In the company I work for it works like this :
Crew ( Captain and F/O ) review the fuel requirements for the flight and discuss such things that might influence the decision such as tankering requirements, winds aloft, likely allocation of levels, weather en-route and at destination, holding delays etc etc and come up with a number we can both agree on. Captain then decides on final fuel quantity.
Company undoubtably do monitor fuel uplift and usage but leave the final decision down to the Captain. If extra uplift is required so be it. Inevitably there will be occaisions when a higher fuel uplift is taken than might reasonably be considered economic. This can happen for any number of reasons in a dynamic operation. When this happens a short note on the flight operations paperwork will normally suffice. These days everybody is aware of the rules of the game, and economic considerations rank right up there with the paramount factors. I can honestly say that in 15 years of commanding airliners for the same company I have never been asked to explain a fuel uplift decision. There have been occaisions when I might not have been surprised by such a request, however I believe the company realize that my crew and I strive to act in their best interests at all times and accept the swings and roundabouts principal in this regard. Fuel uplift and usage is an important consideration but it is only one factor in many that combine to make for a safe and efficient operation. Guidance on all operational matters is disseminated to crews on a regular and frequent basis, and if an adverse trend appeared to be developing in respect of fuel uplift or anything else it would normally be advised by this medium. In my case I feel totally happy with my companies fuel policy as the final decision rests with the Captain in all circumstances.
In the company I work for dispatchers do not decide the fuel load, the flight level, or the alternate airports. Recommendations and suggestions may be put forward, but the ultimate decision rest with the Captain.
Solar radiation is an issue that has taken on some prominence in recent years with regards to possible health risks associated with crews exposure to additional radiation at high altitudes for extended duration. In the UK it is now a requirement that airlines maintain records of each individuals exposure profile. There is ongoing research into the actual or perceived risks of exposure and no doubt further guidance will be issued as knowledge increases in this area. Personally I still select cruising levels based on the comfort and efficiency of the individual flight. In circumstances where two levels may each offer some compromise I would probably select the lower these days. Other people may have very different views. Again the company have never questioned my decision in such matters nor have I heard of them doing so to others.
There is always a tendancy to "push to save" it is a competitive environment. it should be remembered that Crews are very much at the forefront of that drive and it is wrong to assume that striving for efficiency is something alien to crewmembers. Most of the suggestions that seek such savings actually originate from the flightdeck and cabin crews themselves.
Nobody is going to get everything right all the time, not the managing director nor the Captains nor the cabin crew members etc. However what is important is that everybody is aware of the goals and tries their best to achieve the best results required of their individual or team function. in the case of an aircraft captain they ought to be regarded as managers in their own right. they are responsible for a team of individuals and for delivering a safe and profitable ( where possible ) result for the company as a whole. In a well run company individuals undertaking this or any position of responsibility would be selected for their demonstrated skills or potential ability and as such should be given the latitude to enable them to perform this function.
In my company I am please to say they are.