Voting results, the quality and transparency of sustainability reports, executive remuneration, and the composition of boards of directors. While Ethos’s new report on the 2026 annual general meeting (AGM) season shows some progress, this remains insufficient and confirms that a regulatory framework is still essential.
Today, the Ethos Foundation publishes its annual report on the 2026 AGMs of 172 companies listed on the Swiss Performance Index (SPI), for which it had issued voting recommendations as at 31 May 2026. The analysis covers four areas: voting results, the quality of sustainability reports, executive remuneration and the composition of boards of directors. The overall picture is mixed. While progress is evident, it remains insufficient and confirms that practices only change sustainably when supported by a legal framework and when pressure from shareholders and engaged investors is combined.
This is particularly true regarding the representation of women on boards of directors. The proportion of women on SPI boards of directors thus reached an average of 30.4 % in 2026, compared with 28.8 % in 2025. However, this positive trend masks some worrying realities: 78 listed companies still fall below the legal threshold of 30 %, and 22 boards still have no women at all. While the progress is real, it remains insufficient in light of legal expectations and the challenges of good governance.
Executive pay rises sharply, despite shareholder opposition
Meanwhile, the remuneration of CEOs at SMI companies has risen by 28.8 % over five years, reaching an average of 8.8 million Swiss francs in 2025. Eight executives now exceed the 10 million Swiss franc threshold. The total remuneration actually received can be significantly higher, including the leverage effects of variable pay schemes from previous years: the CEO of Novartis, for example, received 25 million francs in 2025, equivalent to nearly 295 times the Swiss median salary. The average remuneration of SMI CEOs ranks fourth globally in terms of executive pay, just behind the Anglo-Saxon countries.
These figures contrast with the genuine and growing shareholder opposition. Remuneration reports remain the most contentious topic at annual general meetings (AGMs), with an average approval rate of only 87.5 %. Since the Minder initiative came into force – requiring pension funds to vote at AGMs – pressure from shareholders has intensified. However, shareholder pressure, however real it may be, is not enough on its own to reverse the trend: without robust regulatory safeguards, the effects remain limited. There is a real risk that Switzerland could start to resemble the excesses seen in the United States, where some executives now receive remuneration of several hundred million dollars a year.
The quality of sustainability reports: progress, but still insufficient
Ethos recommended approving only 36.7 % of the sustainability reports put to the vote in 2026, compared with 40.4 % in 2025. Furthermore, 53 companies still do not subject their non-financial data to independent external verification, despite the importance of such verification for the credibility of the information published. Shareholder support as a whole is also waning, as sustainability reports were approved this year with an average of 93.9 % of votes in favour, compared with 97.4 % in 2024.
These results illustrate a now well-documented phenomenon: practices improve where the law sets out clear requirements and where shareholders exert active pressure. Conversely, where neither the legislator nor investors set the course, progress is slow or non-existent. Prior to the introduction of Article 964 of the Swiss Code of Obligations in 2022, only 50 % of the reports analysed by Ethos included non-financial indicators covering the company’s material issues. This figure has now increased to 87 %, demonstrating that many companies waited for a legal obligation to be introduced before publishing relevant, high-quality data. Where the law remains silent, however, progress is slow or non-existent.
One positive sign is worth noting, however: the proportion of companies opting for a binding vote on their sustainability report is rising, from 54.1 % in 2024 to 65.9 % in 2026. This reflects a genuine shift in awareness, even though the majority of large SMI-listed companies continue to regard this vote as purely advisory.
This finding argues in favour of a combined approach that brings together clear legal obligations and structured shareholder engagement. “The results of our study demonstrate this: self-regulation works for the ‘good pupils’, but its limitations are evident in companies reluctant to change. Investors need reliable, high-quality information to redirect financial flows towards a sustainable economy. Now is not the time to weaken the rules,” emphasises Vincent Kaufmann, CEO of the Ethos Foundation.
The new Corporate Sustainability Act: Ethos sounds the alarm
As part of the consultation on the draft Corporate Sustainability Act (LGDE), Ethos welcomes the new provisions on auditing, accountability and oversight, for both sustainability reporting and the duty of care. However, the Foundation warns of a major risk: by significantly raising the thresholds for compliance to align with the European ‘Omnibus’ package – from 500 to 1,000 employees and from 40 to 450 million Swiss francs in turnover – the draft would drastically reduce the number of companies subject to reporting obligations. Currently, around 200 companies are affected, but under the new thresholds, only just over 100 would remain so. Companies that currently publish ESG information essential to investment decisions could cease to do so, as they would no longer be required to.
Ethos is therefore calling on Parliament to strengthen the counter-proposal in four key areas: to extend reporting obligations to all listed companies, possibly with lighter requirements for the smallest ones; to enshrine the obligation to publish climate roadmaps; to specify the consequences of shareholders rejecting a sustainability report; and to clarify companies’ civil liability in the event of human rights violations within their value chain.
