ESG guidelines in asset management: where Swiss banks stand

Since January 1, 2024, uniform minimum standards for the inclusion of ESG preferences in investment advice and asset management have applied to all member institutions of the Swiss Bankers Association (Swiss Banking). A digital survey of 89 banks, conducted in the fourth quarter of 2025 and evaluated by the Institute of Financial Services Zug (IFZ) at Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, now provides a comprehensive picture of the implementation status for the first time - and shows where the industry still has some catching up to do.

Minimum standard largely achieved

The core finding of the study is clear: 85% of the banks surveyed directly implement Swiss Banking's self-regulation, 73% of which do so exclusively in accordance with the Swiss standard. Self-regulation 1.0 (SR 1.0), which has been in force since 2024, has been fully implemented by 86% of the banks according to their own assessment. In the case of Self-Regulation 2.0 (SR 2.0), which has been in force since January 2026 and prescribes stricter definitions for sustainable investment solutions and is intended to counteract greenwashing to a greater extent, 42% of banks had already fully implemented the requirements at the time of the survey in fall 2025, while a further 42% had partially implemented them.

SR 2.0 introduces an important conceptual distinction: Investment solutions that take ESG criteria into account solely to optimize financial performance may no longer be referred to as «sustainable» in future, but must be labeled as «ESG investment solutions». A «sustainable investment solution» must also pursue at least one eco-social objective - either as compatibility with or as a contribution to the implementation of sustainability goals.

Size-dependent differences characterize the picture

A central pattern of the study is the pronounced size effect: large banks with total assets of over CHF 17 billion are significantly more advanced than medium-sized and small institutions. 52 percent of large banks give sustainability a high strategic priority in their investment business, compared to just 29 and 32 percent of medium-sized and small banks respectively. Accordingly, 67 percent of large banks rate their implementation status as «fairly advanced» to «very advanced» - for small banks this figure is 59 percent and for medium-sized banks 63 percent.

Self-regulation itself is rated positively across all banks: 81% of large banks rate it as pragmatic and opportunity-oriented, while the figure for small banks is still 55%. At the same time, there is a clear complexity gap: While the majority of small and medium-sized banks perceive self-regulation as complex, the majority of large banks share this assessment much less often. A large majority of banks, regardless of their size, reject a further tightening of the requirements. On the other hand, around two thirds of banks would welcome recognition of self-regulation by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA).

ESG preferences: lean survey, different classifications

The majority of banks use simple methods to survey ESG preferences at the point of sale: 58 percent ask their wealth management clients only 1 to 2 individual questions, while 80 percent offer 1 to 2 ESG profiles. Large banks offer several profiles more frequently, which indicates more differentiated resources and product ranges.

The proportion of clients classified as having an ESG preference varies greatly. At large banks, 57 percent have a medium to large proportion of ESG-classified new clients, while at medium-sized and small banks this figure is only 22 and 15 percent respectively. The banks attribute a significant influence on this result to the client advisors themselves: 73 percent of the institutions surveyed rate their influence on the ESG classification of clients as high. The study points out that private customers often come to advisory meetings unprepared and rely on the knowledge advantage of the advisors.

Training advanced, but heterogeneous

86 percent of banks have completed SR 1.0 training for their client advisors, 43 percent have also completed SR 2.0 training. Despite broad training activities - the majority of which take place via e-learning (88 percent) or classroom training (67 percent) - 78 percent of banks rate the knowledge level of their advisors as very heterogeneous. In addition, 79 percent of the institutions describe training on sustainability in the investment sector as a high or very high challenge. The authors of the study note that with SR 2.0, the demand for knowledge will continue to increase and resistance from individual advisors cannot be ruled out.

Product ranges and reporting as permanent construction sites

The product offering paints a surprising picture: ESG investment solutions are available at 68% of banks and are therefore more widespread than conventional investment solutions (61%). Only 38% of banks currently offer sustainable investment solutions with explicit eco-social objectives. When differentiating by customer segment, 51 percent of banks offer different products to customers with and without an ESG preference; 47 percent of institutions offer the same investment solution to both groups.

71% of banks use external ESG ratings as a reference framework for sustainability targets, followed by proprietary scoring models (42%) and the EU taxonomy (32%). In their reporting, 72 percent of banks report sustainability indicators, with ESG ratings being by far the most frequently cited indicator at 92 percent. ESG reporting itself was rated as a high or very high challenge by 87% of the banks surveyed - technically even more than in terms of content. License costs for ESG data, integration into existing core systems and a lack of reporting standards were cited as particularly problematic.

Conclusion: foundation laid, complexity tangible

The study by Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts concludes that the uniform minimum standard of ESG self-regulation is largely anchored in the Swiss banking landscape. At the same time, it shows that the complexity limit has been reached: training, product ranges and reporting remain challenging, especially for small and medium-sized institutions. Self-regulation is perceived as an opportunity and a pragmatic instrument - however, the majority reject further tightening.

Source: Lucerne University