“La Poste, UBS, SBB and SRG: Staying the course amid contradictions” (Article AGEFI)

Between performance and legitimacy, major Swiss institutions face contradictory demands.

By Gilles Marchand

Let us consider some emblematic Swiss companies that have shaped the country’s history,  La Poste, UBS, SBB, and SRG. These national champions operate in distinct sectors, yet they share two characteristics: a leading role in their fields with near-daily engagement with their users, and the fact that they operate in highly regulated environments, which exposes them to persistent, contradictory pressures.

Indeed, La Poste, UBS, SBB, and SSR all maintain a special relationship with the Swiss Confederation and public funding. This implies close ties with the political sphere, where priorities often diverge from those of the market. At the same time, these large companies are expected to perform and remain competitive in a highly demanding landscape.

It goes without saying that the postal service, banking, passenger mobility, and media consumption sectors are undergoing deep, structural disruptions. As the Credit Suisse case painfully closes and new prudential regulations take shape, UBS is expected to be both robust and humble. It should take measured risks to support the economy while avoiding those that endanger the system. It must be global in reach yet remain comprehensible and responsible to the host country. It must reward talent without fuelling public outrage through excessive incentives. These tensions go beyond performance — they question UBS’s right to hold a central place in society.

SBB also faces these tensions, having to ensure universal service while contending with declining mail volumes. When it acts as a business, it is accused of abandoning its mission; when it behaves like an administration, it is reproached for inefficiency.

Similarly, SBB must continuously invest heavily in stations, trains, and infrastructure to accommodate demographic growth that is straining the mobility system. Yet, even minor delays or slight changes to its national travel pass pricing draw sharp criticism.

Then there is SRG, which must serve all linguistic communities, support culture and sports, deliver reliable information, and justify itself — all while reducing its digital presence, shrinking its budget, and competing with vastly more powerful global platforms.

In a denser regulatory environment marked by public scrutiny and global competition, legitimacy becomes the foundational resource.

This bundle of contradictory demands points to a challenge more fundamental than performance: legitimacy. Not image, nor momentary popularity, but the recognition by the public, lawmakers, and society at large that an organization has the right to act and exist in its current role. This recognition cannot be declared — it must be earned, maintained, and protected.

The difficulty is compounded by the fact that legitimacy plays out on several fronts: public acceptability, political credibility, regulatory compliance, and market relevance. A systemic bank must reassure both depositors and regulators while stimulating investment. La Poste and SBB must provide broad access to services while funding modernization. A public broadcaster must remain essential to daily users while reinventing itself for a changing audience, within a restricted public mandate.

In this context, these institutions must understand the criticisms they face, identify where their legitimacy is contested, map out stakeholder expectations, distinguish between symbolic and practical actions, and measure the real effects of their choices. Then, they must construct effective narratives and verifiable commitments that explain their role, obligations, and the collective value they generate — despite contradictions. This is the essence of legitimacy analysis, which examines individual, societal, and systemic levels.

In this environment of dense norms, social oversight, and global competition, legitimacy becomes the condition for everything else. It does not replace performance, it enables it. And by facing these contradictory demands with clarity and resolve, large institutions can safeguard what matters most: the trust that underpins their long-term continuity.