3 in 10 businesses delay or cut investments: red tape

Context

TL;DR

• Three out of ten businesses postpone, reduce or cancel investments
• 67% consider the administrative burden high
• 64% report more bureaucracy over the last five years

Key facts

• Date → November 9, 2026
• Research → gfs.bern for economiesuisse
• Sample → 1’527 companies interviewed
• High administrative burden → 67%
• Bureaucracy on the rise → 64% over the last five years

According to the RG 12.30 report of November 9, 2026, for three out of ten Swiss companies, administrative constraints lead to the postponement, reduction or cancellation of investments. The percentage emerged from a national study conducted by gfs.bern on behalf of economiesuisse and published on the same day.

The survey quantifies the burden and describes some of its effects. 67% of the 1’527 companies interviewed consider it high. 64% also report an increase in bureaucracy over the last five years. The description of the difficulties includes complex procedures and duplicate requests from the authorities.

The limitations identified by the study particularly affect two areas: the development of new products and services and the training of apprentices. The source does not measure these effects with a separate percentage, but lists them among the activities affected by administrative constraints.

economiesuisse's position

This position was expressed during a joint press conference. Silvan Wildhaber, president of economiesuisse, described the growing burden as “a problem made at home” that needs to be corrected to preserve jobs and prosperity, according to the written version of his statement.

The statement differs from the numerical results: 67% and 64% are findings from the study, while Wildhaber's wording is a position expressed by the association's president. The text therefore reports both a measurement of companies' responses and the call to correct the administrative burden, without indicating that a reform has already been adopted.

Operational details

How to read the three measures

The three central figures in the research do not measure the same question. The share of three out of ten businesses concerns a concrete investment decision: postponement, reduction or cancellation. The 67% instead measures the assessment of the administrative burden, while the 64% concerns the perception of an increase in bureaucracy over the last five years. Expressed as a percentage, the fraction of three out of ten corresponds to 30%; the numerical comparison between 67 and 64 shows a difference of three percentage points. The meaning, however, remains different: one percentage describes the burden judged high, the other a change perceived over time.

The source does not present a cross-tabulation of these responses. It therefore does not make it possible to establish how many companies have simultaneously judged the burden to be high, reported an increase over the last five years, and modified their investments. The reference period is also not identical: five years are indicated for the growth in bureaucracy, while no interval is specified for investment decisions.

From measurement to requests

The transition from the results to the proposals is explicit in the text of the economic associations. To ease the pressure, the business community calls for the complete digitalization of processes: one-stop shops, standardized forms and transmission of data only once to all levels of government. The request for one-time transmission is directly linked to the complaint about duplicate requests; it does not, however, demonstrate that such a solution has already been introduced.

The associations also call for a substantial streamlining of regulation. In explaining this request, they recall that more than 36’000 obligations apply to companies at the federal level. The proposed direction is a risk-based regulatory approach, rather than one based on detailed prescriptions. The package is rounded out by the removal of technical barriers to trade and support for strategic agreements such as Bilaterals III.

The comparison thus separates evidence, interpretation and proposal: the survey quantifies perceptions and curtailed investments; the associations identify administrative and regulatory tools to ease the pressure. The source does not provide a measured result after these tools have been applied.

Key points

From results to sector positions

The service supplements the survey results with the concerns of leaders from various economic sectors. Their statements do not provide new percentages, but highlight specific obstacles facing their respective sectors.

Annette Luther, president of scienceindustries, emphasizes that chemical-pharmaceutical innovation requires rapid approval procedures. Martin Hirzel, president of Swissmem, instead denounces declining margins and rising regulatory costs in the technology sector. Stefan Mäder, president of the Swiss Insurance Association, argues that the competitiveness of the economic hub should be considered an explicit regulatory objective.

Three different emphases

The three statements distinguish three points of focus: approval times for chemical-pharmaceutical innovation, the relationship between margins and regulatory costs in technology, and recognition of competitiveness as a regulatory objective. These are positions attributed to the presidents of the associations mentioned, not a new statistical survey separate from the national survey.

The text does not break down the results by company size, area or individual economic sector, nor does it indicate which authorities formulated the duplicate requests complained about by businesses. Nor does it provide a timetable for digitization, regulatory streamlining or the elimination of technical barriers to trade. Bilateral III is listed among the agreements to be supported, without the source reporting an outcome already achieved.

Even the objective of preserving jobs and well-being, referred to by Wildhaber, is not accompanied by a quantification of jobs lost or safeguarded. The documented conclusion therefore remains limited: the research points to a high administrative burden, an increase perceived over the last five years, and investments postponed, reduced or cancelled; the associations add requests for simplification and digitization to these data. To explore the employment side of the issue, see job listings.

Source: rsi.ch