One of the more important compliance questions in heavy vehicle operations is also one of the least documented: who really has the power to influence transport decisions day to day? Formal titles matter, but they do not always describe how work is actually controlled. In many businesses, informal authority sits with experienced allocators, senior drivers, workshop gatekeepers, customer relationship staff or depot supervisors who can accelerate, delay, amend or override key decisions. As HVNL reform discussions continue to emphasise effective safety management and clearer accountability, that gap deserves attention.
The risk is not that informal influence exists. Every operation relies on practical experience and real-time judgment. The problem begins when influential decisions are made outside defined controls, without training, without escalation rules and without evidence. A familiar workaround can quickly become the true operating system of the business, even though it appears nowhere in policy documents.
Under the HVNL, liability is driven by conduct and influence, not just by job title. If a person or business can affect a transport activity, they may carry obligations. That means operators should be cautious about assuming their compliance structure is sound merely because responsibilities are listed in a manual. The real test is whether high-impact decisions are made by the right people, within the right limits, and in a way the business can verify.
Examples are common. A customer-facing employee promises a revised delivery window without checking fatigue implications. A depot supervisor releases a vehicle with a deferred defect because “it should get through the shift”. A senior allocator changes routes to recover lost time without confirming access conditions. None of these scenarios needs bad intent. The issue is that authority is being exercised without a controlled decision pathway.
This is where reform conversations matter, even before any specific legal amendment takes effect. The direction of travel is clear: regulators and industry expect businesses to demonstrate that safety responsibilities are embedded in operations, not just declared on paper. Undocumented influence is hard to train, hard to supervise and almost impossible to assure at executive level.
Operators should start by identifying the decisions that most affect HVNL risk: trip changes, load acceptance, defect release, subcontract allocation, schedule compression and customer exceptions. Then identify who actually shapes those decisions in practice. Compare that map to the formal structure. Gaps usually appear quickly.
From there, set clear authority limits. Define who can approve what, what evidence is required, when escalation is mandatory and how exceptions are recorded. Most importantly, train influential non-managerial staff as decision-makers, not just as support personnel.
If your business wants a practical way to capture authority, approvals and exceptions in one place, the COR safety management platform can help turn informal control into visible, defensible CoR governance.