When Compliance Is Treated as Extra Work Instead of a Corporate Obligation

In practice, statutory compliance and corporate governance often require support from more than one function within the organisation.

Whether it is holding meetings in accordance with the shareholders’ agreement, preparing documents for an annual general meeting, attending to filing requirements, or gathering information required for statutory or governance purposes, the responsible function may not always be able to complete the work in isolation. Very often, it depends on timely input, confirmation, or documentation from other departments.

However, one practical difficulty that sometimes arises is that compliance-related requests are not always viewed in that way. Instead, they may be perceived as creating additional work for other teams, particularly where the request does not appear to be directly connected to their immediate operational priorities.

In some cases, the response may not be resistance in formal terms, but a suggestion that the matter should simply not be pursued, delayed, or deprioritised because it creates unnecessary work.

This is where an important governance issue arises.

Compliance obligations do not become optional because they require effort

As a matter of practice, statutory and governance requirements do not cease to apply merely because compliance with them requires coordination, effort, or input from multiple departments.

The fact that a meeting must be held, that documents must be prepared, or that certain information must be obtained for compliance purposes is not a matter of preference. It arises because the company is subject to legal, contractual, constitutional, or governance obligations that must be attended to properly.

For this reason, the issue should not be viewed as one department creating additional work for another. The work exists because the obligation exists.

That distinction is important.

If compliance requirements are treated as optional simply because they create inconvenience, the company risks approaching governance on the basis of operational preference rather than legal and procedural necessity.

Compliance work is often cross-functional by nature

In practice, many compliance matters cannot be completed by one function alone.

For example, where meetings are required under a shareholders’ agreement, there may be a need for input from management, finance, legal, operations, or other internal stakeholders before the meeting materials can be properly prepared or circulated.

Similarly, in relation to annual general meetings or other statutory requirements, the responsible team may need supporting information, documents, confirmations, financial data, or internal approvals from other departments in order to complete the necessary work within the required timeline.

This is not unusual. It is simply the reality of how corporate compliance operates in practice.

The responsible governance or company secretarial function may coordinate the process, but that does not mean it can independently create all of the information or documentation required. In many cases, compliance depends on cooperation from those who hold the relevant information or responsibility.

Why resistance from other departments creates a wider issue

When other departments respond to compliance requests on the basis that the work is inconvenient, unnecessary, or something that should not be pursued because it creates extra effort, the issue is no longer merely an internal workflow problem.

It becomes a governance issue.

This is because the company’s ability to meet its obligations may be weakened if the function responsible for coordinating compliance is unable to obtain the support needed to complete the task properly.

In some situations, this may result in delay. In others, it may result in incomplete records, insufficient documentation, missed timelines, or failure to carry out the required corporate action altogether.

Even where the issue does not immediately result in a formal breach, it may still reflect a deeper weakness in the organisation’s approach to governance. If compliance is treated as an avoidable administrative burden rather than a necessary part of operating the company properly, that mindset itself creates risk.

The responsibility may sit with one function, but the obligation belongs to the company

A practical point that is often overlooked is that while one department may be tasked with managing or coordinating compliance, the underlying obligation is not that department’s obligation alone.

It is the company’s obligation.

The role of the governance, legal, or company secretarial function may be to identify the requirement, coordinate the necessary action, and ensure that the proper process is followed. However, where compliance depends on information, documents, or support from other parts of the organisation, those teams also play a part in enabling the company to comply.

For this reason, it is not accurate to treat compliance requests as though they are merely internal administrative preferences of the requesting function.

Rather, they should be understood as part of the company’s effort to meet its own legal, contractual, and governance obligations.

Why this issue should not be normalised

In some organisations, this type of resistance may become so common that it is treated as normal.

However, it should not be normalised.

If the function responsible for compliance is regularly placed in a position where it must repeatedly justify why statutory requirements should be attended to, or where necessary information is withheld or delayed because other departments do not see the value in the request, the company is not operating on a sound governance basis.

Good governance requires more than assigning responsibility on paper. It also requires the organisation to support compliance in substance.

This means recognising that some work must be done not because it is convenient, but because it is required.

A better approach in practice

A more effective approach is for the organisation to recognise from the outset that compliance is often cross-functional and that cooperation is part of good governance.

Where compliance-related tasks require input from multiple departments, there should be clarity as to what is required, why it is required, who is expected to provide the relevant information, and by when.

More importantly, there should be an understanding that these requests are not being made merely to create process for its own sake. They arise because the company must meet specific obligations and cannot do so properly without the necessary internal support.

In practice, this also requires a degree of tone from management. If compliance is treated seriously at the organisational level, other teams are more likely to understand that supporting such work is part of their responsibility and not simply an optional favour to another department.

Final thoughts

In practice, compliance and governance work often require support from across the organisation.

Where meetings must be held, documents prepared, or information gathered to meet statutory, contractual, or governance requirements, those tasks should not be viewed as unnecessary work created by the responsible function. They should be recognised for what they are: steps required to enable the company to operate properly and remain compliant.

If other departments resist such work on the basis that it creates additional effort, the problem is not merely one of workload. It is a sign that compliance is not being properly understood as a corporate obligation.

The issue is not that compliance creates work. The issue is that the work exists because the obligation exists.

For this reason, compliance should not be left to one function alone in substance, even if one function is responsible for coordinating it. Good governance requires cooperation, timely support, and a shared understanding that statutory and governance requirements are matters the company must attend to properly.