Organisational Crisis Resilience: What the DGUV Workplace Barometer 2026 Shows
89% consider workplace crisis preparedness important. Yet only 60% believe their organisation is well prepared for fires or explosions.
These two findings from the DGUV Workplace Barometer 2026 reveal a striking gap between the high value placed on prevention and how prepared employees actually perceive their own organisation to be.
In February 2026, the German Social Accident Insurance surveyed a total of 2,015 people in employment. The survey covered the importance of prevention, existing measures and preparedness for different crisis scenarios. The results do not constitute a technical inspection of individual organisations. They do, however, indicate how visible and robust workplace emergency structures appear from the employees’ perspective.
Crisis resilience: expectations and workplace perceptions
Safety awareness is clearly well established. 90% agree that prevention strengthens organisations and improves the resilience of Germany as a business location. 89% consider workplace precautions such as emergency plans, fire safety and occupational health and safety to be important or very important.
Perceived preparedness varies considerably between crisis scenarios:
Crisis scenario | Considered well prepared |
Pandemics | 64% |
Fires or explosions | 60% |
Cyberattacks | 52% |
Supply chain disruptions | 38% |
Violent incidents | 30% |
Natural disasters | 30% |
Prolonged power outages | 28% |
Source: DGUV Workplace Barometer 2026, p. 7.
The comparatively high figure for pandemics is likely connected to experience gained in recent years. Assessments are noticeably more cautious for prolonged power outages, natural events and violent incidents.
For fires and explosions, the figure is 60%. This is particularly notable because established structural, technical and organisational protective measures have existed in this area for many years.
Why 60% is not a reassuring figure for fire safety
Workplace fire safety is not limited to fire extinguishers, signs and documents. What matters is whether alarm procedures, evacuation and initial response measures actually work when an incident occurs.
A fire extinguisher is effective only if it is suitable, accessible and operational, and if employees know how to use it. An escape and rescue plan helps only if the relevant routes are known and kept clear. Evacuation arrangements must remain effective during holidays, sickness absence, shift changes or communication failures.
The survey does not support the conclusion that 40% of organisations are objectively inadequately prepared. It does show, however, that a substantial proportion of employees do not perceive existing preparations as good. This may indicate information gaps, infrequent drills or unclear responsibilities.
Measures already implemented by organisations
The existing measures also present a mixed picture:
67% mention training and exercises, for example in fire safety, first aid or emergency response.
61% report IT security measures.
50% mention emergency and crisis plans.
These measures serve different purposes. An emergency plan describes procedures, training provides knowledge and an exercise tests whether the arrangements work in practice. Only their interaction creates a robust emergency organisation.
Fire safety assistants as part of crisis resilience
94% of respondents consider first aiders important or very important. The figure is 84% for both occupational safety officers and fire safety assistants. This clearly confirms the importance of workplace safety roles.
Fire safety assistants are expected to tackle incipient-stage fires within the limits of their capabilities and without putting themselves at risk. Their training covers theoretical principles and practical exercises using fire-extinguishing equipment.
Under ASR A2.2, 5% of employees are generally sufficient where the fire risk is normal. The required number must nevertheless be determined through the risk assessment. A higher number may be necessary because of shift work, changing attendance levels, a large site, an increased fire risk or people who may need assistance.
A calculated minimum percentage alone does not therefore demonstrate that the fire safety organisation will function effectively.
The interface with business continuity management
Fire safety and business continuity management, or BCM, have different but connected objectives. Fire safety aims to prevent fires, limit their effects and protect people. BCM is concerned with continuing and restoring critical business processes after a disruption.
After a fire, two consecutive questions therefore arise: Was the immediate danger brought under control? How quickly can the organisation resume its essential services?
ISO 22301 sets out requirements for a business continuity management system. In this context, the Recovery Time Objective is the target time for restoring a process. The Maximum Tolerable Period of Disruption is the longest period for which an interruption can be tolerated. Effective fire safety arrangements can increase resilience, but they do not replace comprehensive BCM.
Five questions for workplace practice
Is the risk assessment up to date, and does it cover new machinery, uses, storage areas and work processes?
Are enough fire safety assistants available throughout all operating hours, including during holidays, sickness absence and shift changes?
Do employees know the alarm procedures, escape routes, assembly points and responsibilities in the event of a fire?
Have the emergency arrangements been tested in practice, and have identified weaknesses been documented and addressed?
Is it clear which business processes must be restored first after a damaging event and which resources are required?
Conclusion
The DGUV Workplace Barometer 2026 demonstrates a high level of awareness of prevention. At the same time, the assessments of fires, power outages and other crisis scenarios show that many organisations should critically review their emergency arrangements.
Crisis resilience is not created by documentation alone. It requires up-to-date risk assessments, qualified employees, clear responsibilities and recurring practical exercises.
Bitzer Brandschutz & Sicherheitsmanagement supports organisations in Munich, Haar and the surrounding area with fire safety assistant training in accordance with ASR A2.2 and DGUV Information 205-023, workplace fire safety instruction, evacuation drills and workshops on emergency and crisis management.
Would you like to review your fire safety arrangements or provide your employees with practice-based training?
Contact us to discuss your individual requirements.
Sources and further information
German Social Accident Insurance. (2026). DGUV Barometer Arbeitswelt 2026: Krisenresilienz (Workplace Barometer 2026: Crisis Resilience). DGUV. Original publication
German Social Accident Insurance. (2014). Brandschutzhelfer: Ausbildung und Befähigung (Fire Safety Assistants: Training and Qualification) (DGUV Information 205-023).
Committee for Workplaces. Maßnahmen gegen Brände (Measures against Fire) (ASR A2.2).
The statistical data are taken from the DGUV Workplace Barometer 2026. The practical recommendations are an independent assessment by Bitzer Brandschutz & Sicherheitsmanagement.
Comments