What does this modality consist of?
Personal assumption of responsibility allows employers to carry out certain preventive activities without entrusting their full implementation to designated workers or a prevention service. Its main regulations are found in Article 11 of the Regulations for Prevention Services and Article 30 of the Law on Occupational Risk Prevention. It is a conditional option, not an exemption for small businesses.
The company remains obligated to protect its employees, assess risks, plan measures, and fulfill all other applicable obligations. What changes is who performs some of the specialized tasks. There must be a match between the responsibilities assumed, the employer’s skills, and the actual complexity of the work, in addition to complying with all other regulatory requirements.
The public tool Evalúa-t, from Prevencion10, can support certain preventive activities. Its use does not eliminate the requirements of this approach nor does it replace health surveillance or the necessary specialized assessments.
Staffing and activity limits
This option is available to companies with up to ten employees or to companies with up to twenty-five employees when they have a single workplace. It also requires that the activities carried out are not included in Annex I of the regulations. These requirements must be checked together: meeting the staffing limit does not compensate for carrying out an excluded activity.
The reference to a single center is especially relevant for the segment that allows up to twenty-five people. Opening another establishment could change the situation and require a review of the model. Similarly, introducing a new activity could modify the initial fit. The decision should be based on what the company actually does and not just on its commercial or administrative description.
Regular presence and necessary capacity
The employer must regularly carry out their professional activity at the workplace and possess the necessary skills for the preventive responsibilities they assume. Regular presence facilitates understanding the actual conditions, but it does not replace training and technical qualifications. Being the owner or manager is also insufficient if the regular activity requirement stipulated by the regulations is not met.
Competence in occupational safety and health must be linked to specific tasks. Basic training does not transform any assessment into a basic-level action, nor does it qualify one for healthcare functions. When a situation requires knowledge or resources that exceed available capacity, appropriate support must be sought. Recognizing this limitation is part of responsible management and does not, in itself, invalidate the activities that can be undertaken.
What activities are excluded?
The employer may not personally perform health surveillance under this arrangement. It must be covered by another appropriate prevention arrangement, with the applicable health professionals and requirements. Other activities that the employer does not undertake or for which they lack the capacity cannot be left unattended. The allocation of responsibilities must allow for the identification of who performs each task and how their results are coordinated.
An external prevention service can carry out the agreed-upon activities that complement the organization’s work. The contract must be tailored to these actual needs and not limited to a generic term. For example, a specialized assessment, measurement, or review of new conditions may require additional resources even if the employer continues to perform routine preventive checks as part of their responsibilities.
How to organize everyday prevention
Being close to the workplace allows for the rapid detection of changes and the implementation of corrective measures, but it requires setting aside time and developing a structured approach. The responsibilities assumed, the necessary documentation, the channels for consultation, and the procedures for requesting external support must be clearly identified. Risk assessments and planning must reflect existing positions and conditions, without being replaced by forms that are not relevant to the work.
Employees must also be informed and trained, their communications addressed, and the implemented measures reviewed. Any simplification of documentation that may be applicable to a small business does not eliminate its obligations. A simple system can be effective if it allows for identifying existing risks, determining required measures, identifying who implements them, and verifying their effectiveness.
Practical example
The owner of an eight-person company regularly works at her establishment and is considering taking on certain preventive activities. She verifies that the activity is not included in Annex I and acquires the necessary qualifications for the planned functions. She defines which actions she will personally perform and arranges for the health and technical activities that fall outside the scope she personally undertakes.
When incorporating a new process, the company reviews its implications before starting it and checks whether it still meets the requirements of the modality. If the process requires a specialized assessment, it obtains it through the appropriate resources. The example does not imply that any eight-person company can apply the same distribution: the activity, risks, capacity, and regular presence must be verified in each case.
When should the decision be reviewed?
The opening of new centers, an increase in staff, a change in activities, or a shift in the employer’s usual work schedule can all affect the business model. Needs may also arise that are not adequately met with the initial resources. A review should be conducted before an incompatible situation becomes entrenched, rather than waiting for an incident to reveal a lack of preventive measures.
It is advisable to periodically review pending activities, assessment results, and the effectiveness of the measures. External audit or assessment obligations have their own regulatory framework, including conditions for possible exceptions; exemption should not be presumed simply because a company is small or because it personally assumes some responsibility for prevention.
Differences and common mistakes
The employer’s assumption of responsibilities differs from the designation of a worker, which assigns functions to one or more employees. It also differs from contracting an external service to carry out agreed-upon activities. Combinations of resources are possible, but they must respect the conditions and limitations of each modality and ensure that all preventive needs are met.
Among the most frequent errors are focusing solely on the staff roster, ignoring the requirement for regular attendance, or believing that a basic course qualifies one to conduct any assessment. Another mistake is reducing prevention to simply maintaining documentation. The practical approach is to ensure that the assigned functions can actually be performed, that support exists for the remaining tasks, and that the measures are integrated into daily work.
