B2G Electronic Invoicing as Enforced High Impact Service: Open Issues

  • P. L. Agostini
  • R. Naggi


Although electronic invoicing is considered one of the most promising instruments to improve the efficiency of economic systems, in Europe it has not yet achieved significant adoption rates, especially among Small and Medium Enterprises. The reasons for this missed diffusion have been largely discussed in the literature. In particular it has been stated that the penetration of e-invoicing among SMEs needs the cooperation of specialised Service Providers. The theme has gained relevance also in a Public Policy perspective: advanced e-solutions in the B2G context (e-Government high impact services) should enable a further propagation of similar innovations in the B2B context. Legislation-based approaches are often used in order to obtain a critical mass of users in a short time.This paper aims at achieving a deeper understanding on whether juridically enforcing the adoption of procedures, which have not achieved an established consensus under “normal” circumstances, can be considered a winning and legitimate strategy. This will help establishing a revised framework for further empirical research.


Adoption Rate Public Body United Nations Economic Commission Specialise Service Provider Established Consensus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arthur D. Little (2005) Electronic Invoicing and the Financial Processing Requirement. Presentation to ITPWG - TBG15 UNECE Project. Bruxelles,
  2. 2.
    Furst, K. and Lang, W.W. and Nolle, D.E. (1998) Technological Innovation in Banking and Payments: Industry Trends and Implications for Banks. Special Studies on Technology and Banking, Quarterly Journal 17 (3):1–9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2005b) Second Meeting of Revision of UN/CEFACT Recommendation 6 to Accommodate Electronic Invoicing Working Group – Minutes. Brussels.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avgerou, C. (2000) IT and Organizational change: An institutionalist perspective, Information Technology and People 13 (4): 234–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avgerou, C. (2002) The Institutional Nature of ICT and Organisational Change, in Information Systems and Global Diversity. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barca, C. and Cordella, A. (2006) Seconds Out, Round Two: Contextualising E-Government Projects within their Institutional Milieu – A London Local Authority Case Study, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 18 (1): 37–60.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001) Technology and institutions: what can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?, MIS Quarterly 25(2): 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., and Benbasat, I. (2003) Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective, MIS Quarterly, 27(1): 19–49.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commission of the European Communities (2007) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union, COM(2007) 23 final. Brussels, .
  10. 10.
    European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry (2006) Benchmarking of Existing National Legal e-Business Practices, from the Point of View of Enterprises (e-Signature, e-Invoicing and e-Contracts), Draft Final Report. Brussels, .
  11. 11.
    OECD (2008) Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Guidance for Policy Makers. Paris, Regulatory Policy Division Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission Informal Task Force on e-Invoicing (2007) European Electronic Invoicing (EEI) Final Report (v. 3.2). Brussels, .
  13. 13.
    Vavalli, V. (2008) Corporate Payments and Financial Supply Chain. Interview, AITI.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Legge 24 dicembre 2007 n. 244 (“Finanziaria 2008”) – Art. 1, §§ 209–214.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Senato della Repubblica Italiana (2007), Relazione Illustrativa allegata al Disegno di Legge n. 1817 – Finanziaria 2008: 33–34.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre (2005) ICT Cluster Finland Review 2005, vol. 4.
  17. 17.
    Hornburg, M. - SAP AG (2005) SAP Biller Consolidator E-Document Exchange Platform. Presentation to ITPWG - TBG15 UNECE Project,
  18. 18.
    Legner, C. and Wende, K. (2006) Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment. Paper for ECIS 2006 (Göteborg). Universität St. Gallen,
  19. 19.
    UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2005a) UN/CEFACT puts its weight behind e-invoicing.
  20. 20.
    NACHA (2001) Business-to-Business EIPP: Presentment Models and Payment Options, Part I and Part II. Council for Electronic Billing and Payment of the National Automated Clearing House Association,
  21. 21.
    Fairchild, A.M. (2002) Value Positions for Financial Institutions in Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment (EBPP). In Sprague, R. (Ed) Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 196.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    CEN/ISSS (2003) Report and Recommendations of CEN/ISSS e-Invoicing Focus Group on Standards and Developments on Electronic Invoicing relating to VAT Directive 2001/115/EC – Final. Brussels, .
  23. 23.
    Gobert, D. (2000) Vers une discrimination de traitement entre la facture papier et la facture électronique?, Cahier du Juriste 4.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tanner, C. and Koch, B. (2004) Die elektronische Rechnungsabwicklung in der Schweiz (EBPP). In E-Business mit betriebswirtschaftlicher Standardssoftware (Schubert, P., et al. Ed.): 157–168. München, HanserGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morrell, M. and Ezingeard, J. (2002) Revisiting adoption factors of inter-organisational information systems in SMEs, Logistics Information Management 15 (1): 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality In Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van de Ven, A.H. (2007) Engaged Scholarship. A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Università LUISS Guido CarliRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations