We all know where “one for all” came from. Some say it could apply to the Dutch implementation model for business reporting. If that’s true, then why does the title imply “One or all”?

In some cases or countries, the implementation of XBRL starts by building a single purpose taxonomy. In most cases, it’s based on a GAAP; annual accounts for financial filing. This method works, and can be implemented quite fast. In some cases, it even replaces an existing format or reporting standard.

In Holland, the XBRL implementation project started with a very wide and long-term vision. To investigate all reporting duties of all entities and develop a single taxonomy framework that covers them all. Instead of one that only covers a single report.

What’s the benefit?

The process of getting to the Dutch model was fully based on public (government) and private partnership. All parties involved worked intensively to investigate the reporting tasks in detail, element by element. The first draft taxonomy of over 13,000 elements was harmonized and normalized. Meaning, all elements used by multiple regulators or different reports; they were ‘undoubled’. All elements that were given the underlying legislation or a similar element could be used were removed. The bonus presented by the legislator/government was that any place where the laws needed to be changed to harmonize the elements even more, they would be. The 13,000 elements are now reduced to under 4,000 elements, a reduction of over 70 percent; reducing administrative burden. For the XBRL techies, the government assigned the project to make one taxonomy architecture to be adopted by all regulators. The architecture excels in maintainability, reusability and clearness for the user. The layers of the architecture mainly are the so-called GEN base (Generic Elements Netherlands). The GEN-base contains all elements used by multiple regulators; a domain layer (the place where each regulator store regulator specific elements), the form sets (reusable structures) and the report layer (the entry point for the users). A report combines the reusable form sets, which import the elements from the domains and GEN-base. The NT (Netherlands Taxonomy) covers over 30 reporting duties, where the entities can collect the needed data all at once, maintain one single mapping file, and comply to all duties. One (dataset) for all.

But there is more one-for-all. In the past, different regulators maintained their own communication protocols and summit processes. That also is harmonized in the Dutch case. All regulators use the same process infrastructure and same authentication methods. So the companies and software providers have one holistic taxonomy framework covering all reporting duties. Companies can use a single infrastructure as a communication mechanism, and use the principle ‘collect once and report many times’.

Is there a benefit for all entities? Yes, much less reporting elements: from 13,000 to less than 4,000, harmonized and thus reduced legislation across multiple regulators, and one single infrastructure. Does that remove over multi-million euro in administrative burden? Not yet, but in the long run, covering a million plus companies, it will.

Are there arguments against this one-for-all approach?

Sure there are. Implementing XBRL with a single purpose taxonomy allows other regulators to keep their own formats in place, and as such, XBRL will be an extra format and an additional burden. Working on the one-for-all approach takes much more time. However, replacing all regulator specific infrastructures and communication mechanisms of multiple regulators into one complete countrywide approach will be difficult due to the “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” attitude of many. Furthermore, it’s hard to get multiple big gorilla regulators to agree on anything that is also to the benefit of small potato regulators.

My observation is that it was the vision of one minister of Justice of the Dutch government to put the finger in the dam of administrative reporting burden and the guts of a few individuals to put their heads on the block to take the challenge. Did they succeed? YES THEY DID. The government now has XBRL on the ‘comply or explain’ list for government projects. They will make XBRL the exclusive system-to-system technology for all companies in the Netherlands, which will only use XBRL for all reports to the regulators. Now that all of the groundwork is done, other regulators can start to join the club and investigate or implement XBRL for their own sector.

Was it worth effort and the waiting? I think so.

by Paul Snijders