See especially Donella Meadows "12 Leverage Points":

12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)

11. The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows

10. Structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures)

9. Length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes

8. Strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct against

7. Gain around driving positive feedback loops

6. Structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)

5. Rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints)

4. Power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure

3. Goal of the system

2. Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises from

1. Power to transcend paradigms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points

Note that "members of the system" doesn't even make the list.

This is cool. I'll note that "members of a system", implying individual focus, is a slight straw man of my argument, which is that elements such as "CEOs" or "boardmembers" could be incentivized with new knowledge. 5 and 4 seem relevant--new risks cause companies to restructure their processes all the time, it seems like making clear that backdoors can pose direct risks can cause systemic change.

You apply pressure to the system. Not just elements (individuals?) that make up the system. The most enlightened human being could become a CEO (insert your favorite mythical person) of an oil/coal company; they would still simply be fired if they didn’t do their job.