The new safety regulations in construction work: a revolution in the responsibility of the contractor
Aug 11, 2026
By: Itzick Simon
Starting October 16, 2026, the structure of responsibility for safety on construction sites will change significantly. The client enters the circle of responsibility, assumes independent duties, and is required to prepare differently than what has been accepted to date. What has changed, what is required of the client, and how should they prepare?
For years, a fairly clear division of roles has been established in the construction industry: the developer initiates the project, the contractor carries it out, and site safety management is primarily identified with the construction operator and the professional staff acting on his behalf.
The new safety regulations are changing the picture.
They do not transform the work orderer into a work manager, a safety consultant, or an operating contractor. Nor do they transfer to him the professional responsibility imposed on the other functionaries. The change is deeper: the work orderer himself enters the responsibility structure and is assigned independent duties regarding the manner in which the safety system is established and managed in the project.
From now on, it will no longer be correct to treat safety as an issue that can be fully transferred to the contractor through a clause in the agreement. The responsibility for performing the work remains in place, but alongside it comes the responsibility of the client for establishing the administrative and professional framework that the regulations require.
Who is the "work commissioner"?
This is one of the first questions that needs to be asked in every project.
In a typical entrepreneurial project, the answer may be relatively simple. In more complex structures, it is not always obvious: urban renewal projects, purchasing groups, public projects, funding bodies that become deeply involved in the project, trustees and receivers, as well as cases where the identity of the entity managing the project changes during execution.
The contractual title alone does not necessarily provide the full answer. The structure of the contract, the authorities given to each party, and the actual management of the project must be examined.
Therefore, before even addressing the question of how to meet the new requirements, it is necessary to know to whom they apply. Correctly mapping the identity of the work orderer and the other role holders is the starting point for preparation.
Here, in my opinion, is the main change of the reform.
The client is not required to personally manage the construction work or make professional decisions that are not within his area of expertise. The regulations establish a system in which responsibility is divided among a number of officials, each of whom has their own role, authority, and duties.
But within this system, the person ordering the work is no longer an external factor.
He is required to ensure the existence of the framework established by the regulations, to appoint the officials under his responsibility, to provide the necessary conditions for their work, and to operate the established control and reporting mechanisms.
There is a distinction here that is important to maintain: responsibility for managing the system is not the same as responsibility for carrying out the construction work.
The person commissioning the work is not supposed to build scaffolding, instruct a worker, or replace the foreman. On the other hand, he cannot be satisfied with having appointed a contractor and assume that from now on the issue of safety is no longer his concern.
The work orderer enters the responsibility structure
Approval to start work: much more than just a signature
One of the most sensitive points in the new regulations is approval to begin work.
In practical terms, this is the moment when preparation becomes execution. Before approval is granted, the conditions set by the regulations for the commencement of work must be met.
This also results in the significant responsibility that the person commissioning the work assumes in granting approval.
It should not be seen as another document added to the project file. Approval given as a matter of routine, without an organized mechanism for inspection and documentation, may become a central question after a safety incident: On what basis was the approval granted? What conditions were inspected? Who presented the information? And what was known to the client at the time he authorized the start of the work?
Therefore, it is appropriate to build an organized procedure in advance for granting approval, including defining the documents, approvals, and tests on which it will be based.
The signature should be the end of the review process, not its beginning.
The proliferation of officials in the new regulations may create precisely the risk that the regulations seek to prevent: blurring of responsibility.
The project manager, safety controller, foreman, safety supervisor, and other officials are not different names for the same function. Each of them has their own role.
Therefore, from the perspective of the person commissioning the work, it is not enough to simply present neat appointment letters. A clear definition of the work interfaces is also required: who reports to whom, who handles the defect, who verifies that the treatment has been completed, how a warning is transmitted, and what happens when a professional believes that there is a risk that requires immediate action.
As the number of positions increases, the importance of a clear division of labor among them increases.
Project Manager and Safety Controller: Appointment is not the end of the process
The safety plan should also be considered as part of the project management system and not just as a requirement that must be completed.
A good plan should address the characteristics of the project, the execution methods, and the relevant risks, and be connected to the work and control mechanisms on site.
The person commissioning the work is not supposed to prepare the plan himself. His role is different: to ensure that the appropriate parties are working, that the plan is ready on time, and that the management system does not treat it as a document prepared solely for the purpose of formally meeting a requirement.
The gap between a good plan on paper and its implementation on site is exactly the kind of gap that can have great significance after an accident.
The Safety Plan: Not a Document That's Meant to Stay in the File
This question is expected to arise in almost every project.
For years, performance agreements have included clauses that impose broad responsibility on the contractor for complying with safety regulations, employing professionals, and managing the site. These arrangements are of great importance in the relationship between the parties.
But an agreement between a client and a contractor does not eliminate an obligation that the law directly imposes on the client.
Therefore, a re-examination of existing agreements and new contract formats is now required. The goal is not to "transfer" to the contractor the obligations that the regulations impose on the client, but to create a match between the contract and the division of responsibilities in law, and to clearly define the reporting, control, cooperation, and indemnity mechanisms between the parties.
An agreement written according to the old concept of responsibility may not be sufficient in the new reality.
Is it possible to transfer responsibility to the contractor in the agreement?
The issue requires special caution.
The mere ownership of an apartment in an urban renewal project does not make the apartment owner the one who manages the construction or bears the performance duties on the site.
However, the way in which urban renewal agreements are formulated, the powers granted to the representation, and the separation between the exercise of the rights of apartment owners and the management of construction work are of great importance.
From the perspective of the apartment owners and their representatives, the goal is not to include them in safety management, but rather the exact opposite: to maintain a clear, contractual and practical separation between them and the entities managing and executing the project.
This is also one of the reasons why insurance consulting in such projects should begin long before purchasing the policy. The structure of the deal, the division of responsibilities, the agreements, and the insurance package should be examined as a whole.
And what about apartment owners in urban renewal?
Lending banks and financing bodies should also examine the structure of their involvement in the project.
Providing credit, financial support, and supervision designed to protect the funding funds do not in themselves make a financing body the client of the work. The question becomes more complex when the financing body goes beyond financial control mechanisms and actually assumes powers related to project management, identifying contractors, or making executive decisions.
In such cases, it is important to examine not only how the funding body was defined in the agreement, but also what powers it received and what it does in practice.
This distinction should also be reflected in the financing documents, control mechanisms, and insurance system.
Banks and financial institutions: Where does the line cross?
Loyal today. Ordering work tomorrow?
Projects that enter insolvency pose a particularly complex question.
A trustee, receiver, or other official is usually appointed to stabilize a company, protect its assets, and allow the project to continue. However, along the way, he may be given extensive managerial powers: replacing contractors, entering into new agreements, appointing officials, and deciding whether to resume work.
Could he, under such circumstances, also find himself within the scope of responsibility of the safety regulations?
There is no automatic answer to this, and it is not correct to state that every trustee becomes a work commissioner. The scope of powers, court decisions, and actual conduct will be part of the picture.
However, precisely because the issue is not simple, it must not be ignored.
After a serious accident, not only the title "trustee" or "collector" may be tested, but also the reality: who made the decisions, who controlled the continuation of the project, and who had the authority to influence the execution of the work.
A person in a position who enters a project to address an economic crisis should, therefore, examine from the outset the implications of his role in the areas of safety, responsibility, and risk management.
The connection between safety and insurance requires precision.
Failure to comply with a safety requirement does not in itself lead to the denial of insurance coverage, just as full compliance with regulations does not guarantee the existence of coverage. The question of coverage is determined according to the terms of the policy, the circumstances of the incident, and the relevant law.
But from here to the conclusion that there is no connection between the fields is a long way off.
The manner in which the project was managed, the division of responsibility, documentation, inspections, training, and handling of alerts may have real significance in clarifying the circumstances of an accident, examining liability, and managing the lawsuit and legal defense.
From an insurance perspective, the new regulations therefore require not only a re-examination of the policy wording, but also an examination of the project's entire risk management system : who bears what responsibility, how this is reflected in the agreements, whether the role holders are adequately covered, and whether the indemnity, waiver of substitution, and various coverage mechanisms are appropriate for the new reality.
Safety VS Insurance
The regulations were published on October 16, 2025, and were set to come into effect one year later. The Labor and Welfare Committee defined the amendment as a move intended to regulate and expand the chain of responsibility for safety on construction sites, including the responsibility of the developer as the person commissioning the work.
Therefore, October 16, 2026 is not the right day to open the regulations and start checking what has changed. By that date, preparations should already be complete.
In any organization that is involved in initiating or commissioning construction work, it is appropriate to currently map the existing and planned projects, identify the person commissioning the work in each of them, examine the required positions and the method of appointments, and re-examine the agreements, work procedures, reporting and control mechanisms, safety plans, and the process for approving the start of work.
The insurance and risk management system also needs to be examined against the new liability structure.
Proper preparation does not need to add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. On the contrary. Its goal is to create in advance a clear division of responsibility and a system that can be managed: who is responsible, who reports, who checks, who handles, and what happens when a failure is discovered.
October 16, 2026 is the start date, not the start date of preparation.
Knowledge Center for the New Safety Regulations in Construction Work
The scope of the changes makes it impossible to provide a serious response to all the issues in a single article.
For this purpose, we have established the Knowledge Center for the New Safety Regulations in Construction Work, where we have brought together analyses, explanations, and practical tools addressing the key issues raised by the reform: the responsibilities of the person commissioning the work, the project manager, the safety inspector, the safety plan, authorization to commence work, apartment owners and representatives, banks and financing institutions, trustees and other appointed officials, insurance and risk management, and additional issues arising from the implementation of the regulations.
The purpose is not to replace the regulations or the professional experts required to implement them. Rather, it is to enable those who manage, finance, advise on, or insure a construction project to understand the broader picture and the points of intersection between the law, project management, safety, and insurance.
In Conclusion
The person commissioning the work does not become a contractor or a safety professional as a result of these regulations. Even after they come into force, the contractor, site manager, and other relevant professionals will retain the professional duties imposed upon them by law.
However, the position of the person commissioning the work changes significantly.
They can no longer assume that simply assigning the work to a contractor and transferring responsibility to the contractor under the agreement removes them from the safety framework. The regulations impose specific obligations on the person commissioning the work and require them to be part of the project's system of responsibility, oversight, and management.
In my opinion, this is the change that should be on the desk of every entrepreneur and contractor in Israel today. Not because they are required to manage safety instead of the professionals, but because they are now required to ensure that the system that is supposed to manage it actually exists, is functioning, and is documented.
מסמכים
