Occupational safety cannot be delegated

Occupational safety cannot be delegated – Why occupational safety is a leadership responsibility!
Especially in industrial companies, a great deal is at stake not only economically, but also in human terms.. Those who bear leadership responsibility as department heads or site management face numerous decisions every day. Yet one responsibility cannot be delegated: protecting your own employees. Occupational safety is not a purely administrative duty or a task that can be “outsourced” to occupational safety specialists or occupational safety systems. It is an inherent leadership responsibility that requires not only diligence but active action.

Responsibility means: identify hazards, implement measures, verify effectiveness
Managers know their processes, machines, substances, and on-site risks better than anyone else in the company. That is precisely why they are obliged to professionally assess risk assessments, issue operating instructions, and ensure that employees are instructed correctly and in an understandable way. This means: It is not enough to provide a central system for instruction—it requires the active involvement of the leader to input content correctly and completely, conduct training regularly, and verify its effectiveness through spot checks.

These tasks are not only organizationally important, but legally binding. The occupational safety specialist can advise, provide templates, or support on specific issues. The responsibility, however, remains with the leader. In the end, it is the leader who will be held liable if legal requirements under occupational safety law are violated.

Court rulings show: responsibility is personal
A look at German case law shows that violations of occupational safety are not mere formalities, but they entail serious consequences. In workplace accident proceedings, courts regularly focus on the personal responsibility of managers. Violations are typically prosecuted under the criminal offenses of negligent homicide (Section 222 of the German Criminal Code – StGB) or negligent bodily harm (Section 229 StGB) in connection with the legal requirements of occupational safety law. Investigations and convictions target not only managing directors, but also operational managers, shift supervisors, or team leaders.

• In the case of the Wuppertal Suspension Railway accident, the Federal Court of Justice sentenced the manager responsible for construction supervision to one year and eight months’ imprisonment, suspended, and the person responsible for technical rail supervision to eight months, suspended (BGH, judgment of 31 January 2002 – 4 StR 289/01).
• In proceedings before the Regional Court of Osnabrück, following a fatal machine accident caused by a tampered safety device, a suspended prison sentence of six months was imposed on two managing directors. The head of the maintenance team likewise received a monetary penalty of 90 daily rates at 40 euros each, while the production manager received a reprimand and a monetary penalty of 60 daily rates at 40 euros (LG Osnabrück, judgment of 20 September 2013 – 10 KLs 16/13).
• Even in cases where only organizational duties were breached—for example, due to the absence of a risk assessment—penalties are imposed. The Local Court of Freudenstadt imposed a fine of 60 daily rates for negligent homicide after a fatal fall resulting from an insufficient risk assessment (penal order of 30 March 2012).
• Particularly severe was the case before the Regional Court of Traunstein, in which a train dispatcher—also an operationally responsible employee—was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment without suspension. The reason was negligent homicide and negligent bodily harm due to significant organizational deficiencies (LG Traunstein, judgment of 05 December 2016 – Az. 2 KLs 400 Js 26988/16).
• Further examples show that even in less serious incidents, substantial sanctions may be imposed. The Local Court of Heilbronn sentenced a shift supervisor to a fine of 4,000 euros due to deficits in instruction and directions when using a work platform on a forklift (AG Heilbronn, appeal LG Heilbronn).
• In proceedings before the Local Court of Gernsbach, a plant manager and a works manager were sentenced to a fine of 70 daily rates at 70 euros (a total of 4,900 euros). The cause was a missing safety device on a waste conveyor belt and insufficient briefing of employees (AG Gernsbach, penal order of 29 May 2008 / judgment of 18 November 2008).

These rulings show that occupational safety is not just a matter of corporate policy or technical equipment. It is a legal duty area in which violations have immediate personal consequences for managers—from fines to imprisonment. Added to this are psychological stress, reputational damage, and potentially serious implications for one’s professional future.

Conclusion
Occupational safety rarely fails due to a lack of rules or systems. It fails where responsibility is mentally outsourced—where leadership believes that formal organization replaces active leadership and documented measures are automatically effective. Case law makes it clear: What matters is not whether there are guidelines, but whether managers have understood them, applied them, and verified their effectiveness in practice.

Occupational safety is therefore not an add-on to the leadership role, but the foundation of good leadership. Those who take it seriously protect not only employees but also themselves. And those who neglect it bear the consequences—personally, too.