A+A: How should it be assessed from a legal standpoint when a company provides PPE that is not suitable or even unwearable for certain employees, for example, with unique body types? Do obli-gations in terms of individualised equipment already exist?
Thomas Lange: Yes, absolutely. The employer is not only obliged to provide PPE but also to ensure that it is suitable, which means: it must fit and be wearable. If an employee is at risk or unable to work due to unsuitable equipment, there is legal liability. Both the Occupational Safety Act and the PPE User Ordinance clearly state: the employer is obliged to take individual requirements into account – even if this means procuring special sizes or custom-made equipment.
Practice-oriented know-how as key competence
A+A: As part of the GermanFashionAkademie, you offer a part-time training program for PPE specialists. What do participants learn – and what makes this qualification unique?
Thomas Lange: Our training program for PPE specialists provides the practical know-how needed to develop, procure and introduce PPE in compliance with legal standards. Participants not only learn the relevant legal foundations, but also the specific requirements arising from standards, certification procedures and product testing. What’s special is the modular structure, which closely involves experts from both theory and practice.
A+A: What are the participants' professional backgrounds?
Thomas Lange: They are very diverse – and this is what makes the training so dynamic. Participants come from buying departments, product development or quality assurance, but we also welcome safety specialists and even designers. The majority come from companies operating in the fields of workwear, professional attire and protective clothing.
A+A: Many companies see PPE mainly through the lens of occupational safety. Why do you believe it's essential for buying, product development and design to have a solid understanding of PPE requirements?
Thomas Lange: Today, PPE is no longer just an occupational safety product. It is a complex system product that must be functional, legally compliant, economical and wearable all at once. Buyers must understand which requirements matter beyond the price. Product developers must possess legal expertise to prevent future complaints and stay up-to-date with new legal requirements. And design is crucial when it comes to wearing comfort, fitting, look and acceptance. Such shared understanding results in better products and fewer liability risks.
Fit, diversity and user acceptance
A+A: In how many fields are there complaints that PPE does not fit properly, especially for women and individuals wearing very small or large sizes, unique body types or physical restrictions? How significant is this issue from a legal perspective? Are there already normative or liability-related requirements demanding secure-fitting equipment?
Thomas Lange: Yes, these requirements are already relevant today. When PPE does not fit, it doesn’t meet its purpose – and this can have liability consequences. Employers are obliged to ensure individual suitability. In other words, if a standard size doesn’t fit, it’s not sufficient. Standards – like DIN EN ISO 13688, for example – require an appropriate fit. De facto, it means investing in diversity. Only then can legal risks, accidents and dissatisfac-tion be avoided.
PPE between function and fashion trends
A+A: The utility look is very popular among Gen Z. Where do you draw the line between fashion-inspired workwear and PPE that requires legal certification? Can you give an example where this overlap becomes dangerous?
Thomas Lange: The protective function clearly defines the line. Once a garment must provide protection – for example, against heat, chemicals, or mechanical risks – it needs certification. Especially at the highest protection levels, where life and limb are at stake, safety takes precedence over style matters.
A+A: How mindful do companies need to be when fashion trends imitate the look of safety-relevant clothing – without providing any protection?
Thomas Lange: Extremely mindful. Visual imitation can easily evoke false safety expectations from employees and third parties. There is also a liability risk here. Companies should clearly document and communicate which garments are PPE and which are not. A clear distinction is essential, especially when employees wear both fashion-inspired workwear and genuine PPE in the same work environment.
Suistainability and future perspective
A+A: The industry increasingly talks about recyclability, transparency and sustainability. How much does this affect PPE products, and what do companies need to consider in this context?
Thomas Lange: Sustainability has been anchored in the processes of the PPE industry for a long time. However, there is still a need to ensure that, in terms of PPE, user safety must always be the top priority.
A+A: If you could adjust an aspect – in terms of standards, trai-ning or product design, for example – what would you change to ensure that, on top of protecting, PPE better meets the require-ments in terms of fit, comfort and design?
Thomas Lange: Authorities and certification bodies should take the manufacturers’ responsibility for their products seriously without undermining them by overregulation. It is not acceptable that manufacturers are – rightly – held accountable for their products, yet are not free to decide how to promote and market them. 
