While at first I was opposed to the suggestion that small businesses should be required to adhere to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, upon further consideration I would have to agree. Any increase in financial transparency will not only fall under “Good Governance” as you so eloquently put it, but is also a forced fail safe to ensure a second pair of eyes to review the material.
Though the increased impedance to the struggling small business owner is lamentable, it provides a particular accountability that ultimately benefits the consumer.
On an almost unrelated note, CEOs can now be tried in the International Crime Court as war criminals for particular acts against the environment. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ceos-hague-international-law-tried-environmental-crimes-icc-a7315866.html)
In 2002 the Enron Scandal cost stockholders 11 billion dollars, costing the industry 4 billion a year, (http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/20/news/mn-23790) and prompted the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
What I’m getting at, is should the ICC’s increase in jurisdiction also include financial fraud, or cases that would be in clear violation of SOX or Section 404?