SOX as a window on transference of corporate governance norms across jurisdictions

Abstract

This paper considers the issue of the transference of norms across jurisdictions in corporate governance contexts through the lens of an Australian case study. The paper focuses on the impacts of the United States of America (US) legislation the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (SOX) from an Australian perspective. The paper draws on a series of semi-structured interviews (n=14), with senior personnel of: accounting firms; business organisations; consumers; financial exchanges; government; institutional investors; investment banks; law firms; private investors; professional associations; and regulators. The findings from the study are that key stakeholders in Australia have taken notice of SOX and its effects in the US, but that the influence of SOX in specifically Australian contexts has been limited. The general perception in Australia seems to be that SOX has had some flaws in its inception and in its subsequent delivery in the US, but also that it has produced some positive outcomes. However, domestic factors and influences are overwhelmingly more important in shaping how financial regulation and corporate governance evolve in Australia. Therefore, it seems that SOX does not signify in any substantive way a regulatory hegemony emanating from the US that determines financial market regulation or the evolution of corporate governance in Australia.