Higher turnover, lower CO₂: Can companies decouple growth from climate protection?

The scorching summer of 2026 has reignited the climate debate in Switzerland. At the end of September, the Tages-Anzeiger asked whether the exceptional heat would spur greater action on climate protection; SRF reported on the ensuing debate in the National Council and the question of which technologies Switzerland could use to decarbonise its economy. This raises a fundamental question for businesses: how can economic success be reconciled with falling CO₂ emissions? It is a question that students on the “Managing Climate Solutions” (MaCS-HSG) certificate programme, led by Rolf Wüstenhagen at HSG are also exploring.

Can a company increase its turnover whilst simultaneously reducing its CO₂ emissions?

Prof. Dr. Rolf Wüstenhagen: In principle, yes. How easily this decoupling can be achieved depends on the business model. For an oil and gas producer, it is more difficult because turnover depends on how much oil and gas is sold. For a service company, on the other hand, decoupling is comparatively straightforward if emissions stem primarily from heating and cooling buildings. Heating, for example, can be replaced by a heat pump.

So what should an oil company do?

A good example is Ørsted, formerly known as the Danish Oil and Natural Gas Company (DONG). The company has reinvented itself, selling off its old fossil-fuel plants and investing the proceeds in renewable energy. This is a logical step: moving out of one sector and into another.

There are also concrete examples of this transition in public transport. In St.Gallen, for instance, the switch to electric buses is underway. The city council has voted 52 to 8 in favour of additional electric buses. The city’s electorate is expected to vote on the matter in November. Such transitions show that decoupling economic success from CO₂ emissions is not merely a matter of abstract climate targets but is increasingly affecting the day-to-day operations of businesses.

What role do indirect emissions – so-called Scope 3 emissions – play, which arise at suppliers or at the customer’s premises?

That is a tough nut to crack. For many companies, a large proportion of emissions arise in the upstream or downstream value chain. These emissions are more difficult to influence. They are not under such direct control as, for example, the heating system on one’s own factory premises.

What options do companies have here?

Let’s take the automotive industry as an example. Here, most emissions are generated by customers. However, car dealers can, for example, make electric vehicles more appealing to their customers and thereby influence their emissions.

And what if the emissions mainly come from suppliers?

When it comes to suppliers, the most sustainable product isn’t always the cheapest. If you apply sustainability criteria, you might pay a little more, but you often save on a risk premium. By introducing an internal carbon price, some companies have found a way to quantify this risk reduction.

Is it even possible for most companies to become climate-neutral?

It is possible for the vast majority of companies. It is particularly challenging for corporations such as BP and Shell, whose business is directly linked to fossil fuels. They have already attempted to diversify on several occasions. However, they are finding it difficult to achieve the same returns in these new business areas. This makes the transition more difficult when shareholders focus primarily on short-term profits.

With such a short-term focus, is there also a risk that companies will miss the boat when it comes to the transition?

That risk does exist. You can see this with the German car manufacturers. They resisted change for so long that they can now barely keep up with their Chinese competitors. Another risk affects the market as a whole. Mark Carney, then governor of the Bank of England and now prime minister of Canada, warned as early as 2015 of a potential financial crisis caused by the overvaluation of fossil fuel assets. As long as the business remains profitable, market participants tend to overlook climate risks. Should the regulatory framework change, these assets could lose a significant amount of value.

How do you assess CO₂ reductions achieved primarily through green electricity certificates or reforestation projects?

Using renewable energy and planting trees is, in principle, a good idea. However, the large price differences in the market for voluntary CO₂ certificates raise the question of whether the associated risks are being correctly priced in. Climate change also affects forests. When comparing different methods of CO₂ reduction or removal, investors’ opinions still vary widely. Do we really understand how long a measure will remain effective and how high the risk is that it will not work as intended?

Is it realistic for Switzerland to achieve significant economic growth over the next 20 years while at the same time significantly reducing its absolute CO₂ emissions?

The targets are certainly achievable. But politicians are currently sending out mixed signals. Nevertheless, many customers continue to opt for climate-friendly products.

Do we have the technologies today to achieve these climate targets in principle?

I am convinced we do. In many areas, climate-friendly solutions are already so competitive that the trend can no longer be reversed. Almost everyone who has switched to an electric car doesn’t want to go back. The same applies to solar panels and heat pumps. Despite political headwinds, this trend will continue in the long term.

So are you optimistic?

Yes.

The interview was conducted by Michael Bolzli of awp Finanznachrichten. It was published on 12 October 2026.