Executive Summary

Swiss sustainability policy is primarily oriented towards moral principles, not demonstrable results. The debate over corporate responsibility reveals a fundamental problem: regulatory measures are implemented without systematically checking whether they achieve their objectives. Example: sustainability reporting – introduced since 2023 with estimated costs of 130 million francs annually for Swiss companies, yet the concrete benefit remains unknown. The EU is also pumping the brakes: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen criticizes overly complex reporting requirements, and even green politicians like Robert Habeck admit they have «gone completely wrong with good intentions». The central question is not whether policy is morally well-intentioned, but whether it actually achieves anything.

Persons

Topics

  • Corporate responsibility and supply chain legislation
  • Sustainability reporting
  • Regulatory effectiveness and cost-benefit
  • Ethics of conviction vs. ethics of responsibility

Clarus Lead

The Swiss sustainability debate suffers from a fundamental deficiency: lack of effectiveness evaluation. With sustainability reporting since 2023, an expensive regulatory framework was established whose actual benefit is systematically not reviewed. In parallel, an international rethink is evident – from the EU to critics like Habeck – showing that overly detailed regulation can be counterproductive and even worsen transparency. The central problem lies in the confusion of ethics of conviction (acting morally correctly) with ethics of responsibility (measurable consequences). Swiss politicians primarily follow the former and thus ignore side effects and alternatives.

Detailed Summary

The upcoming new edition of the Corporate Responsibility Initiative (originally rejected in 2020) ignites along familiar front lines: the left emphasizes moral obligation, the right emphasizes business autonomy. Yet both sides overlook the central question: Do the measures actually achieve their goal of making the world better?

A concrete example illustrates the problem: sustainability reporting has required companies since 2023 to disclose risks to the environment and human rights. The cost: approximately 130 million francs annually. Had Switzerland implemented the earlier EU proposal, it would have been 1.7 billion francs. Yet: There is no systematic evaluation of the benefit. It is unknown whether the regulation actually brings about improvements.

The EU is now reacting critically. Von der Leyen has streamlined sustainability reporting because reporting requirements became too complex and burdensome. Even Germany's Supply Chain Due Diligence Act – which requires companies to monitor human rights and environmental risks among global suppliers – is being questioned by Green politicians like Habeck. His conclusion: they have «gone completely wrong with good intentions».

The core problem becomes apparent with reporting requirements: more regulation does not automatically lead to better results. On the contrary – too many and complex metrics can worsen transparency by diverting focus from what matters. Furthermore, unintended consequences threaten: Swiss companies could withdraw from certain markets if compliance costs become too high. Then less regulated competitors would step in – and the world would be worse, not better.

Key Statements

  • Evaluation gap: sustainability reporting costs 130 million CHF/year without the benefit being systematically measured
  • International trend reversal: the EU reduces complexity of sustainability rules; even green politicians criticize excessive regulation
  • Dilemma of conviction vs. responsibility ethics: policy is made because of moral correctness, not because of demonstrable effect
  • Side effect risk: standards that are too strict can displace companies and favor weaker competitors who are less regulated
  • Demand: less ambitious targets with strong focus on measures that actually leverage change instead of demotivation through well-intentioned but ineffective regulation

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence/Data Quality: Why is there no systematic evaluation of sustainability reporting despite high expenditures (130 million CHF/year)? What indicators would demonstrate that the regulation actually reduces environmental and human rights risks?

  2. Conflicts of Interest/Independence: Who bears responsibility for the absence of effectiveness studies – politics, administration, or science? Is there an incentive to evaluate regulations when negative results endanger political objectives?

  3. Causality/Alternatives: Can it be proven that increased reporting requirements lead to better practices among suppliers – or merely generate more bureaucracy? Are there more effective instruments (e.g., market access regulations, tariffs)?

  4. Feasibility/Risks: Which companies could withdraw from risk-affected markets, and who would replace them? Were negative external effects (shift to less regulated competitors) analyzed before implementation?

  5. Consistency with International Trends: Why does Switzerland not align with the EU debate, which explicitly tends towards less complexity, but instead plans to introduce additional corporate responsibility measures?

  6. Transparency Effect: How can it be ensured that hundreds of sustainability metrics do not lead to information overload but instead create genuinely focused transparency?

Source Directory

Primary Source: «Are we making policy for a better conscience – or for a better world?» – Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 22.03.2026 https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/machen-wir-politik-fuer-ein-besseres-gewissen-oder-fuer-eine-bessere-welt-ld.1929699

Verification Status: ✓ 22.03.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 22.03.2026