The State of Sustainability Reporting in Switzerland

The Swiss sustainability reporting landscape continues to evolve as companies respond to regulatory pressures and stakeholder expectations. We have analysed the reports of the 50 companies listed on the SMI Expanded, out of which 44 published their reports as of 22 April 2026.

The study is aimed at identifying key trends in disclosed information and determine the extent to which evolving European and Swiss reporting regulations are influencing current reporting practices.

Key findings

Movement towards integrated reporting and a continued dominance of GRI standards.

52% of assessed companies published integrated reports, yet the sustainability information is often disclosed as a separate section in the annual report. The average integrated report contains 81 pages of sustainability disclosures, while standalone sustainability reports average 101 pages.

The adoption of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) is limited. Only 14% of companies are using the ESRS as their reporting framework, showcasing that efforts will have to be intensified to comply with the rigorous sustainability reporting requirements being introduced across the EU. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) continues to dominate, with 59% of companies reporting in accordance with GRI standards, while 23% employ multiple reporting frameworks. Finally, one in four companies have adopted the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework, reflecting increased investor pressure, regulatory developments, and growing recognition of nature as a material financial risk.

Materiality assessment adoption and the governance representation gap

Integration of sustainability risks into enterprise risk management frameworks is increasingly common, with 50% of SMI Expanded firms having disclosed in their report that they align their materiality assessment and/or climate risk assessments with their enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks. Alignment of the ERM with ESG materiality assessments varies across industries, where none of the benchmarked Financial Service Industry (FSI) companies disclose that their DMA is based on their ERM framework. However, 91% of all benchmarked companies have already conducted a double materiality assessment, and the ESRS is the most adopted methodology for materiality assessments, with 50% of companies using ESRS for this purpose.

Material topics identified across companies range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 39 topics. Climate change, health and safety, and business conduct continue to be the most reported material topics across all sectors. However, governance topics represent only 11% of assessed material topics, highlighting not only existing risk exposures that may have been overlooked but also underscoring the potential to strengthen governance as a key strategic focus area.

Governance: A critical but underrepresented focus area

Cybersecurity, data protection, and responsible use of AI are now critical business priorities, carrying both risks and opportunities for companies. In addition, only 36% of companies have successfully attained female board representation levels above 40%, highlighting an ongoing disparity in gender diversity at senior organisational levels.

Sustainability performance is increasingly embedded within remuneration schemes, yet only 23% have implemented both short-term and long-term remuneration incentives linked to sustainability metrics.

Decarbonisation targets and transition plans without financial backing

Effective climate risk assessments and credible transition plans are founded on financially quantified impacts. While an increase in companies reporting on the integration of their transition plans into financial planning and disclosing the financial impacts of climate risks has been observed compared to last year’s benchmark study, a significant gap remains. Most companies are still unable to quantify, or are not yet disclosing, this crucial information.

Specifically, 80% of companies do not disclose financial quantifications of transition risks. Similarly, the same proportion of companies fail to disclose the financial impact of climate change opportunities, highlighting widespread challenges in translating climate risks and opportunities into measurable financial outcomes across all six industries. The financial quantification of risks is intrinsically linked to the financial quantification of transition plans, as it provides essential guidance to decision-makers and investors regarding an organisation's resilience to policy changes and its readiness for climate mitigation.

Regarding transition plan disclosure, 80% of companies now report having a transition plan, marking a 20% increase from last year's inaugural Swiss reporting benchmark. However, a critical gap persist; only 23% have integrated these transition plans into their financial planning¹. Limited financial information in transition plans suggests the climate strategies are not always fully integrated into business strategies. A climate transition plan only becomes truly credible and useful for decision-making once it is embedded within an entity's business planning process.

Nevertheless, we observe encouraging steps being taken by leading companies. Predominantly within the Energy, Resources & Industrials (ERI) and Financial Services Industry (FSI) sectors, where leaders are actively utilising internal carbon pricing to drive their decarbonisation journeys. This proactive approach represents a promising development in operationalising climate action and offers valuable insights for broader adoption. For further insights into how industry leaders are operationalising internal carbon pricing tools, please refer to the full study.

Conclusion

The Swiss sustainability reporting landscape for FY2025 demonstrates continued maturation and commitment to transparency, with notable progress in integrated reporting adoption and double materiality assessments. However, significant gaps remain in ESRS adoption, financial quantification of climate risks and opportunities, and the integration of transition plans into financial planning.

While most companies have established robust governance frameworks and sustainability-linked incentives, the underrepresentation of governance topics in the materiality assessments may signal a need for renewed focus on governance topics. On the other hand, the strong adoption of TCFD, combined with widespread use of ESG rating providers, indicates that Swiss companies are positioning themselves in alignment with their European counterparts, despite the challenges posed by evolving regulatory requirements.

Notes

¹ As an example, companies can demonstrate this integration by detailing dedicated budgets, specific capital and operational expenditures for climate initiatives, and explaining how internal carbon pricing informs investment criteria (this list is not exhaustive).