Effectivness of the Adoption of the XBRL Standard in the Indian Banking Sector

Open access

Abstract

The XBRL standard was adopted by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the year 2008 as a standard by which the banks that are regulated by the RBI submit regulatory, prudential, supervisory, and other statistical data. This study focuses on estimating the effectiveness of the adoption of the XBRL standard in the Indian banking sector. The effectiveness has been studied on the basis of the responses received on the survey conducted targeting the commercial banks of India. Two important factors, namely, ‘Effectiveness of the XBRL Data Submission’ and ‘Savings of Time and Cost’ have been considered mainly for the study. The study revealed that the overall efficiency of the reporting system in the Indian banking sector has increased to a great extent with the adoption of the XBRL standard. Although the overall effectiveness of XBRL adoption has been found to be satisfactory, there is always room for further enhancement of the system in order to achieve complete effectiveness.

1. Amelia, A. Baldwin and Brad, S. T. (2011). The Impact of XBRL: a Delphi Investigation. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 11, 1-24.

2. Bardhan, Samaresh. (2013). Profit Efficiency of Indian Commercial Banks in the Post-liberalisation Period: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. The Journal of Applied Economic Research 7(4), 391–415.

3. Bhattacharyya A, Lovell C.A.K and Sahay P. (1997). The impact of liberalization on the productive efficiency of Indian commercial banks. European Journal of Operations Research, 98(2), 332-345.

4. Chou, C.C., Chang, C.J. and Peng, J. (2016). Integrating XBRL data with textual information in Chinese: A semantic web approach, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 21, 32-46.

5. Das, Abhiman. and Ghosh, Saibal (2004). Risk, capital and operating efficiency: Evidence from Indian public-sector banks, Indian Journal of Economics and Business 3(1), 147-64.

6. Dennis L. Clasen and Thomas J. Dormody, (1994). Analyzing Data Measured by Individual Likert-Type Items, Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4).

7. Erlance, K. G., Jamaliah S. and Kamaruzzaman, M (2014). Enhancing corporate governance via XBRL: preparers’ perception on compatibility exception, Procedia-Social and behavioural sciences,145, 308-315.

8. Fellegi, I. P. (2004). Official Statistics - Pressures and Challenges (ISI President’s Invited Lecture, 2003), International Statistical Review, 72(1), 139-155.

9. Gideon Vigderhous, (1977). The Level of Measurement and “Permissible” Statistical Analysis in Social Research, Pacific Sociological Review, 20(1), 61-72.

10. Jacoby, Jacob, and Michael S. Matell (1971). Three-Point Likert Scales Are Good Enough, Journal of Marketing Research, 8(4), 495-500.

11. Jacqueline L. Birt, Kala Muthusamy, Poonam Bir, (2017). XBRL and the qualitative characteristics of useful financial information, Accounting Research Journal, 30 (1),107-126,

12. Joshi, A. R, Purnendu Kumar, Archana Dilip (May 2016). Collection of Macro Financial Statistics for Central Banking in Reserve Bank of India–Evolution of Information Acquisition and Management Technology. Retrieved from: http://communities.unescap.org/system/files/02india_paper_collection_of_macro_financial_statistics_for_central_banking_evolution_of_information_acquisition_and_management_technology.pdf

13. Liu, Chunhui, Wan, T., and Yao, L. J., (2014). XBRL’s impact on analyst forecast behaviour: an empirical study, Journal of accounting and public policy, 33(1), 69-82.

14. Liu, C., Luo, X.R., Wang, F.L. (2017). An empirical investigation on the impact of XBRL adoption on information asymmetry: Evidence from Europe, Decision Support Systems, 93:42-50.

15. Lokesha, K. (2013). XBRL-The New Financial Reporting Language: a Concept, Global research analysis international’, l2(12).

16. Maurya Vishal, Vivek Kumar and Sujeesh Kumar (2011). Comparing the Technical Efficiency of Indian Banks Operating Abroad and Foreign Banks Operating in India: A Stochastic Output Distance Function Approach’, Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, 32(1), 1-23.

17. Martic, V, Filipovic, L.A, and Radovi, M. (2017). XBRL Implementation in the Banking Sector in Montenegro, Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 2. 5-22, UDK: 336.71(497.16), DOI: 10.1515/jcbtp-2017-0010

18. R. Chowdhuri, V.Y. Yoon, R T. Redmond, and U O. Etudo (2014). Ontology based integration of XBRL filings for financial decision making, Decision making Systems, 68, 64-76.

19. Rensis Likert, (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, Archives of Psychology, 140(55).

20. Seele, P. (2016). Digitally unified reporting: how XBRL-based real-time transparency helps in combining integrated sustainability reporting and performance control, Journal of Cleaner Production,136(10), Part A, 65-77.

21. Shan, Y.G, Troshan, I. and Richardson, G. (2015). An empirical comparison of the effect of XBRL on audit fees in the US and Japan, Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 11(2):89-103.

22. Sujeesh Kumar S. (2013). Total Factor Productivity of Indian Banking Sector - Impact of Information Technology, Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, 34(1&2),65-86.

23. Ulf Jakobsson (2004), Statistical Presentation and Analysis of Ordinal Data in Nursing Research, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18, 437-440.

24. Vineet Chouhan and Shubham Goswami (2015). XBRL Acceptance in India: A behavioural Study, American Journal of trade and Policy, 2(1).

25. Yoon, H; Zo, H and Ciganek, A.P.(2011).Does XBRL adoption reduce information asymmetry?, Journal of Business Research, 64(2),157-163.

26. Yu Che Chen (2012). A comparative study of e-government XBRL implementations: The potential of improving information transparency and efficiency, Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 553–563.

27. Zhenyang Bai, Manabu Sakaue, and Fumiko Takeda, (2014). The Impact of XBRL Adoption on the Information Environment: Evidence from Japan, The Japanese Accounting Review, 4, 49-74.

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.284
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.910

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 91 91 83
PDF Downloads 102 102 100