IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/majpps/02686900610634739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An institutional perspective of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act

Author

Listed:
  • Richard L. Baker
  • William E. Bealing
  • Donald A. Nelson
  • A. Blair Staley

Abstract

Purpose - In the light of recent financial scandals, such as Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom, the purpose of this paper is to use an institutional theory perspective to examine the interactions between the accounting profession, the SEC and the Congress. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes an institutional perspective of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act and reviews how historical events have led to various institutional developments, which, in turn, have resulted in accountancy changes. Findings - The end result is posited to be an outcome that enhances the legitimacy of the SEC to regulate the accounting profession. At the same time, the accounting profession will emerge from the events able to proclaim that it is improved. Finally, politicians will garner favor from the voters since they have acted to protect the public from financial frauds. Originality/value - Describes how the relationship among the three parties is in reality a highly predictable set of behaviors that will allow all of the participants to demonstrate legitimacy to their external constituents and enable each party to secure enhanced future resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard L. Baker & William E. Bealing & Donald A. Nelson & A. Blair Staley, 2006. "An institutional perspective of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(1), pages 23-33, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:02686900610634739
    DOI: 10.1108/02686900610634739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686900610634739/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686900610634739/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/02686900610634739?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:02686900610634739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.