Lesen Sie diesen Artikel hier in der deutschen Übersetzung. The rainy summer of 2025 brings gray skies outside the windows of the Zurich architecture firm. Claudia B.*, who has been working here for four years, is determined to share something she has been keeping to herself for weeks: she is pregnant. Her employers' initial reaction is sympathetic and warm; after all, both bosses are parents of young children themselves. However, when she sits down with them to discuss the handover of the project she has been working on with such passion—she won the competition and waited patiently for the client's approval; she has gone through the planning phase and wants to take over construction management for the project after returning from her 14 weeks of maternity leave—one of her bosses says, without looking her in the eye, “It might be difficult to take you back after that.” Claudia B. did not return to the office after her maternity leave—even though Swiss law provides mothers with 16 weeks of protection against dismissal after the birth of a child. And her case would be just one sad example of discrimination if it did not reflect the reality of many architecture firms. Firms that follow an outdated business model characterized by economic failure and damage to their image – and which has a merciless impact on everyday practice. Is it far fetched to say that an office that does not hesitate to treat employees as disposable resources—in this case, dismissing a qualified employee because she is considered less flexible and productive as a mother—follows the same logic that treats the environment as expendable? Cause and effect The point is that the hierarchical and often exploitative model of architectural firms is fundamentally at odds with the task of addressing social and environmental challenges—in other words, with fully embracing the reforms that the sector must impl...