Decision-Making for a Sustainable Future: Lessons from Swiss Organizations

During our time in Switzerland, I was struck by how embedded structured decision-making is in many of the sustainability-focused organizations we visited. One of the most compelling examples of this came from a direct air capture (DAC) company working at the frontier of carbon dioxide removal technology. Their approach to decision-making mirrors the Structured Decision Making (SDM) framework we’ve studied, beginning with a clearly defined purpose, followed by the development of strategic objectives and measurable key results.

For example, the DAC company faced an early decision around whether to integrate carbon utilization into its business model or focus solely on carbon storage. By aligning this choice with their core vision– permanent atmospheric CO₂ removal– they deliberately chose to avoid utilization and focus strictly on sequestration. This structured, values-based decision-making model helps them navigate trade-offs, especially when resources are scarce, and strategic clarity is essential, which it often is in a startup/scaleup environment where every dollar counts.

Similarly, at a chemical manufacturing company we visited, decision-making follows a structured Business Risk Review (BRR) process that echoes many of the same SDM principles. The manufacturing company’s commitment to climate protection, circular economies, and safer materials is driven not only by internal values but also by external pressures– public perception, regulatory landscapes, and supply chain demands. Their prioritization of Scope 1 and 2 emission reductions reflects an important lesson in sustainability planning: focus on what you can control while laying the groundwork to influence what you cannot.

A significant takeaway across multiple organizations is the importance of setting clear, trackable objectives and performance measures. Whether it’s a mega sports organizer’s CO₂ travel budget or the chemical manufacturer’s emissions abatement strategies, having quantifiable goals enables transparency, course correction, and accountability. It also supports stakeholder engagement, as measurable progress is easier to communicate and defend.

From a cultural perspective, Swiss values of precision, transparency, and collective responsibility appeared to enhance sustainable decision-making efforts at the organization we visited. Our visit to the Swiss national railway company illustrates this beautifully. As a state-run organization influenced by Switzerland’s direct democratic governance, the railway company incorporates extensive public and stakeholder feedback into its strategy. Their willingness to continually innovate and expand sustainability initiatives reflects a broader cultural respect for long-term thinking and public service. In contrast to some of the systemic inefficiencies we experience in the U.S., Swiss organizations benefit from societal alignment around sustainability as a shared goal. This cultural backdrop facilitates bold decisions, whether that’s building the world’s most advanced LEED-certified headquarters, investing in first-of-its-kind climate tech,
or fully electrifying a national railway system.

Ultimately, this trip taught me that sustainable action is not just about having good intentions, it’s about designing good decisions. By aligning values, objectives, and practical constraints within structured frameworks, organizations can make sustainability not just aspirational, but operational. Switzerland’s cultural commitment to collective responsibility and systemic thinking makes it fertile ground for such work, and I left feeling energized about the possibilities for applying these models back home in Los Angeles.