As pointed out - in a large corporation, things get more abstracted up the ladder. your boss knows how much you pay for toilet paper. the head of the facilities sees a budget line - “supplies”. The CEO sees a line item “building costs”.
If they have one of those “everyone cut 10%” tantrums, then the higher-ups might go into detail why certain costs cannot be cut. (“Bring your own toilet paper”? “No turd Thursdays”?) When I was in a computer department, 2/3 of the cost were fixed leases and maintenance contracts (Someone else’s bright idea for cutting capital costs earlier). So 10% was not feasible unless we wanted to cancel all the new projects and lay off half the staff. I’m sure they considered that.
What the various levels do have is continuous tracking and expenditure reports - spent, committed, liable, necessary - all vs budget. The goal is not to discover after 12 months that “OMG, we spent twice what we budgeted!” but to catch problems early.
Are there any laws on what corporate officers have to be called? E.g. if a corporation wants to have a “Lord High Bill Signer”, “Duke of Money Planning”, and “Technocrat” instead of a CEO, CFO, and CIO, are regulatory agencies going to bust down their doors or would that be an internal corporate matter to be handled by the board of directors, shareholders, etc.?
No, job nomenclature is entirely an internal matter. I know of corporations where entry-level positions for graduates fresh from college carry the title “vice-president”.
But nomenclature is not the same as description, and a term like “chief executive officer” can do double duty. If, say, statutory regulations impose obligations on the chief exexcutive officer or chief financial officer of a regulated entity, you can’t escape those obligations by retitling your position as “general manager”. If you are, in fact, the cheif executive officer of the entity then you are subject to those obligations even if your job title is not “Chief Executive Officer”.