“We’re expected to do more with less and the cost of “getting it wrong” is higher.”

An interview with Dag Ove Solsvik, Head of Legal (Maritime) and Secretary to the Board of Directors at DNV in Norway.

What are the biggest external forces or trends currently shaping your role as General Counsel, and how are you responding to them?

If I try to step back, I see three macro-currents shaping my job today: rule velocity, geopolitical fences, and technology acceleration. These have, perhaps, two crosscurrents running through all of them: “more-for-less” expectations and a higher consequence of error.

First, rule velocity. The regulatory map is changing faster and reaching further – competition, sustainability, AI, cyber, privacy – as politicians and rule makers try to respond to modern challenges and a new world order as well as more populist mandates that they get from their electoral bases. As a global company we are often faced with regulations that have an extraterritorial bite or regional regulations that compete. For now, this means that we have perhaps moved to a more principles-based backbone: a few clear guardrails that works across different jurisdictions and rulesets, concrete examples for real use-cases, and short playbooks our internal customers can find meaningful in a live situation. We find that this lets us update quickly without rebuilding from scratch each time, and it gives the business confidence to move while the rules are still settling.

Second, geopolitical fences. As mentioned above, we face more and more challenges that are based on an unsettled world order. Sanctions, export controls, local content, supply-chain sovereignty: the architecture of trade is perhaps becoming more fragmented. We try to respond to these challenges by designing for optionality. We scenario-plan, pre-agree escalation paths, and draft contracts that gives us freedom to operate even if new lawful routes open if a border, buyer, or technology suddenly falls behind a fence. Preparation can turn geopolitics from a paralysis risk into a navigation exercise. But this is becoming more challenging.

Third, technology acceleration, especially AI and data. Here the trap is false binary thinking – either open throttle or full stop. We try to work with a pragmatic “can / can’t / with-controls” model. Meaning we define acceptable uses, specify controls where needed, and build clauses and internal checks that let us adopt safely. It’s not about perfect foresight; it’s about disciplined experimentation with reversibility. And building in good and fast escalation principles for getting informed decisions in challenging situations, rather than putting in place no-go areas. Across these currents, there are also clear cross-pressures. We’re expected to do more with less and the cost of “getting it wrong” is higher. This probably means that cycle time and decision quality are more important parameters to measure an in-house team’s performance rather than volume. It is probably also why it becomes more important to do scenario planning and rehearse on crisis protocols before we need them. The aim is no surprises, faster decisions, and better downside protection. This while avoiding adding costs and resources or losing speed. A challenging task.

How are you balancing the increasing demands of legal risk management with the expectation to drive business value and strategic insight?

I don’t treat these as competing mandates – they’re part of the same job. The best way to create value is to manage risk well, and the best way to manage risk is to be close enough to value creation to shape it. Practically, that means being in early, but not loud.

We are at our best when we are invited in at the idea stage where we can shape structures that de-risk and accelerate growth, rather than vetoing at the end. This puts new requirements on the lawyers as well; we have to avoid slowing down processes by raising hypothetical challenges at a too early stage. It also means that we as lawyers have to be proactive and take ownership to the potential solutions, not just the problem. In our team we don’t stop at identifying risks; we translate them into real options with clear guardrails, so our internal customers can choose among calibrated paths rather than hearing a binary “yes/no.” We are also very much feeling the responsibility we have, within the complex global framework we operate, that we have a responsibility to clarify the company’s freedom to operate – this means having a clear informed view on where the lines are, where judgment calls and risk-based decisions are acceptable, and what requires escalation. When people know the boundaries and the thresholds, they move faster and take the right risks.

Finally, we are conscious to try to use the same language as our customers and align ourselves with the company’s risk tolerance levels and processes rather than to make this a personal assessment by the lawyers. This means that in an ideal situation, we are able to price risk instead of merely describing it: frame the situation, document the rationale, and protect reversibility where we can. Done well, that’s not a compromise between safety and ambition – it’s how strategy and governance reinforce each other.

What’s one lesson or insight from your in-house journey that you wish you’d known earlier and would share with a fellow GC today?

A practical lesson I’ve taken from experience is that decisions beat documents. I force myself to be more focused and to the point – what does my customer need to make an informed decision, and what analysis can I keep to myself? We aim for a one-page discipline: brief context, executable options and likely outcomes, guardrails, my recommendation, and what happens if we’re wrong (reversibility and exit).

We, to a larger extent, now think about different scenarios, agree thresholds and escalation before the heat arrives and we try to make sure we continuously learn rather than re-litigate. I also wish I knew at an earlier stage what I know now about triaging theories and legal risk management. The effect on how we work today is visible: fewer surprises, faster cycle time, and better alignment with the company’s risk tolerance and strategic ambitions.