Formal rules create a governance architecture; institutions determine whether that architecture produces the outcome it was designed to achieve.
Leaders often respond to governance failure by adding rules.
A policy is rewritten. An approval step is added. A committee is created. Liability is clarified. A control is strengthened. The formal architecture becomes more complete.
Yet performance may remain inconsistent.
That happens because governance is not only a collection of rules. It is a system of institutions, incentives, capabilities, information, enforcement mechanisms and transaction processes that determine how rules behave in practice.
The same policy can therefore generate very different outcomes across countries, business units, joint ventures or programs.
The Strategic Context
Soto-Oñate and Caballero examined this distinction in a 2017 review of the international 1992 regime for civil liability and compensation after oil pollution damage. Using a New Institutional Economics perspective, they considered the formal liability and compensation framework alongside its operation in major spill cases across different countries.
Their analysis identified substantial heterogeneity in institutional performance. The paper discusses limitations including financial caps, channeling of liability, restricted conceptions of compensable environmental damage, lengthy processes, strict admissibility criteria, sanctions and country-level institutional differences.
The legal regime itself is specialised and historical. ERANORTH should not convert the paper into current maritime legal advice without separate verification. Its strategic value lies elsewhere.
The source shows that identical or similar formal rules do not automatically generate identical practical outcomes.
Performance depends on institutions.
What Leaders Commonly Misread
The first misread is assuming policy design and policy performance are the same thing.
A policy can be logically sound on paper and operationally weak because roles are unclear, evidence is difficult to produce, claims take too long, enforcement capacity is limited or incentives favour avoidance.
The second misread is treating compliance as proof of control.
A process can satisfy documented requirements while still producing poor outcomes. Governance should therefore measure both adherence and effectiveness.
The third misread is channeling accountability so narrowly that system contributors become invisible.
Liability rules often need clear allocation for practical reasons. But complex systems can involve ship owners, cargo interests, insurers, regulators, classification bodies, contractors and governments. Enterprise systems are similar. A single accountable owner does not mean every causal contributor disappears.
The fourth misread is assuming more severe rules compensate for weak institutional capability.
If evidence cannot be collected, decisions take years, enforcement is inconsistent or local capability is weak, a stronger rule may have limited effect.
Reframing the Issue
Governance should be evaluated as an operating system for decisions and consequences.
The relevant question is not:
"Do we have the right policy?"
It is:
"Can the institutions around this policy detect problems, allocate responsibility, make timely decisions, enforce consequences and adapt when the system fails?"
This creates a broader view of control effectiveness.
A governance system contains at least six interacting elements:
Rule -> institution -> information -> decision -> enforcement -> learning
Weakness in any one can break the chain.
Related article: Environmental Governance Is a Control System: Integrity, Capacity and Citizen Participation
Strategic Analysis: Why the Same Rule Performs Differently
Institutions carry the rule
A rule must be interpreted and applied by people and organisations.
Their competence, independence, resources, incentives and legitimacy matter. If the responsible institution lacks capability or authority, the formal rule can become symbolic.
In enterprises, the same issue appears when a corporate standard is deployed across business units with very different maturity. One unit may have skilled contract managers, strong data and active leadership. Another may treat the same policy as a document-retention exercise.
The policy is identical. The institutional capability is not.
Transaction costs can defeat the intended remedy
The oil-spill review discusses long processes and strict criteria around compensation. This highlights an important governance principle: a right that is prohibitively difficult to exercise may provide less protection than its formal wording suggests.
Inside organisations, transaction costs appear as approval delay, excessive evidence requirements, complex escalation paths, duplicate assurance and unclear authority.
Controls should reduce enterprise risk, but they can become so burdensome that teams route around them or delay action until the risk has already materialised.
Liability design changes incentives
Who carries consequence shapes behaviour.
If responsibility is capped, channelled or difficult to attribute, participants may face weaker incentives to prevent harm. Conversely, unlimited or poorly bounded accountability can discourage useful participation or create defensive behaviour.
The design problem is therefore not to maximise liability. It is to align incentives with control over the risk while preserving practical insurability and decision clarity.
Measurement determines what counts as damage
The review also discusses the conception and valuation of environmental damage.
This matters strategically because governance systems can recognise only what their definitions and evidence rules allow them to recognise.
Enterprise parallels are common. A project may be judged only on cost and schedule, so capability erosion or operational burden is invisible. A safety system may count incidents but not deteriorating leading indicators. A supplier scorecard may measure delivery but not dependency risk.
Governance definitions create organisational reality.
Institutional learning determines whether failure improves the system
A mature institution does not simply process incidents. It changes the system when recurring failure exposes a design weakness.
That can involve changing authority, thresholds, insurance, evidence requirements, standards or coordination mechanisms.
Without this feedback loop, governance accumulates procedures rather than capability.
Decision Framework
ERANORTH recommends an Institutional Performance Test for material governance systems.
1. Rule clarity
Is the expected behaviour, boundary and consequence sufficiently clear to guide action?
2. Institutional capability
Do the responsible actors have the skills, authority, resources and independence required to apply the rule?
3. Information accessibility
Can the system obtain reliable evidence before decisions become stale?
4. Decision timeliness
Can disputes, exceptions and escalations be resolved at the speed required by the underlying risk?
5. Incentive alignment
Does accountability sit with actors able to influence the outcome, and are there obvious ways to externalise the consequence?
6. Transaction burden
Is compliance proportionate, or is the process so costly that it encourages avoidance, delay or superficial conformity?
7. Outcome measurement
Does the governance system measure the consequence it exists to control, rather than only whether procedures were completed?
8. Adaptation
What mechanism changes the governance design when evidence shows repeated failure?
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action: select one material enterprise policy and compare its formal design with actual performance across business units. Look for differences in decision time, exception rate, evidence quality and outcomes.
Medium-term capability building: invest in institutional capability, not only policy writing. Train decision-makers, simplify evidence flows, clarify authority and strengthen independent challenge where conflicts of interest matter.
Long-term strategic positioning: treat governance architecture as adaptable. Policies should have review mechanisms linked to outcomes, incidents and changing business models rather than remain static until a major failure forces redesign.
Related article: Permission Does Not Equal Responsibility: Governing Environmental Burden Across Complex Systems
Signals to Monitor
Watch wide variation in outcomes under the same corporate policy; high exception rates; decisions that take longer than the risk can tolerate; controls completed perfectly while incidents continue; repeated disputes over responsibility; business units relying on informal workarounds; escalating assurance workload without improved outcomes; and policies that have not changed despite recurring failure modes.
A particularly important signal is the difference between formal compliance and substantive performance. If both move in opposite directions, the governance system is optimising its documentation rather than its purpose.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- Which of our major controls work well only because particular people make them work?
- Where does the same policy produce materially different outcomes across the enterprise?
- Do responsible institutions have enough authority, information and capability to act?
- Which transaction costs make legitimate escalation or remedy unnecessarily difficult?
- Is accountability aligned with real control over the risk?
- What important consequences are invisible because our governance definitions do not measure them?
- How does the system learn when the formal rule repeatedly fails in practice?
Closing Perspective
Rules matter. They create boundaries, obligations and decision rights. But rules are not self-executing.
Outcomes emerge from the institutions that carry them: their capability, incentives, information, authority and willingness to learn.
The leadership responsibility is therefore larger than writing a stronger policy.
It is to build a governance system that can make the policy real.
Source basis: This article is an original ERANORTH synthesis principally informed by Soto-Oñate and Caballero (2017), Oil spills, governance and institutional performance: The 1992 regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage, Journal of Cleaner Production, volume 166. The maritime regime is treated as historical institutional evidence, not as current legal advice; current treaty, compensation and jurisdictional arrangements require separate verification before legal publication.
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.