Sarbanes-Oxley: Benefits vs. Costs

Sarbanes-Oxley: Benefits vs. Costs The American Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act of 2002, commonly referred to as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in response to corporate financial scandals involving companies such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International. While SOX was written specifically for public companies; a few provisions, including whistleblower protection and document retention apply to all companies and nonprofit organizations (Levy, 2009). The stated purpose of the SOX legislation is “to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures” (Martin & Combs, 2010). SOX requires additional internal monitoring and disclosure of internal accounting control practices. SOX also mandates that CEOs and CFOs personally certify accounting disclosures. Ultimately, SOX was designed to increase accountability and transparency in an effort to restore investor confidence. While SOX has been effective since its enactment, many question whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
Major Provisions SOX includes over 60 separate sections, including several significant provisions (H.R. 3763). Section 101 created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to oversee SOX and public accounting firms. Oversight is critical to the successful implementation of SOX requirements. Section 203 requires the lead audit or coordinating partner and the reviewing partner to rotate off the audit every five years. Section 301 requires audit committee members be independent. Mandatory rotation and independence of key audit personnel help reduce the risk of fraud. Section 302 requires CEOs and CFOs to certify the accuracy of the financial statements and disclosures included in periodic reports. This requirement helps to ensure proper accountability for financial