The Impact of SOX Adoption on the Compensation of Non-US Companies’ Boards: The Case of Canadian Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to study the relationship between the adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and the compensation of the board of directors of Canadian companies listed on US stock markets. The SOX act, promulgated on 30 July 2002 and the rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) require, among furthermore, a majority of independent directors on boards. The literature focuses on two main differences between US companies and Canadian companies: more concentrated ownership and the smaller market capitalization of Canadian companies. Therefore, a consistent application of SOX on all the companies that differ at the base, in their size and structure, may have a different impact on the costs of compliance. Using a sample of 17 Canadian companies listed on US stock exchanges from 2001 to 2004, our analysis show that there is a link between the adoption of SOX and the increased in the cash compensation of the board of directors. The results also show that the effect of SOX is different depending on the company’s size.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".