Skip to main content

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has had a significant impact on strategic management practices and strategies. Discuss how the Sarbanes-Oxley...

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), passed in 2002, was intended to prevent scandals such as the Enron accounting fraud. It tried to prevent fraud in accounting, increase people's confidence in the financial reports of public companies, and safeguard shareholders. It created new laws about internal financial reporting and new requirements for financial audits of public companies. 


One of the most important effects the law had was that it made boards more powerful than management. Before Sarbanes-Oxley, boards had to some degree served under management. Boards now have greater oversight over management and must be more active about making sure management is abiding by the terms of the law. Boards have to take a more responsible role over management, and they also have to have greater technical expertise to do so. 


In addition, since the law was passed, companies have had to develop codes of ethics and conduct that apply to their senior management and financial officers. NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange also started expecting companies to disclose their codes of conduct, and the Sarbanes-Oxley law stated that the SEC would expect companies to do so as well. 


Sarbanes-Oxley also instituted the independent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to perform external independent audits of companies. In the past, companies were allowed to perform these functions internally. In addition, since the law was passed, shareholders have taken a more proactive role in the management of companies and used proxy votes to voice their opinions on matters such as executive compensation. The need to follow the provisions of the law has resulted in increased costs for public companies. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more