Corporate Power and the Fog of Accountability

How incentives replace censorship

The most consequential accountability failures in modern life rarely look like cover-ups. They look like process.

A meeting becomes a review. A review becomes a delay. A delay becomes “risk management.” And risk management becomes the default explanation for why scrutiny doesn’t land.

This is not a conspiracy story. It is an incentives story.

When the cost of clarity rises, organizations don’t stop functioning— they start producing fog.

Fog is not the absence of truth. Fog is the substitution of procedure for accountability.

Why corporate structures matter

If you want to understand why oversight hesitates—especially in media, finance, health, and regulation—follow the incentives.

Large institutions operate under:

• legal exposure
• reputational fragility
• investor or ownership expectations
• advertiser or partner sensitivity
• political scrutiny
• internal career incentives

None of these require anyone to lie. They only require decision-makers to prefer the option that creates the least risk for the institution, not the most clarity for the public.

The “triangle” that creates fog

Across industries, fog is often produced by the same triangle:

1. Legal: “Can this create liability?”
2. Reputation: “Could this become a headline against us?”
3. Finance/Power: “Could this threaten revenue, ownership, or access?”

When all three are engaged, organizations shift toward:

• ambiguity (“ongoing review”)
• delay (“additional work needed”)
• discretion (“not the right moment”)
• internalization (“let’s handle this quietly”)

Fog is a rational output of the triangle.

How fog replaces accountability

1) Standards become elastic

Instead of:

• “Did it meet the standard?”

The question becomes:

• “Is it safe?”
• “Is it wise?”
• “Is it worth it?”

Those are not illegitimate questions. But they are discretionary—and discretion favors power.

2) Process becomes the product

You’ll recognize it by phrases like:

• “We’re still gathering context”
• “We’re aligning stakeholders”
• “We’re deconflicting perspectives”
• “We’re tightening language”

This is how accountability can be postponed indefinitely without ever being denied.

3) Responsibility diffuses

The decision is not “mine,” it’s:

• legal’s
• leadership’s
• comms’
• the board’s
• “the process”

Fog spreads when no one can point to a single accountable actor.

Media is not unique—just visible

Media institutions are often the most visible example because the output is public. But the same fog mechanism exists everywhere:

• In corporations: “internal investigation ongoing” with no endpoint
• In regulators: “resource constraints” and “prioritization”
• In public institutions: “sensitivity” and “ongoing review”
• In platforms: “policy enforcement” without transparent standards

The public experiences this as:

• fewer answers
• longer timelines
• less recourse
• more “trust us”

And over time, that produces exhaustion.

Why authoritarian power benefits

Authoritarian power does not need everyone to believe a lie. It benefits when people conclude:

“I’ll never really know what happened.”

Fog accomplishes that without coercion.

When institutions reliably produce fog under pressure:

• the public disengages
• oversight becomes optional
• power consolidates quietly

What to watch for (practical checklist)

If you want to spot fog early, look for:

• Late-stage reversals after “clearance” or “approval”
• Vague justifications without a specific standard failure
• Indefinite timelines (“ongoing,” “additional,” “further review”)
• Process inflation (more committees, more steps, more sign-offs)
• Diffused ownership (“it’s complicated,” “multiple stakeholders”)
• Asymmetry (more scrutiny for critics than for power)

Fog is not always malicious. But it is always consequential.

Closing thought

Most people fear censorship. They should also fear fog.

Because fog is how accountability disappears in systems that still insist they’re free.

When truth becomes negotiable, power becomes comfortable.

And comfortable power rarely stays constrained.

Downstream impacts / Updates

• 2026-01-19 — EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) has been amended to reduce the number of companies covered and remove the requirement for climate transition plans, potentially leading to increased ambiguity in corporate accountability processes.

  • Impact: reduced clarity in accountability standards
  • Impact: potential for increased discretion in corporate decision-making

• 2026-01-19 — The SEC has announced a significant change to its shareholder proposal process, stating it will not respond to any Rule 14a-8 no-action letters until at least September 30, 2026, which may lead to longer timelines and less transparency in shareholder communications.

  • Impact: extended timelines for shareholder proposals
  • Impact: reduced transparency in shareholder communications

• 2026-01-19 — The SEC’s 2026 examination priorities include assessing registered investment advisers’ fiduciary duties, focusing on financial conflicts of interest and the provision of impartial advice, which may lead to more stringent reviews and potential delays in compliance processes.

  • Impact: increased scrutiny of fiduciary duties
  • Impact: potential delays in compliance processes

• 2026-01-19 — The PCAOB has updated standards to strengthen auditor accountability, emphasizing the evaluation of the reliability of electronic information used as audit evidence, which may lead to more rigorous audit procedures and longer review periods.

  • Impact: more rigorous audit procedures
  • Impact: longer review periods

• 2026-01-19 — The Crime and Policing Bill, expected to receive Royal Assent in the first half of 2026, will expand corporate and personal liability, holding senior individuals criminally liable for any crime committed by the organization where they consented to, connived in, or negligently allowed the offense to occur, potentially leading to increased discretion in corporate decision-making and a shift in accountability structures.

  • Impact: expanded liability for senior individuals
  • Impact: shift in accountability structures

• 2026-01-07 — The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) introduced a corporate whistleblower rewards pilot program in August 2024, incentivizing individuals to report significant corporate or financial misconduct, thereby enhancing corporate accountability mechanisms.

  • Impact: incentive structures
  • Impact: whistleblower policies
  • Impact: compliance programs

• 2026-01-07 — In June 2024, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) updated its auditor contributory liability standard from ‘recklessness’ to ‘negligence’, aligning with the standard of reasonable care auditors are required to exercise, thereby increasing auditor accountability.

  • Impact: auditor liability
  • Impact: audit standards
  • Impact: regulatory compliance

• 2026-01-07 — The 2024 UK Corporate Governance Code, published in January 2024, introduced significant enhancements to corporate transparency and accountability, including the introduction of a new failure to prevent fraud offence, impacting corporate governance practices.

  • Impact: corporate governance
  • Impact: transparency
  • Impact: accountability