Switzerland has a long-standing tradition of humanitarianism. The Swiss Confederation is a signatory to all core international human rights treaties. At the same time, many large multinational companies are based in Switzerland, triggering issues of business and human rights (BHR). The domestic legal framework is based on fundamental protections for human rights, as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. In addition to reporting obligations concerning BHR issues, there is a recent trend of extending business responsibility beyond business activities on Swiss territory, particularly through supply chain due diligence obligations relating to child labour and conflict materials.

The Swiss Confederation is a party to all major international treaties and standards relating to human and labour rights. In addition, it has demonstrated active support for the implementation of major global BHR frameworks.

As a founding member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) since 1919, Switzerland has ratified all eight ILO Core Conventions, covering fundamental principles such as the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and child labour, non-discrimination in employment, and freedom of association. In particular, it has ratified the Forced Labour Convention (No 29), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No 105), the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (No 182) and the Minimum Age Convention (No 138).

Switzerland ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1974. Switzerland is also a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, confirming its commitment to prohibiting child labour and all forms of modern slavery.

Switzerland fully endorses the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP). Switzerland has been supportive of their adoption and actively advocates for their implementation by Swiss businesses. Further, in 2007, Switzerland voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Further, Switzerland is an adhering state to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guidelines), which were last updated in 2023. As required by the OECD Guidelines, Switzerland has established a non-judicial grievance mechanism to support the implementation of the OECD Guidelines, the Swiss National Contact Point (NCP) (see 4.1 Enforcement Activities). In practice, the OECD Guidelines and related OECD due diligence guidance (for example, in the context of mineral supply chains or garments) are promoted by Swiss authorities as benchmarks for corporate behaviour.

Swiss law does not provide for provisions specifically addressing corporate liability in relation to BHR. However, general legal bases for potential corporate liability may also apply in a BHR context.

With respect to criminal law, the main basis for corporate criminal liability is Article 102 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC). This provision applies in two situations:

• Organisational Fault: If a serious offence (constituting a felony or misdemeanour under Swiss law) is committed in the exercise of commercial activities in accordance with the objects of the undertaking, and it is not possible to attribute this act to any specific natural person due to the inadequate organisation of the undertaking, the felony or misdemeanour is attributed to the undertaking.
• Specific Serious Offence: For certain serious offenses (including, in particular, money laundering, bribery, and financing of terrorism), a company can be held criminally liable directly – ie, irrespective of the criminal liability of an individual, provided that the company failed to take all reasonable organisational measures required to prevent such an offence.

In both cases, the company can be punished with a criminal fine of CHF5 million. In addition, the prosecutor (typically in such cases, the Office of the Attorney General, OAG) may order the forfeiture of assets (in particular, seizure of illicit profits), which often far exceeds the fine.

In most cases, criminal proceedings under Article 102 SCC relate to bribery of foreign officials and/or money laundering. As mentioned (see 2.2.6 Other), the alleged crimes are in some cases related to BHR issues, including illegal destruction of primary forests and related adverse human rights impacts (eg, threats to local communities, expropriation, dislocation).

With respect to civil corporate liability, general norms and concepts of liability (typically, extra-contractual liability) may apply in a BHR context. Notably, the Responsible Business Initiative, rejected by a narrow margin in 2020 (see 2.2.2 Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation), proposed specific liability for Swiss-based parent companies in relation to BHR and environmental-related damage occurring abroad (eg, caused by a subsidiary based abroad). The following general norms and concepts of liability could potentially serve as a basis for liability in a BHR-related context:

• Extra-Contractual Liability: Article 41 CO and Article 28 of the Civil Code provide that anyone who unlawfully causes harm to another (personal injury or property damage), whether wilfully or negligently, is liable. For example, in the context of BHR, affected communities or workers could in theory sue a company in Switzerland for human rights-related harms (injuries, illnesses, etc). However, major legal challenges would need to be overcome, including jurisdiction. Another challenge is proving the breach of duty and causation, especially for abuses occurring abroad by subsidiaries. Another potential basis for extra-contractual liability is Article 55 CO, which provides that a principal (eg, a company as an employer) can be held vicariously liable for harms caused by auxiliary persons (eg, employees), under certain conditions.
• Contractual Liability: In case of breach of contract, a company may be held liable according to the provisions of the contract and mandatory Swiss liability law. For instance, if a company has contractually committed to adhere to certain BHR standards and breaches them, those with rights under the contract could seek remedies.

Overall, enforcement of claims in a BHR context is rather rare, but plaintiffs have repeatedly attempted (and continue to attempt) to hold companies liable. Accordingly, criminal or civil liability in a BHR context remains a real possibility.

Directors and officers of Swiss companies can potentially be held personally liable for involvement in or failure to prevent human rights abuses by the company, though such cases would be framed in terms of breaches of their duties or direct participation in wrongful acts.

Under Swiss corporate law, directors and senior officers owe fiduciary duties (duty of care, duty of loyalty) to the company they oversee (Article 717 CO). If they breach these duties and cause damage, they can be liable (Article 754 CO). In practice, this means directors and officers must manage the company’s affairs with the diligence of a prudent business person and in the company’s best interest, including complying with the law. If a company suffers a loss due to a director’s breach of duty, the company (or shareholders in a “derivative” suit, or, in the case of insolvency, the bankruptcy estate on behalf of the creditors) can sue the director to recover damages.

In contrast to some other jurisdictions, there is no explicit provision in Swiss statutory company law requiring directors to have regard to human rights or environmental issues. However, directors owe a duty to act in the best interests of the company. At the minimum, this requires directors to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts to the extent that these impacts represent risks to the company (eg, liability risks, reputational risks, operational risk). A more expansive interpretation of directors’ duties would require directors to have regard to adverse human rights and environmental impacts regardless of whether these are perceived as risks to the company. Arguably, given the emergence of due diligence laws, it is more and more the case that adverse human rights impacts coincide with business risks.

Under Swiss criminal law, directors or executives could be held liable in particular in situations where they are personally involved in a human rights abuse. As a hypothetical example, if a senior executive orders or knowingly permits illegal exploitation of workers, he or she may be charged under the relevant criminal provisions (eg, human trafficking, coercion, bodily harm, homicide, etc). In Switzerland, there have been instances of executives being criminally investigated for corporate misconduct – eg, for bribery of foreign officials, for industrial accidents, and for environmental crimes. Human rights-related crimes would be treated similarly. Notably, the conviction of a company under corporate criminal liability (see 3.1 Criminal and Civil Corporate Liability) does not preclude charges against the responsible individual. Further, in case of breach of a company’s obligations in relation to non-financial reporting and due diligence in relation to child labour and conflict materials, a criminal fine of up to CHF100,000 may be imposed on the responsible individual, which primarily targets members of the board and senior executives (Article 325ter SCC; see 2.2.2 Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation).

Under Swiss law, the general principle is that each company has a separate legal personality – a parent company is not strictly liable for the acts of its subsidiary. Courts in Switzerland, as in many jurisdictions, are rather reluctant to “pierce the corporate veil”, at least in a civil liability context. However, there are scenarios where a parent company could be held accountable for a subsidiary’s human rights-related harms, either through direct liability or by piercing the veil in cases of abuse of rights.

According to the literature and case law of the Federal Supreme Court, piercing the corporate veil may arise only in exceptional circumstances, including in particular:

• the parent company misuses the group structure to escape liability (abuse of corporate form);
• the parent company acts as a de facto corporate organ of the subsidiary;
• group trust doctrine (Swissair Decision);
• it is impossible to distinguish the parent from the subsidiary; and
• in certain specific circumstances (eg, environmental crimes), if the subsidiary has been stripped of any assets, the parent company may be held liable (eg, to cover remediation costs).

In addition to piercing the corporate veil, a parent company may be held directly liable if it is found to have breached its own duties – eg, Articles 41 or 55 CO, or Article 28 Civil Code (see3.1 Criminal and Civil Corporate Liability).

In principle, the separation of legal entities also applies in criminal law. However, in practice, the separation between legal entities is typically much less of a barrier than in civil law. This is especially the case because corporate criminal liability cases are often closed through a so-called penalty order issued by prosecution authorities, rather than a court judgment. Accordingly, parent companies may generally be held liable for criminal acts conducted in the course of their subsidiaries’ activities.

Swiss authorities have engaged in various enforcement activities that, while not normally labelled as “BHR enforcement”, relate to business-related human rights issues. We can observe enforcement in criminal prosecution of companies and individuals, regulatory enforcement, and quasi-judicial actions.

Some significant state-based enforcement activities include:

• Prosecution of Corporate Criminal Liability: As mentioned (see 3.1 Criminal and Civil Corporate Liability), corporate criminal liability serves as a basis to combat BHR-related abuses (see 4.2 Case law).
• Human Trafficking and Labour Exploitation: Switzerland regularly investigates networks and individuals involved in human trafficking, forced prostitution, and labour exploitation. Examples include restaurant owners fined and convicted for abusing undocumented staff, or a logistics company manager convicted for employing and housing workers in slavery-like conditions. In recent years, an uptick in labour exploitation cases (eg, in agriculture or construction involving undocumented migrants) has been observed. The Federal Police (Fedpol) and cantonal police run joint task forces to combat human trafficking. Convictions for human trafficking (Article 182 SCC) occur on a regular basis, though the numbers are relatively modest.
• Labour Inspections and Sanctions: Enforcement of labour standards (wages, hours, safety) is an important piece of state enforcement protecting workers. Labour inspectors examine workplaces and can sanction companies for violating health and safety regulations, which protect the rights to safe working conditions, etc. Severe breaches can lead to criminal charges.
• Environmental Enforcement with Human Rights Implications: Environmental agencies and the police enforce laws on pollution and toxic substances. For instance, if a chemical company improperly disposes of waste and endangers communities, authorities can order remediation and prosecute responsible managers. An example is the long-running remediation of chemical waste dumps. Although framed as environmental enforcement, these actions align with the state’s duty to protect the human rights to health and a safe environment.
• Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement: Switzerland enforces export control laws that intersect with human rights. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) can deny or condition export licences for military or dual-use goods if there is a risk they would be used to commit serious human rights violations. For example, in recent years, Switzerland halted exports of certain surveillance technology to authoritarian regimes due to human rights concerns. Swiss customs and SECO also enforce economic sanctions, including those targeting human rights abusers. Non-compliance with sanctions can result in criminal penalties, reinforcing the obligations of Swiss businesses to avoid contributing to human rights violations through trade.

Case law in Switzerland specifically on BHR is still developing, but there are some judicial decisions and ongoing proceedings that shed light on how courts and prosecution authorities handle BHR-related issues. Below are a few illustrative cases in administrative, criminal and civil law.

Administrative Law

• Verein Klimaseniorinnen et al v. Switzerland: On 9 April 2024, in a near unanimous decision, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a landmark decision in the case of Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. Ruling on a complaint brought by four individual women and a Swiss association composed of more than 2,000 elderly women above the age of 64, the Court found that Switzerland breached its positive duties under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by failing to take sufficient action to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change on human rights. In particular, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) ECHR. The judgment clarifies that Article 8 includes a right to effective protection by the public authorities from the serious adverse impacts of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life.

Criminal Law

• In several cases, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has fined companies with penalty orders in the context of bribery of foreign officials (and sometimes money laundering). In most of these cases, the OAG seized very substantial sums in illicit profits, in addition to ordering the companies to pay criminal fines of up to CHF5 million. While corruption is typically at their core, these cases often carry BHR relevance since corruption is often seen as facilitating human rights abuses and undermining governance in resource-rich countries. In these penalty orders, the OAG outlined how the absence of adequate compliance measures within the companies enabled corrupt practices. By extension, this reasoning could be applied to human rights violations – ie, if a company lacks due diligence and an abuse happens, that lack could be viewed as organisational failure.
• At least in one criminal investigation (brought against a Swiss bank), allegations of money laundering were expressly related to adverse environmental and related human rights impacts (arising from the logging of primary forests).

Civil Cases

• Domestic Labour Cases: Swiss courts have ruled on numerous cases on workplace-related human rights issues – for example, cases about workplace discrimination, sexual harassment, or wrongful termination for whistle-blowing. The Federal Supreme Court has affirmed strong protections against discrimination, for example by confirming that firing a woman for being pregnant is illegal and warrants compensation. While not “BHR” in the transnational sense, they show Swiss courts’ firm stance on ensuring that businesses respect individuals’ rights (including human rights).
• Compensation Claim/Injunction Against Producer of Building Materials: In July 2022, four inhabitants of an Indonesian island sued a major Swiss-based building materials company. Reportedly, the plaintiffs request (i) proportional compensation for climate change-related damages on the island; (ii) a reduction of CO₂ emissions by 43% by 2030 and by 69% by 2040, relative to 2019 levels; and (iii) a financial contribution to adaptation measures on the island. The landmark case, which remains pending at the time of writing, combines human rights with climate change arguments.

In addition to, but separate from, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings, there is a non-judicial state-based grievance mechanism through which business-related human rights complaints can be made: the Swiss National Contact Point (NCP) established under the OECD Guidelines (see 2.1 International). While not representing enforcement in a strict sense, these cases are a state-backed mechanism to resolve issues and prompt compliance with human rights standards (for more details, please see the Switzerland Trends and Developments article in this guide).

In addition, complaints in relation to labour-related human rights abuses may be notified to the competent authorities, in particular, at the federal level, the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO).

In 2023, Switzerland operationalised its National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) – an independent centre for human rights expertise. While primarily its role is research, advising authorities, and awareness-raising, the NHRI may also offer a point of contact for human rights concerns. The NHRI could, for example, publish recommendations on a specific matter or facilitate dialogue in a difficult human rights-related dispute. However, it does not have a mandate to provide remedies or adjudicate cases.

Many businesses in Switzerland have adopted BHR-related best practices. These best practices have generally been driven by a combination of international frameworks, supply chain risk management, stakeholder expectations, and emerging due diligence legislation. Notably, as previously described (see 2.2.2 Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation), some of these “best practices” are actually in response to mandatory due diligence legislation in Switzerland.

Key BHR-related best practices observed among Swiss companies include:

• Human rights policies: It is now common for large Swiss companies (and an increasing number of mid-sized ones) to adopt a formal human rights policy, sometimes as part of a broader code of conduct. These policies commit the company to respect human rights in line with international standards such as, in particular, the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Guidelines, and ISO standards.
• Supplier code of conduct: Related to the human rights policies, many large companies extend their BHR expectations to their suppliers (and other business partners) via a supplier code of conduct that (larger) suppliers are required to sign.
• Due diligence: Many companies have adopted, in various forms and to varying degrees of maturity, risk-based HRDD policies, typically as part of their human rights policy. Due diligence involves, in particular, regularly assessing actual and potential human rights impacts of their operations and supply chains (eg, through human rights impact assessments), tracking the effectiveness of their actions to mitigate or prevent such impacts, communicating about their efforts, and, as the case may be, providing for adequate remediation.
• Grievance mechanisms and whistle-blower hotlines: It has become best practice to have accessible grievance channels. Swiss companies generally maintain internal whistle-blowing systems to report misconduct. Such misconduct may be workplace-related (eg, harassment) or related to business misconduct in the supply chain (eg, human rights abuses). These mechanisms serve as early-detection tools.
• Transparency and reporting: Many Swiss companies, even those not in scope of any mandatory BHR-related reporting obligations, regularly publish sustainability reports covering BHR topics, typically in reference to established international standards such as GRI.
• Training and capacity building: Large and high-risk companies conduct regular trainings of employees and management on BHR topics. This could include training procurement teams to spot red flags in supplier labour practices and general ethics training that covers harassment or diversity and inclusion.
• Stakeholder engagement: Another best practice is meaningful engagement with stakeholders such as local communities, civil society, trade unions, or investors concerned about BHR. This can take various forms including dialogues and roundtables.
• Industry collaboration and initiatives: Recognising that certain problems are systemic and sector-specific, Swiss companies often join collective initiatives, for example in the pharmaceutical, cocoa, commodity trading, financial, or the watch and jewellery sector.
• Diversity and inclusion initiatives: Many Swiss employers promote inclusive workplaces as part of their human rights commitments.