The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 commanded countless internal control of financial reporting, it improved proficiency and independence between better attentive boards, commissions and managements. SOX also obligated new reporting, audit, admission and ethics requirements, and generated internal reporting and whistleblower assemblies which assisted in influencing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The net effect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was considered to be too much of an implement. The legislation was not groundbreaking in a sense of the functional deviations it made. The current laws into play that contained the important doctrines, obligations and expectations for corporate governance were essentially unaffected, but people were still unaware of how it could protect and benefit them. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act off 2002 made it justifiable that people would have to be aware and pay closer attention to it. SOX is believe to be by many that it was only revolutionary in a sense of the attitudinal and national change that predominantly practical guidelines it presented instigated to occur within the community of public companies and the lawyers that work for them (Maleske, 2012).
The most projecting change the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 engendered was a shift from a standpoint that the board serves management to a standpoint that organizations are working for the board. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also documented that director independence is essential for the board to operate efficiently involving management. SOX consents for director liability if the board does not implement the applicable misunderstanding of oversight. With the Sarbanes-Oxley intact, many organizations are much resilient and substance to supplementary misunderstanding of management from more practical board members with better procedural expertise. The maximized demands and need for independence has led to immeasurable diversity among the people who serve on boards.
