Management Liability for Occupational Safety in Germany

Under § 13(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (ArbSchG), the authorised representative of a company bears personal responsibility for occupational safety alongside the employer itself. In a GmbH, that means the managing directors. Fines, recovery claims from the accident insurer under § 110 SGB VII, and criminal law can reach natural persons, not just the company as a legal entity.

For office and administrative businesses, this personal liability is not a theoretical concern. Supervisory authorities are increasingly taking direct action against management when structures are missing. The duties framework that applies to office operations generally, including which obligations are triggered at which headcount, is set out in the guide to occupational safety in the office. This article focuses on the liability chain itself: what it stems from, when delegation helps and when it does not, and what management must document in order to hold its position in a dispute.

What § 13 ArbSchG means for managing directors

The personal responsibility of management in occupational safety follows directly from statute. Under § 13(1) ArbSchG, the duties of the employer also fall on the authorised representative: in a GmbH, the managing directors; in an AG, the board; in an OHG, each personally liable partner. Foundations and registered associations follow the same logic.

The responsibility is cumulative, not alternative. Employer and management are liable side by side. Two practical consequences follow. First, the supervisory authority can proceed directly against management personally without first having to pursue the company. Second, a holding structure with multiple shareholders does not automatically protect an individual managing director who has actually been responsible for occupational safety matters.

The following table shows which sanctions can apply personally to managing directors, ordered by legal basis and addressee.

The table shows which sanctions can apply independently of each other, and to whom.

Delegation: what it covers and what it does not

Management does not have to carry out occupational safety tasks personally. Under § 13(2) ArbSchG, tasks may be delegated in writing to reliable and qualified persons, such as a site manager, a team leader, or an external occupational safety specialist. The written form is required by statute.

The delegation transfers the duty of execution, not the duty of supervision. This distinction is the most common misconception in practice. Anyone who delegates and then fails to check whether the task is actually being done acts unlawfully under § 130 OWiG. The fine framework corresponds to the framework of the underlying principal offence.

An effective delegation must meet three requirements:

• Selection: the recipient must be reliable and qualified. A team leader without occupational safety training is not a suitable recipient for tasks such as compiling the risk assessment.
• Equipping: the delegated person must know what to do and have the means to do it. A formal appointment without substantive authority is ineffective.
• Supervision: management must regularly check whether the task is actually being carried out. An annual discussion on the status of the risk assessment or the completion rate of safety training is a typical control point, and it should be documented.

A common misconception is that appointing an occupational safety specialist resolves the liability question entirely. The specialist advises and supports under the Occupational Safety Act (ASiG), but bears no responsibility under § 13 ArbSchG. Legal responsibility remains with management.

Recovery by the accident insurer under § 110 SGB VII

Alongside fines and criminal law, there is a third liability channel that is often underestimated in practice: recovery by the accident insurer. Under § 110(1) SGB VII, the accident insurer (in office operations typically the VBG) can recover its own expenditure from whoever caused a workplace accident intentionally or with gross negligence.

Acting with gross negligence means breaching the care required in the circumstances to a particularly serious degree. This applies, for example, where a known hazard is not eliminated even though it has been recorded in the risk assessment or flagged in a letter from the Berufsgenossenschaft. The insurer's expenditure can be substantial: emergency treatment, rehabilitation, disability pension.

§ 110 SGB VII applies in principle where a company engages subcontractors or temporary workers as well. In certain constellations the contracting company shares responsibility for their safety. Anyone who regularly employs tradespeople or cleaning staff on their premises should check whether their risk assessment covers these activities.

When criminal law applies

Criminal law is not the default in occupational safety. It applies in two situations.

First, under § 26 ArbSchG: anyone who persistently ignores a binding order from the supervisory authority, or deliberately breaches the ArbSchG and thereby endangers the life or health of employees, commits a criminal offence. The precondition is that an administrative act — an order with specific content and a deadline — was already in place. "Persistently" in practice means: repeatedly and despite knowledge, still not acted.

Second, under general criminal law: if a workplace accident results in injury or death, the public prosecutor examines whether a duty of care was breached and whether the accident could have been prevented by proper conduct. § 229 StGB (negligent bodily harm) and § 222 StGB (negligent homicide) do not require a prior order.

This is exactly where demonstrable documentation becomes decisive. A risk assessment that was carried out but never committed to writing provides little help in a prosecution. The same applies to training records: a managing director who cannot show that employees were informed of a specific hazard is in a weaker evidential position. What a reliable training record looks like is described in the article on safety training in the office.

What management must be able to produce

From the provisions above, it is possible to derive what a supervisory authority or prosecutor will typically check first. Four elements form the minimum structure that changes the evidential position in a dispute:

• Written appointment of the occupational safety specialist. The appointment under the ASiG must exist in writing and name a specific, qualified individual. A blanket mandate without a name and defined scope is not sufficient.
• Current, written risk assessment. Under § 5 ArbSchG, the risk assessment must be documented in writing. It must be up to date: a document that dates from the company's founding with no revision when working conditions changed does not meet the obligation. What makes a risk assessment legally sound is described in the article on workplace safety fines.
• Training records with date and signature. Every training session requires a record: who was trained, when, by whom, and on what subject. Without the employee's signature, the record is open to challenge.
• Written delegation with documented supervision. If management has delegated tasks, the delegation must exist in writing. The supervisory activity, such as a meeting note or email exchange on the occupational safety status, should also be documented.

These four elements do not provide protection in every individual case. They do, however, shift the evidential position in favour of management and signal to the supervisory authority that the company takes its obligations seriously. The obligations check shows which requirements apply at your headcount.

Safety Club sets up and maintains this documentation for office and administrative businesses. From first contact to signature: a maximum of five working days. The full workflow is set out on the external occupational safety specialist page.

This article is a general overview and does not replace legal advice in individual cases. The current version of each provision cited, together with its interpretation by courts and authorities, is authoritative.