There are lots of scenarios where a CEO can go to prison.
I don’t think we get a lot of mileage when we argue about the right words used in corporate comms. Like, “this person is accountable to some extent, but not enough for my standards, so the word ‘accountable’ should not be used here.”
what makes it even worse is just the usage of the word accountable is technically correct but awkward as shit because no one actually uses that word in that manner, they use it in the manner you suggested.
most people would say on-call or responsible-for, both having vastly different connotations than accountable.
saying accountable isn't wrong per se but it's definitely not the connotations anyone would say on the spot when on-call or responsible-for are vastly more accurate.
in particular, on-call brings with it all the baggage that being on-call requires. responsible-for implies you have a responsibility, it does not imply a negative consequence if you fail to meet that responsibility (it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it either).
accountable implies being held accountable which implies a negative consequence.
saying you're held accountable for a system very strongly implies there will be a negative consequence for failure whereas responsible-for does not.
it's what's technically allowed vs what people actually say.
If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison.
Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing
- I.e. it’s a lie