China’s new regulations on work related accidents

Accidents at work are not only generously recognized in China, in the ministerial “Opinions on Various Issues Related to the Implementation of the Regulations on Work Accident Insurance (3)” of 13 November 2025 (“Document No. 62”), they are “broadened” into everyday situations that many companies have so far tended to assign to the private sphere.

For employers, this is not just a matter of social security law: more recognition means more cases in the system, more potential points of friction with the authorities. The legal basis remains the State Council Regulation on Work Injury Insurance (2010). The Ministry of HR and Social Security (MHRSS) has now readjusted some of the parameters.

Background

A brief look at the system helps to categorize the scope. The Council of State decree defines the insurance case, the recognition procedure and the benefits. It follows a classic social insurance model: employers pay into a fund alone, employees receive medical care, rehabilitation, pension-like payments or severance pay and – in the event of death – benefits for surviving dependents.

What this regulation deliberately leaves open are the undefined legal terms that decide “yes or no” in everyday life: When does working time begin? Where is the workplace? What else is work-related? This is precisely where Document No. 62 comes in. As an administrative interpretation, it is highly effective in practice because the local social insurance institutions base their recognition decisions on it.

Extension of the scope of protection

For companies, the most important innovation is the considerable extension of the scope of protection. “Working time” is not only the shift or the contractually agreed working time. It also includes times that are actually required by the employer or that result from duty rosters and schedules. Even informal overtime can be “working hours” as long as it is recognizably in the company’s interest.

The recognition threshold also shifts with regard to the “place of work”. The Ministry understands the term functionally. The decisive factor is not whether a location has been formally declared as a workplace, but whether operational tasks are actually performed there or whether the employer can effectively manage the area on a daily basis. This also includes

• “relevant” external work locations,
• several changing workplaces.

This is consistent in an economy in which field service, construction sites, customer sites and hybrid working have long been standard. But it also expands the operational risk sphere. The more mobile the workforce, the wider the Document No. 62 accident corridor.

In principle, there must be a causal link between the fulfilment of work duties and the injury sustained:

• A machine operator slips and injures his hand on the machine: injuries sustained while performing the production or business activities associated with the position,
• An office worker is exceptionally asked to check something in the warehouse and falls: Injuries sustained due to work ordered by the employer,
• A technician tries to stop a rolling forklift truck for which he is not responsible and injures himself: injuries sustained while protecting the legitimate interests of the employer,
• Going to the toilet/smoking break: injuries sustained during working hours while attending to basic physical needs in appropriate premises (excluding injuries caused solely by personal reasons).

Accidents on the appropriate route to the workplace

This is particularly noticeable in the case of commuting accidents. Document No. 62 contains a catalogue of “reasonable routes” to reach the workplace in a “reasonable time”. Not only

• the journey between home and the workplace on a reasonable route

is now privileged, but also routes that fit realistically into modern commuting and family logic: for example

• journeys on a reasonable route between the workplace and the home of the spouse, parents and children within a reasonable time,
• including deviations for “necessary” everyday activities.

Taking the child to school is likely to be considered a necessary everyday activity. An accident before school on the way to the office is therefore an accident at work. However, an accident during paid leave or on the way to the private fitness center before work is not.

At first, this sounds like mere humanization, but for companies it is a change in the risk matrix. This is because recognition means that the case remains in the Document No. 62 accident system, with all the subsequent obligations. At the same time, despite concretization, it remains open where “reasonable” ends. How long can a diversion last? Which everyday activities are “necessary”? Document No. 62 does not specify any hard thresholds. Particularly in cities with traffic jams, long commuting times and complex everyday life, the demarcation will depend heavily on local authority practice. In other words: more protection, but also more vagueness in individual cases.

Accidents in the home office

A further step towards the present is the treatment of home office cases. The ministry expressly recognizes that accidents at work can also occur at home. However, the prerequisite is that working from home was ordered or authorized by the employer or that the employee can convincingly prove that they were performing work-related tasks.

Document No. 62 draws a line here: occasional communication via WeChat, telephone or email at home should not be sufficient for recognition as home office if it is only “sporadic”. At the same time, it remains unclear what kind of proof the ministry expects. Is a chat history, a task log from the project tool or a screenshot sufficient? The directive remains deliberately open and therefore often employee-friendly in practice. Caution: Companies without clear home office rules therefore run the risk of the burden of proof effectively tipping.

Accidents in subcontractor and dispatch constellations

This is also being tightened up. Recognition should be possible even if there is no formally correct employment relationship with the “qualified” employer, for example because an unauthorized subcontractor chain was used or staff were recruited via non-qualified third parties. The responsibility therefore follows the actual labor reality, not the paperwork. For many companies with production or construction projects in China, for example, this is a clear warning: social security and Document No. 62 health and safety risks can no longer be organized away via contract architecture.

Consequential damage

There are also practical clarifications beyond the level of recognition. For example, consequential damages resulting from treatment errors during the treatment of a recognized work accident remain within the system of work accident insurance; the civil law dispute with the hospital is separate from this. In the case of road accidents, on the other hand, the authorities rely strictly on police or court findings. Where evidence is missing or the police do not confirm the accident, recognition may fail. As a consequence, this is also a compliance issue: employees and companies need to know what steps need to be taken immediately after an accident so that the case does not get bogged down in formalities.

Summary and recommendation

What does it all mean? Document No. 62 makes work accident law protection in China broader, more modern and more employee-friendly in many areas. At the same time, it shifts the risk limits to where companies today allow flexible working: overtime, mobile work locations, home office and complex commuting routes. And despite some concretization, it leaves neuralgic points open: in particular the question of the “appropriate route”, the standards of proof in the home office and the differentiation of work-related causes from private reasons in the event of sudden illness. Anyone travelling without clear internal guidelines will end up leaving the classification to local administrative practice.

Our recommendation is therefore pragmatic: now is a good time to check your own China structures to see whether they are “recognition-proof” under the new standards. This applies above all to documentable working time and deployment models, including the reality of overtime, robust home office policies with clear task and time windows, clean accident-related processes for HR and legal as well as the social security coverage of subcontractor and dispatch chains.

Experience has shown that small process gaps can have major legal consequences, especially for medium-sized companies. If you would like, we would be happy to arrange a brief consultation to see how your specific working and deployment models in China should be categorized according to the new requirements and where risks can be reduced with a manageable amount of effort.