Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine what revisions, if any, should be made to the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation to make it more effective in achieving its stated purpose, "To protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to securities laws." In addition, this study sought to determine the likelihood such changes would be implemented by 2015. Methodology. This study used a descriptive research design employing the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique is a qualitative research process which systematically solicits the opinions of a group of experts on a particular topic through a set of carefully designed questions, summarized information, and feedback derived from earlier responses. In this study, a panel of 20 experts from the field of accounting and regulatory compliance was assembled (10 theorists and 10 practitioners). Findings. The experts suggested many revisions which might improve the effectiveness of the legislation; however, there was little agreement on the importance of the recommendations, or the likelihood of their implementation. This lack of consensus demonstrated the controversial nature of regulatory compliance in general, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act specifically. The top two revisions in terms of importance were also in the top third in terms of likelihood of implementation. These dealt with amending the act to place more emphasis on an issuer's control environment and requiring both audit committees and boards of directors to provide more vigorous oversight of the financial reporting process. Conclusion. The opinions provided by the expert panelists indicated improvements to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act can, and should, be made. Some of the recommended revisions, such as directing auditors to take a more "top-down, risk-based" approach to evaluating their client's internal controls and extending the date for nonaccelerated filers to comply with Section 404(b) of the act, have already been debated and implemented by regulatory authorities. Clearly, the regulatory community recognizes the need to improve the original provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Which revisions should be made, however, remains open to continued debate.