Responsibility, Accountability, and Liability
Responsibility
Responsibility goes beyond merely carrying out assigned tasks. It involves consciously making decisions and accepting their consequences. For a Chef (Gastro-engineering), this means not simply following instructions, but independently and thoughtfully weighing choices related to ingredients, preparation methods, food safety, and distribution — with consideration for the impact on those who receive the resulting meals.
It is not only about the actions taken, but also about being able to justify them: why is a certain approach chosen, which products are appropriate, and what is safe and feasible in a given context? Acting responsibly means that a Chef can substantiate and explain their choices. This requires professional judgment, based on both expertise and moral awareness.
A Chef is expected to translate individual dietary guidelines into meals that are tasty, healthy, and safe — within the constraints of the given situation and its conditions.
Responsibility develops over time. As experience and expertise grow, so does the capacity to make more complex decisions — and with it, the scope of responsibility. At every level, however, decisions must be traceable, professionally substantiated, and practically applicable.
Finally, the role of the Chef extends beyond the immediate workplace. As part of a broader care network, the Chef collaborates with other professionals and aligns where necessary. This also requires a willingness to consult, to offer explanations, and to provide guidance.
Accountability
A lead Chef (Gastro-engineering) in healthcare serves as a point of contact for issues directly or indirectly related to the preparation, composition, quality, safety, presentation, or experience of food. Depending on the situation, the Chef may act as a primary or secondary point of contact, but is always a relevant discussion partner — whether the topic concerns the effect of food on clients or patients, or matters that fall within the Chef's own professional responsibility.
Accountability entails more than simply being available for questions or criticism. It requires an active, open attitude in which the Chef engages in dialogue with colleagues, clients, and other stakeholders. Not from a place of defensiveness, but from the belief that open communication contributes to alignment, improvement, and mutual trust.
Feedback or criticism is not regarded as a personal attack or a challenge to expertise, but as a sign that collaboration is functioning. In this sense, accountability is not a weakness, but a professional strength.
Within the healthcare context, there can never be a single central point of contact for everything related to food. Multiple disciplines are involved, each with their own responsibilities and areas of expertise.
The Chef makes a difference by being visible, approachable, and substantively engaged. Accountability thus becomes a constructive building block for professional food policy. It does not mean that the Chef carries all responsibility, but rather that he or she — within their own field of expertise — is open to collaboration, alignment, and dialogue where needed.
Liability
Liability means that an individual can be held responsible for damage or errors resulting from negligence, carelessness, or improper conduct. The concept is legal in nature but also intersects with professional standards. Not only organisations, but also individual employees can be held liable when they fail to meet their duties or responsibilities.
There are various forms of liability. Civil liability concerns the obligation to compensate a harmed party. Disciplinary liability focuses on whether professional conduct aligns with accepted standards, even when no direct damage has occurred. In both cases, the key question is whether the individual acted as could reasonably be expected within their role.
Expertise and experience play an important role in this assessment. A person with specialised training or a leadership position is expected to recognise risks and respond appropriately. Failure to do so may weigh more heavily. The more specific and autonomous the role, the greater the responsibility to act with care — and thus, the higher the risk of liability in cases of error or neglect.
Whether someone is actually liable depends partly on the context. Did the individual have the actual authority, means, time, and space to assume responsibility? Only when those conditions are met can an omission be considered blameworthy.
In practice, nutritional processes in healthcare are typically organised on an interdisciplinary basis. Different disciplines collaborate, each within their area of expertise. For the Chef (Gastro-engineering), this means that liability primarily concerns aspects such as food safety, preparation, hygiene, or professional advice within their own domain. The clearer the delineation of tasks and division of responsibilities, the better one can assess the extent to which the Chef is liable within the scope of professional expectations.