Effective sustainability reporting in a fragmented world
Swiss-headquartered but operating primarily in the Americas and Asia-Pacific, Landis+Gyr faces a reporting challenge that is becoming increasingly common: how to communicate sustainability performance credibly when your stakeholders are governed by different – and diverging – regulatory frameworks and market expectations.
By Cecilia Silva-Wagner and Judith Bisig
Global leadership in a new reporting context
Landis+Gyr has long embedded sustainability at the core of its strategy. As a provider of smart metering and grid technology, accelerating the energy transition is not just a corporate aspiration – it is the product. That alignment has been externally recognized: the Financial Times named Landis+Gyr the most sustainable company in Switzerland.
With the recent divestment of its EMEA operations, the company’s geographic center of gravity shifted. Today, Landis+Gyr employs around 3,200 people across 31 sites in North America, South America and Asia Pacific with FY25 revenues of USD 1.2 billion. For a Swiss-headquartered company operating across three continents, the regulatory landscape is anything but uniform, creating a tension that no single framework neatly resolves.
Repurposing a strong foundation
Before the strategic shift, Landis+Gyr had completed a double materiality assessment aligned with the ESRS – a sound methodology for a company then anticipating CSRD obligations. When the business focus moved to North America, ESRS reporting became a lower priority. Rather than discarding the work, the team repurposed it.
Working together with Sustainserv, which had supported Landis+Gyr’s sustainability reporting over the past two years, the joint team moved the wording away from ESRS-specific terminology and aligned the material topic names more closely with Landis+Gyr’s established sustainability themes. This avoided creating misleading expectations about report scope, while keeping the underlying material topics intact and the investment in the original assessment preserved.
Finding language that travels
The translation work did not stop at individual topic names: the joint team also revisited the structural dimensions used to organize both the topics and the report itself. Rather than adopting the ESRS terminology (E, S, G) or GRI’s Economy–Environment–Society model, Landis+Gyr structured its sustainability disclosure around planet, people and principles.
This choice was deliberate – and not only pragmatic. Planet, people and principles are terms that carry meaning for Landis+Gyr independent of which reporting standard is applied – reflecting how the company thinks about its sustainability impact. The framework is not an artifact of compliance; it is a vocabulary the company can own.
The structure builds on the familiar “triple bottom line” framing or “planet, people and profit”, with “principles” replacing “profit” to incorporate governance and purpose more naturally – and to signal that economic performance is embedded across all sustainability considerations, not siloed as a separate dimension. This language also travels well, resonating with audiences who may find ESRS or GRI terminology opaque, while remaining aligned with established global frameworks.
Building toward IFRS/ISSB
Looking ahead, Landis+Gyr has begun exploring how ISSB/IFRS reporting approaches can be integrated incrementally. IFRS-aligned disclosure is gaining traction across global capital markets and is increasingly mandatory in several Asia Pacific markets where the company operates. Particularly as the company prepares for a stock listing in the United States, ISSB’s integration of TCFD and the SASB standards, which are widely recognized in the US market, also provides a familiar reference point for North American investors. Incorporating ISSB elements in stages – rather than a single compliance-driven overhaul – allows the company to build data infrastructure and internal capability at a manageable pace while signaling direction to stakeholders.
Conclusion: transparency as strategy
Regulatory fragmentation is not a temporary inconvenience. For companies with transatlantic or global footprints, building a disclosure approach that is grounded in established frameworks, adapted for audience relevance and transparent about its methodology is becoming a competitive and reputational asset.
Landis+Gyr’s experience shows that no single standard will fit every context – and that is acceptable, provided companies are explicit about their choices: what framework they used, what methodology underpinned their materiality process and why. Stakeholders across markets can engage with a thoughtful, well-explained approach. In a fragmented reporting landscape, that transparency becomes a strategic communication tool; one companies can actively shape to engage stakeholders and position their sustainability approach with credibility.
Double materiality assessments developed for one framework (ESRS) can be systematically repurposed for another (GRI), preserving both the original investment and continuity.
Aligning topic terminology with a company’s own established themes avoids creating misleading expectations about report scope and nature.
Report structure matters: use concepts that remain meaningful across reporting standards and stakeholder groups.
Incremental ISSB/IFRS integration helps build capabilities and data infrastructure without major disruption.
For companies with global footprints, sustainability reporting is a strategic communication tool to engage stakeholders and credibly position the company’s approach.
Cecilia Silva-Wagner
is Head of ESG at Landis+Gyr, where she leads the company’s sustainability program. With more than 20 years of experience in global organizations, she focuses on decarbonization, responsible supply chains, human rights and building strong sustainability cultures.
Judith Bisig
advises organizations on sustainability strategy, reporting and materiality assessments as a Senior Consultant at Sustainserv. She combines 7 years of sustainability and communications experience to support credible and impactful ESG disclosure.