The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.
Because when you know you'll be held personally responsible, you'll act accordingly. If you feel like you can act any way you want without repercussion, then you'll automatically take more risks. Usually this is the way we justify the salaries of CEOs as well, "they are the ultimate responsible for everything in the company, so high salary is needed for that big risk".
Being jailed or loosing the ability to work in a industry isn't necessarily better for everyone involved, if the person is actually normally good at what they do.
A monetary fee for causing a disaster feels extra well in place for positions that people generally take for their monetary compensation as well (board, director, presidents, C* and so on).
If someone runs a mine where a leak could cost society $1B, but they personally make $1M off the outputs, that's a huge net negative for society and a huge net positive for the mine owner. The government has lots of money but their capacity to absorb consequences is not infinite. If the actors in question were personally liable, had accurate estimates of risk and loss, and knew they would be personally liable, they would probablt make better decisions. As it is today, they know they can make lots of money and the risk assessment doesn't matter because they can just walk away.
It matters to me because I want people to want to do things that are good for society and also good for them, rather than bad for society and good for them.
We either need to do something like that or find a way to reintroduce morality to amoral, purely fiscally motivated corporations... fixing incentive structures so their fiscal motivations cause them to make better choices seems far easier to me.