Author: nzz.ch
Summary
The Swiss Federal Foundation Supervisory Authority (ESA) has reorganized itself and responds significantly faster to problems at major foundations – the cases of Bucherer and World Economic Forum exemplify this. With automated risk assessments, smaller foundations can be handled more efficiently, while more capacity is created for complex cases. However, the authorities' appetite for data is growing and fees are rising – smaller foundations in particular are suffering. The foundation boom in Switzerland continues unabated: More than half of all foundations were established after 2000.
Persons
- Nils Güggi – Director ESA
- Thomas Sprecher – Foundation law expert
- Christoph Degen – CEO Profonds
- Georg von Schnurbein – Professor University of Basel
Topics
- Foundation supervision and professionalism
- Digitalization and automation
- Foundation boom and demographic trends
- Data protection and fee structures
Detailed Summary
Switzerland manages over 14,000 foundations with total assets of 140 billion francs. Approximately one-third are subject to federal supervision, the rest to cantonal control. Recent high-profile cases – the 4-billion-franc Bucherer Foundation and the power struggle at the World Economic Forum – signal a fundamental shift in foundation oversight.
The ESA, a small authority with only 32 full-time positions, had to rethink its strategy. With nearly 300 foundations per employee, detailed audits of all organizations are impossible. Therefore, the ESA, together with the Federal Statistical Office, developed an instrument for automated risk assessment. This makes it possible to process foundations without any red flags more quickly and concentrate resources on problematic cases.
Director Nils Güggi has digitalized and streamlined the authority since taking office four and a half years ago. Industry representatives such as Christoph Degen from Profonds praise the pragmatic new leadership. The flexibility in changing foundation purposes is particularly welcomed – a marked improvement over previous bureaucracy.
The 2006 revision of foundation law mandated accounting practices and audit bodies, leading to strong professionalization. Instead of simple "milk ledger accounting," foundations must now submit professional annual reports. Additionally, voluntary standards such as the Swiss Foundation Code have emerged, increasingly required by supervisory authorities as well.
A critical issue, however, is the growing appetite for data. Foundations report comprehensive information requirements without apparent legal basis or practical benefit. At the same time, supervisory fees have risen noticeably – smaller foundations in particular are burdened by this increase.
The foundation boom continues: More than 50 percent of all Swiss foundations were established after 2000. Reasons include demographic shifts (fewer heirs among the wealthy), freely available assets, and confidence in the foundation structure. Notable recent examples include Martin and Marianne Haefner, who are directing their billion-franc fortunes to charitable purposes.
ESA Director Güggi views the boom positively: Foundation assets are tax-exempt and belong to no one – reliable state control is therefore essential to prevent abuse.
Key Statements
- The ESA responds significantly faster to reports of foundation problems and intervenes more decisively in major cases.
- Automated risk assessment enables resource optimization: routine foundations are processed faster, major cases receive more attention.
- The professionalization wave since 2006 has almost completely displaced questionable standards such as simple accounting.
- The authorities' appetite for data is growing without always having a clear legal basis or practical benefit.
- Fee increases disproportionately affect smaller and medium-sized foundations.
- The foundation boom is structural: Over 50 percent of foundations date from the post-2000 era.
- Foundation assets belong to no one – state supervision is therefore legitimate and necessary.
Stakeholders & Those Affected
| Group | Impact |
|---|---|
| Large foundations | Benefit from more intensive, faster supervision; risks better mitigated |
| Small/medium foundations | Suffer from rising fees and unnecessary data requests |
| ESA staff | Gain efficiency through digitalization, can focus on highly complex cases |
| Founders (wealthy individuals) | Greater legal certainty and control over their intentions |
| Beneficiaries | Long-term secured resources; potentially delayed project work in the short term due to audits |
| Public | Better protection against misuse of foundation assets |
Opportunities & Risks
| Opportunities | Risks |
|---|---|
| Faster, focused oversight in critical cases | Over-regulation and compliance burden for legitimate foundations |
| Automation reduces bureaucracy for routine foundations | Rising fees threaten economic viability of small foundations |
| ESA digitalization increases efficiency and staff satisfaction | Data appetite without clear legal or practical justification |
| Professionalization standards protect against abuse | Voluntary standards (e.g., Foundation Code) become de facto mandatory |
| Boom in new foundations strengthens charitable ecosystem | Disproportionate scrutiny of large assets could deter new foundations |
Action Relevance
For foundation boards & managers:
- Digitalization and documented processes will be standard in the future; investments in governance pay off
- Transparency toward supervisory authorities reduces conflict risks
- Smaller foundations should speak up about fee fairness and unnecessary data requests (through association communication via Profonds)
For supervisory authorities:
- Efficiency gains from automation should be passed on to foundations (fee moderation)
- Legal bases for data requests must be communicated transparently
- Cantonal and federal standards should be harmonized
- Accountability mechanisms should be strengthened
For political decision-makers:
- The boom deserves legislative attention: Are ESA resources adequately secured long-term?
- Discussion needed: Should foundations be more strongly obligated to transparency standards (rather than voluntary)?
- Fee models must be reviewed to ensure fairness by size
Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking
- [x] Central statements and figures verified
- [x] 14,000 foundations with 140 billion CHF assets – consistent with available estimates
- [x] ESA: 32 full-time positions, 19 for supervision – confirmed from article
- [x] Bucherer Foundation: ~4 billion CHF – confirmed from article
- [x] Foundation law revision 2006 – historically correct
- [x] >50% foundations after 2000 – confirmed from article
- [x] Unverified data: None ⚠️ required
- [x] Bias analysis: Article is factually neutral; no apparent political one-sidedness
Supplementary Research
- Federal Statistical Office (BFS) – Foundation Statistics: Detailed current data on foundation numbers, assets, and sector distribution
- Swiss Foundation Code (Profonds): Binding standards for good governance in foundations
- Foundation legislation of the cantons: Comparative analysis – which cantons enforce stricter supervision?
Source Index
Primary Source:
Milk Ledger Accounting is History: Bucherer and WEF Stand for a New Era of Foundation Control – Thomas Schlittler, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 26.01.2026
https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/milchbueechli-rechnungen-sind-geschichte-bucherer-und-wef-stehen-fuer-eine-neue-aera-der-stiftungskontrolle-ld.1921037
Supplementary Sources:
- Swiss Federal Foundation Supervisory Authority (ESA) – Annual Report and Statistics
- Profonds (Umbrella organization of charitable foundations) – Swiss Foundation Code and sector overview
- Georg von Schnurbein / University of Basel – Foundation management research publications
Verification Status: ✓ Facts verified on 26.01.2026
Footer (Transparency Notice)
This text was created with support from Claude.
Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 26.01.2026