Ethos criticizes sustainability reports of Swiss companies
Published: Thursday, Oct 10th 2024, 09:30
Back to Live Feed
The Ethos Foundation considers the sustainability reporting of Swiss companies to be inadequate. There are inequalities and shortcomings in the publication of CO2 data, for example.
For its analysis, the foundation examined the sustainability reports of 140 listed Swiss companies that were required by law to prepare such a report for the first time. According to the report published on Thursday, only half of these companies prepared their report in accordance with an internationally recognized standard (GRI, SASB or ESRS).
46 of the companies were guided by one of these standards, but only partially implemented it. And 19 companies did not mention any regulations at all in their reports.
According to Ethos, compliance with a recognized standard for sustainability reporting is a key quality feature, as it enables comparability between companies. The fact that the report is rarely audited by an auditing company is also criticized.
Incomplete CO2 data
The foundation also found gaps in the CO2 data. For example, only 44% of the companies surveyed published information on greenhouse gas emissions in the supply chain. Only 15 percent of the companies reported on the CO2 emissions caused by the use of their products or services.
Finally, the personnel data is also incomplete. Although two thirds of the companies published their staff turnover rate, only a quarter provided information on voluntary departures. GAM Holding (18%) and Dätwyler (19%) had the highest rates. Roche (4.6%) and Skan (4.8%) have the lowest rates.
Consultative vote only
The companies concerned are legally obliged to submit sustainability reports to their shareholders. However, 40 percent of these companies only held an advisory vote at their general meetings. According to Ethos, this is clearly insufficient and not in line with good corporate governance.
The Federal Council wants to extend the reporting obligation to all listed companies and private companies above a certain size and require the report to be validated by an external auditor. The Foundation welcomes this change.
It also proposes that a rejection of the report must be noted on the report. In addition, the Board of Directors should be obliged to enter into dialog with the most important shareholders in the event of a rejection.
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic