Introduction

In response to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), companies both within and outside the European Union are altering their non-financial disclosure practices. However, it is evident that firms are still trying to understand the market expectations and the required level of detail for these disclosures.

We have analysed the reports of the 50 companies listed on the SMI Expanded which is the stock index of large-cap and mid-cap firms listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange. As of April 2025, 46 of these companies have published their reports.

The study aims to identify key trends and commonalities in the disclosed information and to determine the extent to which the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) are influencing current reporting practices.

Key findings

The frameworks adopted by the analysed companies vary considerably. Most of these companies prefer standalone sustainability reports over integrated frameworks, showing a lower level of compliance with the regulation's requirements for integrating non-financial and financial information. Additionally, only 11 of the firms reported either in accordance with or referenced the regulation. Our analysis found that the most widely adopted framework is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

By examining essential disclosure requirements in the regulation, we aim to identify areas for improvement and the challenges firms currently encounter in disclosing sustainability-related information. Our study shows a significant disparity in the sustainability-related information disclosures among Swiss firms, primarily because only a few companies have adopted the regulation for FY2024. 

Double materiality assessment

A large majority of Swiss companies (55%) have adopted the ESRS and EFRAG methodology for DMA. However, some are not fully disclosing under the regulation, and the material topics selected are often less consistent with the list of materiality topics and sub-topics outlined in the regulation.  This varied approach, makes it challenging for investors and other stakeholders to compare the results of these assessments.

Unveiling untapped potential in ESG opportunities

Companies are already disclosing material impacts, risks, and opportunities related to climate change in accordance with Art. 964 and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). However, fewer companies are expanding their disclosures to include material opportunities beyond climate change topics. Additionally, only around a fifth of companies report under the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), primarily focusing on nature-related material impacts and dependencies.

Value chain mapping and stakeholder engagement

The Consumer industry and the Life Science and Health Care (LSHC) appear to be the most advanced in mapping their value chains providing best practice examples that other sectors could learn from. Most companies disclose their value chain in general terms and do not provide a detailed overview of their approach to defining actors across their upstream and downstream value chain.

Performance between SMI and SMIM sustainability disclosures

Overall, both mid-cap and SMI companies have comparable levels of reporting maturity, with similar average lengths of the reports. However, SMIM companies have adopted integrated reports as their primary form of sustainability disclosures, demonstrating a higher level of alignment with CSRD requirements compared to their market peers.

Unlocking Financial Transparency for Climate Transition Plans

Only 11% of SMI Expanded firms fully disclose on the financial resources allocated to transition plan actions with quantitative figures, meanwhile 6% provide descriptive information but not in monetary terms. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for companies to measure and communicate their progress, potentially influencing investors' preferences. 

Without effective forecasting of the economic investments and resources required to achieve their climate plans, companies may struggle to reach long-term targets and fail to accomplish their disclosed actions.

Conclusion

In summary, the sustainability reporting practices of SMI Expanded companies reveal that the market remains underdeveloped in its alignment with CSRD reporting standards, with only a few firms adhering to the regulation as of April 2025.

On a positive note, certain practices, such as the adoption of the ESRS for DMAs, indicate a general commitment from firms to increase compliance with the regulation. Furthermore, the Omnibus package is expected to significantly influence the reporting methodologies adopted by companies, as it may simplify the regulatory framework.