On 29 November 2020, the Swiss people and cantons decided on the popular initiative « For responsible businesses – protecting human rights and the environment », the so-called responsible business initiative. Backed by a broad coalition of NGOs, churches and development organisations, it sought to require companies based in Switzerland to exercise due diligence on human rights and the environment, with civil liability for harm caused abroad.
Launched in 2015, the initiative grew out of scandals involving commodities and subsidiaries of Swiss groups in countries of the Global South. Parliament countered with a more modest indirect counter-proposal — limited to targeted transparency and due-diligence obligations — that would enter into force if the initiative were rejected.
The Federal Council and the centre-right majority recommended a no, deeming the initiative excessive and legally risky for Switzerland as a business location. The campaign was one of the most intense and costly of the decade, marked by the mobilisation of the churches and the omnipresent orange flags.
The result was historic: 50.7% yes among the people — but only 8½ of 23 cantons. Lacking the double majority, the initiative failed, with turnout around 47%.
▲ Cantons that accepted Jura (68.7%), Neuchâtel (64.6%), Geneva (64.2%), Basel-Stadt (61.9%), Vaud (59.8%), Fribourg (56.6%), Bern (54.6%), Ticino (54.2%) and Zurich (52.8%) — that is, 8½ cantons. | ▼ Cantons that rejected All other cantons, including Valais and the whole of central and eastern Switzerland. The popular yes (50.7%) was not enough against a majority of opposing cantons. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Coalition for responsible business (~130 NGOs) • Dick Marty (former FDP councillor of states, face of the committee) • Public Eye, Amnesty, Bread for All • Churches, SP, Greens and part of the GLP | ▼ No camp • Federal Council (Karin Keller-Sutter, FDJP) • economiesuisse and employer circles • SVP, FDP and a majority of the CVP • Supporters of the indirect counter-proposal |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Binding rules are needed; voluntary measures are not enough « Companies must answer for the harm they cause to people and the environment. » — Dick Marty, chair of the initiative committee (2020) ✓~ Partly confirmed Subsequent events gave weight to this argument: the European Union adopted the due-diligence directive (CSDDD) on 24 May 2024, with sanctions, and the Federal Council decided on 3 September 2025 to prepare a new counter-proposal aligned with the EU. The idea that Switzerland would have to legislate more firmly prevailed. Source : Federal Council (2025); EU, CSDDD directive The counter-proposal is toothless « The counter-proposal is limited to a report, without liability or an effective sanction mechanism. » — Coalition for responsible business, 2020 ✓~ Partly confirmed Several later analyses note limited implementation: the framework rests essentially on a non-financial reporting duty, without civil liability or independent oversight. The criticism of a weak text was largely borne out. Source : humanrights.ch, implementation monitoring | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) The indirect counter-proposal suffices and avoids excess « Pragmatic, it offers an effective solution without exposing our companies to legal risks. » — economiesuisse, 2020 campaign ✗~ Partly refuted The counter-proposal entered into force on 1 January 2022. But the « sufficient » argument was weakened by the facts: by 2024-2025, faced with the European directive, the Federal Council itself launched a revision to align Switzerland with the EU, implicitly acknowledging the limits of the 2022 framework. Source : Federal Council (3 September 2025) The initiative would isolate Switzerland and harm its competitiveness « Going further than others alone would put our companies at a competitive disadvantage. » — Federal Council and employer circles, 2020 ✗~ Partly refuted Developments reversed the risk: with the CSDDD adopted in 2024, it is the EU that went further, now putting Switzerland in a catch-up position. The argument of isolation « through excess » turned into a risk of isolation « through delay ». Source : EU, CSDDD directive (2024); RTS |
Factual record
0 Confirmed | 2 Partly confirmed | 2 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ~ | The counter-proposal entered into force From 1 January 2022, large companies (balance sheet > CHF 20m, turnover > CHF 40m, 500+ employees) are subject to a non-financial reporting duty and a due-diligence obligation limited to child labour and conflict minerals. Source : Federal Office of Justice; Bilan |
| ~ | Europe went further On 24 May 2024 the EU adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), providing for extended due diligence and sanctions — more than the rejected Swiss initiative envisaged. Source : EU; RTS |
| ~ | Switzerland reopens the file On 3 September 2025 the Federal Council decided to put a new indirect counter-proposal, aligned with the EU, against a new initiative launched in January 2025. The file closed in 2020 was thus reopened less than five years later. Source : admin.ch; amnesty.ch |
Rarely does the defeated camp win the popular vote: with 50.7% yes, the responsible business initiative foundered solely on the majority of cantons. The result fuelled a lasting debate about the double majority and the weight of rural cantons.
On substance, later facts rather vindicated the initiators. The counter-proposal did enter into force, but its limited scope — a report without civil liability — was confirmed in practice. Above all, the No argument that this framework sufficed and that going further would isolate Switzerland was weakened: the European Union legislated more firmly, and the Federal Council reopened the file as early as 2025.
The vote thus illustrates a classic gap between political and legal time: a narrowly rejected text whose core intentions return through the European door a few years later, in another form and at the instigation of the very people who had fought it.