This study investigates the impact of corporate carbon performance on financing costs, focusing on S&P 500 companies from 2015 to 2022. Utilizing a fixed-effects regression model, the research reveals a complex U-shaped nonlinear relationship between carbon intensity (CI) and cost of debt (COD). The sample comprises 2896 firm-year observations, with CI measured by the ratio of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to annual sales. The findings indicate that companies with higher CI initially face increased COD due to heightened regulatory and operational risks. However, as CI falls below a certain threshold, further reductions in emissions can paradoxically lead to increased COD, likely due to the substantial investments required for advanced technologies. Additionally, a positive relationship between CI and cost of equity (COE) is observed, suggesting that shareholders demand higher returns from companies with greater environmental risks. These results underscore the importance of balancing short-term and long-term environmental strategies. The study highlights the need for corporate managers to communicate the long-term benefits of environmental efforts effectively to creditors and investors. Policymakers should consider these dynamics when designing regulations that incentivize lower carbon emissions.

The paper analyzes the corporate carbon emissions and GDP contributions of the top ten companies by turnover for 2020–2023 in Germany, South Korea, China and the United Kingdom. Focusing on Scope 1, 2, and 3, the study explores the contribution of these companies to carbon intensity across different sectors and economies. The analysis shows that there are significant gaps in carbon efficiency, with the UK’s and Germany’s firms emitting the lowest emissions per unit of GDP contribution, followed by China and South Korea. Additionally, the study further examines the impact of Economic Policy Uncertainty on both firm carbon intensity and economic productivity. While EPU is positively associated with GDP contributions, its impact on emissions is nuanced. Firms apparently respond to policy uncertainty by increasing energy efficiency in direct (Scope 1) and energy-related (Scope 2) emissions but find it more difficult to manage supply chain emissions (Scope 3) in that case. The results point out the critical role of comprehensive ESG reporting frameworks in enhancing transparency and addressing Scope 3 emissions, which remain the largest and most volatile component of corporate carbon footprints. The paper then emphasizes the importance of standardized ESG reporting and bespoke policy intervention for promoting sustainability, especially in carbon-intensive industries. This research contributes to the understanding of how industrial and policy frameworks affect carbon efficiency and economic growth in different national contexts.