Firm-Level Carbon Productivity, Home Country Environmental Performance, and Firm Performance in the Exporting Meat Industry

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between firm-level carbon productivity (CRP), home country environmental performance (HCEP), and firm performance—both financial and international—in the global meat exporting industry. While prior research has examined these dynamics in manufacturing sectors, limited attention has been paid to the meat industry, which is both economically significant and environmentally intensive. Using a multiple case study approach, we analyze data from three leading meat-exporting firms—Agrosuper (Chile), BRF (Brazil), and Danish Crown (Denmark)—over the period 2020–2023. CRP is operationalized as the ratio of firm output to CO₂ emissions, while HCEP is measured by national emissions per million USD of GDP. Financial performance is assessed via return on assets (ROA), and international performance through export intensity. Our findings reveal a nuanced relationship between CRP and firm performance. Contrary to theoretical expectations, a higher CRP does not consistently translate into improved financial performance, suggesting potential trade-offs between sustainability investments and profitability. However, a positive association is observed between CRP and international performance, particularly in firms operating within environmentally advanced countries. These results highlight the importance of home country environmental contexts in shaping firms’ global competitiveness. This research contributes to the literature by introducing CRP as a firm-level metric in the meat industry and by emphasizing the moderating role of HCEP. The findings offer practical implications for policymakers and managers seeking to align environmental responsibility with economic and international performance goals.

1. Introduction

Global environmental and social concerns have increasingly pressured companies to tackle sustainability challenges in international markets, with a particular emphasis on enhancing their export performance. In international business, home country environmental performance (HCEP) serves as a competitive advantage, enabling companies to enter new international markets [1,2]. Firms from countries with stringent environmental regulations tend to perform better globally, as these regulations drive business innovation, efficiency, and international competitiveness [3].

Companies with better environmental performance, i.e., with lower emissions, can gain competitive advantages and preferential access to markets—countries and regional economic integrations with strict environmental regulations [4]. The efficiency with which a company uses its carbon emissions to generate economic value is called “firm-level carbon productivity” (CRP). It is defined as the revenue generated per unit of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions [5,6,7].

In the case of meat supply chains, strict environmental regulations in the home country can enhance the international competitiveness of exporting meat production firms [8]. Such rigid regulations drive innovation and efficiency, allowing firms to be more competitive in international markets. Moreover, firms operating under stringent environmental regulations tend to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies, affording them an advantage in terms of sustainability and acceptance in global markets [9].

The meat industry plays a pivotal role in the global economy, food security, and international trade. Meat exports are a significant economic driver for producing countries, contributing substantially to GDP and government revenues [10]. Concurrently, livestock products are responsible for a greater amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than most other food sources [11]. Additionally, the meat industry faces increasing challenges regarding regulatory compliance on a global scale. The new environmental standards adopted under the EU Industrial Emissions Directive aim to reduce the environmental impact of slaughterhouses and facilities processing animal materials [12].

This paper explores whether CRP in the export meat industry enhances both financial performance (FP) and international performance (IP) at the firm level, and whether this relationship varies by HCEP. Although previous research has examined these dynamics—mainly within the manufacturing sector—there remains a significant gap in the literature concerning the meat industry.

We analyze three global publicly traded meat companies that disclose their emissions in corporate reports—one from Chile, Brazil, and Denmark, covering the period from 2020 to 2023 [13,14,15]. Given the limited availability of firm-level data across countries and the exploratory nature of this study, a multiple case study approach was adopted, focusing on these companies originating from three dissimilar home country contexts, all producing and exporting meat. The analysis relies on descriptive statistics and visual exploration to examine the relationship between firm-level carbon productivity and firm performance, both financial and international, and home country environmental performance. This methodological choice is consistent with prior research that emphasizes the value of case-based, descriptive approaches in contexts with small samples and complex, context-dependent variables [16,17]. By comparing trends and patterns across firms and national contexts, this study aims to provide preliminary insights into three hypotheses concerning the role of CRP in shaping firm outcomes and whether this relationship varies by HCEP.

The paper highlights the importance of stringent environmental regulations in the home country for enhancing international competitiveness. By introducing the concept of CRP at the firm level, this investigation provides valuable insights into the efficiency of firms in reducing carbon emissions relative to their output. This work is crucial for policymakers and industry stakeholders as it bridges the gap between environmental performance and economic outcomes, demonstrating that better environmental practices can lead to enhanced international competitiveness.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The conceptual background involves a literature review followed by the research methodology, results, findings, and discussion. Finally, the conclusions, limitations, and prospective future research directions are identified.

2. Literature Review

The disclosure of emissions is a crucial component of climate change reporting as it provides concrete data on a company’s environmental impact. The World Bank Group’s “Climate Change Institutional Assessment” underscores the importance of transparency in managing environmental impacts [18]. The report highlights that emissions disclosure is essential for the effective planning, implementation, and sustainability of climate policies. In this literature review, we refer to the broader concept of environmental performance with a specific focus on emissions disclosure.

The literature employs various variables to analyze environmental performance and its impact on firm performance. Environmental performance encompasses practices such as emissions management and green supply chain initiatives.

One of the metrics used is CRP [5,6,7]. CRP is defined as the efficiency with which a firm converts its carbon emissions into economic output. This concept is operationalized by calculating the ratio of a firm’s output (e.g., net sales or production volume) to its total CO₂ emissions. Bagchi et al. (2022) define carbon productivity as the ratio of net sales to CO₂ emissions [5]. Similarly, Dahlmann, Branicki, and Brammer (2017) operationalize carbon productivity by calculating the ratio of a firm’s revenue or production volume to its total carbon emissions [6]. Richter and Schiersch (2017) define carbon productivity as the inverse of CO₂ emission intensity, which is the ratio of a firm’s output to its CO₂ emissions [7]. In the same way, Ghose, Makan, and Kabra (2023) define carbon productivity as the ratio of economic value generated by a firm to its carbon emissions [19].

Firm FP is assessed through return on assets (ROA) following Azeem et al. (2024) [20], and IP is analyzed based on export intensity, i.e., the relation between total sales and international sales [21].

HCEP is operationalized through the indicator tCO2e/USD million GDP, which is defined as the amount of GHG emissions, expressed in tons of CO₂ equivalent (tCO2e), produced per million dollars of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [22]. This metric allows for the comparison of the environmental efficiency and impact of different economies in terms of their carbon emissions.

2.1. Firm-Level Carbon Productivity and Financial Performance

Testa and Iraldo have concluded that adopters of green supply chain management practices exhibit improved environmental performance and can enhance competitive performance [23]. Gallego-Álvarez et al. [24] have demonstrated that reducing greenhouse gas emissions positively impacts the FP of international companies measured by return on equity (ROE), suggesting that proactive environmental practices can lead to competitive advantages and improved financial outcomes in international markets. However, the study does not directly address IP as an independent variable. Choi et al. [25] have found that green supply chain management practices, such as green purchasing and internal environmental management, positively impact firm performance, particularly in manufacturing and marketing performance. Additionally, Green et al. have established that environmental performance directly and positively impacts economic performance [26]. Al-Ghwayeen and Abdallah have highlighted that environmental performance positively influences business performance, considering factors such as market share, competitive position, and sales [27]. Kneipp et al. have indicated that sustainability practices, including emissions management, enhance the overall performance of companies [28]. Gallego-Álvarez et al. have found out that firms reducing their carbon emissions tend to improve their FP [24]. Finally, Ghose et al. have suggested that carbon productivity positively influences the FP of firms, which has indicated that companies can achieve competitive advantages by reducing carbon emissions and enhancing carbon productivity [16]. Collectively, these studies have found positive and significant relationships between environmental practices and firm performance. This leads us to propose the following hypothesis:

H1. 

Better performance in carbon productivity results in improved firm performance.

2.2. Firm-Level Carbon Productivity and International Performance

The relationship between environmental performance and IP has been explored in extant research mainly in the manufacturing sector [27,29,30].

Perlin et al. [30] have found that climate change mitigation and adaptation practices have a positive relationship with export performance. Firms that adopt these practices not only enhance their overall FP but also increase their competitiveness in international markets. Additionally, transparency in emissions disclosure and other sustainable practices contributes to a better perception among stakeholders that facilitates access to new markets and improves export performance. Similarly, Al-Ghwayeen and Abdallah [27] have demonstrated that, in green supply chain management, environmental performance has a positive and significant relationship with export performance. Finally, Aksoy et al. [29] have suggested that corporate sustainability has a positive impact on export intensity. Collectively, these studies have found positive and significant relationships between environmental practices and IP. This leads us to propose the following hypothesis:

H2. 

Better performance in carbon productivity results in improved international performance.

2.3. Firm-Level Carbon Productivity, Firm Performance and Home Country Environmental Performance

Wan and Hoskisson [31] have highlighted the significant impact of home country environment on firm performance. Improved carbon productivity at the firm level can enhance overall performance, but this relationship is influenced by the environmental performance of the home country. Countries with strong environmental policies provide a supportive framework that helps firms achieve higher carbon productivity, which leads to a better firm performance.

Van Emous et al. [32] have concluded that better performance in firm-level carbon productivity results in improved firm performance, which depends on the home country’s environmental performance. The research demonstrates that firms reducing their carbon emissions generally show higher FP, measured by return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), and return on sales (ROS). Additionally, the study highlights the significant role of country-specific factors, such as the presence of carbon legislation and overall country emissions, in moderating this relationship. Firms in countries with stringent carbon policies tend to achieve greater reduction in emissions and, in some cases, better financial outcomes. However, their conclusions emphasize that different sectors show different results.

Azeem et al. [20] demonstrate that environmental performance positively impacts FP, particularly in countries with effective governance. The latter provides a stable regulatory environment, enhancing the success of sustainability practices.

Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3. 

Better performance in firm-level carbon productivity results in improved financial and international firm performance, and this relationship depends on the home country environmental performance.

3. Methodology

This research adopts a multiple case study design to explore the relationship between carbon productivity and firm performance across different national contexts. The analysis focuses on three meat producing and exporting firms, each from a different home country, over a four-year period. This approach allows for a comparative analysis of firm-level environmental and financial data in diverse regulatory and market environments.

The selected companies—Agrosuper (Chile), BRF (Brazil), and Danish Crown (Denmark) (see

Table 1. Case studies profile in 2023.

Indicator/Company	Agrosuper	BRF	Danish Crown
Main meats	Chicken, pork	Chicken, pork	Pork, beef
Country	Chile	Brazil	Denmark
Fiscal Year	2023	2023	2022–2023
Number of employees (2023)	19,302	96,668	25,796
Total revenue (2023) (in $USD billion)	4.15	9.45	9.61
Net profit (2023) (in $USD billion)	0.05	0.30	0.17
EBITDA (2023) (in $USD billion)	0.36	0.83	0.56
Number of destination countries (2023)	61	More than 150	26
Export over total sales (%) (2023)	57.62%	53.47%	89.80%
Emission scope 1 (2023) (ton CO2 eq)	279,177	337,848	157,000
Emission scope 2 (2023) (ton CO2 eq)	110,625	117,886	184,000

)—are three leading food producers that play a significant role in the global protein market. These firms specialize in the production and export of poultry, pork, and beef products. They have similar business models, international expansion strategies, and a strong commitment to sustainability. Each company has made substantial progress in reducing GHG emissions and improving resource efficiency, driven by regulatory pressures and consumer demand for environmentally responsible products. Furthermore, their strategic focus on expanding into new markets—particularly in North America, Asia, and Europe—highlights their efforts to enhance global presence and competitiveness.

We have considered a four-year time span, primarily due to data availability and to ensure comparability across companies. Danish Crown began measuring its GHG emissions in 2020, establishing this year as the baseline for their emission reduction targets. Agrosuper started measuring its GHG emissions in 2019, using this year as the reference point for their emission reduction efforts. BRF began measuring its GHG emissions in 2018, setting this year as the baseline for their emission reduction initiatives. This approach is also supported by the temporal horizon used by Testa & Iraldo [23], who utilized a three-year horizon.

Firm-level data were collected from the integrated and annual reports of the selected companies for the years 2020 to 2023. Given the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the research, the study employs a descriptive analytical approach. This includes descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum) for each variable; time-series visualizations—to track the evolution of carbon productivity and performance indicators; cross-case comparisons—to identify patterns and differences among firms and countries; and scatter plots and trend analysis—to visually explore potential relationships between variables. This approach is consistent with prior research that supports the use of descriptive and visual methods in small-N studies where statistical inference is limited [14,30].

4. Results

Over the period 2020-2023, the three companies exhibit distinct trends across international performance, financial performance, and carbon productivity (CRP) (see

Table 2. Summary data.

Company	Year	International Performance	Financial Performance	Firm-Level Carbon Productivity (CRP)	Home Country Environmental Performance (tCO2e-Million USD GDP)
Agrosuper, Chile	2020	60.46%	12.17%	5.90	169.43
	2021	57.34%	18.92%	8.84	201.42
	2022	60.33%	16.37%	10.18	194.17
	2023	57.62%	8.64%	10.66	160.04
BRF, Brazil	2020	43.68%	13.28%	13.28	754.06
	2021	44.50%	11.91%	14.80	783.4
	2022	45.33%	5.31%	21.52	996.03
	2023	45.57%	7.57%	20.25	928.4
Danish Crown, Denmark	2020	90.49%	6.89%	20.86	137.76
	2021	89.34%	7.32%	23.77	131.38
	2022	89.64%	6.89%	23.74	121.49
	2023	89.80%	5.84%	27.92	109.35

). BRF showed a steady increase in international performance (43.68% to 45.57%) and a notable rise in CRP (from 13.28 to 20.25 in 2023). However, its financial performance declined sharply in 2022 (5.31%), before recovering slightly in 2023 (7.57%). Danish Crown consistently maintained a high international performance (~90%), while significantly improving its CRP (from 20.86 in 2020 to 27.92 in 2023). However, its financial performance declined from 6.89% to 5.84%, possibly reflecting a trade-off between sustainability initiatives and profitability. Agrosuper exhibited highest volatility in financial performance, peaking at 18.92% in 2021 before dropping to 8.64% in 2023. Its international performance fluctuated between 57% and 60%, while CRP steadily improved from 5.90 in 2020 to 10.66 in 2023.

The cross-comparison between the companies, evaluating the average of each variable in the 2020–2023 period (see

Table 3. Cross-company comparison in 2020–2023.

Company	International Performance (Mean)	Financial Performance (Mean)	Firm-Level Carbon Productivity (CRP) (Mean)	Home Country Environmental Performance (tCO2e-Million USD GDP) (Mean)
Agrosuper—Chile	58.94%	14.02%	8.90	181.27
BRF—Brazil	44.77%	9.52%	17.46	865.47
Danish Crown Group—Denmark	89.82%	6.73%	24.07	125.00

), shows that Danish Crown stands out with the highest international performance (89.82%) and firm-level carbon productivity (CRP) (24.07), reflecting its strong global reach and commitment to sustainability. However, it has the lowest financial performance (6.73%), suggesting that its environmental efforts may come at a financial cost. In contrast, Agrosuper leads in financial performance (14.02%), indicating greater profitability but has the lowest CRP (8.90), which may imply a lower emphasis on sustainability. BRF presents a balanced profile with moderate values across all metrics (international performance: 44.77%; financial performance: 0.095; CRP: 17.46), potentially demonstrating a more strategic equilibrium between market reach profitability and environmental efficiency. These trends suggest that companies prioritizing sustainability might face financial trade-offs, while those focusing on profitability may need to strengthen their environmental initiatives to align with modern sustainability standards.

Over the period 2020–2023, the three companies exhibit distinct trends across international performance, financial performance, and carbon productivity (CRP). BRF showed a steady increase in international performance (43.68% to 45.57%) and a notable rise in CRP (from 13.28 to 20.25 in 2023). However, its financial performance declined sharply in 2022 (5.31%), before recovering slightly in 2023 (7.57%). Danish Crown consistently maintained a high international performance (~90%), while significantly improving its CRP (from 20.86 in 2020 to 27.92 in 2023). However, its financial performance declined from 6.89% to 5.84%, possibly reflecting a trade-off between sustainability initiatives and profitability. Agrosuper exhibited the most volatility in financial performance, peaking at 18.92% in 2021 before dropping to 8.64% in 2023. Its international performance fluctuated between 57% and 60%, while CRP steadily improved from 5.90 in 2020 to 10.66 in 2023.

The analysis of the relationship between CRP and financial performance colored by home country environmental performance suggests a negative relationship between carbon productivity at the company level and financial performance (see Figure 1). Companies with a higher CRP tend to show a lower financial performance. There is no clear clustering, indicating that countries with better environmental performance (darker colors) have a different or stronger relationship between CRP and financial performance. This suggests that the environmental performance of the country does not clearly modify the direction of the relationship, although it could influence its intensity.

This could imply that, in this sample, investing in carbon productivity does not translate directly into financial benefits, or that there are costs associated with sustainability that affect profitability. In Brazil, where environmental performance is lower, the CRP shows high values, but the financial performance of companies is more volatile. In Denmark, which has the best environmental performance, the company shows a high CRP and a more stable financial performance. Chile is somewhere in between, with a lower CRP but with some positive relationship with financial performance.

Analyzing the relationship between CRP and international performance suggests a positive correlation between carbon productivity and international performance: companies with higher carbon efficiency tend to perform better in international markets (see Figure 2). Companies located in countries with a better environmental performance (darker colors) seem to be more aligned with this trend. This supports the hypothesis that the positive relationship between carbon productivity and international performance is stronger in contexts with a better national environmental performance.

5. Conclusions

Danish Crown stands out with the highest international performance (0.898) and firm-level carbon productivity (CRP) (24.07), reflecting its strong global reach and commitment to sustainability. However, it has the lowest financial performance (0.067), suggesting that its environmental efforts may come at a financial cost. In contrast, Agrosuper leads in financial performance (0.140), indicating greater profitability, but has the lowest CRP (8.90), which may imply a lower emphasis on sustainability. BRF presents a balanced profile, with moderate values across all metrics (international performance: 0.448; financial performance: 0.095; and CRP: 17.46), potentially demonstrating a more strategic equilibrium between market reach profitability and environmental efficiency. These trends suggest that companies prioritizing sustainability might face financial trade-offs, while those focusing on profitability may need to strengthen their environmental initiatives to align with modern sustainability standards.

In relation to Hypothesis 1, which posits that better carbon productivity leads to improved firm performance, our data do not support this assumption. In fact, it suggests the opposite. For instance, Danish Crown, which demonstrates the highest firm-level carbon productivity (CRP) at 24.07, records the lowest financial performance (6.73%). Conversely. Agrosuper, with the lowest CRP (8.90), achieves the highest financial performance (14.02%). These findings imply that prioritizing sustainability may entail financial trade-offs, as investments in carbon productivity could lead to increased costs that negatively affect profitability. Our results contradict the findings of Green et al. [26], who reported a direct and positive relationship between environmental and economic performance, as well as those of Al-Ghwayeen and Abdallah [27], who also emphasized the positive influence of environmental performance on business outcomes. However, our findings are consistent with those of Van Emous et al. [32] who argue that this relationship is sector-dependent. Specifically, they found that, in the agricultural sector, firms tend to exhibit either a negative or statistically insignificant relationship between carbon productivity and financial performance. Our results also highlight the importance of the specific financial performance indicator used in the analysis. In our case, we employed Return on Assets (ROA) as the primary measure of financial performance. However, other financial indicators—such as Return on Equity or Net Profit Margin—could potentially yield different insights. This suggests that the choice of financial metric is not trivial and may significantly influence the observed relationship between carbon productivity and firm performance [20,32].

In relation to Hypothesis 2, which posits that a better performance in carbon productivity results in improved international performance, a positive relationship between CRP and international performance is observed. Danish Crown, with the highest CRP, also maintains the strongest international presence (89.82%), supporting the idea that sustainability efforts may enhance global competitiveness. Meanwhile, Agrosuper, with the lowest CRP, exhibits more variability and lower international expansion (~58.94%). This suggests that higher environmental efficiency may improve market positioning and access to international opportunities. Our findings are consistent with the existing literature, confirming the results observed in the manufacturing sector [27,29,30].

In relation to Hypothesis 3, which posits that better firm-level carbon productivity leads to improved financial and international performance, and this relationship is influenced by the home country’s environmental performance. Regarding financial performance, our findings suggest that there is no clear pattern indicating that countries with better environmental performance exhibit a stronger or distinct relationship between CRP and financial outcomes. This suggests that the environmental performance of the home country does not significantly influence the relationship between carbon productivity and financial performance. This may imply that investing in carbon productivity does not directly translate into financial gains, or that the costs associated with sustainability initiatives may negatively impact profitability. Our findings contrast with those of Van Emous et al. [32], who concluded that the positive relationship between carbon productivity and financial performance is stronger in countries with better environmental performance or stricter environmental policies. This discrepancy may be attributed to sector-specific characteristics. Companies that prioritize sustainability often face financial trade-offs, as illustrated by the lower profitability of Danish Crown despite its strong international presence and commitment to carbon productivity.

Regarding international performance, our findings suggest that environmental conditions in the home country influence both corporate sustainability strategies and a firm’s participation in international markets. Danish Crown operates in a low-emission environment (109.35 tCO₂e per million USD GDP), consistent with strong national sustainability policies. These efforts may enhance global competitiveness, as evidenced by the company’s ability to sustain a high level of international performance. This supports the findings of Wan and Hoskisson [31], who argue that the home country environment is a critical component of corporate diversification strategies.

In summary, the evidence regarding Hypothesis 3 is mixed, while the relationship between carbon productivity and financial performance does not appear to be significantly influenced by the environmental performance of the home country. The international performance dimension reveals a clearer pattern. Firms operating in environmentally advanced countries may leverage sustainability strategies to strengthen their global competitiveness. These findings suggest that the influence of the home country’s environmental context may be more relevant for international positioning than for short-term financial outcomes, balancing financial viability, international market expansion, and environmental responsibility is essential for companies aiming to achieve long-term sustainability without compromising profitability.

5.1. Practical Implications

For policymakers, the findings highlight the importance of fostering a supportive environmental policy framework that not only encourages carbon productivity but also enhances firms’ international competitiveness. Countries with stronger environmental performance appear to provide a more favorable context for firms to align sustainability with global market strategies. Thus, integrating environmental standards into industrial and trade policies may serve as a catalyst for sustainable internationalization.

For corporate managers, particularly those aiming to expand into international markets, the results suggest that investing in carbon productivity can be strategically advantageous—especially when operating in or targeting countries with strong environmental regulations. However, managers must also be aware of the potential financial trade-offs associated with sustainability investments. A balanced approach that aligns environmental responsibility with operational efficiency and market positioning is key to achieving long-term global competitiveness.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, due to the relatively small dataset, a descriptive rather than statistical approach has been adopted, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Second, the use of specific indicators for financial performance (FP) and international performance (IP) may not fully reflect the multidimensional nature of these constructs. Additionally, the analysis is constrained to data from 2020 onward, as firms only began reporting their greenhouse gas emissions in that year, thereby restricting the temporal scope of the study.

Future studies could pursue several avenues to deepen and broaden the understanding of the relationship between firm-level carbon productivity, home country environmental performance, and firm performance within the global meat exporting industry. First, incorporating a broader set of financial performance indicators, including both short-term metrics (e.g., profitability, liquidity) and long-term measures (e.g., return on investment, market valuation), could offer a more holistic view of firm outcomes. It is important to note that some indicators, such as Return on Assets (ROA), are considered profitability metrics but are often used in long-term performance analysis, as they reflect how efficiently a firm uses its assets to generate income over time. Second, future research could adopt alternative indicators of international performance, such as the number of foreign markets entered or the diversity of export destinations, to better capture the scope and complexity of internationalization strategies. Third, it would be valuable to include additional firm-level environmental performance metrics, such as the adoption of international sustainability standards, to assess the depth and credibility of environmental commitments. Fourth, expanding the sample to encompass a broader range of international firms operating in the global meat export sector would enhance the external validity and generalizability of the findings across different regions and business models. Finally, future research would greatly benefit from longitudinal data, enabling the analysis of temporal trends and the identification of potential causal relationships over time.