Fewer Safety Officers, Heavier Penalties: How Germany’s Rule Change Puts the Onus on Risk Documentation
Published on 06/26/2026 at 18:22 | Redaktion boerse-global.de
Workplace safety rules in Germany have just become a double-edged sword for employers. The threshold for appointing safety representatives was raised from 20 to 50 employees on 29 May 2026, ostensibly to cut red tape. But the same legal package tightens the screws on the one document that can make or break a company’s defence in court: the risk assessment.
Under the revised §22 of the German Social Code VII (SGB VII), firms with fewer than 50 staff no longer have to formally designate a safety officer. However, the obligation to conduct a risk assessment under §5 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (ArbSchG) remains untouched — and can still require a safety representative if the workplace poses specific hazards. The ultimate responsibility for evaluating risks stays with the employer, regardless of headcount.
The real compliance squeeze arrives on 20 January 2027, when the EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230 fully replaces the existing Machinery Directive. Among the equipment affected are power-operated windows in commercial buildings. Employers must now carry out a systematic risk evaluation and perform annual inspections aligned with the technical workplace rules (ASR A1.6). Mandatory double suspension systems or fall-arrest devices are part of the package. Equally important: every step must be documented without gaps.
Yet ensuring that documentation is complete and legally sound can be a challenge many employers underestimate — a dangerous gap that could prove costly in court. A free Risk Assessment Toolkit provides 41 ready-to-use checklists and templates to help you document risks properly and protect your business. Download the free Risk Assessment Toolkit
That documentation becomes the central shield in the event of an industrial accident or product-liability case. Criminal product law carries prison sentences of up to five years. Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has, since its landmark “Leather Spray” ruling in 1990, derived expansive recall obligations from such assessments. Recent decisions underscore the personal exposure for top management:
- On 16 December 2025, the BGH upheld a fraud conviction linked to the diesel-emissions scandal.
- A ruling on 27 February 2025 addressed liability questions around shadow (de facto) management.
- Since 19 February 2026, §29 of the Product Safety Act (ProdSG) has replaced former provisions, codifying new duties.
For executives facing allegations of breach of trust under §266 of the Criminal Code (StGB), the business judgment rule offers protection — but only if they can demonstrate an adequate information base. A properly executed risk assessment proves that management exercised due diligence. An incomplete or missing assessment, by contrast, can strengthen the accusation of negligent conduct.
Once investigations, raids, or hearing notices begin, deadlines become unforgiving. A penal order leaves just two weeks to file an objection. Defence strategies typically centre on disputing the existence of a specific duty of care, arguing the lack of proven damages, or denying intent. A thoroughly documented risk assessment provides the strongest evidence that the necessary care was, in fact, taken.
Disclaimer regarding our articles: No investment advice, no buy or sell recommendation. Information on prices, companies, and markets is provided without guarantee; changes are possible at any time. Stock market transactions can lead to substantial losses. Our articles are created and reviewed in whole or in part automatically with the support of AI.
