"We are constantly working towards the highest level of compliance possible"
About this Quote
"Highest level of compliance possible" is the kind of phrase that tries to sound like aspiration while quietly admitting the opposite: compliance is not a principle here, its a ceiling determined by feasibility, cost, and risk tolerance. Davidson, a writer, is likely channeling the language of corporate comms and policy-speak, where verbs like "working towards" function as a hedge. It signals motion without promising arrival. No deadline, no metric, no accountability, just the comfort of process.
The specific intent is reputational triage. In any context where compliance is under scrutiny (privacy, accessibility, labor rules, platform policies), saying youre "constantly working" frames the organization as diligent and good-faith, even if it is currently noncompliant. The phrase "possible" is doing heavy lifting: it pre-bakes excuses. Technical limitations. Legacy systems. Ambiguous regulations. Competing priorities. The audience is invited to accept that full compliance might be unrealistic, and that the speaker should be graded on effort, not outcome.
Subtextually, its also a way to keep regulators, critics, or users at arms length. It offers enough seriousness to defuse outrage but stays vague enough to avoid legal exposure. As a writers line, it reads like a conscious mimicry of bureaucratic tone, maybe even a subtle critique: modern institutions have learned to speak in gradients of responsibility, where ethics is managed like a backlog item. The sentence is soothing, but its comfort comes from its emptiness.
The specific intent is reputational triage. In any context where compliance is under scrutiny (privacy, accessibility, labor rules, platform policies), saying youre "constantly working" frames the organization as diligent and good-faith, even if it is currently noncompliant. The phrase "possible" is doing heavy lifting: it pre-bakes excuses. Technical limitations. Legacy systems. Ambiguous regulations. Competing priorities. The audience is invited to accept that full compliance might be unrealistic, and that the speaker should be graded on effort, not outcome.
Subtextually, its also a way to keep regulators, critics, or users at arms length. It offers enough seriousness to defuse outrage but stays vague enough to avoid legal exposure. As a writers line, it reads like a conscious mimicry of bureaucratic tone, maybe even a subtle critique: modern institutions have learned to speak in gradients of responsibility, where ethics is managed like a backlog item. The sentence is soothing, but its comfort comes from its emptiness.
Quote Details
| Topic | Management |
|---|
More Quotes by Mike
Add to List





