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.

This study provides a comparative analysis of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings methodologies and explores the potential of eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) to enhance transparency and comparability in ESG reporting. Evaluating ratings from different agencies, the research identifies significant methodological inconsistencies that lead to conflicting information for investors and stakeholders. Statistical tests and adjusted rating scales confirm substantial divergence in ESG scores, primarily due to differing data categories and indicators used by rating firms. Using a sample of 265 European companies, the study demonstrates that individual ESG agencies report markedly different ratings for the same firms, which can mislead stakeholders. It proposes that XBRL based reporting can mitigate these inconsistencies by providing a standardized framework for data collection and reporting. XBRL enables accurate and efficient data collection, reducing human error and enhancing the transparency of ESG reports. The findings advocate for integrating XBRL in ESG reporting to achieve higher levels of comparability and reliability. The study calls for greater regulatory oversight and the adoption of standardized taxonomies in ESG reporting to ensure consistent and comparable data across sectors and jurisdictions. Despite challenges like the lack of a standardized taxonomy and inconsistent adoption, the research contends that XBRL can significantly improve the reliability of ESG ratings. In conclusion, this study suggests that standardizing ESG data through XBRL could provide a viable solution to the unreliability of current ESG rating scales, supporting sustainable business practices and informed decision making by investors.