The dangerous illusion of effective compliance

Why only an integrated CMS can determine liability, stability and competitiveness

In 2026, companies will still be facing an uncomfortable reality: regulatory complexity is growing faster than many organizations can develop their compliance structures.

The facts: high levels of maturity, yet surprisingly many incidents

Many companies consider their compliance to be effective and yet are repeatedly surprised by significant breaches:

The NAVEX State of Risk & Compliance Study 2025 shows a clear mismatch between aspiration and reality:

• 57% of companies rate their compliance system as "mature".
• Nevertheless, 56% have had at least one relevant incident in the last three years - 36% even several.

Key gaps:

• Only 53% have an internal whistleblowing system.
• Only 49% have a non-retaliation policy.
• Only 61% actively use risk analyses to improve their systems.

The result: Many programs exist formally, but do not control them.

Without integration, compliance loses its effect and companies lose control

Compliance is only effective if governance, risk, legal, ethics and operational processes work in tandem.

According to NAVEX:

• 93% of compliance functions are integrated into risk management,
• but only 24% rate this integration as effective.

In industry in particular, the most liability-relevant risks do not arise in the boardroom, but rather

• on machines
• in shifts
• in instructions
• in maintenance

The core of the problem: Risks are identified but not consistently translated into measures, responsibilities and controls. This is precisely where integrated structures are needed instead of isolated measures.

Where compliance is integrated, there are fewer frictional losses. Processes become faster, risks become visible earlier and decision-making paths are shorter. Integration therefore has a stabilizing and accelerating effect rather than slowing things down.

The critical interface: Where management, compliance officers and occupational safety officers need to come together

Management perspective: Duty of leadership, liability and economic speed

For management, compliance is not a secondary task that can be delegated. For years, courts have regularly found personal liability for lack of organization, inadequate controls or insufficient instruction, even in cases of negligence.

The PwC Study 2025 also shows that

• 77% of companies experience obstacles to growth due to increasing compliance complexity.
  Not because of the rules themselves, but because of a lack of transparency, unclear responsibilities and slow decision-making.

• Today, compliance is less of a legal risk than a strategic risk. Without integrated structures, companies lose speed, control and competitiveness and managers lose their liability security.

Compliance officer perspective: from reaction to strategic influence

Compliance officers are caught between growing regulatory complexity and limited organizational penetration.

The NAVEX data shows:

• 70% are heavily involved in risk analysis,
• but only 64% report regularly to management,
• and only 52% of supervisory bodies assume clear program responsibility.

The result: compliance often remains reactive, even though it could provide significant control impulses.

Integrated compliance enables

• clear responsibilities
• valid risk assessments before decisions are made
• transparency and comparability
• measurable performance contributions

• Only an integrated compliance management system, supported by compliance management software, enables compliance officers not only to manage risks but also to actively control decisions. It makes their work effective, visible and strategically relevant.

Perspective from occupational safety: Highest liability, highest impact

Occupational safety is one of the clearest areas of obligation and liability and is also a significant performance factor.

Studies show that high occupational safety:

• Increases satisfaction
• increases motivation
• Strengthens loyalty

Employees in fair, consistent systems are up to 2.1 times more motivated and loyal.

Organizational deficits, on the other hand, lead to

• Higher absenteeism
• Lower productivity
• Loss of trust in management and organization
• Individual liability of managers

• Occupational safety is the key effectiveness indicator of a compliance system, as it is here that it becomes immediately apparent whether duties are actually being implemented and responsibilities are being effectively fulfilled.
  
  
  

Increased liability perspective

In recent years, courts have sentenced numerous managers, including shift supervisors and team leaders, for organizational failures in occupational health and safety. The cases range from negligent bodily injury to prison sentences for serious accidents. The message is clear: documentation does not protect. Only effective implementation protects. Occupational health and safety officers can advise, but responsibility remains with managers. A lack of integration between occupational health and safety, compliance and management leads to serious consequences in an emergency. This is why occupational health and safety does not belong on the periphery, but at the center of an integrated compliance management system - from both a legal and economic perspective.

Conclusion: Compliance only works when integrated or not at all

Companies with integrated systems win:

• Stability
• transparency
• Trust
• speed of decision-making
• Robust processes
• sustainable growth

Silo-like structures create a deceptive sense of security: systems appear formally fulfilled, but do not interlock operationally. This weakens companies both economically and reputationally.

This is particularly true in manufacturing companies:
Compliance only works in an integrated way or it doesn't work at all. And where it is properly thought through, it not only creates legal certainty, but also the basis for responsible, sustainable growth.