Correct. Co-operating with the values and rules of the organisation, can be a requirement to retain the golden share - or obrain it. In the same way that extra requirements on financial protection of football debt (beyond the laws of the land) are a requirement.
This is an issue of governance, not impossibility of meaningful sanction - it's right there. Sure, you can't police peoples hearts and minds - but you can their actions.
A cynic might suggest that they only thing they care about is money coming in, because that's all they mandate.
I would imagine that the issue with that is that they'd be opening themselves up to a lawsuit for restraint of trade, given it's not like a club who gets excluded from the league because of their owner's c*ntitude can just up and ply their trade in a different one, and the EFL doesn't want to be getting into a legal battle with a very wealthy owner. In addition, to a large extent the league is a creature of its member clubs and therefore by extension its owners - such an approach is unlikely to be welcomed by probably a fairly significant number of owners who are conscious of their own particular skeletons. Sit not in judgement lest you be yourself judged, and all that.