Swiss EHS Myths & Lessons for Global Firms

The Global EHS Compliance Challenge: Insights from Switzerland with Janis Faupel of Baden Consulting

Let’s face it, global EHS (Environment, Health & Safety) compliance is anything but straightforward. This is especially true when multinational corporations try to enforce one-size-fits-all EHS procedures across vastly different legal and cultural environments. Switzerland, with its unique regulatory landscape, often becomes a case study in how global standards clash or, in some rare instances, align with local realities.

In our recent partner video senior consultant and partner at Baden Consulting, the Swiss member of the Inogen Alliance, shed light on the real-world EHS compliance challenges faced by Swiss subsidiaries of international companies. His stories offer a candid look at misunderstandings, cultural differences, and regulatory complexities that can derail even the most sophisticated EHS strategies.

The Management Liability Surprise

One of the most striking examples involves US-based corporations operating in Switzerland, where executives are often shocked to learn they could face criminal liability, including imprisonment of up to three years if serious EHS incidents occur under their watch. In the US, such personal accountability is rare in the same direct legal form, but Swiss labour and safety law (e.g., Article 6 of the Swiss Labour Law [Arbeitsgesetz]) explicitly requires employers to take all necessary measures to protect workers’ health and safety, and holds them personally responsible.

This disconnect leads to awkward conversations and requires thorough training for foreign managers to grasp the strict liability concept embedded in Swiss EHS regulations.

The Overkill of Global Procedures

Another common friction point described is the application of global EHS procedures based on US legislation, which can be excessive when applied verbatim in Switzerland. Many multinationals design EHS protocols centred on US OSHA standards or corporate policies that don’t always fit Swiss risk profiles or regulatory requirements. Janis pointed out how this can lead to unnecessarily burdensome measures or worse, misinterpretation of local compliance obligations.

For example, Swiss law often focuses on a risk-based approach tailored to actual hazards, as seen in the EKAS Guidelines (e.g., EKAS Richtlinie 6508), which define how employers must organize occupational health and safety in proportion to risk exposure. Applying blanket rules ignoring local context can result in wasted resources or conflicts with local expectations.

The Myth of Agency Inspections as Risk Assessments

Companies mistakenly considered a government agency’s inspection report as proof of full compliance, as a complete risk assessment. In reality, Swiss authorities such as SUVA (the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund) or cantonal labor inspectors conduct inspections that only sample certain aspects of operations. Janis emphasized that no audit or inspection can guarantee comprehensive compliance, and companies must conduct their own thorough risk assessments, as required under Swiss Ordinance on Accident Prevention (VUV).

A Myth That Put Workers at Risk

One particularly eye-opening example involved a large Swiss company that spread an internal myth: an inspector had allegedly granted them an exemption from wearing helmets when working at heights. Yet the investigation found no written evidence of such an exception, proving how quickly misinformation can become entrenched, even in organizations with thousands of employees. Swiss EHS regulations (e.g., SUVA’s directives) strictly require personal protective equipment for work at height, and verbal interpretations don’t override documented rules.

Another Swiss EHS Story: Chemical Storage Compliance Gone Wrong

At Baden Consulting, Jannis’s team encountered a Swiss manufacturer that stored flammable chemicals near an ignition source, despite having passed a previous inspection without comment. When Baden’s team conducted an independent EHS audit, they identified clear violations of Ordinance on the Prevention of Major Accidents (StFV) requirements for hazardous substance storage. The client initially resisted corrective action, citing the inspector’s earlier “approval.” Only after reviewing the ordinance together did they recognize their risk exposure and implement safe storage protocols. This highlights how complacency based on a clean inspection report can lull companies into a false sense of security, especially when dealing with substances covered by Switzerland’s strict chemical safety rules.

Why Swiss EHS Compliance Demands Local Expertise

What’s the takeaway? Multinationals must reconcile global EHS policies with Switzerland’s local regulatory environment, balancing corporate standards with Swiss requirements. This demands local experts like Baden Consulting, who not only know the laws but understand cultural nuances and how myths can spread internally.

Jannis’s insights reveal that true EHS compliance goes beyond ticking boxes; it requires continuous awareness, critical interpretation of audits, and risk-based decision-making. Whether you’re a Swiss SME or a subsidiary of a global giant, investing in local EHS expertise can protect lives, assets, and reputations.

Why Baden Consulting Stands Out

Baden Consulting provides tailored solutions grounded in Swiss law, practical experience, and global EHS best practices through its Inogen Alliance membership. Their team helps companies navigate Swiss-specific EHS regulations, design effective management systems, and train leaders to embrace the personal responsibilities Swiss law imposes.

Ready to strengthen your EHS compliance in Switzerland?

Contact Baden Consulting to ensure your EHS strategies align with local realities, because a proactive approach today prevents costly surprises tomorrow.

‍