Quick Take

How to Make the Most of a Flawed Swiss National Action Plan

January 17, 2025

The Federal Council of Switzerland recently adopted a revised National Action Plan (NAP) on the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The plan was prepared by an expert group of representatives of business associations, unions, NGOs, and academia, led jointly by the Swiss State Secretary of Economic Affairs and the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. I joined this group a couple of years ago.

NAPs are policy documents articulating government priorities and actions to support the implementation of human rights standards in the business context. Globally, over 30 countries have published National Action Plans to develop human rights in corporate practice, although an academic assessment concluded in 2019 that most NAPs are “policy tools with limited effects and with a politically linked time frame”.

Sadly, this is also true for the revised Swiss NAP.

A draft for the revised Swiss NAP was put forward to the Federal Council by the expert group last fall. It contained concrete implementation measures aiming to generate measurable outcomes and impacts. The expert group, to which I belong, reached a consensus that the time for “awareness raising” was over and concrete implementation support was needed to achieve corporate compliance with the new regulatory landscape, to meet public expectations, and to build sustainable business models.

The released version of the Swiss NAP is much slimmer than the submitted draft — in terms of the themes covered as well as the proposed implementation framework. As a member of the expert committee, I cannot say I fulfilled my mandate of contributing to this revision. In fact, despite my active engagement over the past two years, I felt like I was reading an entirely new — and inferior — document after its publication.

The revised NAP highlights three relevant new topics that require a dedicated human rights lens: the energy transition, new technologies, and the sports sector. But clearly, the Federal Council rejected a more ambitious NAP and condensed the draft to a version without clear outcome measures. Some key themes that are more pressing than ever are missing entirely, such as the need for companies to conduct heightened human rights due diligence in conflict settings and the need to develop concrete performance measures through multi-stakeholder initiatives to complement emerging legislation. The overall tone of the NAP remains at the level of “informing, encouraging, and raising awareness.”

As such, the revision amounts to a missed opportunity to introduce clear and targeted measures. Still, as a member of the NAP expert group I will encourage all stakeholders to work with what we have. I see the following four avenues for adding substance to the revised Swiss NAP:

The leadership of the expert group agreed to develop and publish a more detailed implementation plan to accompany the revised NAP. This creates some flexibility to flesh out proposed measures, assign clear responsibilities, and define a plan of action that prioritizes impact-focused activities. The north star for developing this implementation plan should be the question of which impacts the Swiss government hopes to see by the end of the implementation period in 2027. Two effectiveness studies that assessed the previous NAP clearly highlighted that awareness raising alone would not be sufficient.
The revised NAP emphasizes of the need for collective action through multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). This is a promising approach, if these MSIs deliver on measurable standards, metrics, and means of evaluation. The expectation to create standards and metrics for their respective industries should be communicated clearly to all MSIs that the Swiss government supports directly — for example, the Swiss Better Gold Association, the Swiss Sustainable Coffee Platform, and the Swiss Sustainable Cocoa Platform. More established MSIs such as the International Code of Conduct Association (ICOCA) that have already developed standards and metrics could be the model for MSIs in other industries.
The NAP’s focus on child labor in global supply chains is highly relevant for the reputation of Swiss companies in extractive industries (e.g. gold), for Swiss commodity trading companies that trade energy transition minerals (e.g. copper and cobalt), as well as for Swiss companies that operate in agricultural contexts (e.g. the supply chains of coffee and cocoa). Making progress on eradicating child labor is an achievable objective in these supply chains because Swiss companies have significant market share and leverage. The NAP should set out the expectation that Swiss companies make the commitment to eradicate child labor measurable by encouraging the adoption of clear targets for their industries.
The recognition that when implementing aspects of the Action Plan that take place in conflict-affected and high-risk areas – whether it is in areas related to the energy transition, new technologies, the sports sector or any other sector for that matter – that companies must be expected to conduct heightened human rights due diligence, through the development of relevant assessments, action plans and their implementation.

Despite its limitations, the revised Swiss NAP can serve as a foundation for stakeholders to build upon. The inclusion of collective action through MSIs and the continued focus on child labor are priority areas in line with Switzerland’s strengths. As we move forward, our efforts should also include working together with other business schools to advance human rights in business education.

The direction for enhancing corporate accountability is clear, and the revised Swiss NAP should contribute to this momentum.