Climate claims under the Swiss UWG: tighter rules, higher risk for financial institutions

Why this matters

Financial institutions often use terms like "Net Zero by 2050," "Paris-aligned portfolios," "climate-aligned investments," or "sustainable/ESG products." Under the revised UWG, such claims are misleading if not supported by objective evidence. 

The new BAFU guidance provides a common reference for authorities, courts, and market participants, increasing the risk of enforcement, litigation, and reputational damage for non-compliant claims. 

The two dimensions that now determine compliance

The guidance is built around two essential dimensions, both of which must be met:

Product vs. portfolio claims: a critical distinction

For financial products, climate claims must not rely on carbon offsets. Claims suggesting neutrality or positive impact based on carbon credits are considered misleading, as clients expect the underlying investments themselves to be climate-aligned.

For portfolio or institution-level claims (e.g., "Net Zero"), statements are only permissible as forward-looking targets and must be supported by: 

• A credible transition plan. 

• Clear coverage of financed emissions. 

• Science-based reduction pathways aligned with Swiss climate objectives. 

• Transparent assumptions and limitations. 

Private voluntary carbon credits do not justify neutrality claims and are limited to climate contribution statements. 

What happens if institutions do not adhere

Non-compliant climate claims may lead to: 

• Civil or criminal proceedings under the UWG. 

• Complaints to SECO or self-regulatory bodies. 

• Challenges by competitors, NGOs, or consumer organizations. 

• Public scrutiny of product and sustainability disclosures. 

• Reputational damage linked to greenwashing. 

Even without mandatory assurance, institutions bear full legal and reputational risk if claims cannot be substantiated.

What financial institutions should do now – and how we can help

In response to the BAFU guidance, financial institutions should focus on implementation. This starts with identifying where climate claims are made and assessing them against the two UWG dimensions: communication quality and substantive integrity. This often reveals gaps between marketing language, underlying strategies, transition plans, and financed emissions data. 

We support institutions by assessing the credibility and substantiation of climate claims, conducting targeted anti-greenwashing assessments to: 

• Review and prioritize high-risk climate claims. 

• Align claims with underlying data. 

• Clarify the compliant use of concepts like Net Zero, Paris alignment and climate contribution.

We also help ensure future claims are consistently assessed before publication. Our goal is not to dilute climate ambition but help you ensure claims are clear, substantiated, and defensible, reducing legal and reputational risk while maintaining credibility with clients, investors, and supervisors. Please find out more here.