Blog

Today, many Swiss companies are eager to communicate about their sustainability commitments but do not always know how to put the right safeguards in place, to limit accusations of greenwashing.

Since the first of January 2025, Swiss law has become stricter. Under Art. 3 para. 1 let. x of the Swiss Federal Act against Unfair Competition, a company may be considered to be acting unfairly if it communicates about its climate impact without being able to support its claims with objective and verifiable evidence.

In other words, certain climate-related claims can no longer be used lightly. When they appear on posters, a web page or an ESG report, they need to be accompanied by factual elements, clear context or a source that helps support their claims.

However, let me be clear: this provision does not cover every sustainability claim in the broadest sense. It applies specifically to claims linked to the climate impact of a company, its products or its services.

This is an important step forward in the right direction, but the fight against greenwashing in Switzerland still relies on several different actors and mechanisms, rather than one entity that surveys the entire Swiss market.

As Sophie Michaud Gigon, Secretary General of the FRC (Fédération Romande des Consommateur·rice·s), points out, Switzerland is not obligatr to monitor its own market in relation to greenwashing.

The framework therefore relies on several levers: the Federal Act against Unfair Competition, civil or criminal complaints, the Swiss Commission for Fairness in Commercial Communication, consumer organisations such as the FRC, SECO in certain cases, and FINMA when claims relate to the financial sector.

It is also important to clarify that the Swiss Commission for Fairness in Commercial Communication does not create the law. It acts as a self-regulatory body for commercial communication and can issue opinions on advertising considered misleading or unfair.

When graphic design influences environmental perception in Switzerland

From a graphic design point of view, this shows that Swiss companies can no longer content themselves with “making things look pretty” when communicating about sustainability. Visual and written choices also need to be carefully considered.

When we talk about greenwashing, we often think of words such as “sustainable”, “green”, “eco-friendly” or “carbon neutral”. But the perception of a message does not depend only on the words and images used. It also depends on how these elements are presented visually.

An image of a forest, an icon that looks like an official label, a dominant green colour palette or a climate promise placed too prominently in advertisements, can all influence how the public interprets a companies message.

The issue isn't using words or images that people associate with sustainability. The problem arises when these are used to make a company, product, or service seem more environmentally friendly than it really is, without clear evidence to support those claims.

Visuals that rely too heavily on environmental symbols, fake sustainability labels or a climate claim that lacks evidence, will communicate the wrong impression to the general public.

This is why your graphic design choices need to remain proportionate, readable and perfectly aligned with the facts being presented.

Your design choices are not decorative, they are strategic

When applying responsible communication principles to your campaigns, graphic design should not exaggerate your sustainability commitments. Instead, it should help communicate them clearly, make them easier to understand, and ensure they can be backed up with evidence.

This is one of the main reasons why my clients seek my expertise.

As a graphic designer specialised in responsible communication, my role is not to replace lawyers, ESG teams or compliance specialists.

My role is to help Swiss companies translate their sustainability commitments into sustainable communication materials that are clearer, more precise and more defensible.

Because in a context where environmental claims are coming under increasing scrutiny, the form of the message matters almost as much as the content itself.