Swiss consultation puts parent-company liability options on the table
Switzerland’s April 2026 consultation proposed human-rights and environmental diligence duties and two parent-company liability options. The consultation ended on 9 July; the text reported here is the consultation proposal.
- Development
- 2 April 2026
- Published
- 29 October 2026
- Sources checked
- 29 October 2026
A new consultation, separate from the 2020 vote
Switzerland’s Federal Council decided on 1 April 2026 to open a consultation on a sustainable corporate governance counter-proposal, announcing it on 2 April. The consultation ended on 9 July 2026. The initiative is a later legislative development and must be distinguished from the 2020 popular vote on responsible business conduct: this 2026 document sets out proposed legislation, not a law already in force. The Federal Office of Justice announcement describes the consultation and its proposed framework.
At the consultation stage, the government estimated diligence duties would directly cover about 30 large companies. Sustainability reporting would cover about 100, compared with about 200 under the framework described in the announcement. External assurance and supervision by the audit-oversight authority were proposed. These were estimates and institutional choices for the draft, not a final list of newly regulated firms.
Two paths for parent-company liability
The government put forward two liability options. One would expressly address a Swiss parent’s liability for harm caused by an overseas subsidiary if the injured person proved that the parent breached its diligence duties. The other would expressly preserve application of the Code of Obligations’ general liability rules. Both options included preliminary conciliation in Switzerland before court proceedings. The report concerns these draft alternatives, rather than an enacted new liability rule.
The proposal’s combination of due diligence, reporting and liability is significant because these mechanisms perform different functions. Due-diligence duties would address company processes around risks, while reporting would require disclosure and external assurance would add scrutiny. A liability provision would concern legal responsibility in a claim. The consultation document puts these elements together for discussion, but leaves their final wording and adoption unresolved.
What the proposal does not yet require
Our analysis: The consultation closed on 9 July 2026, so the April invitation is no longer an open call for submissions. The relevant source is a consultation announcement and draft framework. It cannot itself establish that the proposed duties are operative, or that either liability alternative was ultimately selected. Those questions require separate legislative acts.
The proposal also does not resolve which liability alternative, if either, will be adopted. Its limited diligence coverage and broader reporting coverage signal different regulatory thresholds, while the proposed conciliation requirement would affect access to court. Those design choices are precisely what consultation can expose for debate; they are not yet rights or obligations created by enacted legislation. The Federal Office of Justice document is the record of these options, rather than evidence of a final law.