On 29 November 2020, Swiss voters decided on the popular initiative 'For a ban on financing war material producers', launched by the Group for a Switzerland without an Army (GSsA) and the Young Greens. The text sought to bar the Swiss National Bank (SNB), foundations and public and occupational pension institutions from investing in companies deriving more than 5% of their turnover from war material production.
Put to the vote the same day as the 'Responsible Business' initiative, it was part of a broader debate on the ethics of the Swiss financial centre and the consistency between Switzerland's humanitarian tradition and the investments of its financial institutions.
At stake were the second pillar of millions of insured persons, the management of the SNB's reserves and the very definition of neutrality: should it be extended from the military to the financial sphere? For the initiators a moral imperative, for opponents an ineffective interference with investment freedom.
The ballot verdict was clear: the initiative was rejected by 57.5% of voters and all cantons except four, legally ending any constraint on arms financing.
▲ Cantons that accepted Basel-Stadt (57.9%), Jura (55.0%), Geneva (53.1%), Neuchâtel (52.6%). That is 3.5 cantonal votes out of 23. | ▼ Cantons that rejected The other 22 cantons, from most to least opposed: Nidwalden (75.2%), Schwyz (74.2%), Obwalden (72.6%), then Appenzell, Uri, Aargau, Thurgau, Lucerne, Zurich, Vaud, Bern, etc. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • GSsA (Group for a Switzerland without an Army), initiative committee • Young Greens co-initiators • SP and Greens yes recommendations • SGB/USS (Swiss Trade Union Federation) • Peace organisations various support | ▼ No camp • Federal Council recommended rejection • SVP, FDP, The Centre opposed • GLP, BDP, EDU opposed • economiesuisse and sgv business associations • SNB and ASIP wary of a legal constraint |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Without a binding rule, the SNB and pension system will keep financing arms « Only a legal ban will stop Swiss financial institutions from placing insured persons' money and monetary reserves in weapons production. » — Initiative committee (GSsA) ✓ Argument confirmed Established: without a constraint, financing continued. The SNB raised its stake in the Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems by 875% in Q1 2024 and held, according to the NGO PAX, around USD 600 million in companies linked to nuclear weapons in 2023. Source: RTS, 2024; PAX report 'Don't Bank on the Bomb'. Voluntary commitments are not enough « Self-regulation leaves too much leeway; a uniform, mandatory rule is needed for all institutions. » — Yes camp ✓~ Partly confirmed Partly verified: the share of funds integrating ESG criteria rose from 8% to 33% between 2015 and 2021, and some funds (Lausanne, ASIR members) excluded arms — but the SNB, outside any framework, changed nothing. The voluntary approach progressed without becoming general. Source: Le Temps; swissinfo.ch; ASIR. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) Self-regulation makes a legal ban superfluous « Swiss financial players already apply responsible criteria; a rigid ban is needless and bureaucratic. » — economiesuisse, campaign argument ✗~ Partly refuted Partly refuted: while some funds did tighten exclusions, the SNB conversely increased its arms holdings (Elbit +875% in Q1 2024), illustrating the limits of self-regulation left to each player's discretion. Source: RTS, 2024. Excluding arms would hurt pension returns « Narrowing the investment universe would reduce funds' performance and thus insured persons' pensions. » — No camp ✗~ Partly refuted Partly refuted: funds that divested voluntarily did so on marginal amounts — about 0.3% of assets for the Lausanne fund — with no measurable effect on returns. The financial-sacrifice argument did not materialise where the exclusion was applied. Source: Le Temps. |
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 2 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ~ | Real but uneven self-regulation The rejection preserved the status quo. Among pension funds, the uptake of responsible criteria clearly progressed after 2020 (creation of ASIR, targeted exclusions), partly validating the argument that the sector would evolve on its own. But this evolution remains voluntary and uneven. Source: swissinfo.ch; ASIR. |
| ! | The SNB increased its arms holdings Where no constraint applies, the initiators' diagnosis held: the SNB nearly ninefolded its Elbit stake in early 2024 and ranks among investors in companies linked to nuclear weapons. The vote changed nothing about the central bank's trajectory. Source: RTS, 2024; PAX. |
The rejection of the war-material financing initiative offers AfterVote a textbook case: once the constraint is set aside, the actual behaviour of financial institutions becomes observable and lets the campaign arguments be adjudicated.
The initiators' main argument — without a rule, financing continues — was confirmed most visibly at the SNB, which expanded its arms holdings, including nuclear. Conversely, the No camp's implicit promise of sufficient self-regulation holds only partly: pension funds progressed, the central bank did not.
As for the fear of a yield sacrifice, it did not materialise where the exclusion was applied, on marginal amounts at that. The debate thus comes down to a question of scale and scope rather than a dilemma between ethics and performance.
Five years on, the divide remains: the pension sector has partly aligned with ethical expectations, while the most exposed player, the SNB, stayed outside any framework for want of a legal basis.