HUNGARIAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRY AND CHEMISTRY Vol. 48(1) pp. 131–138 (2020) hjic.mk.uni-pannon.hu DOI: 10.33927/hjic-2020-19 XBRL UTILIZATION AS AN AUTOMATED INDUSTRY ANALYSIS ALEX SUTA*1 AND ÁRPÁD TÓTH1 1Research Center of Vehicle Industry, Széchenyi István University, Egyetem tér 1, Győr, 9026, HUNGARY In the last two decades, electronic financial reporting went through a significant evolution, where to date, eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) has become the leading platform that is already obligatory for listed entities in the United States and was also legislated in the European Union from January 1, 2020. The primary objective of this research was to review the US-listed companies’ 2018 quarterly reports. The study generated an automated industry analysis for the automotive industry from the aspect of four main financial item categories as an alternative to statistics-based, man- ually prepared industry analyses. Statistical tests were carried out between two industrial classification methodologies, the securities’ industry identification marks and the reported Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. The results showed a significant difference between the industry classification methodologies. Automated reporting was more pre- cise with regard to the identification of the listed and reporting entities, however, the data fields of SIC codes within the XBRL data set provided an inaccurate classification, which is a potential area of improvement along with additional recommendations outlined in the Conclusion. Keywords: XBRL, US-listed entities, ACL, Automated data analytics, Industry analysis, SIC codes 1. Introduction The electronic reporting and automated fundamental re- views in the field of financial reporting is becoming increasingly important considering the difficulties and error-prone procedure of manual analysis from the avail- able source of information. The eXtensible Business Re- porting Language (XBRL) provides a standardized plat- form for this activity, which supports automated and digi- talized reviews compared to the paper-based reports from the previous manual. This electronic reporting platform is already used as the official reporting form in the United States for listed entities, therefore, the application of a proper industry classification is essential. Even though XBRL reporting is required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), research institutions can choose from various generally accepted industry classifi- cations. Despite the lack of regulation, it is a primary in- terest of research institutions to protect their reputations by adequately representing companies from the various industries. The two different approaches might provide different results, which can lead to inaccurate trend pro- jections or unreliable industry comparisons. The valida- tion of the XBRL classification and reports by marketing research firms can only be reconciled and validated to sta- tistical industry reports which identify discrepancies. To date, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are used in the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, *Correspondence: suta.alex@ga.sze.hu and Retrieval (EDGAR) system to define the type of busi- ness of companies. Based on its primary activity, each company assigns a four-digit code to itself when regis- tering an Initial Public Offering (IPO) with the SEC [1]. The four digits indicate levels of description of the in- dustry classification, e.g. the location hierarchy for car manufacturers is Division D - Manufacturing (codes 20- 39), code 37: Transportation equipment, and code 3711: Motor vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies [1]. The objec- tive of this research was to review the US-listed compa- nies, where XBRL reports are already required and im- plemented. Subsequently, through an automated review of the automotive industry, to then identify how these reports can be compared to the European listed entities. This information is crucial for stakeholders and regional policymakers to gain a clear view of the conditions of the target industry. According to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), from January 1, 2020 onwards, new requirements on the stock exchange-listed companies in the European Union came into effect to provide respective financial statements in a new Euro- pean Single Electronic Format (ESEF). This is a signif- icant change to the application of XBRL as companies now have to provide reports in this specific reporting lan- guage. The data sets include structured information; for this reason, a new wave of research initiatives is expected in this academic area that could follow on from inconsis- tent industry classifications, further hindering compara- bility. https://doi.org/10.33927/hjic-2020-19 mailto:suta.alex@ga.sze.hu 132 SUTA AND TÓTH 2. Literature review 2.1 XBRL utilization in industry-specific data analysis Prior literature has documented uses of XBRL in a variety of data analysis environments, generally in the research areas of accounting and financial reporting. Systematic fi- nancial data provides data analysts and investors with the ability to measure performance and risks, as well as cre- ate comparisons, ratings and other value-added products [2]. Connected to comparability aspects, several sources have been reviewed that are related to the semantic issue of industrial classification. Being a driver of electronic data interchange, XBRL data sets are constructed from multiple identifying tags and numerical data that can be processed by computer software [3]. While the technical background on data-centric analysis is available [4] 2013 [5] 2014, [6], it is uncommon in the industry-specific re- search literature that XBRL databases are used as the pri- mary source of data. Chychyla-Leone-Meza [7] measured financial report- ing complexity by comparing the quantity of text in US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and SEC regulations of textual data from XBRL filings. In this study, the variation with regard to the data content of different taxonomy versions (denominative tags, labels, documentation) is emphasized. For this reason, the an- nual changes in published taxonomy updates have to be taken into consideration [8]. Despite the existence of the XBRL Industry Resource Group established by the FASB [8], Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are not part of taxonomy updates and their current 2007 form seems to be generally accepted for statistical use. Felo- Kim-Lim [9] observed changes in the information envi- ronment of analysts by the overuse of customized tags, creating assumptions based on industrial classification as a factor. Zhang-Guan-Kim [10] proposed an expected in- vestor crash risk model based on financial information gathered from XBRL-based SEC databases. In terms of the estimation of the impacts, the industry median of cus- tomized tags is generated by 2-digit SIC codes as an ad- justment tool in the regression model. Similarly, indus- trial classification was taken into account as a dummy variable during the analysis with regard to the XBRL adoption of reductions in audit fees as per Shan-Troshani- Richardson [11]. In other XBRL-based studies, industry-specific as- sumptions required solutions other than basic SIC codes. Liu-Luo-Wang [12] reviewed the effect of XBRL adop- tion on information asymmetry, where SIC was reclassi- fied to identify high-technology industries. 2.2 Discrepancies between industrial classifi- cation systems Since the emergence of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) in 1997 as a sound re- placement of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes in U.S. industrial statistics, papers have reviewed the impacts of different frameworks in financial research. Effective comparative statistics require the use of a stan- dardized classification system [13]. The U.S. Economic Census Bureau has made regulatory, business and aca- demic purposes of performing economic research on his- torical data possible. In 1997, the existing framework, the SIC, was replaced by the NAICS [14]. Unlike the SIC’s mixed production/market system, NAICS intro- duced a production-oriented economic concept that sup- ports the examination of industry-specific indicators such as productivity, input-output relationships and capital in- tensity [15]. The specific rearrangements between indus- trial classes primarily affected manufacturing industries, where the SIC functions as a somewhat outdated alter- native. U.S. government departments, namely the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA), alongside the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), con- tinue to use the most recent 2007 update of four-digit SIC codes. While maintaining a unified classification sys- tem is necessary for government departments, the lack of conceptual harmony between industrial classification systems creates a discrepancy with academic research [16]. Several papers have been collected that present em- pirical evidence of disharmonious schemes based on Fi- nancial Statement Data Sets. Kahle-Walking [17] ob- served differences in financial variables gathered from two statistical databases (CRSP and Compustat) using four-digit SIC codes to be substantial, moreover, showed that commonly used methods of industrial classification disagree due to frequent changes in the SIC codes of firms. Bhojraj-Lee-Oler reviewed the capital market ap- plications of four broadly available industrial classifica- tion schemes and found that a significant degree of vari- ance with regard to the number of companies represented in industry divisions exists. The study argues that the six-digit Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), followed by NAICS, offers better comparability between firms concerning SIC in terms of the critical evaluation of financial ratios and that industrial classification is es- sential in instances of fundamental analysis. While GICS reflects the dynamic changes in industry sectors, being a privately available system mainly involved in invest- ment processes, it is unlikely to be suitable in statistical research [18]. Kelton-Pasquale-Rebelein [19] referred to SIC codes as outdated in the field of industry cluster anal- ysis and prepared an updated framework using NAICS. As opposed to classifying establishments according to similar products (SIC), the groups are formed from iden- tical production processes (NAICS). Hrazdil-Zhang [20] and Hrazdil-Trottier-Zhang [21] published empirical re- sults on the heterogeneity of industry concentration with the use of SIC and other classification schemes based on the market shares of sales and financial ratios of compa- nies in the manufacturing sector (SIC 2000-3999). Ac- cording to their findings, the SIC system remains inferior to GICS and NAICS in terms of industrial homogeneity. Hungarian Journal of Industry and Chemistry XBRL UTILIZATION AS AN AUTOMATED INDUSTRY ANALYSIS 133 Instead of ordinary company databases such as Compu- stat or S&P 1500, Papagiannidis et al. proposed an ex- ploratory big data method to gather regional research of industry clusters based in the UK. In this study, keywords connected to business operations were collected from of- ficial websites to enhance the level of detail provided by single SIC codes, supporting the formation of regional clusters. It is a common conclusion in the reviewed liter- ature that the sole use of SIC codes in industry analysis could lead to the loss of information and false estimation of market forces; in this context the potential of XBRL as a primary data source of financial statements has been reviewed. 2.3 The multi-tier supply chain approach One possible outcome of the barriers of traditional sta- tistical classification systems is the addition of extra in- formation to existing schemes. In an industrial analy- sis, especially in the automotive industry, it is essential to differentiate between operational properties, e.g. their position in the automotive supply chain. The contempo- rary position of an industry must be judged by the dif- ferent weights of its market players. Assumptions about financial information are heavily affected by the final product, whether it is a part of the interorganizational supply chain, or sold to dealerships or directly to con- sumers in the form of passenger cars. In terms of a sup- ply chain, manufacturers and suppliers can be classified into multi-tiered groups based on their position in the production chain, as well as the state of raw materials (tier 3 and additional sub-tiers) in addition to finished or semi-finished components (suppliers from tiers 1 and 2) compared to fully finished products (Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)). Concerning the automotive in- dustry, sources from both academia, business and govern- ments [22–24] agree that market players from multi-tier supply chain structures can be ranked as follows: 1. OEMs: a concentrated group of companies account- able for the main manufacturing, assembly and de- sign processes that possess a large market share and well-known brand names; 2. Suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2: potentially several hun- dred large or small companies, accountable for the supply of automotive parts and systems to OEMs. The range of sold goods is diverse and includes en- gine components, interior, exterior, transmission as well as cooling and electronic systems. Although their role in the supply chain is consistent, suppli- ers from Tiers 1 and 2 vary in their direct/indirect (through other participants) nature of interaction with OEMs, therefore, from a statistical viewpoint, can be aggregated; 3. Tier 3 and sub-tier suppliers: several thousand smaller companies are accountable for the supply of raw materials to suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2. In the scientific literature, several utilizations of the multi-tier supply chain approach exist. Mena-Humphries- Choi [25] reviewed the existing literature at the time on structural arrangements (buyer-supplier-customer) and prepared three cases of theoretical linkage. According to the study, the most typical structure of the automotive in- dustry is the “closed triad”, where the buyer (OEM) can insist on certain requirements (either assurance or train- ing function) not only from Tier 1 but sub-tier suppliers as well. Masoud-Mason [26] used the multi-tier system in the automotive industry to simulate cost optimization on a supply-chain level. Thomé et al. [27] adopted a similar approach of representing many tiers and their interactions that affect selected flexibility measures (product, respon- siveness, sourcing, delivery and postponement). Other popular fields of use are sustainability-related questions and green supply chains [28–30]. The available literature clarifies the widespread appli- cability and general acceptance of tiered levels of sup- pliers, which supports the methodology examined in the current study. Despite its academic use, the application of the well-established OEM / tiered system of suppliers in automotive business reports published by major consult- ing firms [31–33] is common practice. 3. Data collection and methods used The SEC has published XBRL data sets containing raw aggregate financial statement data quarterly since 2009. At the same time, as a premium service, the SEC offers a professional version of its search engine [34] designed specifically to fit the goals of professional financial an- alytics. However, in line with tendencies identified from the literature review, even a discrepancy on the same plat- form exists between the Standard Industrial Classifica- tion codes current in XBRL data sets and the EDGAR search tool. To perform an automated industry analy- sis, a suitable classification is required. In this study, a possible classification using the software program ACL (Audit Command Language) Robotics Professional ver- sion 14.1.0.1581 is evaluated. From the listed U.S. en- tities, those operating in the automotive industry were selected to measure deviance in terms of crucial finan- cial indicators between the two data sources. The specific choice of the automotive industry lies in its accurate de- finability, while the goal of the study was to provide an industry-independent methodology of data analysis that can be applied to several other fields. The two main plat- forms of data collection were EDGAR Pro Online (2019) operated by the SEC, which is equivalent to the quasi- manual download process of financial statements, and the obligatory quarterly reports of aggregate data sets in the XBRL format available on the SEC website. To avoid ex- isting industrial classification issues, a multi-tier supply chain approach was introduced by grouping companies as OEMs and suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 (T1&2 S). 48(1) pp. 131–138 (2020) 134 SUTA AND TÓTH 4. Results 4.1 Data categorization: number of compa- nies and industries By using the EDGAR Pro Online search tool, market segments can be filtered, of which three categories con- nected to the automotive industry are available. At the same time, in the XBRL data set, companies are provided with much general information, including SIC codes that can be used for categorization. According to the list of codes provided by the SEC, six four-digit codes cover the automotive industry (and related services with the ex- ception of retail) that were reviewed in the quarterly re- ports of 2018. A summary of publicly listed entities is presented in Table 1. All entities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), National Association for Securities Dealers Au- tomated Quotations (NASDAQ) and Better Alternative Trading System (BATS) from the entire population are supposedly consistent data sources and regulated by the SEC. In addition to the variance in the number of listed entities in the automotive industry, the size of the en- tire population between the two sources is inconsistent and differs by over 24%. In terms of industrial classifica- tion, the taxonomy behind SIC codes in XBRL data sets is valid but incomparable to the customary EDGAR ap- proach in the case of the identification of specific activi- ties. Therefore, two additional categories were created to fit the measurement process; OEMs and suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 (other automotive suppliers). 4.2 Errors in terms of the consistency and availability of samples Listed entities from both data sources that are unmatched as a result of their supposedly consistent counterparts were found. Out of the sample sizes of 103 and 74, 50 companies are common in both which raises concerns over reliability. Furthermore, data availability raised concerns in terms of search results from the SEC EDGAR Pro On- line system. Out of the strong sample size of 103, 13 annual reports concerning 2018 were unavailable in the electric filing system of the SEC, while an additional 10 required data collection from official websites. Four fi- nancial statement items concerning the wealth and prof- itability of companies were selected for analysis in or- der to evaluate the differences between the two industrial classification schemes. The values of Total assets, Total Equity, Net sales revenue and Profit after-tax are central financial factors of investor decision-making. When nec- essary, exchange rates of the Federal Reserve were used according to the ASC (Accounting Standards Codifica- tion) standards issued by the Financial Accounting Stan- dards Board (FASB) [35]. 4.3 Comparison of financial information on an industrial level Based on the financial statement data, descriptive statis- tics were calculated on the selected reporting lines. Dif- ferences were summarized in terms of both absolute val- ues between the two data sources and percent deviations as presented in the Tables 2 and 3. A general observation of the data source is that the intervals between the min- imum and maximum values are substantial for all four financial statement items. It is likely that – when used as a statistical sample – a normal distribution cannot be as- sumed. The standard deviation exceeds the mean values in the case of Total assets, therefore, the set of values (es- pecially for the financial data of suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2) is highly dispersed. A pattern can be observed in the deviation between the two data sources. The total values of OEM financial statement items are higher in the XBRL data set, in con- trast to data derived from the online SEC source, while the opposite is seen in the case of suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2, where the total values are dominated by online Table 1: Industrial specification of data sources SEC’s EDGAR Online Pro SEC’s EDGAR XBRL data set Industrial specification Number of companies Industry (SIC) Number of companies O E M s { Auto & Truck Manufacturers 26 3711. Motor Vehicles & Passenger Car Bodies 20   OEM s S up pl ie rs fr om T ie rs 1 & 2   Automobiles, Parts & Service Retailers 24 3713. Truck & Bus Bodies 2 Auto, Truck & Motorcycle Parts 53 3714. Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories 41   S up pl ie rs fr om T ie rs 1 & 2 3715. Truck Trailers 1 3716. Motor Homes 2 3751. Motorcycles, Bicycles, and Parts 8 Total 103 Total 74 Entire population size 5,736 Entire population size 7,133 Hungarian Journal of Industry and Chemistry XBRL UTILIZATION AS AN AUTOMATED INDUSTRY ANALYSIS 135 sources. As an attempt to generalize the automotive in- dustry, mean values were calculated where XBRL rep- resents higher values except for the net sales revenues of suppliers. These deviations are partly validated by the amount of incompletely matched samples, but the 103:74 sample-size ratio is not represented by the results. The Table 4 summarizes the difference between the results of descriptive statistics in the form of percentages. Despite former expectations, OEMs do not represent the majority of the financial item totals (between 45.1 and 55.9%), total equity (between 31.8 and 48.6%), net sales revenue (44.7 and 57.6%) and profit after-tax (35.4- 52.5%), the differences between data sources can be mea- sured on a scale of 6.7% to 31.9% as seen in Table 4. Sup- pliers from Tiers 1 & 2 match to an even lesser extent, so percent deviations are typically higher, especially in the case of net sales revenue (56.7%). Based on the matrix, the individual averages of companies cannot be used for industry generalization, both in terms of absolute mean values and standard deviations. The deviation “hotspots” are clearly centered around the suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2. 4.4 Chi-square statistical testing To support our assumptions of statistically significant deviation between data sources, Pearson’s chi-squared test was implemented, a full description of the steps is available in Appendix A [36, 37]. Selected categories of OEMs and suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 were differ- entiated along with expected (data derived from online SEC-based financial statements) vs. observed (data de- rived from XBRL data sets) values. Based on the per- formed Chi-square test, the results highlighted that the differences between the expected and observed values of financial statement items (Total assets, Total Equity, Net sales revenue and Profit after-tax) were significant. With a 95% confidence interval (α = 0.05), OEMs and suppli- ers from Tiers 1 & 2 both exceeded the critical value of 16.92 with 7 degrees of freedom (df = 7). It is important to note the very significant (almost 10 times higher) im- pact of suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 in terms of the total level of deviance. 5. Conclusions XBRL preparation is obligatory, however, the content can include differences from the reported and published fi- nancial statements. Conclusions can be summarized in the following points: • Potential duplication of lines in XBRL sources (e.g. 8 lines of certain financial statement items from China Automotive Systems, Inc.); • Lack of standardization in tags: The XBRL platform manages to integrate more financial reporting tax- onomy (different annual versions of IFRS and US GAAP). Due to the different (and potentially cus- tomized) tags, the definitions of some financial state- ment items converge; the structure of financial state- ments has yet to be fully harmonized between an- nual reports and XBRL statements; • Errors in the reporting period (temporal differ- ences): in some cases, outdated (1 or 2 years prior to Table 2: Automotive market share of the entire population (%, number) Representation % (n) SEC’s EDGAR Pro Online SEC’s EDGAR XBRL data set Entire population 100% (5,736) 100% (7,113) OEMs 0.45% (26) 0.31% (22) Suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 1.34% (77) 0.73% (52) Total assets Total equity Net sales revenue Profit after-tax Total 1.80% (103) 1.04% (74) OEMs (matched) 0.28% (16) 0.20% (14) Suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 (matched) 0.59% (34) 0.50% (36) Total (matched) 0.87% (50) 0.70% (50) Table 3: Absolute financial data from data sources (left – SEC’s EDGAR Pro Online / right – SEC‘s XBRL data set) (USD in millions) Statistics Category Total assets value Total equity attributable to company owners Net sales revenues Profit after taxes Totals OEM 783.346 874.139 153.668 221.111 606.225 649.422 23.941 35.125 Tier 1&2 S. 953.149 688.812 329.224 234.365 749.694 478.399 43.717 31.834 Mean OEM 27.012 39.734 5.299 10.050 20.904 29.519 826 1.597 Tier 1&2 S. 12.880 13.246 4.449 4.507 10.131 9.200 591 612 St. dev OEM 66.884 77.251 11.802 18.956 45.992 52.970 1.875 3.007 Tier 1&2 S. 56.749 63.640 21.527 23.684 33.241 34.997 2.971 3.262 48(1) pp. 131–138 (2020) 136 SUTA AND TÓTH Table 4: Deviation matrix between data sources (%) Statistic Category Total assets value Total equity attributable to company owners Net sales revenues Profit after taxes Totals OEM 10.39% 30.50% 6.65% 31.84% T1&2 S. 38.38% 40.48% 56.71% 37.33% Mean OEM 32.02% 47.28% 29.18% 48.29% T1&2 S. 2.76% 1.29% 10.12% 3.50% St.dev OEM 13.42% 37.74% 13.18% 37.65% T1&2 S. 10.83% 9.11% 5.02% 8.93% the current fiscal year) financial information is pre- sented in current filings (e.g. an entity presents in- formation from the 2017 fiscal year in the Q4 2018 filing as the most current); • The inability to fully and feasibly automate data analysis in the case of automotive suppliers. Mean values are inconsistent between data sources due to the varying sample size of automotive suppliers. To perform a comprehensive industry analysis, error terms need to be defined clearly. Otherwise such an analysis would be performed with many predefined assumptions, leading to a decrease in the overall ex- planatory power and raising concerns about reliabil- ity/reproducibility. Financial analysts should use XBRL datasets with concern, these points kept in mind. As a currently avail- able best practice, the methodology of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is a precedent for the building of inline XBRL statements into integrated datasets. An emerging challenge of regulatory bodies such as the Eu- ropean Securities and Markets Authorities is the supervi- sion of companies uploading their data to a central system of a similar nature to produce well-structured databases for automated financial analytics. Acknowledgements The research presented in this paper was financed by the “Research Area Excellence Program – 2019 (TUDFO/51757/2019-ITM)” and University of Győr. REFERENCES [1] NAICS Association (2019). Common SIC Questions, https://www.naics.com/ frequently-asked-questions/#NAICSfaq [2] XBRL International (2019). An Introduction to XBRL, https://www.xbrl.org/the-standard/ what/an-introduction-to-xbrl/ [3] Yaghoobirafi, K.; Nazemi, E.: An Approach to XBRL Interoperability Based on Ant Colony Op- timization Algorithm. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2019, 163, 342–357 DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.08.038 [4] Wenger, M. R.; Elam, R.; Williams, K. L.: A Tour of Five XBRL Tools: Products That Help Make Tagged Data Work for You and Your Clients. Jour- nal of Accountancy, 2013, 215(4), 48–55 [5] Radzimski, M.; Sanchez-Cervantes, J. L.; Garcia- Crespo, A.; Temińo-Aguirre, I.: Intelligent Archi- tecture for Comparative Analysis of Public Com- panies Using Semantics and XBRL Data. In- ternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2014, 24(5), 801–823 DOI: 10.1142/S0218194014500314 [6] Joyner, D.: How to Transform XBRL Data into Use- ful Information. Review of Business and Technology Research, 2017, 14(1), 34–41 [7] Chychyla, R.; Leone, A. J.; Minutti-Meza, M.: Complexity of Financial Reporting Standards and Accounting Expertise. Journal of Account- ing and Economics, 2019, 67(1), 226–253 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.005 [8] SEC Reporting Taxonomy Technical Guide (version 2019), Financial Accounting Standards Board, Financial Accounting Foundation, 2019 https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/ DocumentPage&cid=1176171806866 [9] Felo, A. J.; Kim, J. W.; Lim, J. H.: Can XBRL Detailed Tagging of Footnotes Improve Financial Analysts’ Information Environment? International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2018, 28, 45–58 DOI: 10.1016/S0740-624X(98)90003-X [10] Zhang, Y.; Guan, Y.; Kim, J. B.: XBRL Adop- tion and Expected Crash Risk. Journal of Account- ing and Public Policy, 2019, 38(1), 31–52 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2019.01.003 [11] Shan, Y. G.; Troshani, I.; Richardson, G.: An Em- pirical Comparison of the Effect of XBRL on Audit Fees in the US and Japan. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 2015, 11(2), 89–103 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcae.2015.01.001 [12] Liu, C.; Luo, X. R.; Wang, F. L.: An Empirical In- vestigation on the Impact of XBRL Adoption on Information Asymmetry: Evidence from Europe. Decision Support Systems, 2017, 93, 42–50 DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2016.09.004 [13] Kaya, D.; Pronobis, P.: The Benefits of Struc- tured Data Across the Information Supply Chain: Initial Evidence on XBRL Adoption and Loan Contracting of Private Firms. Journal of Account- ing and Public Policy, 2016, 35(4), 417–436 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.04.003 Hungarian Journal of Industry and Chemistry https://www.naics.com/frequently-asked-questions/#NAICSfaq https://www.naics.com/frequently-asked-questions/#NAICSfaq https://www.xbrl.org/the-standard/what/an-introduction-to-xbrl/ https://www.xbrl.org/the-standard/what/an-introduction-to-xbrl/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.08.038 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194014500314 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194014500314 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.005 https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage&cid=1176171806866 https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage&cid=1176171806866 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(98)90003-X https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2019.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2019.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2015.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2015.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.04.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.04.003 XBRL UTILIZATION AS AN AUTOMATED INDUSTRY ANALYSIS 137 [14] Comparing Economic Data, U.S. Economic Cen- sus Bureau, 2016 https://www.census.gov/ programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance/ historical-data.html [15] Chychyla, R.; Leone, A. J.; Minutti-Meza, M.: Complexity of Financial Reporting Standards and Accounting Expertise. Journal of Account- ing and Economics, 2019, 67(1), 226–253 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.005 [16] Krishnan, J.; Press, E.: The North American Indus- try Classification System and its implications for accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Re- search, 2003, 20(4), 685–717 DOI: 10.1506/N57L-0462- 856V-7144 [17] Kahle, K. M.; Walkling, R. A.: The Impact of In- dustry Classifications on Financial Research. Jour- nal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1996, 31(3), 309–335 [18] MSCI (2018). Global Industry Classification Stan- dard (GICS§) https://www.msci.com/gics [19] Kelton, C. M.; Pasquale, M. K.; Rebelein, R. P.: Using the North American Industry Classifica- tion System (NAICS) to Identify National Indus- try Cluster Templates for Applied Regional Anal- ysis. Regional Studies, 2008, 42(3), 305–321 DOI: 10.1080/00343400701288316 [20] Hrazdil, K.; Zhang, R.: The Importance of Indus- try Classification in Estimating Concentration Ra- tios. Economics Letters, 2012, 114(2), 224–227 DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.001 [21] Hrazdil, K.; Trottier, K.; Zhang, R.: A Comparison of Industry Classification Schemes: A Large Sam- ple Study. Economics Letters, 2013, 118(1), 77–80 DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.09.022 [22] Tassey, G.; Brunnermeier, S. B.; Martin, S. A.: In- teroperability Cost Analysis of the US Automotive Supply Chain. Research Triangle Institute, 1999, Report 7007-03 [23] ILO (2005). Automotive Industry Trends Affect- ing Component Suppliers, Report for Discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on Employment, Social Di- alogue, Rights at Work and Industrial Relations in Transport Equipment Manufacturing. International Labour Organization, pp. 26–42 [24] Silver, D.: The Automotive Supply Chain, Ex- plained. 2016 [25] Mena, C.; Humphries, A.; Choi, T. Y.: Toward a Theory of Multi-Tier Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 2013, 49(2), 58–77 DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12003 [26] Masoud, S. A.; Mason, S. J.: Integrated Cost Op- timization in a Two-Stage, Automotive Supply Chain. Computers & Operations Research, 2016, 67, 1–11 DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2015.08.012 [27] Thomé, A. M. T.; Scavarda, L. F.; Pires, S. R.; Ceryno, P.; Klingebiel, K.: A Multi-Tier Study on Supply Chain Flexibility in the Automotive Indus- try. International Journal of Production Economics, 2014, 158, 91–105 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.07.024 [28] Jia, F.; Gong, Y.; Brown, S.: Multi-Tier Sustain- able Supply Chain Management: The Role of Supply Chain Leadership. International Journal of Production Economics, 2019, 217, 44–63 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.022 [29] Sauer, P. C.; Seuring, S.: Extending the Reach of Multi-Tier Sustainable Supply Chain Management – Insights from Mineral Supply Chains. Interna- tional Journal of Production Economics, 2019, 217, 31–43 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.05.030 [30] Sarkis, J.; Gonzalez, E. D. S.; Koh, S. L.: Effective Multi-Tier Supply Chain Management for Sustain- ability. International Journal of Production Eco- nomics, 2019, 217, 1–10 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.014 [31] The Future of the Automotive Value Chain - Sup- plier Industry Outlook 2025, Deloitte, 2017 [32] Automotive News - North America top suppli- ers, Tenneco, 2019 https://www.autonews.com/ assets/PDF/CA116090622.PDF [33] Global Automotive Supplier Study 2018, Roland Berger, 2017 https://www. rolandberger.com/it/Publications/ Global-Automotive-Supplier-Study-2018.html [34] EDGAR Pro Online (2019) operated by Donnelley Financial, LLC, https://pro.edgar-online.com/ [35] Foreign Exchange Rates - H.10, Federal Re- serve, 2019. https://www.federalreserve.gov/ releases/H10/hist/ [36] Field, A.; Miles, J.; Field, Z.: Discovering Statis- tics Using R. Sage Publications, 2012, pp. 814–816 ISBN: 978-1-446-20046-9 [37] Agresti, A.: An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. 2018, pp. 34–40 ISBN: 978-0-471-22618-5 48(1) pp. 131–138 (2020) https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance/historical-data.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance/historical-data.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance/historical-data.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.005 https://doi.org/10.1506/N57L-0462-856V-7144 https://doi.org/10.1506/N57L-0462-856V-7144 https://www.msci.com/gics https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701288316 https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701288316 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.09.022 https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2015.08.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.07.024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.05.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.014 https://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA116090622.PDF https://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA116090622.PDF https://www.rolandberger.com/it/Publications/Global-Automotive-Supplier-Study-2018.html https://www.rolandberger.com/it/Publications/Global-Automotive-Supplier-Study-2018.html https://www.rolandberger.com/it/Publications/Global-Automotive-Supplier-Study-2018.html https://pro.edgar-online.com/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/hist/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/hist/ 138 SUTA AND TÓTH Appendix A – Chi-square test steps 1) Contingency table Financial statement items OEMs Suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 Total assets Expected 783,346 953,149 Observed 874,139 688,812 Total equity attributable to the owners of companies Expected 153,668 329,224 Observed 221,111 234,365 Net sales revenue Expected 606,225 749,694 Observed 649,422 478,399 Profit after-tax Expected 23,941 43,717 Observed 35,125 31,834 Total 3,346,977 3,509,195 2) H0 The financial values of the XBRL data source (observed values) are not significantly different from the values of the online SEC EDGAR Pro Online data source (expected values). Therefore, industry totals from the two sources are consistent. 3) Calculated marginal totals for the observed table 4) Expected value calculation - based on the specific financial statement item’s proportion in the whole population 5) Degree of freedom df = (r − 1)(c − 1) df = (8 − 1)(2 − 1) = 7 6) Calculation of chi-square values Financial statement items χ2 = n∑ i=1 (Oi − Ei)2 Ei OEMs Suppliers from Tiers 1 & 2 Total assets E-O -90,792 264,337 (E-O)2 8,243,257,799 69,874,243,884 Total equity attributable to the owners of companies E-O -67,442 94,860 (E-O)2 4,548,480,637 8,998,332,516 Net sales revenue E-O -43,197 271,295 (E-O)2 1,865,960,356 73,600,784,685 Profit after-tax E-O -11,184 11,883 (E-O)2 125,073,800 141,206,159 Chi-square total Chi-square 4,417 43,490 47,907 7) Determination of Significance level and Critical value: significance level (alpha) 0.05 critical value 16.92 8) The chi square test result showed as the H0 hypothesis should be rejected with a 95% confidence interval (degree of freedom = 7). The Chi-squared test results showed that the hypothesis H0 should be rejected. Hungarian Journal of Industry and Chemistry Introduction Literature review XBRL utilization in industry-specific data analysis Discrepancies between industrial classification systems The multi-tier supply chain approach Data collection and methods used Results Data categorization: number of companies and industries Errors in terms of the consistency and availability of samples Comparison of financial information on an industrial level Chi-square statistical testing Conclusions