Impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on U.S.

corporate governance Sarbanes-Oxley Act was designed to protect shareholders from the excesses and failed oversight that characterized failures at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia Communications, Qwest, and Global Crossing, among other prominent firms. Several key elements of SarbanesOxley were designed to formalize greater board independence and oversight. For example, the act requires that all directors serving on the audit committee be independent of the firm and receive no fees other than for services of the director. In addition, boards may no longer grant loans to corporate officers. The act has also established formal procedures for individuals (known as whistleblowers) to report incidents of questionable accounting or auditing. Firms are prohibited from retaliating against anyone reporting wrongdoing. Both the CEO and CFO must certify the corporations financial information. The act bans auditors from providing both external and internal audit services to the same company. It also requires that a firm identify whether it has a financial expert serving on the audit committee who is independent from management. Although the cost to a large corporation of implementing the provisions of the law was $8.5 million in 2004, the first year of compliance, the costs to a large firm fell to $1$5 million annually during the following years as accounting and information processes were refined and made more efficient. Pitney Bowes, for example, saved more than $500,000 in 2005 simply by consolidating four accounts receivable offices into one. Similar savings were realized at Cisco and Genentech. An additional benefit of the increased disclosure requirements is more reliable corporate financial statements. Companies are now reporting numbers with fewer adjustments for unusual charges and write-offs, which in the past have been used to boost reported earnings. The new rules have also made it more difficult for firms to post-date executive stock options.

References

Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2010). Concepts in strategic management and business policy

(12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on U.S. corporate governance Sarbanes-Oxley Act was designed to protect shareholders from the excesses and failed oversight that characterized failures at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia Communications, Qwest, and Global Crossing, among other prominent firms. Several key elements of SarbanesOxley were designed to formalize greater board independence and oversight. For example, the act requires that all directors serving on the audit committee be independent of the firm and receive no fees other than for services of the director. In addition, boards may no longer grant loans to corporate officers. The act has also established formal procedures for individuals (known as whistleblowers) to report incidents of questionable accounting or auditing. Firms are prohibited from retaliating against anyone reporting wrongdoing. Both the CEO and CFO must certify the corporations financial information. The act bans auditors from providing both external and internal audit services to the same company. It also requires that a firm identify whether it has a financial expert serving on the audit committee who is independent from management. Although the cost to a large corporation of implementing the provisions of the law was $8.5 million in 2004, the first year of compliance, the costs to a large firm fell to $1$5 million annually during the following years as accounting and information processes were refined and made more efficient. Pitney Bowes, for example, saved more than $500,000 in 2005 simply by

consolidating four accounts receivable offices into one. Similar savings were realized at Cisco and Genentech. An additional benefit of the increased disclosure requirements is more reliable corporate financial statements. Companies are now reporting numbers with fewer adjustments for unusual charges and write-offs, which in the past have been used to boost reported earnings. The new rules have also made it more difficult for firms to post-date executive stock options. References

Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2010). Concepts in strategic management and business policy

(12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Today, everything has changed. Globalization, the integrated internationalization of markets and corporations, has changed the way modern corporations do business. As Thomas Friedman points out in The World Is Flat, jobs, knowledge, and capital are now able to move across borders with far greater speed and far less friction than was possible only a few years ago. For example, the inter-connected nature of the global financial community meant that the mortgage lending problems of U.S. banks led to a global financial crisis in 2008. The worldwide availability of the Internet and supply-chain logistical improvements, such as containerized shipping, mean that companies can now locate anywhere and work with multiple partners to serve any market. To reach the economies of scale necessary to achieve the low costs, and thus the low prices, needed to be competitive, companies are now thinking of a global market instead of national markets. Nike and Reebok, for example, manufacture their athletic shoes in various countries throughout Asia for sale on every continent. Many other companies in North America

and Western Europe are outsourcing their manufacturing, software development, or customer service to companies in China, Eastern Europe, or India. Large pools of talented software programmers, English language proficiency, and lower wages in India enables IBM to employ 75,000 people in its global delivery centers in Bangalore, Delhi, or Kolkata to serve the needs of clients in Atlanta, Munich, or Melbourne. Instead of using one international division to manage everything outside the home country, large corporations are now using matrix structures in which product units are interwoven with country or regional units. International assignments are now considered key for anyone interested in reaching top management. As more industries become global, strategic management is becoming an increasingly important way to keep track of international developments and position a company for long-term competitive advantage. For example, General Electric moved a major research and development lab for its medical systems division from Japan to China in order to learn more about developing new products for developing economies. Microsofts largest research center outside Redmond, Washington, is in Beijing. According to Wilbur Chung, a Wharton professor, Whatever China develops is rolled out to the rest of the world. China may have a lower GDP per-capita than developed countries, but the Chinese have a strong sense of how products should be designed for their market. References

Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2010). Concepts in strategic management and business policy

(12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.