Summary

Swiss Federal Railways (SBB) paid three former executive management members a combined CHF 573,000 in 2025 for mandates following their departure from their leadership positions. Anton Häne (70) received CHF 99,000, Markus Jordi (64) received CHF 204,000, and Peter Kummer (60) received CHF 270,000. The mandates included foundation board positions, presidencies and professorships, some of them outside of SBB. However, SBB does not disclose the extent to which these individuals were actually active. Additionally, expense reimbursements and first-class general passes were included.

People

Topics

  • Corporate governance and transparency
  • State enterprises and public fund allocation
  • Post-career management in executive levels
  • Conflicts of interest and independence

Clarus Lead

The mandate payments raise questions about expenditure discipline at a state-owned enterprise that simultaneously claims the need to cut costs. The SBB received CHF 3.1 billion from public sources in 2025, but states it has "insufficient earning power" and must reduce its costs by six billion francs by 2030. Members of parliament from various political factions sharply criticize the lack of cost transparency – not only as an ethical problem, but as a signal of insufficient self-responsibility in an administrative culture that favors external consultants.

Detailed Summary

Scope and structure of mandates

Anton Häne, retired since 2021, previously managed passenger transport. His CHF 99,000 compensated him for several parallel tasks: presidency of the SBB Historic Foundation (preservation of railway history), coordination for the 125th anniversary in 2027, and foundation board membership of the SBB pension fund.

Markus Jordi left his position as head of human resources in May 2025 and subsequently took on five functions as "Senior Advisor": presidency of the pension fund foundation board, vice presidency of the SBB asbestos fund, management of the "International HR" dossier, membership in SBB Historic, and external mandates as president of the technical college board of FHNW and president of the Solothurn Canton Pension Fund (PKSO). His CHF 204,000 was paid for seven months (June–December) – an effective annual rate of approximately CHF 350,000.

Peter Kummer, former head of infrastructure, received the highest amount: CHF 270,000 for likewise seven months as "Senior Consultant". He assumed an SBB-financed professorship at EPFL Lausanne for rail and transport systems and simultaneously sat on the board of directors of the Biel Hospital Center.

Controversy over transparency and comparability

SBB spokesperson Sabrina Schellenberg asserts that Jordi and Kummer were employed at SBB as their "primary employment" after their resignation – not as secondary activities. This is unusual: mandates are normally compensated with honorariums, not salaries. SBB refuses to disclose the hours worked or percentage of employment.

SVP National Councilor Hurter compares the compensation with the fee of the administration board president Monika Ribar (CHF 294,000 for a 60 percent position) and calls the amounts "completely out of place". SBB rejects this comparison: board members receive honorariums for independent organ functions, while executives receive salaries for operational functions – a categorical distinction that does not convince Hurter.

Political positions

SP National Councilor David Roth demands complete work performance statements – especially for individuals who previously served in top decision-making bodies. Centre National Councilor Martin Candinas accepts business decisions, but warns: "It must not become standard that retiring SBB executives receive mandates after their departure and remain on the payroll."

Hurter criticizes a "general" pattern in executive management: the "outsourcing" of responsibility to external consultants and former managers often serves only to delegate responsibility, not to meet genuine needs.

Key findings

  • Three former SBB managers received a combined CHF 573,000 in 2025 for mandates following their departure – without disclosed work hours or employment percentages.
  • SBB paid salaries (not honorariums) for these mandates – an unusual practice that the company does not justify.
  • Parliamentarians from left to right demand transparency and warn against a "bad practice" that undermines self-responsibility in state enterprises.
  • SBB leadership rejects comparisons with the board of administration, but the lack of transparency regarding work percentages reinforces doubts about cost discipline at a company that preaches cost-cutting measures.

Critical questions

  1. Evidence/data quality: How can auditors or the federal government assess the cost-effectiveness of these mandates if neither work hours nor employment percentages are disclosed? Does this comply with the federal good governance requirements that SBB itself cites?

  2. Conflicts of interest: Can a former head of human resources (Jordi) independently lead the own pension fund foundation board to which he himself contributes? Where are the limits between justified knowledge transfer and nepotism?

  3. Causality/alternatives: Could SBB not have filled these positions externally, by independent specialists or internal junior staff – instead of "rewarding" retired managers?

  4. Feasibility/side effects: If this becomes standard (as Candinas warns), what signals does this send for the motivation of middle management, which must leave after 30 years without comparable severance packages?

  5. Comparability: Why are direct comparisons with the administration board president "not meaningful" if both functions are paid by SBB and belong to the public?

  6. Transparency standard: Do SBB disclosures differ from those of other Swiss state-owned enterprises (Post, Swisscom) – and if so, why?

Source directory

Primary source: CHF 270,000 for the career afterwards: SBB reward former top managers with lucrative mandates – Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 12.04.2026

Verification status: ✓ 12.04.2026

This text was created with the assistance of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 12.04.2026