Executives are entering 2026 in an environment where "multiple crises" and accelerated transformation are no longer exceptional – they are structural. The text argues that this persistent volatility is tightening the personal risk perimeter for decision-makers: operational shocks, regulatory pressure, and technology-driven disruption increasingly translate into boardroom liability exposure. The managerial response, it says, must shift from episodic crisis reaction to risk-based governance with auditable early-warning capability – and with insurance and compliance engineered to withstand disputes under stricter case law.
The top risks: cyber, continuity, regulation, AI – now intertwined
As a practical starting point, the article highlights the top four corporate risks for 2026 as cited from the Allianz Risk Barometer: cyber risks, business continuity/business interruption, regulation, and AI.
The crucial point is not the list itself, but the interaction: cyber incidents are no longer "IT events," continuity failures are no longer "operations topics," and AI adoption is no longer "innovation work." Each can trigger the others, creating cascading damage across operations, finance, reputation, and legal exposure – especially in a climate of political and regulatory uncertainty.
The text also frames this risk picture as a duality: high uncertainty comes with opportunity – if organizations build "future skills" and embed opportunity analysis into planning early rather than treating planning as a backward-looking budget exercise.
Governance pressure points: why many organizations are vulnerable
The document's main diagnosis is that too many leaders and governance functions fail to focus on "the important things" in a risk-based way. It explicitly extends accountability beyond CEOs and boards to other "lines of defense" and management systems: risk, compliance, internal controls, information security, quality, sustainability, and AI governance. When these functions treat compliance and risk management as secondary – rather than as a primary prerequisite for system credibility – organizations incur avoidable losses and, in severe cases, avoidable existential crises. In that situation, the text notes, those responsible must ultimately defend themselves within their areas of responsibility.
At the center of this governance gap is early risk and crisis detection. The article treats early-warning not as a best-practice add-on but as an essential governance duty that is often unknown, underestimated, or neglected – despite its role in securing long-term resilience and economic sustainability.
Liability is rising – and D&O coverage is becoming less predictable
A major escalation driver is the sharp increase in manager liability cases, referenced via the German Insurance Association (GDV). The text argues that higher claim frequency is only half the story: the other half is that managers may face insurance coverage jeopardy when accused of breaching "cardinal duties," because such breaches are treated in parts of the case law as an indicator of "knowing" misconduct.
Two recent judicial strands, as presented in the document, illustrate the new tension:
- The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court (OLG Frankfurt) is cited as stating that violations of the legality principle constitute a breach of a cardinal obligation – strengthening the liability narrative and even supporting extraordinary termination in the case discussed.
- The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is cited as rejecting a broad interpretation that would automatically exclude D&O coverage for a "knowing" breach under standard terms; instead, "knowing" must rise to direct intent/deliberation, and negligence or merely accepting a possibility is not sufficient. However, the text stresses that the court did not rule on the cardinal-duties concept – so the practical risk of insurer disputes remains.
The article adds another liability accelerator: in situations where an organization is sanctioned (administrative fines), executives may face intensified recourse risk – meaning private assets can be exposed if protection is inadequate. Its operational conclusion is pointed: boards and managing directors should already defend themselves during fine proceedings against the organization, because follow-on recourse attempts and parallel efforts to trigger (or deny) D&O reimbursement are likely.
Early-warning becomes auditable – and must include opportunities
The document connects this liability dynamic to rising expectations from legislators and auditors. Early risk detection is described as a "new cardinal duty" and, importantly, as something that must be demonstrably appropriate. The text points to IDW S 16:2025 as providing a detailed description of what constitutes adequate crisis early detection under Section 1 StaRUG.
A notable technical implication is that planning must cover both risks and opportunities. The text cites the requirement that all relevant future developments be included in corporate planning – so that opportunities and risks are assessed together to understand overall exposure; under certain circumstances, opportunities may even compensate for risks in a risk-bearing-capacity assessment.
The "manager safety package": an integrated solution, not a single tool
Against this backdrop, the article proposes a "manager security/safety package" designed to provide structure, resilience, sustainability, decision security, and private-asset protection through an integrated (IT/AI) governance compliance management system.
The package is described as a bundle of governance components that reinforce each other:
- Risk management fit for 2026: analyses (including SWOT-style opportunity/risk views), quantification, aggregation, risk-bearing-capacity assessment, and prioritized risk treatment – explicitly including personal manager risks.
- Governance and "cardinal duty" compliance: a legal register that does not merely document obligations but controls fulfillment.
- Insurance readiness: review and optimization of liability, D&O, financial loss liability, and criminal defense cover to reduce dispute-prone gaps.
- Interaction management: legally compliant documentation and implementation of roles, responsibilities, cooperation, and supervision across boards, executives, staff functions, and other governance actors.
- Legally compliant organization and process management: job descriptions, complete delegation of duties, and robust process management as a structural stabilizer.
- Focus areas where most firms have deficits: financial governance (including liquidity planning), IT/AI governance, and business continuity/crisis governance.
- Assurance and certification leverage: internal (or external) audit to identify weaknesses and document adequacy; combined ISMS/CMS certification packages aligned with ISO 27001 and DIN ISO 37301, with extended scope for (IT/AI) governance compliance.
The managerial payoff: defensibility under scrutiny
The text's final value proposition is that a coherent, evidence-based governance setup does more than reduce incident likelihood: it strengthens defensibility. By documenting appropriate compliance and early-warning capability, organizations can dampen allegations that inevitable mistakes were intentional or "knowing" – and may also reduce the insurer's ability to invoke contractual exclusions. The intended outcome is practical manager safety: better decisions, more legal certainty, and stronger protection of personal freedom and assets in a harsher liability environment.
