Why Large Public Companies Shouldn't Hate Sarbanes-Oxley

By Chowdhury, Shamsud D. | Ivey Business Journal Online, March/April 2007 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Why Large Public Companies Shouldn't Hate Sarbanes-Oxley


Chowdhury, Shamsud D., Ivey Business Journal Online


Sarbanes-Oxley may be onerous, tedious and expensive. But it is also - and arguably the most important overlooked thing - a virtual and heretofore never-considered ally of corporate managers. In fact, as this author argues, learning to live with Sarbanes Oxley can yield unanticipated dividends and make a manager's life a lot easier.

Since its passage in 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of the United States has generated a great deal of controversy. Proponents maintain that it did not go far enough to curb agency problems and restore shareholder confidence in the governance of large public corporations. Critics contend that it has gone too far, is complicated, confusing and, most importantly, very costly to execute. In this article, I argue that the benefits from the compliance of SOX should outweigh, at least in the long-run, its associated costs. The essence of my argument hinges on how SOX compliance serves as a proxy for the key components of strategy implementation- a job inherently complicated and expensive-but instrumental in the eventual success of a corporation.

The critics speak

Following its establishment in the United Kingdom in 1991, the Cadbury Commission issued a report entitled, Cadbury Committee Report: Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance in the UK, in 1992. Sir Adrian Cadbury, former chairman of Cadbury Schweppes and an ardent proponent of stringent measures to curb executive wrong doings became a synonymous with corporate governance reform. An offshoot of the Cadbury Commission, the Cadbury Report aimed at improving the perceived low level of confidence in financial reporting and in the ability of auditors to provide safeguards to the users of company reports. Sir Cadbury's most notable achievement, the Cadbury Code, represents a highly codified set of recommendations of the Cadbury Report, which got immediate acceptance in about 50 countries. Not surprisingly, say some observers, the Cadbury Commission's 19 recommendations for stricter and more effective governance of British public corporations culminated in the passage of SOX in 2002.

The SOX of 2002 represents perhaps "the most far reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" [http://www.sec.gov (accessed May 5, 2006]. Once admired for their enviable track record, a few household names such as Arthur Anderson, Enron, Hollinger International, Tyco and WorldCom became synonymous with executive corruption, scandal and greed. In response, on July 30, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The essential reforms brought about by SOX include, among other things, accounting oversight, auditor independence, disclosure, analysts' conflict of interests, accountability for fraud, and attorney's responsibilities. Without question, these reforms have significant ramifications not only for the public and private corporations in the US, but also for the corporations of other countries transacting with US firms, Canada included.

Below, I offer a brief overview of the criticism that has frequently been labeled against SOX, followed by an explanation of how this is related to corporate governance and strategy. Then, I present a strategy implementation model that shows how SOX compliance serves as a proxy for the basic levers of strategy implementation. Because these levers are inherently expensive, compliance with SOX may offset a great deal of costs associated with strategy implementation. I conclude on a high note, that compliant firms can turn the burden of SOX into a source of competitive advantage by integrating the Act's relevant provisions into their routine strategy implementation process.

The most frequently heard criticism of SOX is that complying with it is time-consuming and costly, particularly for relatively small public corporations. However, the most serious criticism is directed at three sections-404, 406, and 409-under Title IV: Enhanced Financial Disclosures.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Why Large Public Companies Shouldn't Hate Sarbanes-Oxley
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?