Investigation raises conflict-of-interest concerns at Swiss innovation agency

At least 20 projects worth more than CHF 13 million have been linked to people serving on the governing bodies of Innosuisse, according to an investigation by Swiss public broadcaster RTS. The findings place Switzerland’s main public innovation agency under scrutiny over how it protects grant decisions from conflicts of interest.

Innosuisse distributes public money to help companies develop products, technologies, and start-ups with research partners. Its annual budget is roughly CHF 300 million, making the integrity of its selection process relevant far beyond the companies named in the investigation.

One case centres on M*, an Innovation Council member whose companies received around CHF 1 million from Innosuisse in 2021. One of those companies was later selected for a flagship programme in 2024, where it could receive up to CHF 2.5 million.

The source material does not establish that any grant was improperly awarded. It does show that individuals involved in deciding which firms receive subsidies can have direct or indirect connections to beneficiaries. That creates a governance problem even where formal recusals occur, because public confidence depends on both impartial decisions and procedures that appear impartial to outside observers.

RTS identified roughly 20 subsidies involving companies linked to Innosuisse officials through an analysis of the federal Aramis database. The cases cover firms associated with individuals serving on Innosuisse governing bodies and together exceed CHF 13 million in public support.

The funding relationship can take different forms. Innosuisse told RTS that some money is not paid directly to the company. It can go to research partners, including university researchers working on projects intended to benefit the company. That distinction may affect the legal structure of a grant, but it does not remove the need to examine links between decision-makers, applicants, and beneficiaries.

The investigation highlights the case of M* because the member combined a role on the Innovation Council with management responsibilities at companies that received Innosuisse support. The company’s later selection for a flagship programme in 2024 increased the potential value of the relationship to CHF 2.5 million.

RTS also found that the issue was not confined to one individual or one award. The pattern identified in the database raises questions about how often experienced innovation specialists move between public decision-making roles and commercial ventures seeking state-backed support.

Three to five people often hold the decisive role in a funding panel, according to a review of about ten documents obtained under Switzerland’s transparency law. That concentration is the point at which Innosuisse’s formal safeguards face their strongest test.

The agency says council members must declare connections to companies, undergo prior checks, and recuse themselves when a project directly concerns a connected firm. Innosuisse also stresses that decisions are taken by a subgroup of at least three people, rather than by one person acting alone.

RTS documented a reciprocal pattern involving two council members, identified as X* and Y*. X* participated three times in sessions concerning a project linked to Y*, while Y* recused themself. The roles later reversed, with Y* participating three times in sessions concerning X* while X* withdrew. Grants were awarded in every case. For two applications, each member was responsible for the other’s file at different stages.

Recusal removes the directly interested person from a formal vote. It does not necessarily address the wider perception created when the same small group repeatedly handles one another’s applications. Yves Gingras, a specialist in research evaluation at the University of Quebec in Montreal, described such arrangements as the worst possible situation when panel members also apply for business funding.

Innosuisse now faces pressure to explain whether its safeguards are strong enough for a public budget of roughly CHF 300 million. The agency was created to support Swiss innovation by connecting companies with research institutions, and its council members are selected partly for their practical knowledge of business and technology.

That expertise can create a narrow pool of candidates. People with the strongest records in innovation may also have active commercial interests, board roles, or links to start-ups seeking state support. Innosuisse argues that this is precisely why such people are appointed. The investigation shows why expertise and independence must be assessed together.

The agency’s response emphasises disclosure and recusal. The documents reviewed by RTS raise a separate issue: whether the same safeguards remain convincing when decisions are repeatedly made by a small circle and members handle one another’s files. The question concerns institutional design, not only individual conduct.

Innosuisse has also announced a partnership with Armasuisse, the federal defence procurement agency, with a joint budget of CHF 20 million to support three technology projects. As public innovation funding expands into strategic areas, scrutiny of selection procedures is likely to intensify. Federal authorities and Innosuisse will need to address the investigation’s findings and clarify what additional oversight, transparency, or separation of roles may be appropriate.