounting and Business ResearchAccounting and Business Research196-2284522015(Troshani, Parker & Lymer, 2015).
XBRL tags are based on accounting standards and regulatory reporting regimes, often set by national and international standard-setters and defined in XBRL taxonomies. A taxonomy is a data dictionary that defines XBRL tags and maps them to accounting concepts while also defining their relationships and processing rules ADDIN EN.CITE Doolin200483(Doolin & Troshani, 2004)838317Doolin, B.Troshani, I.XBRL: A Research NoteQualitative Research in Accounting & ManagementQualitative Research in Accounting & Management93-104122004(Doolin & Troshani, 2004). XBRL taxonomies are developed on a jurisdictional basis. So the taxonomy of a jurisdiction reflects both its accounting standards and GAAP. To facilitate digital reporting between preparers and regulators, XBRL taxonomies need to be used with accounting applications that must be enabled with additional functionality to process digital reports ADDIN EN.CITE Turner2005354(Turner, 2005)35435412Turner, J.XBRL Specification and Guidance Stack (SGS) 1.0. Public Working Draft of 2005-05-17200815 December 2005XBRL International Inc. (XII)http://www.xbrl.org/technical/SGS-PWD-2005-05-17.htm(Turner, 2005).
Whilst existing research is available that has examined the adoption of XBRL in various jurisdictions (see e.g., ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA Abdolmohammadi et al., 2017; Doolin & Troshani, 2007; Henderson, Sheetz & Trinkle, 2012; Premuroso & Bhattacharya, 2008; Shan & Troshani, 2014, 2016, Shan, Troshani & Richardson, 2015; Troshani & Lymer, 2010; Valentinetti & Rea, 2012; Troshani & Doolin, 2007; Troshani & Rao, 2007), this research treats XBRL as a given technology, while the actors that use it are treated as rational decision makers who are driven by economic and efficiency objectives. Notable exceptions to this research are the works of Troshani et al., (2015), Troshani & Lymer (2011), and Guilloux et al., (2013) which examine XBRL institutionalisation as process. However, these studies focus on XBRL itself and tend to overlook the broader institutional work that is carried out in the organisational field. By focusing on institutional work, this paper extends existing research by elaborating how a wide range of conducive conditions are brought about and how suitable supporting structures have become materialised for the embedding of XBRL into a broader digital business-to-government reporting institution after abolishing traditional filing mechanisms.
Data collection and analysis
In this study, actor interpretations concerning the transformation of business-to-government reporting were captured using a qualitative approach. Data were collected by interviewing relevant informants and reviewing supporting documentation pertaining to Netherlands, UK and Australia. The key reason for selecting these countries is that they were key pioneers and internationally recognised exemplars in business-to-government reporting transformation in multi-agency settings ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (OECD, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c).
Australia is a federal coordinated state, whereas the Netherlands is a unitary, but decentralised state. The UK is a unitary centralised state where a single party has been dominant for more than ten years, although typically considered to be a two-party system. In Australia and the UK, decision-making is driven by the majority, whereas in the Netherlands the dominating mechanisms are consensus-based where negotiations among parties take place and all parties have to agree to some extent before subjecting decisions to voting. This can hamper swift progress, but once decisions are made they benefit from being widely accepted which is not always easy to achieve in the other two jurisdictions ADDIN EN.CITE Pollitt20112004(Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011)200420046Pollitt, C.Bouckaert, G.Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis New Public Management, Governance, and the NeoWeberian State2011New YorkOxford University Press(Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). The consensual approach in the Netherlands results in many consultative and advisory councils which are involved in relatively open processes.
Interviews were used because of their flexibility ADDIN EN.CITE Myers20071142(Myers & Newman, 2007)1142114217Myers, M.D.Newman, M.The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craftInformation and OrganizationInformation and Organization2-261712007(Myers & Newman, 2007). Interviews provide rich insights for exploring, identifying and understanding viewpoints, attitudes, and influences ADDIN EN.CITE Myers20071142(Myers & Newman, 2007)1142114217Myers, M.D.Newman, M.The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craftInformation and OrganizationInformation and Organization2-261712007(Myers & Newman, 2007). Moreover, they also allow greater control over the interview situation (e.g., sequencing of questions) while providing opportunities for clarification and collecting supplementary information ADDIN EN.CITE Myers20071142(Myers & Newman, 2007)1142114217Myers, M.D.Newman, M.The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craftInformation and OrganizationInformation and Organization2-261712007(Myers & Newman, 2007). In the Netherlands, the interviews took place between January 2008 and August 2016 lasting between 45-90 minutes. The UK interviews took place between September 2008 and April 2015 and ranged between 43-80 minutes. The Australian interviews were conducted between April 2008 and January 2014 and ranged between 37-116 minutes. All interviews were transcribed. The interview periods for each country were deliberately selected as key decisions and developments took place during the selected periods in each country in relation to the justification and formative development for digital reporting to government. Additional data were sourced from technical reports, relevant websites, industry, professional and government publications across jurisdictions to both capture XBRL developments beyond the selected interview periods and also to triangulate interview evidence.
Interviewees were informants who primarily held managerial roles in various organisations that were participating in the transformation of business-to-government reporting. The roles of the interviewees included: managers; heads of accounting, auditing, data assurance and ICT departments; directors of industry associations; software developers and chief executive officers of software development organisations; strategy and policy managers in government departments. The interviewees were identified using theoretical and snowball sampling to ensure representation of key actors. To maintain anonymity, only the categories of interviewees organisations have been identified in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Interviewees
Actor categoryNumber of organisations/number of intervieweesAustralia
(AU)Netherlands
(NL)United Kingdom
(UK)Large accounting firms (LAF)3/33/54/4Professional accounting bodies/ industry associations (PAB/IA)3/32/22/4Regulatory agencies (RA)7/134/63/5Local XBRL consortium (LXC)1/41/31/2Software developers/vendors (SD/V)6/74/65/5Total20/3014/2215/20Interviewee Key: CountryIdentifier_OrganisationCategory_OrganisationNumber_#IntervieweeNumber
Example(s): AU_LAF_1_#1 refers to Interviewee #1 of Large accounting firm 1 in Australia;
NL_LXC_1_#2 refers to Interviewee #2 of Local XBRL consortium in the Netherlands;
UK_SD/V_4_#2 refers to Interviewee number #2 of Software developer/vendor 4 in the United Kingdom.
A summary of the study objectives and open-ended semi-structured questions was provided to interviewees, giving them time to prepare while also allowing them maximum freedom when considering their viewpoints. Questions concerned issues such as: organisational roles, interests and objectives of involvement in business-to-government reporting transformation, the role of professional and industry associations and regulators, and XBRL development and adoption issues (see Appendix).
We used our selected theoretical underpinning as a basis for data collection and thematic analysis. That is, theory was used to frame themes drawn from the data for analysis. Data collection and analysis proceeded hand-in-hand; analysis commenced immediately and progressed as data became available and while collection continued. Data collection and analysis thus informed and guided each other while converging on themes ADDIN EN.CITE Myers20071142(Myers & Newman, 2007)1142114217Myers, M.D.Newman, M.The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craftInformation and OrganizationInformation and Organization2-261712007(Myers & Newman, 2007). Rich and diverse textual data collected were analysed on an interpretative basis. Themes were incrementally developed by the condensing, clustering and conceptual grouping of identified categories. To elicit meaning and interpretations, data were read multiple times to carefully target higher-order generalisations, shifting frequently between the general and the specific, and in the process, comparing, contrasting, analysing relations, and triangulating identified patterns of themes against alternative data sources. In the process, the structure and analysis of findings were amended until a thorough and coherent understanding of the phenomena represented in the data was assembled and developed based on a logical chain of evidence ADDIN EN.CITE Yin20091753(Yin, 2009)175317536Yin, R. K.Case Study Research: Design and Methods2009Beverley HillsSage Publications(Yin, 2009).
Findings and analysis
In this section we discuss the key forms of institutional work observed across the selected jurisdictions. Broadly, the discussion focuses on forms of disrupting, creating, and maintaining work to abolish traditional business-to-government reporting and replace it with digital reporting ADDIN EN.CITE Lawrence20061189(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)118911895Lawrence, T. B.Suddaby, R.Clegg, S. R.Hardy, C.Lawrence, T. B.Walter, R. N.Institutions and institutional workSage Handbook of Organizational Studies215-2542nd2006LondonSage(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). We compare our findings in order to highlight cross-jurisdiction similarities and differences. Our choice of presenting the observed forms of institutional work linearly is broadly driven by historical and presentation considerations, although in practice we find that institutional work occurs in an interwoven and fluid manner.
5.1. Disrupting traditional regulation and advocacy for better regulation
Whilst regulation is considered to be important in the Netherlands, UK and Australia, making business comply with excessive regulation was widely considered by regulators as harmful. A key implication of excessive regulation is high administrative burden on business which threatens competitiveness, productivity and innovation across the jurisdictions ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (DTI, 1985; Hilmer, Rayner & Taperell, 1993; OECD, 2010b). While these jurisdictions suffered from excessive regulation, the conditions contributing to excessive regulation were different between them.
Being part of the European Union (EU), there is an obligation for the Netherlands and UK to incorporate EU regulation into their national law. For example, approximately 50 percent of new Dutch and British regulation originate from the EU ADDIN EN.CITE BRTF20053152(BRTF, 2005; Katsoulacos, Makri & Bageri, 2011)315231526BRTFRegulation - Less is More: Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes. A BRTF report to the Prime Minister. Available: http://www.regulation.org.uk/library/2005_less_is_more.pdf. Accessed March 8th, 20172005LondonBetter Regulation Task Force (BRTF)Katsoulacos20113141314131416Katsoulacos, Y.Makri, G.Bageri, V.Regulatory Burden, Competition and Growth: A Report Funded by the Bank of Greece. Available: http://www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/Regulatory_Burden_Competition_and_Growth.pdf. Accessed March 2nd, 20172011AthensBank of Greece(BRTF, 2005; Katsoulacos, Makri & Bageri, 2011). Such an obligation had further implications in the UK where gold-plating was often used, a practice whereby EU regulation was extended by the UK Government beyond the original minimum requirements before being incorporated into UK national regulation. Whilst the aim of gold-plating was to tailor EU regulation to specific UK conditions, a key implication was that it increased the compliance burden on UK business.
The Netherlands is also characterised by a unique regulation-setting culture. Dutch governments are typically structured as coalitions of many political parties while political culture features a strong orientation toward common interests ADDIN EN.CITE OECD19993142(OECD, 1999)314231426OECDRegulatory Reform in the Netherlands: Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation. Available: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2507037.pdf. Accessed March 2nd, 20171999ParisOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(OECD, 1999). A key implication is that regulation was often outcome of cartel arrangements and a style of decision-making strongly driven by consensus-seeking processes. These processes often led to regulation that was satisfactory to all parties involved in regulation-setting but that was often difficult to implement in practice ADDIN EN.CITE OECD19993142(OECD, 1999)314231426OECDRegulatory Reform in the Netherlands: Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation. Available: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2507037.pdf. Accessed March 2nd, 20171999ParisOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(OECD, 1999).
Unlike the Netherlands and UK, Australia is a federation of six states and two territories that represent different jurisdictions within Australia. These jurisdictions are administered by their own governments and have different characteristics including size, industry composition and regulatory frameworks ADDIN EN.CITE PC2008a3164(PC, 2008a)316431646PCPerformance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Quantity and Quality. Productivity Commission Research Report. November 2008. Available: http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/regulation-benchmarking-stage2/quantity-quality-report/quantity-quality.pdf. Accessed March 16th, 20172008aMelbourneProductivity Commission Australian Government(PC, 2008a). An implication is that Australian regulation is made at many jurisdictions, i.e., at federal, state and territory levels. Although regulation in each jurisdiction aims to capture specific needs, there are often duplications and inconsistencies across states and territories ADDIN EN.CITE OECD2010c3157(OECD, 2010c)315731576OECDGovernment Capacity to Assure High-quality Regulation in Australia. Available: https://www.oecd.org/australia/44529857.pdf. Accessed March 10th, 20172010cParisOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(OECD, 2010c). This has led to onerous administrative burden on business. The burden is compounded significantly for those that operate across multiple jurisdictions (e.g., having to comply with same type of regulation across jurisdictions) ADDIN EN.CITE PC20073165(PC, 2007)316531656PCPerformance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation. Productivity Commission Research Report. February 2007. Available: http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/regulation-benchmarking-feasibility/report/regulationbenchmarking.pdf. Accessed March 16th, 20172007MelbourneProductivity Commission Australian Government(PC, 2007).
Regulators in the Netherlands, UK and Australia had similar concerns in relation the administrative burden and impact on productivity, growth, innovation, and competitiveness. For example, assessments in the 1980s found the Dutch regulation-setting to be highly complex and rigid ADDIN EN.CITE OECD19993142(OECD, 1999)314231426OECDRegulatory Reform in the Netherlands: Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation. Available: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2507037.pdf. Accessed March 2nd, 20171999ParisOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(OECD, 1999) with compliance costs estimated at approximately 10 percent of the Dutch GDP ADDIN EN.CITE OECD1999a3205(OECD, 1999a)320532056OECDRegulatory Reform in the Netherlands. Available: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/4299021e.pdf?expires=1494404015&id=id&accname=ocid195151&checksum=AB00C8B2BA77893E43A608A70FCC6D52. Accessed May 10th, 2017.1999aParisOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(OECD, 1999a). Similarly, in the UK there were 62 national regulators in 2004 ADDIN EN.CITE Hampton20052290(Hampton, 2005)229022906Hampton, P.Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement. Available: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file22988.pdf. Accessed March 8th, 20172005LondonHM Treasury(Hampton, 2005) and the overall cost of regulation was estimated at 10-12 percent of the UK GDP ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Arculus, 2005; Tate & Clark, 2004; TPA, 2008).
the system as a whole is uncoordinated and good practice is not uniform. There are overlaps in regulators responsibilities and enforcement activities. There are too many forms, and too many duplicated information requests. ADDIN EN.CITE Hampton20052290(Hampton, 2005)229022906Hampton, P.Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement. Available: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file22988.pdf. Accessed March 8th, 20172005LondonHM Treasury(Hampton, 2005, p. 1)
There is a clear rationale for reducing the administrative burden that regulations impose on business. Complying with the information requirements of UK regulations can hamper business, channelling resources away from more efficient uses and act as a constraint on innovation, productivity and growth. ADDIN EN.CITE BRTF20053152(BRTF, 2005)315231526BRTFRegulation - Less is More: Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes. A BRTF report to the Prime Minister. Available: http://www.regulation.org.uk/library/2005_less_is_more.pdf. Accessed March 8th, 20172005LondonBetter Regulation Task Force (BRTF)(BRTF, 2005, p. 4)
After wide-ranging consultations with Australian business and regulators an independent taskforce found that there is too much regulation and, in many cases, it imposes excessive and unnecessary costs on business ADDIN EN.CITE RegulationTaskforce2006337(RegulationTaskforce, 2006)3373376RegulationTaskforceRethinking Regulation: Report of the Taskforce on Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Business. Available: http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/regulation-taskforce/report/regulation-taskforce2.pdf. Accessed February 9, 20172006Australian Capital TerritoryCommonwealth of Australia(RegulationTaskforce, 2006, p. i). Administrative burden on Australian business had serious implications on broader Australian economy ADDIN EN.CITE SBR2008b341(Madden, 2009; SBR, 2008b)34134112SBRSBR Program200823 October2008bCanberraSBR http://www.sbr.gov.au/content/downloads/SBR_Program.pdfMadden200924882488248817Madden, P.Standard Business Reporting: An Idea Whose Time Starts Now. Available: http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=198410545761468;res=IELBUSEconomic Round-up1-1832009(Madden, 2009; SBR, 2008b):
The costs of regulation to business involve not just extra time, paperwork and capital outlays, but also deflect management from the core activities of the business. Regulation can thus stifle innovation and crowd out productive activity in the engine room of Australias economy. ADDIN EN.CITE RegulationTaskforce2006337(RegulationTaskforce, 2006)3373376RegulationTaskforceRethinking Regulation: Report of the Taskforce on Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Business. Available: http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/regulation-taskforce/report/regulation-taskforce2.pdf. Accessed February 9, 20172006Australian Capital TerritoryCommonwealth of Australia(RegulationTaskforce, 2006, p. ii)
Advocacy was used in similar ways in Netherlands, UK and Australia focusing on rhetoric targeting the cause of administrative burden. The common theme was to focus on better regulation and on making regulation business friendly (OECD, 2010c, p. 28). In the Netherlands, advocacy was framed on need for refocusing regulation on what is strictly necessary ADDIN EN.CITE OECD20103138(OECD, 2007, 2010)313831385OECDOECDInstitutional capacities for Better Regulation. Available: https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/44912334.pdf. Accessed March 1st, 2017Better Regulation in Europe: Netherlands47-592010Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD20073070307030706OECDCutting Red Tape: Administrative Simplification in the Netherlands. Available: https://www.oecd.org/netherlands/cuttingredtapeadministrativesimplificationinthenetherlands.htm2007ParisOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(OECD, 2007, 2010). Similarly, advocacy for better, rather than less, regulation was used in the UK ADDIN EN.CITE BRTF20053152(BRTF, 2005)315231526BRTFRegulation - Less is More: Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes. A BRTF report to the Prime Minister. Available: http://www.regulation.org.uk/library/2005_less_is_more.pdf. Accessed March 8th, 20172005LondonBetter Regulation Task Force (BRTF)(BRTF, 2005) while in Australia advocacy targeted regulation that was unnecessarily burdensome, complex, redundant, or duplicate[d] ADDIN EN.CITE Treasury20053159(Treasury, 2005)315931596TreasuryJoint Press Release. No. 087. The Hon. John Howard MP, Prime Minister of Australia, The Hon. Peter Costello MP, Treasurer: Taskforce on reducing the regulatory burden on business. 12 October 2005. Available: https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2005/087.htm&pageID=003&min=phc&Year=2005&DocType=0. Accessed March 1st, 20172005CanberraCommonwealth of Australia(Treasury, 2005).
In this study, we focus on the reduction of administrative burden on business, a k e y t h e m e o f t h e b r o a d e r b e t t e r r e g u l a t i o n a g e n d a s o f g o v e r n m e n t s i n N e t h e r l a n d s , U K a n d A u s t r a l i a . T h e a n n u a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b u r d e n o n b u s i n e s s w a s e s t i m a t e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 5 0 m i l l i o n i n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s A D D I N E N . C I T E <