Corporate board attributes, institutional strength and energy disclosure practices for controlling greenhouse gas emission in Nigeria

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2478957/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Corporate board attributes, institutional strength and energy disclosure practices for controlling greenhouse gas emission in Nigeria

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2478957/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The use of non-renewable energy by firms in Nigeria seriously affects biodiversity and the general well-being of the populace. The consequences led the country to be among the top pollution producers globally. However, Nigeria was among the parties that unanimously agreed on the Glasgow Climate Change Conference 2021, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate, to tackle greenhouse gas emissions resulting from non-renewable energy sources. The study is a pioneer in examining how board attributes influence quality and quantity disclosure of energy consumed by the listed non-financial firms for the period of 5 years (2016 – 2020). The study aims at providing empirical evidence on how institutional strength influences the relationship between board attributes and firms' energy in reducing emission discharges and achieving sustainable development goals on world climate policy. The study obtained data from a sample of 78 listed non-financial firms, content analysis technique was employed to compute energy disclosure indexes using Global Reporting Initiatives standards. The study runs a generalized method of movement (GMM) to regulate the impending endogeneity of the selected listed companies in Nigeria. The study also conducted several to robust the findings. The overall results found that board independence, meeting, gender and ownership were significantly related to energy disclosure. The study found an insignificant association between ownership and energy disclosure. Institutional strength has not influenced the relationship between independence, meetings, size and gender on energy disclosure. Institutional strength has positively influenced the relationship between ownership and energy disclosure. Thus, the United Nation should set up a strong committee to evaluate the effectiveness and weaknesses of Global Reporting Initiatives standards as the most widely used Environmental, Social and Governance globally. This will expose the peculiarities of most developing nations like Nigeria in adopting the standards and way forwards to attain Sustainable Development Goals 13.

Board attributes

Institutional strength

Energy disclosure and emission

The earth is overwhelmed by ecological problems that diminish natural resources and stress livelihoods, many of which are aggravated by poor companies operations. Energy consumption is one of the big environmental challenge that threats and causes environmental issues globally. As a result of energy consumption by manufacturing and services firms the level of industrial pollution is increasingly worrying the world well-being. Pollution caused by energy sources such as fossil fuel combustion and various gases and toxins released from factories has become one of the greatest global health calamities that causes diseases which include cardiovascular damage, damage of reproductive organs, respiratory diseases, damage of nervous system (Wang et al., 2020; Zhang and Xie, 2020) and present insecure climate issues have produced the number of greenhouse gas emissions which continuously escalating due to the company’s industrial activities (Hardiyansah et al., 2021). Mismanagement of industrial pollution has become a global catastrophe causing ecological contamination, social exclusion, and unsustainable economic development, which requires integrated assessment and holistic approaches for solution. Failure of corporate organizations to mitigate these negative impacts has resulted in number of environmental calamities across the world.

Although, business organizations across the world are trying to change their traditional norms of companies viewing by the society aiming at only maximizing their profits. For this reason, companies are not only pursue profits but also liable for the harms distressing both people and environment (Hardiyansah et al., 2021). This can be seen from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) report in 2021 showing that more than 13,000 companies’ value over 64% of overall market capitalization globally, disclosed data through CDP on climate issues such as water security, food security and deforestation in 2021, recorded an increase of 37% since 2020. Environmental disclosure is one of the broadcasting means used by companies in communicating to the stakeholders who legitimize corporate’s operations (Purwantini, Cornelio Faisal, Faisal Inira, Januati, Ignatius, 2019) and ensure fulfilling social contract by complying with regulations to achieve corporate accountability (Plumlee et al., 2015).

Environmental disclosure is an accounting reporting requirement which requires firms to report all the externalities and measures taken to mitigate their effect course on the society. Environmental disclosure practices are instruments of connecting to the stakeholders the efforts made by companies to compensate the negative effect of their activities on the environment and its host community (Sun, Ding and Price, 2020; Sial et al., 2021). Thus, firm would become environmentally responsible when it incorporate environmental accounting as part of its business strategy and account for its environment by disclosing its intervention to mitigating the negative operational impact on the environment (Ellimäki et al., 2019). Despite the improvement in the overall environmental disclosure across the world, energy disclosure is yet to be disclosed sufficiently to meet the information need of the users of financial reports.

The global growing concerned in the climate-change menace arising from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has forced some companies to respond by revealing the carbon emissions released from their operations. Although, dissemination of information related to energy consumption and GHG emissions creates a risky disclosure (Peters & Romi, 2013). This is because of the measurement issues associated with the GHG emissions and its consequential effect on firm value coupled with the fact that deceitful discourse that is ultimately uncovered will subject the firm to litigation risk (Matsumura et al., 2014). In addition, energy consumption and GHG emissions disclosure is attached to increased cost of capital that might prompt government agencies to examine companies, instigation of costly litigation, and moreover supplying competitors with information about the companies’ environmental policies may lead to negative perception from environmental advocacy groups (Krishnamurti & Velayutham, 2018; Peters & Romi, 2013).

Despite the risks associated with the energy consumption and GHG emissions disclosure, there are number of benefits that encourage firms to disclosure communicate to the stakeholders the efforts made by them to reduce or compensate the harmful impact of their operations on the environment and its host community. Energy consumption and GHG emissions control signals the firm’s serious engagement in improving the ecosystem by reducing the level of carbon discharges in the society (Clarkson et al., 2008) and that capital markets penalize all firms for their carbon emissions, but a further penalty is imposed on firms that do not disclose emissions information (Matsumura et al., 2014).

Recently, all members of the United Nations gathered at the Glasgow Climate Change Conference 2021 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate and agree to tackle greenhouse gas emission resulting from the use of non-renewable energy sources (IISD, 2021). The Conference served as the platform for the first multidimensional environmental agreement among countries of the world, including Nigeria who participated at the Conference. As the largest economy in Africa and the sixth largest oil producer globally, Nigeria has a substantial role to play in controlling the current and future non-renewable energy consumption, as well as, emission levels to save biodiversity globally. This is because, virtually, all Nigerian firms consume non-renewable energy which negatively affect the lives and health condition of its populace. Many of these firms are reluctant when it comes to energy and emission accountability in order to mask the harm caused by their operations on the environment. In view of this, it is now clear that the companies need to disclose all the efforts they make to conserve environment and the supports provided to immediate community to cushion the effect of their activities on their environment.

Since board of directors are responsible for ensuring corporate reporting, board attribute can play important role in determining what to disclosure and the degree of disclosure in the companies’ report. This is due to their usual commitment to the compliance requirements within and outside the organization. Therefore, board attributes such as independence, meetings, size, gender and management ownership could leads to a greater diversity of experiences and knowledge, signifying different points of strategic decision making, which will lead to more disclosure in relation to energy and overall environmental issues (Khaireddine, 2020; Tingbani, Chithambo and Papanikolaou, 2020). As such these attributes will be engaged in the study so as to ensure more robustness in the outcomes.

Prior studies document mixed findings on the relationship between board attributes and environmental disclosure globally. Most of these studies were conducted in developed countries (Moussa, 2019; Qureshi, Kirkerud and Theresa, 2019; Khaireddine, 2020; Tingbani, Chithambo and Papanikolaou, 2020) and some in emerging economies (Alipour et al., 2019; Aliyu, 2018; Haladu & Bin-Nashwan, 2021; Jibril et al., 2021; Kathy et al., 2012; Kilincarslan et al., 2020; Mohammad & Wasiuzzaman, 2021; Ofoegbu et al., 2018; Otchere et al., 2019; Rezaee, 2019; Shahab & Chen, 2020; Sial et al., 2021). Hence, this study contributes to the established literature by assessing the relationship between corporate board attributes (independent, meeting, size, gender and ownership) and energy disclosure in Nigeria,

Globally, environmental matters attract greater attention from both national international polices administrators. Therefore, compliance of institutional policy of a country or economic sector depends on the efficiency of regulator. Although the disclosure of energy consumption and GHG emissions is voluntary in Nigeria, it is believed that a strong industry regulator can monitor firm’s behavior towards environmental issues. Hence, the study framework was established to study the moderating influence of institutional strength on the relationship between corporate attributes on energy disclosure.

Corporate environmental disclosure could be described as a disclosure made by a firm to the stakeholders concerning its externalities discharged and measures taken to mitigate the negative effect caused by the company. The major policy that responsible of controlling global climate changes is the ability of the firms to manage their energy consumed and quantify the carbon emissions discharges by considering grants and exchanging carbon in the market (Al-qahtani & Elgharbawy, 2019lıç & Kuzey 2018). Energy is being required (such as light, heat, mechanical, sound, electrical and chemical energy) by firms to operate and run their day-to-day activities (Fakoya & Nakeng, 2019). Almost all firms consume energy in various manner depending on the nature of its operations. Energy can be described as self-generated when it is being generated from sources other than natural such as hydro, solar and wind. It can equally be generated using non-renewable sources that is using natural sources. Under this category, firms normally consumed petroleum, natural gas and coal as sources of generating non-renewable energy for their operations.

To utilize energy efficiently, it is essential for a firm to select renewable energy sources for combating present and future climate change and for mitigating overall environmental effect in the society (GRI, 2021). Though, improvement on energy transition in a country is determined by the level to which a strong enabling environment is being created. This comprises political will, flexible polices, conducive business atmosphere, incentives for investments and innovation, consumer awareness and protection agencies, pressure groups and adoption of new technologies among others (World Economic Forum, 2021).

However, environmental calamities in relation to air pollution as a result of consuming non-renewable energy can be controlled when firms utilize and disclose measures used in curtailing harms produced by the energy consumed in the country and ensure full compliance with established laws.

Corporate organization need to operate legitimately within the community. Therefore, from the perspective of a corporate entity, legitimacy is the general notion that the activities of the companies are appropriate or suitable within some socially built system of norms, standards, ethics and beliefs (Emeka-Nwokeji, N.A and Okeke, 2018). As a result of the connection between the legitimacy of a firms and the perception of the society about the firm, it is imperative that management makes disclosures that will positively influence the opinion of the society about the firm (Cormier & Magnan, 2013). Therefore, legitimacy theory is essential to the present study since operation of firms could only consider legitimate if firms ensure that their operations are coherent with the expectations of the society in which it operate. Hence corporate board attributes are capable of ensuring firms energy disclosure and operate accordance with community expectation.

Corporate board independence and energy disclosure

Board independence is one of the board characteristic that could have an influence on energy disclosure. Board independence is considered as one among the most influential and relevant corporate governance instrument for monitoring and regulating the management team and for protecting stakeholders' interests (Ezhilarasi & Kabra, 2017). Independence of directors used as an independent power in resolving internal dispute within the management on behalf of the common shareholders of the company (Fama & Jensen, 1983). The existence of sufficient number of independent board member on the board has been perceived as key for preserving the interest of all types of stakeholders (Mallin et al., 2015) and confirm that firm decision are made in a way that safeguard the concern of all stakeholders (Lo, Wong, & Firth, 2010). Based on agency theory, many studies have documented that presence and competency of independent directors on the board defend the interest of all shareholders (Lo et al., 2010; Mallin et al., 2015). Prior researchers have established positive relationship between number of independent directors and the corporate disclosure performance (Chen & Jaggi, 2001; Ferreira, Ferreira, & Raposo, 2011; Patelli & Prencipe, 2007). Baalouch, Ayadi and Hussainey (2019) investigate the determinant of environmental disclosure quality in French. The study variables focus on issues related to the policy and vision of independence board member and gender diversity on factors associated to the environmental performance. The study revealed that independence of board plays an important roles in explaining disparities in quality of environmental disclosure. Furthermore, studies such as Ikhenade, (2020), Kanashiro, (2020) and Tseng et al., (2020) document substantial positive relationship between board independence and environmental disclosure.

Conversely, Kilincarslan, Elmagrhi and Li (2020) examine the effect of corporate governance structures on environmental disclosure performs. The results reveal that board independence has a negative relation with environmental performance. Other prior studies (see Eriabie, Sylvester Odia, 2018; Rezaee, 2019) fail to document statistical association between independence of board and environmental disclosure. Based on these above, the study hypothesizes that:

H1: There is a positive relationship between board independence and energy disclosure in Nigeria

Corporate board meeting and energy disclosure

Based on agency theory board that has high frequency number of meetings has higher effective advisory and monitoring role on the management. Board activities measured by board meeting frequency is an essential measurement of board actions which helps to overcome agency conflicts (Ofoegbu et al., 2018; Saleh et al., 2020).

In assessing the impact of board meeting on environmental disclosure, Koji, Adhikary and Tram (2020) express that frequent board meeting plays an important role in enhancing disclosure performance of a company, since it assists in reducing the information gap among the board members.

Shahbaz, Karaman, Kilic and Uyar (2020) investigate the relationship between board attributes and corporate CSR commitment as well as between CSR engagement and corporate performance in the universal energy sector. The results specified that board meeting attendance is significantly associated with ESC. Similarly, Khaireddine (2020) explores the influence of board governance attributes on environmental and ethics disclosure in Tunisia. The result reveal that board meeting has a positive and significant effect on environmental and ethics disclosure. Many studies, (Grace Ofoegbu, Odoemelam and Okafor, 2018) have documented a significant positive association with environmental disclosure. In line with the above, this study hypothesizes that:

H ₂: There is a positive relationship between board meeting and energy in Nigeria

Corporate board size and energy disclosure

Board size represents the number of directors on the corporate board. Thus, larger board is likely to comprise more skilled and knowledgeable directors who could have a better skill in managing environmental challenges. In addition, Okpala and Iredele (2019) are of the view that larger board is described by more qualified and knowledgeable individuals with interest on environmental disclosure and effective reporting skills. This indicates that large boards combined a higher quantity of experiences and qualifications, which stimuluses the process of environmental disclosure and helps reduce the anomaly of information and conflicts of interests among the concerned stakeholders. Building on agency theory, the principal (owners) will install a large board to monitor the actions of their agents (Jaskiewicz & Klein, 2007). Board adequacy has been found to have positive influence on firm general activities including frequency of RPTs and general corporate disclosure level (Coles et al., 2008; Michelon & Parbonetti, 2012). in Latin America Husted and Sousa-Filho (2019) investigate the relationship between board structure and ESG disclosure. The result indicates that board size has significantly effects the ESG disclosure. In Nigeria Emmanuel and Teddy (2019) examined the effect of corporate diversity on corporate social environmental disclosure of quoted manufacturing companies. The study reveals that board size has a significant positive influence on the degree of corporate social environmental disclosure of the sampled companies. Furthermore, Ikhenade (2020) found that board size has a positive and significant relationship on environmental disclosure. In the same direction (Khaireddine, 2020; Tseng et al., 2020) establish a positive association between board size and environmental disclosure. Conversely, studies such as Aliyu, (2018) and Odewale, (2020) fail to establish relationship between board size and environmental disclosure. Therefore, based on the above, the study hypothesizes that:

H3: There is a positive relationship between board size and energy disclosure in Nigeria

Corporate board gender diversity and energy disclosure

Gender refers to a description of femininity or masculinity of a person. However, most literature on gender diversity relate the concept to presence, representation and percentage of women on boards of corporations. In recent times, several studies on board personality and group dynamics tend to study the influence of gender on corporate decisions with some of these studies viewing at gender diversity of board attribute and its influence on the role environmental disclosure (Atif et al., 2020; Beji et al., 2020; Ofoegbu & Odoemelam, 2018; Reguera-alvarado & Bravo-urquiza, 2020). Female board members normally find decision much simpler on how to improve their firms’ environmental reporting and are expected to give more ideas on decisions relation to energy disclosure (Ofoegbu et al., 2018).

Tingbani et al. (2020) document a proof for a strong positive association between GHG voluntary disclosures and gender diversity, this creates an important input to the current debate about the role of female directors on the corporate boards. Similarly, Al-qahtani and Elgharbawy (2019) evaluate the extent to which board diversity affect firms voluntarily disclose and management of greenhouse gas (GHG) information in U.K. The results show that representation of female directors in the board of directors positively influences disclosure and management of GHG information. Similarly, Qureshi, Kirkerud and Theresa (2019) documented that firms with higher female representation on their boards present significantly superior environmental, social, and governance performance. Haque and John (2020) investigate how board gender diversity is associated with biodiversity disclosures of a firm, and whether the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the EU biodiversity. The results disclose that board gender diversity is positively related with the biodiversity disclosure.

To sum up the above studies, it was established that having women on the board increases the reporting quality of social decisions and improves the implementation of environmental policies globally.

In contrast, some studies such as Fernandes et al., (2018) and Manita et al., (2018) provide evidence that corporate gender diversity plays insignificant role in implementing environmental policies due to gender-biased influences. Based on these findings, the study hypothesizes that:

H4: There is a positive relationship between board gender and energy disclosure in Nigeria

Corporate managerial ownership and energy disclosure

Jensen and Meckling, (1976) recommend that agency problem can be mitigated through high portion of managerial ownership. This is because, the higher the managerial ownership, the more their personal interest is aligned with that of the shareholders. Shleifer and Vishny (1986) demonstrate the importance of having large shareholders in public corporations to perform monitoring function and reduce managerial opportunistic behavior.

The level of managerial ownership can serve as a way of aligning the interests of managers with those of shareholders, and thereby leading to an increase in the level of disclosure. Previous literature document that directors with corporate shareholding tend to make more environmental decisions to demonstrate their contribution to societal and environmental issues, and to gain different stakeholders’ attentions (Gyapong et al., 2019; Kao, Hodgkinson and Jaafar, 2019). Furthermore, directors who possess certain interest in the firms take environment challenges serious as they may be influenced by institutions, activist groups, and governments towards compliance with environmental regulations. Hence, they are likely to disclose more CSR and environmental information to mitigate political costs (Saini & Singhania, 2019).

Though there are limited studies on managerial ownership and environmental disclosure, some of these studies established that directors’ larger shareholding inspires them to exercise more control for their own financial benefits and interests, rather than to maximize shareholder’s wealth (Alfariz & Widiastuti, 2021; Zaid et al., 2020). Budiharta (2020) investigates the effect of managerial ownership on carbon emission disclosure in Indonesia. The results indicate that managerial ownership positively influence carbon emission disclosure.

In contrast, Giannarakis et al. (2018) establish a significant negative relationship between managerial ownership and CSR in European companies. This shows that managers are not fascinated in providing more disclosure on environmental issues, as this negatively affects their compensation and benefits. Many studies have established negative relationship between management ownership and CSR disclosure. Therefore, based on these findings, the study hypothesizes that:

H ₅: There is a positive relationship between board ownership and energy in Nigeria

Board attributes, Institutional strength and energy disclosure

Institutional strength consists of a set of formal and written rules about two main dimensions of stability/safeguards that seek to guarantee the durability of these institutions and the extent to which these rules are followed in institutional practice. Institutional strength may be conceptualized along two dimensions: enforcement and stability (Levitsky & Murillo, 2009). According to Levitsky and Murillo, enforcement is the degree to which parchment rules are complied with in practice. Where all relevant actors in a given territory routinely comply with parchment rules or face a high risk of punishment, enforcement is high. On the other hand, institutions are stable to the degree that they survive not only the passage of time but also changes in the conditions. Institutions themselves vary in stability and enforcement. For example, laws against prostitution, euthanasia, and the hiring of undocumented immigrants tend to be weakly enforced even in countries with effective legal systems (Van Oenen, 2001). Weakly enforced institutions may be created intentionally or unintentionally. Many institutions are weak because the actors who create them do not intend to enforce them. Thus, one impetus for the emergence of weakly enforced institutions is a divergence between political actors’ real and publicly stated goals (Levitsky & Murillo, 2009).

Government and citizen engagement in environmental and sustainable development public policy is reflected in the extent to which institutions that manage and regulate the operations for the betterment of environment exist and function properly at the national or subnational levels (FDES, 2013). Based on the institutional theory, firms employ many mechanisms to create and maintain sound institutional legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). These mechanisms include among others proper means of communication with outside environment. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) suggest that firms can compete favorably in modern environment only if they adopt institutional isomorphism. Institutional isomorphisms are the forces that make organizations to embrace similar environmental conditions (such as Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) standards for reporting environmental issues). They argue that the process take place through one or a combination of coercive, mimetic or normative pressures. Regulators and other external parties use coersive isomophia to compel the firm to disclose certain information for public consumption. Listed firms are required to comply with mandatory disclosure requirements in totality, and anything in short of that can be sanction by appropriate regulatory bodies (Houqe et al., 2012; La Porta et al., 2006). However, Tsalavoutas (2011), and Yeoh (2005) have argued that existence of regulatory bodies cannot guarantee compliance.

As earlier discussed, previous studies have documented mixed results on the relationship between board attributes and environmental disclosure. It is expected that the mixed findings was a result of the degree of strengthens (i.e the enforcement and stability) of monitoring institutions. Hence, this study hypothesizes that:

H6 _a: Institutional strength moderates the relationship between board independence and energy in Nigeria

H6b: Institutional strength moderates the relationship between board meeting and energy in Nigeria

H6c: Institutional strength moderates the relationship between board size and energy in Nigeria

H6d: Institutional strength moderates the relationship between board gender and energy in Nigeria

H6e: Institutional strength moderates the relationship between board ownership and energy in Nigeria

The objectives of this paper is twofold. First to assess the relationship between board attributes (independence, meeting, size gender, and ownership) on energy disclosure. The second objective is to examine the moderating effect of institutional strength on the relationship between board attributes (independence, meeting, size gender, and ownership) on energy disclosure. The population of this study comprised all non-financial firms that are listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) as at 31st December, 2020, this is because the sectors are the major energy consumers. Non-financial sectors comprised of ten (10) sub-sectors that include Agriculture, Conglomerate, Construction, Consumer Goods, Health care, ICT, Industrial, Natural Resources, Oil and Gas and Services sub-sectors of the market. There are One hundred and two non-financial firms listed on NSE as at 31st, December, 2020. Twenty four companies were eliminated from the population because of the absent of complete data for the study period. Hence, the final sample consist of seventy eight (78) firms. The study obtained secondary data generated from the annual reports of the sample firms for the period of five years (2016–2020). This is because, the 2016 to 2020 are the period in which energy disclosure and overall environmental disclosure witnessed important regulatory improvement by the country and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard. Consequently, a final sample of 390 firm-year observations was used.

3.1Measurement of the variables

The variables categories into three dimensions, dependent (energy disclosure), explanatory variable (independent and control variable) and moderating variable (Institutional strength). The study used content analyses to capture the level of energy disclosure by Nigerian listed firms using Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard. That is to say, the study used the unweighted disclosure method to capture the extent of energy disclosure among the sampled firms (Haladu & Bin-Nashwan, 2021). Under this approach, 0 point is given to non-compliance and 1 is given when company disclose item of energy disclosure. This is in line with work of (Baalouch et al., 2019; Haladu & Bin-Nashwan, 2021; Masud et al., 2018; Udo, 2019).

Board Independence was measured as a proportion of independent non-executive directors on the board (Allegrini & Greco, 2013; Odewale, 2020; Uwuigbe & Ajibolade, 2013). Board meeting was measured as total number of meetings during the reporting period (Manita et al., 2018; Ofoegbu & Megbuluba, 2016). Board Size was measured as total number of board members (Odewale, 2020; Uwuigbe & Ajibolade, 2013). Board gender diversity was measured as the degree of heterogeneity among board members using Blau-Index (Guping et al., 2020) and Board ownership was measured as proportion of shares owned by board members (Kao et al., 2019; Panwala et al., 2017).

The moderating variable, Institutional strength was measured as dummy variable that will be equal to one for industries with strong industry regulator who oversees the operation of firms and ensure compliance with operating policies and set to zero for otherwise. This is because, it is believed that regulators and other external parties use coersive isomophia to compel the firm to disclose certain information for public consumption (Maigoshi, 2017) and Government and citizen engagement in policy is reflected in the extent to which institutions that manage and regulate the operations for the betterment of environment exist and function properly at the national or subnational levels (FDES, 2013).

The study add leverage (LEV) to control for its effect on cost of capital (Modigliani & Miller, 1958; Wahab et al., 2011). Firm profitability and age are added because they are positively associated with general firm disclosure (Bédard & Gendron, 2010; Black & Kim, 2012).

(Smith and Watts, 1992; Yermack, 1996; Myers, 1977). The study models were drawn on the methodology proposed by Barnett and Salomon (2012) and adopted by(Meier & Schier, 2017), which aims to control for the existence of potential endogeneity by introducing a first-order lagged dependent variable as explanatory variable. This is because, the energy disclosure of this year depends on the level of disclosure of the previous year.

Table 2 presents the summary of the variables selected, their acronomy, measures, and source as follow:

3.2 Method of Data Analyses and Model Specification

Descriptive statistics was performed basically to summarize the data into a manageable form and in order to test the extent of compliance with energy disclosure by the selected firms. In addition, this study used multiple regression to test our proposed hypotheses. The study used two econometric models in the analysis. Model 1 tests the effect of board attributes (independence, meeting, size gender, and ownership) on energy disclosure in Nigeria. Model 2 tests how institutional strength moderates the relationship between board attributes (independence, meeting, size gender, and ownership) on energy disclosure in Nigeria.

Model 1

EDSit = α + β₁BINDPit + β₂BMEETit + β₃BSIZEt + β₄BGENDit + β₅BOWNSit + β₆INSTSit + β₇LEVit + β₈FAGEit + β₉PROit + β₁₀L.DISit + Ԑit…….1

Model 2

EDSit = α + β₁BINDPit + β₂BMEETit + β₃BSIZEt + β₄BGENDit + β₅BOWNSit + β₆INSTSit + β₇BINDP*INSTSit + β₈BMEET*INSTSit + β₉BSIZE*INSTSit + β₁₀BGEND*INSTSit + β₁₁BOWNS*INSTSit β₁₂LEVit + β₁₃FAGEit + β₁₄PROit + β₁₅L.DISit + Ԑit…2

Where:

EDS = Energy Disclosure Score

α = Constant

β = Intercept estimates

BIND = Board independence (Proportion of independence and non-executive directors on the board)

BMEET = Board Meetings (Total Number of meetings during the reporting period)

BSIZE = Board Size (Total number of board members on the board)

BDV = Board Diversity (Degree of heterogeneity among board members using Blau-Index)

BOWN = Board ownership (Proportion of shares owned by board members)

INSTS = Institutional Strength (Measured as dummy variable)

LEV = Leverage (Measured as the ratio of total debt to total assets)

AGE = Liquidity (Number of years)

PROF = Profitability proxy by ROA (Profit after taxation divided by total assets)

L.DIC = Lag of Energy disclosure (Previous year disclosure)

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics of board attributes and energy disclosure of the sampled listed companies were presented in Table 3 as follows.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics
Variables	Obs	Mean	Min	Max	Stand. Dev
EDS	390	0.400	0.000	1.000	0.271
BINDP	390	0.657	0.000	0.875	0.252
BMEET	390	4.287	1.000	10.000	1.227
BSIZE	390	8.654	3.000	23.000	3.474
BGEND	390	0.253	0.000	0.500	0.151
BOWNS	390	0.354	0.000	1.200	0.204
INSTS	390	0.538	0.000	1.000	0.499
LEV	390	0.251	0.000	5.032	0.381
PRO	390	0.207	-0.055	2.376	0.302
AGE	390	50.428	2.000	96.000	20.998

Based on the information presented in Table 3, the dependent variable (EDS) has a mean of 0.400. This indicates low level of energy disclosure by the sampled firms. EDS has a minimum and maximum value of 0.000 and 1.000 respectively. This indicates that some of the sampled firms have a zero energy disclosure while some have disclosed all what they have been asked to disclosed within the period under review. The standard deviation of energy disclosure by the sample firms for the period under study was 27%, indicating relative stability in energy disclosure.

The mean value of board independence (BINDP) is 0.556, indicating that that on average 56% of the board members were non-executive and independent directors. This implies that most of the members of corporate boards are non-executives and the management cannot have absolute power to control their activities. BINDP has a minimum and maximum value of 0.000 and 0.875 respectively. This indicates that some of the sampled firms have no single independent director while in some firms independent directors constitute more than 87% of their corporate board members. The standard deviation of the BINDP of the sample firms for the period under study was 25%, indicating relative stability in energy disclosure.

The result also indicated that on average board meetings (BMEET) of sampled firms meet 4 times within a year, with minimum number of 1 meeting in the year while the maximum number of meetings held by the listed firms were 10 times This is in line with the the statutory requirement of Nigerian Corporate Governance Act (Financial Reporting Council, 2018), that the board should not be less than 4 meetings in every financial year. Board size (BSIZE) has maximum of 23 board members and minimum of 3. However, the mean value indicated 8 members suggests that majority of listed firms in Nigeria have more than 5 board members composing their board size. This is close to the statutory requirement of Nigerian Corporate Governance Act (Financial Reporting Council, 2018), that the number members board should not be less than 5 which shall comprises of both executive and non-executive directors representatives. On the other hand, board gender diversity (BGEND) was found to be 25% on average, the maximum female representative of listed firms found to be 50% while the minimum representation of female on board 0%. This reveals that some sampled firms have no female representation on their board. The descriptive information finally revealed that on average the board members owned up to 35% of the total companies’ share. This could serve as possible means by the board (BOWNS) to align all the reporting requirements especially on the environmental issues. However, board must have insisted to comply with all environmental disclosure in order to gain the legitimacy while protecting their organizational interest.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics of the Energy Disclosure by Year
Statistics	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	All
Mean	0.407	0.382	0.404	0.400	0.407	0.400
Min	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Max	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Stand. Dev	0.276	0.265	0.264	0.281	0.275	0.271
Obs	78	78	78	78	78	390

The year-by-year analyses also reveal the steady energy disclosure across the study period. The mean of the energy disclosure was 40.7%, 38.2%, 40.4%, 40.0% and 40.7% for 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 years respectively. This indicates that the disclosure of energy consumption has not increased significantly during the study period. This may be connected to the fact that energy disclosure is purely voluntary and absent of strong regulation to enforce compliance.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics of the Energy Disclosure by Industry
Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Conglomerates	25	0.657	0.072	0.571	0.714
ICT	25	0.571	0.214	0.286	1.000
Consumer Goods	85	0.546	0.224	0.000	1.000
Agriculture	20	0.536	0.121	0.429	0.714
Healthcare	40	0.514	0.202	0.143	1.000
Construction/Real Estate	35	0.371	0.255	0.000	0.857
Industrial	60	0.271	0.188	0.000	0.714
Natural Resources	10	0.189	0.074	0.119	0.259
Oil and Gas	35	0.188	0.213	0.000	0.676
Services	55	0.178	0.289	0.000	1.000

The industry analyses of energy disclosure revealed uncommon pattern across the industries under review. The mean of the energy disclosure was 66%, 57%, 55%, 54%, 51%, 37%, 27%, 19%, 19% and 18% for Conglomerates, ICT, Consumer Goods, Agriculture, Healthcare, Construction/Real Estate, Industrial, Natural Resources, Oil and Gas and Services sectors respectively. Conglomerate industry recorded the highest (66%) energy disclosure while the Services industry recorded the least (18%) level of energy disclosure across the study period. This indicates that the disclosure of energy consumption is strongly affected by industry possibly because of regulation, imitation or size of the industry.

4.2 Correlation Analysis

The results of the correlation analysis between the study variables were presented in Table 6, as follows:

Table 6

Correlation Matrix
Variables	EDS	BINDP	BMEET	BSIZE	BGEND	BOWNS	INSTS	LEV	PRO	AGE
EDS	1.0000
BINDP	-0.3041	1.0000
BMEET	-0.1343	-0.0210	1.0000
BSIZE	-0.0362	-0.0863	0.1808	1.0000
BGEND	-0.0305	0.0615	-0.0607	0.1000	1.0000
BOWNS	0.2722	0.0226	-0.0785	-0.0647	-0.0740	1.0000
INSTS	0.2211	0.0258	-0.1524	-0.0627	-0.1095	0.1226	1.0000
LEV	-0.1758	0.2791	-0.0011	0.0822	0.0391	-0.0235	-0.0944	1.0000
PRO	-0.0042	0.0238	-0.0235	0.0361	0.0571	0.0687	-0.1606	0.0681	1.0000
AGE	-0.1025	0.0165	0.2173	0.2060	0.0204	-0.0907	0.0248	-0.0217	0.0692	1.0000

Based on the correlation coefficients presented in Table 6, reveal a negative correlation between dependent and independent variables with the exception of board ownership and institutional strength which indicate positive correlations. The strength of the correlation coefficients between dependent variable and other research variables are weak with exception of board independence, board size and board gender diversity which indicate moderate correlation. The highest correlation was recorded between energy disclosure and board independence (-0.3041) and the lowest correlation was recorded between energy disclosure and profitability (-0.0042). This gives a clear evidence of the absence of multicollinearity issue among the research variables.

4.3 Regression Results

The regression results for the relationship between corporate board attributes and energy disclosure and the moderating effect of institutional strength on the relationship between corporate board attributes and energy disclosure as assessed by the model 1 and model 2 are presented in Table 7 below. The study conducted both Fixed Effect and Random Effect GLS models. A hausman test was run to select the most suitable model between Fixed Effect Model (FEM) and Random Effect Model (REM). The result of the Hausman specification test is significant for both models, which means that fixed effect estimator is better. However, since the data used in the study is panel data, heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation and cross-sectional dependency tests were conducted to avoid presenting biased statistical inference. The result of Pesaran's test of cross sectional independence indicates the absence of cross sectional independence (0.2112). However, the Modified Wald test for groupwise heteroskedasticity and Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data indicate the presence of heteroskedasticity (0.000) and autocorrelation (0.000). In addition, the association between board characteristics and energy disclosure is expected to be endogenous and the current year’s level of disclosure depends on the previous year’s level of disclosure.

To correct these problems and to avoid the endogeneity among the selected variables, the study employed the GMM. Based on the methodology proposed by Barnett and Salomon, (2012), first-order lagged dependent variable as explanatory variable in both model 1 and model 2 to control for the existence of potential endogeneity. Blundell et al., (2015) show that GMM correct the problem of unobserved heteroscedasticity, auto correlation, endogeneity, measurement error and omitted variables. If variables are endogenous, the co-variance between the explanatory variables and error term are non-zero, which may amount to biased and inconsistent inference. The results of the Hensen test shows that the instruments are valid as the p-value are 0.447 and 0.275 for Model 1 and 2, respectively. Likewise, the test for second-order serial correlation are 0.371 and 0.103 for Model 1 and 2, respectively. In addition, the Sargent test value of 0.283 and 0.171 for Model 1 and 2, respectively. The results of these tests indicate that the error terms are not serially correlated after the GMM.

Table 7

The regression results
	Model 1		Model 2
GMM EDS	Coefficients	P-Value	Coefficients	P-Value
BINDP	-0.325	0.000***	-0.569	0.000***
BMEET	-0.017	0.197	-0.027	0.051*
BSIZE	0.001	0.901	0.007	0.400
BGEND	0.029	0.796	0.129	0.374
BOWNS	0.243	0.018**	0.231	0.200
INSTS	0.137	0.049**	-0.169	0.404
BINDP*INSTS			0.501	0.000***
BMEET*INSTS			0.023	0.397
BSIZE*INSTS			-0.010	0.394
BGEND*INSTS			-0.183	0.380
BOWNS*INSTS			-0.001	0.997
LEV	-0.039	0.671	-0.059	0.459
PRO	0.039	0.434	0.040	0.429
AGE	-0.002	0.271	-0.001	0.504
L.DISC	-0.334	0.004***	-0.275	0.027**
CONST	-6.820	0.549	-20.720	0.082*
Prob > F	0.000		0.000
Hausman Test	0.0096		0.000
Pesaran cross sectional dependence	0.2112
Wald test for heteroskedasticity	0.000
Wooldridge test for autocorrelation	0.000
AR1	0.004		0.001
AR 2	0.371		0.103
Sargent test	0.283		0.171
Hensen test	0.447		0.275

In evaluating the relationship between board independence and energy disclosure by the listed firms the study results indicated a negative (β = -0.325, p = 0.000) and statistically significant association at 1% level of confidence. This indicates that board independence does not improve energy disclosure in Nigeria. The possible explanation is that independent directors are appointed without taking into consideration their interest in environmental issues. Thus, hypothesis one (H1) is not supported. This is in line with findings of Mohd-Said et al., (2018) on the negative relationship between board independence and environmental disclosure and contradicts Aliyu, (2018) who have found that independence of board is positively associated with improved environmental disclosure. With respect to board meetings, the results revealed a negative (β = -0.017, p = 0.197) and insignificant association between number of meetings and the energy disclosure of the selected firms. This indicates absent of relationship between board meetings and energy disclosure, thus, hypothesis two (H2) is not supported. The finding is in consistent with the work of Fahad and Rahman, (2020) and contradict Khaireddine, (2020) which documented a strong positive association between frequency of board meetings and environmental disclosure. The results of the third hypothesis revealed a positive (β = 0.001, p = 0.901) but insignificant relationship between board size and energy disclosure by the selected firms. This implies that larger boards have a positive impact on the volume of energy disclosure by the selected firms. However, the relationship is statistically insignificant, hence, hypothesis three (H3) is not supported. This finding is consistent with previous studies (see Mohd-Said et al., 2018; Budiharta, 2020) who found insignificant relationship between board size and firms disclosure and contradicts the works of Beji et al., (2020).

The results of the fourth hypothesis revealed a positive (β = 0.029, p = 0.796) but insignificant relationship between board gender diversity and energy disclosure by the selected firms. This implies that larger the female members on the corporate boards, the better the volume of energy disclosure by the selected firms. However, the relationship is statistically insignificant, hence, hypothesis four (H4) is not supported. This finding is consistent with previous studies such as Fernandes et al., (2018) and Manita et al., (2018) provide evidence that corporate gender diversity plays insignificant role in implementing environmental policies due to gender-biased influences. The regression results also showed a positive (β = 0.243, p = 0.018) and significant relationship between management ownership and energy disclosure at 5% statistical level of significance. Therefore, hypothesis five (H5) is supported. This findings is consistent with work of (Budiharta, 2020). Though, the finding is in contrast with previous studies (Chaq and Wahyudin, 2020).

The assessment of the relationship between institutional strength and energy disclosure by the listed firms indicate a positive (β = 0.137, p = 0.049) and statistically significant relationship at 5% statistical level of confidence. This proves that institutional strength improve the energy disclosure in Nigeria. The finding has contributed to the current literature on the effect of non-financial reporting regulatory bodies on firm’s disclosure behavior.

The regression result of moderating effect with respect to institutional strength on the relationship between board attributes and energy disclosure is found to be insignificant across all the attributes with exception of board independence which has a positive and significant relationship with energy disclosure of the selected firms. This implies that where an industry has a strong regulator, the regulator may monitor the process of selection and appointment of independent directors and makes sure that the candidate possess the requisite knowledge and expertise needed to protect the interest of all stakeholders in the industry. This may make the independent directors to focus on all the three aspects (profit, environment and society) to ensure the sustainability of the firm. With this put in place, the board will only approve operational process that safeguard the environment and ensure appropriate disclosures are made in the financial report.

The institutional strength does not influence the relationship between corporate board meetings, size, gender and managerial ownership on energy disclosure in Nigeria. The possible explanation to this is that the regulators may not have influence over what the board will discuss during the board meeting, although there is expectation that frequent number of meetings could have led to effective and efficient way of making the right decision in relation environmental issues this in line with work of (Aliyu, 2018). Similarly, larger board is likely to include more experienced and knowledgeable directors who possess better expertise to manage environmental issues. This is consistent with work of Okpala and Iredele (2019) who are of the view that larger board is described by more qualified and knowledgeable individuals on voluntary environmental disclosure and effective reporting skills. Females on board are mostly voluntarily assuring compliance with stated rules and regulations that governed the operation of the companies. This is in line with works of (Guping et al., 2020; Haque and John, 2020).

The study evaluates the impact of board attributes on energy disclosure in Nigeria. Moreover, institutional strength was employed as moderator to influence the relationship between board attributes on energy disclosure in Nigeria. Previous studies on sustainability and environmental disclosure have not used the institutional strength to moderate the relationship between board attributes on energy disclosure in Nigeria. In addition, in Nigeria, no studies considered the influence of corporate board attributes on energy disclosure using non-financial sector as whole despite the large amount of energy consumption by these firms. The study collected data from the annual report of selected 78 companies listed on the floor of NSE from 2016 to 2020 with 390 total firm-year observations. The study captured energy disclosure using latest Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Contribution Of The Study

This study is the first of its kind that assess the effect of institutional strength on energy disclosure. The outcome of the study proves that institutional strength improve the energy disclosure. This finding has contributed to the current literature on the effect of non-financial reporting regulatory bodies on firm’s disclosure behavior. In addition, the study assessed the moderating effect of institutional strength on the relationship between board attributes and energy disclosure. The study documents absence of moderation across all the attributes with exception of board independence which has a positive and significant relationship with energy disclosure of the selected firms. This implies that where an industry has a strong regulator, the regulator may monitor the process of selection and appointment of independent directors and makes sure that the candidate possess the requisite knowledge and expertise needed to protect the interest of all stakeholders in the industry.

Practical Implications

The study is timely as Nigerian government has recently mandated all listed companies to comply with environmental disclosure. Hence, the study of this nature might help the country in establishing the extents of current disclosures by the listed firms. This will assist the regulatory bodies to come-up with appropriate monitoring and evaluating mechanisms in ensuring absolute compliance with the reporting requirements by the listed firms. Furthermore, this should be used as way forward to encourage and compel all listed companies to improve their energy disclosure with intention to control emission discharged in the society.

Social Implications

with established diverse and vibrant attributes of board firms expected to disclosure more of energy and all environmental issues related to their operation. Therefore, firms would benefit and gain legitimacy across demographic, ethnic and religious groups in the society. Consequently, corporate bodies can effectively contribute towards improving social welfare of various parts in the community. Moreover, country will certainly benefit when firms control the pollution related to the energy used and toxics released within the society.

Since it was mandated by the guidelines on sustainable financial principles for the Nigerian capital market (SEC, 2021) that all listed companies must disclose all their environmental issues and ensuring compliance with stated guidelines.

There is need to include industry regulator in monitoring, evaluation and enforcing compliance with the guidelines on sustainable financial principles
All listed firms should ensure compliance with Nigerian Corporate Governance code which suggests the establishment of board that could be capable of giving proper direction to the firms. Thus this study documented that board attributes, such as independence, meetings and ownership are essential mechanisms towards general disclosure.
Other agencies such as Department for Petroleum Resources (DPR), Environmental Standard and Regulatory Enforcement Agency (NESREA) and NSE must be encouraged to monitor and evaluate the compliance level.

Literature established that few studies were conducted in relation to the effect board attributes and energy disclosure globally. For this reason, there is need for the future studies to pay more attention in this area, especially in Nigeria where study of this nature was not conducted before. Moreover, this study is constrained for not considering all environmentally-sensitive firms in the country. Furthermore, the study considered few attribute as important board attribute. Hence, other important board attributes should be assessed for better energy disclosure.

Funding: there is no funding in relation to this article. The study is conducted under the supervision of Professor Muhammad Aminu Isa and Professor Kabir Tahir Hamid, for the fulfillments requirement of awarding PhD Accounting at Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria.

Ethical Approval: Not applicable

Authors’ contributions: Professor Muhammad Aminu Isa and Professor Kabir Tahir Hamid supervise the whole work and made tremendous contribution in relation to gap identification and formation of literature reviewed. Dr Zahardeen Salisu Maigoshi contributes to the study in analyses and interpretation of the results. Rabiu Saminu Jibril is the PhD candidate who has developed the idea, data collection and interpretation of the results.

Conflict of interest: there is no conflict of interest among the authors in relation to work.

Data available statement: all data used in the study is secondary data which will be available if needed by the journal

Acknowledgement: there is no grants in relation to the study

Agustia, D., Dianawati, W., & Dwi, I. (2019). Managerial ownership , corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate performance. Management of Sustainable Development, 10(2), 67–71.
Ahmad, N. B. J., Rashid, A., & Gow, J. (2017). Board independence and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in Malaysia. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 11(2), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v11i2.5
Akbas, H. E. (2016). The Relationship Between Board Characteristics and Environmental Disclosure : South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 11(2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/jeb-2016-0007
Al-qahtani, M., & Elgharbawy, A. (2019). The effect of board diversity on management greenhouse gas information : evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of Enterprice Information Management, November, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2019-0247
Alfariz, R., & Widiastuti, H. (2021). The Influence of Media Exposure , Managerial Ownership , and the Indonesia Sustainability Reporting Award on Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR ) Disclosure. Advances in Economics Business and Management Research, 176(ICoSIAMS 2020), 259–266.
Alfraih, M. M. (2016). The effectiveness of board of directors’ characteristics in mandatory disclosure compliance. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 1–25.
Alipour, M., Ghanbari, M., Jamshidinavid, B., & Taherabadi, A. (2019). Does board independence moderate the relationship between environmental disclosure quality and performance ? Evidence from static and dynamic panel data. Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2018-0196
Aliyu, U. S. (2018). Board characteristic and corporate environmental reporting in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-09-2018-0030
Allegrini, M., & Greco, G. (2013). Corporate boards, audit committees and voluntary disclosure: evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(1), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9168-3
Atif, M., Hossain, M., Alam, S., & Goergen, M. (2020). Does board gender diversity affect renewable energy consumption ? Journal of Corporate Finance, May, 101665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101665
Baalouch, F., Ayadi, S. D., & Hussainey, K. (2019). A study of the determinants of environmental disclosure quality: evidence from French listed companies. In Journal of Management and Governance (Vol. 23, Issue 4). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09474-0
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.
Bédard, J., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Strengthening the Financial Reporting System: Can Audit Committees Deliver? International Journal of Auditing, 14(2), 174–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2009.00413.x
Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. (2020). Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility : Empirical Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04522-4
Bekiris, F. V. (2013). Ownership structure and board structure: are corporate governance mechanisms interrelated? Corporate Governance, 13, 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2011-0013
Bin Khidmat, Waqas, Muhammad, H. (2020). The Effect of Board Diversity on Firm Performance: Evidence from Chinese L isted Companies. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 13(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686220923793
Black, B., & Kim, W. (2012). The effect of board structure on firm value: A multiple identification strategies approach using Korean data. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(1), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.08.001
Blundell, R., Bond, S., & Windmeijer, F. (2015). Estimation in Dynamic Panel Data Models : Improving on the Performance of the Standard GMM estimator (Vol. 15).
Brahmana, R., & You, H. W. (2019). Corporate environmental disclosure and earning management Rayenda Khresna Brahmana , Meng Yee Tan and Hui Wei You *. Corporate Environmental Disclosure and Earning Management, 12(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGE.2018.10019190
Budiharta, P. (2020). The Influence of Board of Directors , Managerial Ownership , and Audit Committee on Carbon Emission Disclosure : A Study of Non-Financial Companies Listed on BEI. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 9(3), 75–87.
Burkart, M., & Panunzi, F. (2006). Agency conflicts, ownership concentration, and legal shareholder protection. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 15, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2004.12.004
Chaq, V. C., & Wahyudin, A. (2020). The Effect of Earnings Management , Managerial Ownership , and Firm Size on Environmental Disclosure with Environmental Performance as Moderating. Accounting Analysis Journal, 9(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v9i1.30274
Chen, C. J. P., & Jaggi, B. (2000). Association between independent non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19(4–5), 285–310. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(00)00015-6
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Coles, J. L., Daniel, N. D., & Naveen, L. (2008). Boards: Does one size fit all? Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 329–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.08.008
Consuelo, M., Martínez, P., & Álvarez, I. G. (2018). An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues. Corporate Social Responsibilty and Environmental Management, October, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1707
Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2013). The Economic Relevance of Environmental Disclosure and its Impact on Corporate Legitimacy: An Empirical Investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1829
Cucari, N., Falco, S. E. De, & Orlando, B. (2017). Diversity of Board of Directors and Environmental Social Governance: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1452
Diantimala, Y., & Amril, T. A. (2018). The Effect of Ownership Structure , Financial and Environmental Performances on Environmental Disclosure. Accounting Analysis Journa, 7(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v5i3.20019
Dienes, D., & Velte, P. (2016). The impact of supervisory board composition on CSR reporting. Evidence from the German two-tier system. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010063
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Efobi, U., Belmondo, T., Orkoh, E., Atata, S. N., & Akinyemi, O. (2018). Environmental pollution policy of small businesses in Nigeria and Ghana : extent and impact.
Ellimäki, P., Gómez-Bolaños, E., Hurtado-Torres, N., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2019). Do global firms increase their environmental disclosure and performance? Symbolic versus effective operations and the moderating role of liability of origin. Legitimation implications. Industrial Marketing Management, May, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.10.015
Emeka-Nwokeji, N.A and Okeke, P. C. (2018). Evaluating corporate environmental disclosure and performance of quoted non-financial firms in nigeri. Journal of Accounting, Business and Social Sciences, 1(2), 119–132.
Emmanuel, O., & Teddy, O. (2019). Corporate diversity and corporate social environmental disclosure of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(3).2018.19
Eriabie, S., & Odia, J. (2018). The Influence Corporate Governance Attributes On Corporate Social And Environmental Disclosure Quality In Nigeria. ESUT Journal of Accountancy, 7(June), 1–21.
Ezhilarasi, G., & Kabra, K. C. (2017). The impact of corporate governance attributes on environmental disclosures: Evidence from India. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 10(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686217701464
Fahad, P., & Rahman, P. M. (2020). Impact of corporate governance on CSR disclosure. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, August, 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00082-1
Fakoya, M. B., & Nakeng, M. V. (2019). Board characteristics and sustainable energy performance of selected companies in South Africa. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18(1), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.02.003
FDES. (2013). Framework for the development of environment statistics. United Nations Economic and Social Affairs.
Fernandes, S. M., Bornia, A. C., Nakamura, L. R., Fernandes, S. M., & Bornia, A. C. (2018). The influence of boards of directors on environmental disclosure. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2017-1084
Ferreira, D., Ferreira, M. A., & Raposo, C. C. (2011). Board structure and price informativeness. Journal of Financial Economics, 99(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.10.007
Financial Reporting Council. (2018). Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejoc.201200111
Ganapathy, E., Kabra, K. C., Ezhilarasi, G., & Kabra, K. C. (2017). The impact of corporate governance attributes on environmental disclosures: Evidence from India. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 10(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686217701464
Garcia-Torea, N., Fernandez-Feijoo, B., & de la Cuesta-González, M. (2017). The influence of ownership structure on the transparency of CSR reporting: empirical evidence from Spain. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 46(3), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02102412.2016.1267451
Giannarakis, G., Zafeiriou, E., Arabatzis, G., & Partalidou, X. (2018). Determinants of Corporate Climate Change Disclosure for European Firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1461
GRI. (2021). Our mission and history. Global Reporting Intiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/mission-history/
Guping, C., Sial, M. S., Wan, P., Badulescu, A., Badulescu, D., & Brugni, T. V. (2020). Do board gender diversity and non-executive directors affect csr reporting? Insight from agency theory perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(20), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208597
Gyapong, E., Ahmed, A., Ntim, C. G., & Nadeem, M. (2019). Board gender diversity and dividend policy in Australian listed firms : the effect of ownership concentration. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2, 1–40.
Haladu, A., & Beri, M. H. (2016). Board characteristics and sustainability reporting: Environmental agencies’ moderating effects. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(4), 1525–1533. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2108101930
Haladu, A., & Bin-Nashwan, S. A. (2021). The moderating effect of environmental agencies on firms’ sustainability reporting in Nigeria. Social Responsibility Journal, July, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2020-0292
Haladu, A., & Salim, B. B. (2016a). Board Characteristics and Sustainability Reporting: Environmental Agencies’ Moderating Effects. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(4), 1525–1533. http:%0Awww.econjournals.com
Haladu, A., & Salim, B. B. (2016b). Corporate Ownership and Sustainability Reporting : Environmental Agencies ’ Moderating Effects. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(4), 1784–1790.
Halliday, C. S. (2020). Women on Boards of Directors : A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Roles of Organizational Leadership and National Context for Gender Equality.
Haque, F., & John, M. (2020). European fi rms ’ corporate biodiversity disclosures and board gender diversity from 2002 to 2016. The British Accounting Review, 52(2), 100893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100893
Hardiyansah, M., Agustini, A. T., & Purnamawati, I. (2021). The Effect of Carbon Emission Disclosure on Firm Value : Environmental Performance and Industrial Type. 8(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.123
Houqe, M. N., van Zijl, T., Dunstan, K., & Karim, a. K. M. W. (2012). The Effect of IFRS Adoption and Investor Protection on Earnings Quality Around the World. The International Journal of Accounting, 47(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2012.07.003
Husted, B. W., & Sousa-Filho, J. M. de. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102(January), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.017
IISD, I. I. for sustainable D. (2021). 13 Clamate action. Governments Adopt Glasgow Climate Pact, Operationalize Paris Agreement. https://sdg.iisd.org/news/governments-adopt-glasgow-climate-pact-operationalize-paris-agreement/
Ikhenade, F. A. O. (2020). Board independence and enviromental disclosure in nigeria: evidence from selected firms. Ilorin Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(1), 47–60.
Jaskiewicz, P., & Klein, S. (2007). The impact of goal alignment on board composition and board size in family businesses. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.015
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jibril, R. S., Isa, M. A., & Maigoshi, Z. S. (2021). Corporate board gender , institutional strength and energy disclosure in Nigeria. International Journal of Chines and Foreing Economics. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCEFTS-09-2021-0057
Kanashiro, P. (2020). Can environmental governance lower toxic emissions ? A panel study of U . S . high-polluting industries. September 2019, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2458
Kao, M. F., Hodgkinson, L., & Jaafar, A. (2019). Ownership structure, board of directors and firm performance: evidence from Taiwan. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 19(1), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0144
Kasim, M. T. (2017). Evaluating the effectiveness of an environmental disclosure policy: An application to New South Wales. Resource and Energy Economics, 49, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2017.04.003
Kathy, K., Carol, R., Laurence, A. T., Rao, K. K., Tilt, C. A., & Lester, L. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental reporting : an Australian study. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701211214052
Khaireddine, H. (2020). Impact of board characteristics on governance , environmental and ethical disclosure. Society and Business Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-05-2019-0067
Khan, H. U. Z. (2010). The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR); reporting: Empirical evidence from private commercial banks of Bangladesh. International Journal of Law and Management, 52(2), 82–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542431011029406
Kilincarslan, E., Elmagrhi, M. H., & Li, Z. (2020). Impact of governance structures on environmental disclosures in the Middle East and Africa. Corporate Governance, 20(4), 739–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2019-0250
Koji, K., Adhikary, B. K., & Tram, L. (2020). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: A Comparative Analysis between Listed Family and Non-Family Firms in Japan. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(9), 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13090215
Krishnamurti, C., & Velayutham, E. (2018). The influence of board committee structures on voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Australian evidence. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 50(September), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2017.09.003
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2006). What works in securities laws? Journal of Finance, 61(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00828.x
Levitsky, S., & Murillo, M. V. (2009). Variation in institutional strength. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.091106.121756
Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2014). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 1–16. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002
Lo, A. W. Y., Wong, R. M. K., & Firth, M. (2010). Can corporate governance deter management from manipulating earnings? Evidence from related-party sales transactions in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2009.11.002
Lodungi, J. F., Alfred, D. Bin, Farhan, A., Khirulthzam, M., Frieda, F., & Binti, R. (2016). of Waste Resources A Review in Oil Exploration and Production Waste Discharges According to Legislative and Waste Management Practices Perspective in Malaysia. 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2252-5211.1000260
Maigoshi, Z. S. (2017). Related party transaction disclosure: compliance, determinants, value-relevance and real earnings management. In University/ PhD thesis.
Mallin, C., Melis, A., & Gaia, S. (2015). The remuneration of independent directors in the UK and Italy: An empirical analysis based on agency theory. International Business Review, 24(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.07.006
Manita, R., Bruna, M. G., Dang, R., & Houanti, L. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-01-2017-0024
Masud, A. K., Nurunnabi, M., & Bae, S. M. (2018). The effects of corporate governance on environmental sustainability reporting : empirical evidence from South Asian countries. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 3(3), 1–26.
Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R., & Vera-Muñoz, S. C. (2014). Firm-value effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. Accounting Review, 89(2), 695–724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629
McGuinness, P. B., Vieito, J. P., & Wang, M. (2017). The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42(3), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.11.001
Meier, O., & Schier, G. (2017). T he Effect of CEO Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility L ’ influence de l ’ actionnariat du Sociale des Entreprises (Vol. 23, Issue 3).
Merve Kılıç, C. K. (2018). The e ff ect of corporate governance on carbon emission disclosures Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 33(1), 21–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2017-0144
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340–363.
Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 477–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3
Modigliani, F., & Miller, H. M. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297. https://doi.org/10.4013/base.20082.07
Mohammad, W. M. W., & Wasiuzzaman, S. (2021). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2(February), 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100015
Mohd-Said, R., Shen, L. T., Nahar, H. S., & Senik, R. (2018). Board compositions and social reporting: Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 10(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMFA.2018.091661
Moussa, T. (2019). Can board environmental orientation improve U . S . firms ’ carbon performance ? The mediating role of carbon strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, November 2018, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2351
Ngo, Pham, & Luu, T. (2019). Effect of board diversity on financial performance of the Vietnamese listed firms. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 9(7), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr.2019.97.743.751
Oba, V. C., & Fodio, M. I. (2012). Board Characteristics and the Quality of Environmental Reporting in Nigeria . The Journal of Accounting and Management Corporate Governance in Nigeria. 2(2), 33–48.
Odewale, R. W. (2020). Board attributes and voluntary disclosure in an emerging economy: Evidence from Nigeria. Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting, 10(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1504/AAJFA.2020.108244
Odoemelam, N., & Ofoegbu, G. N. (2018). Corporate Board Characteristics and Environmental Disclosure Quantity : A Comparative Analysis of Traditional and Integrated Reporting Evidence. Www.Preprints.Org, 2(August), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201808.0419.v1
Odoemelam, N., & Okafor, R. (2018). The Influence of Corporate Governance on Environmental Disclosure of Listed Non-Financial Firms in Nigeria. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 2(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.28992/ijsam.v2i1.47
Ofoegbu, G. N., & Megbuluba, A. (2016). Corporate Environmental Accounting Information Disclosure in the Nigeria Manufacturing Firms. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 5(12), 12. http://www.ijmsbr.com
Ofoegbu, G. N., Odoemelam, N., & Okafor, R. G. (2018). Corporate board characteristics and environmental disclosure quantity: Evidence from South Africa (integrated reporting) and Nigeria (traditional reporting). Cogent Business and Management, 5(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1551510
Ofoegbu, & Odoemelam, N. (2018). Corporate board characteristics and environmental disclosure quantity : Evidence from South Africa ( integrated reporting ) and Nigeria ( traditional reporting ) Corporate board characteristics and environmental disclosure qua. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1551510
Ojekunle, Z. O., Jinadu, O. O. E., Afolabi, T. A., & Taiwo, A. M. (2018). Environmental Pollution and Related Hazards at Agbara Industrial Area, Ogun State. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 6482. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24810-4
Okpala, O. P., & Iredele, O. O. (2019). Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosures and Market Value of Listed Firms in Nigeria. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 7(3), 9. https://doi.org/10.12775/cjfa.2018.013
Osemene, O. F., & Fagbemi, T. O. (2019). A study of the relationship between corporate governance and environmental reporting in Nigeria’s listed consumer goods companies. Fountain University Osogbo Journal of Management, 4(3), 1–22.
Otchere, F. K. A., Nana, S., Simpson, Y., & Kusi, J. A. (2019). The influence of environmental performance on environmental disclosures : An empirical study in Ghana. Business Strategy and the Environment, March 2018, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.81
Panwala, T., Rajdev, S., Mulla, S., Pérez Rodríguez, N. M., Galloway, R. L., Blau, D. M., Traxler, R., Bhatnagar, J., Zaki, S. R., Rivera, A., Torres, J. V., Noyd, D., Santiago-
Albizu, X. E., García, B. R., Tomashek, K. M., Bower, W. A., Sharp, T. M., Technologique, E., Mwachui, M. A., … Levett, P. N. (2017). Impact of firm characteristics on firm value of listed healthcare firms in Nigeria by. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseas
es, 9(5), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101607%0Ahttps://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034%0Ahttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cjag.12228%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.10477
3%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.011%0Ahttps://doi.o
Pareek, R., Pandey, K. D., & Sahu, T. N. (2019). Corporate Governance, Firms’ Characteristics and Environmental Performance Disclosure Practices of Indian Companies. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 12(2), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686219881091
Patelli, L., & Prencipe, A. (2007). The Relationship between Voluntary Disclosure and Independent Directors in the Presence of a Dominant Shareholder. European Accounting Review, 16(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701265820
Peters, G. F., & Romi, A. M. (2013). Does the Voluntary Adoption of Corporate Governance Mechanisms Improve Environmental Risk Disclosures ? Evidence from Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting. Business Media Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1886-9
Plumlee, M., Brown, D., Hayes, R. M., & Marshall, R. S. (2015). Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 7(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2015.04.004
Post, C., Rahman, N., & McQuillen, C. (2015). From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2231-7
Purwantini, Cornelio Faisal, Faisal Inira, Januati, Ignatius, A. D. (2019). The Relationship Between Environmental Performance and the Extent of Environmental Disclosure. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(4), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7466
Qureshi, M. A., Kirkerud, S., & Theresa, K. (2019). The impact of sustainability ( environmental , social , and governance ) disclosure and board diversity on firm value : The moderating role of industry sensitivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, October, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2427
Reguera-alvarado, N., & Bravo-urquiza, F. (2020). The impact of board diversity and voluntary risk disclosure on fi nancial outcomes . A case for the manufacturing industry. 35(5), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2018-0085
Rezaee, Z. (2019). Environmental disclosure quality and risk : the moderating e ff ect of corporate governance. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2018-0269
Saini, N., & Singhania, M. (2019). Performance relevance of environmental and social disclosures: The role of foreign ownership. Benchmarking, 26(6), 1845–1873. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2018-0114
Saleh, M. W. A., Latif, R. A., Bakar, F. A., & Maigoshi, Z. S. (2020). The impact of multiple directorships, board characteristics, and ownership on the performance of Palestinian listed companies. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 16(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2020.106774
Samaha, K., Dahawy, K., Hussainey, K., & Stapleton, P. (2012). The extent of corporate governance disclosure and its determinants in a developing market: The case of Egypt. Advances in Accounting, 28(1), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2011.12.001
SEC. (2021). Nigeria guidelines on sustainable financial principles for the Nigerian capital market. April, 1–10.
Shahab, Y., & Chen, Y. (2020). Chief executive officer attributes , sustainable performance , environmental performance , and environmental reporting : New insights from upper echelons perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, December 2018, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2345
Shahbaz, M., Karaman, A. S., Kilic, M., & Uyar, A. (2020). Board attributes, CSR engagement, and corporate performance: What is the nexus in the energy sector? Energy Policy, 143(December 2019), 111582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111582
Shamil, M. M., Shaikh, J. M., Ho, P. L., & Krishnan, A. (2014). The influence of board characteristics on sustainability reporting Empirical evidence from Sri Lankan firms. Asian Review of Accounting, 22(2), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-09-2013-0060
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986). Large Shareholders and Corporate Control. Journal of Political Economy, 94(3), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1833044
Sial, M. S., Cherian, J., Anh, P., Talles, T., & Brugni, V. (2021). The role of carbon accounting in carbon management system : Empirical evidence from the coastal areas of the world. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, April, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2705
Sun, W., Ding, Z., & Price, J. (2020). Board structure and fi rm capability : An environment-embedded relationship between board diversity and marketing capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 90(May), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.06.010
Tareq Bani-Khalid, Reza Kouhy, & A. H. (2017). The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Social and Environmental Disclosure The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Social and Environmental Disclosure ( CSED ): The Case of Jordan. Journal of Accounting and Auditing, 3(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.5171/2017.369352
Tingbani, I., Chithambo, L., & Papanikolaou, N. (2020). Board gender diversity , environmental committee and greenhouse gas voluntary disclosures. Business Strategy and the Environment, February, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2495
Tsalavoutas, I. (2011). Transition to IFRS and compliance with mandatory disclosure requirements: What is the signal? Advances in Accounting, 27(2), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2011.08.006
Tseng, M. L., Chang, C. H., Lin, C. W., Nguyen, T. T. H., & Lim, M. K. (2020). Environmental responsibility drives board structure and financial and governance performance: A cause and effect model with qualitative information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120668
Udo, E. J. (2019). Environmental accounting disclosure practices in annual reports. International Journal of Accounting & Finance, 8(1).
Ujunwa, A. (2013). Board characteristics and the financial performance of Nigerian quoted firms. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701211275587
Uwuigbe, U., & Ajibolade, S. (2013). Effects of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosure among Listed Firms in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2(5), 76–92.
Van Oenen, G. (2001). Citizenship and “informal rule of law.” How lax enforcement can sustain the rule of law. Annual Meeting of Latin American Student Assoc.
Wahab, A. E. A., Haron, H., Lok, C. L., Yahya, S., Aswadi, E., Wahab, A. E. A., Haron, H., Lok, C. L., & Yahya, S. (2011). Does corporate governance matter? Evidence from related party transactions in Malaysia. Advances in Climate Change Research, 14(2011), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1569-3732(2011)0000014009
Wang, S., Wang, H., Wang, J., & Yang, F. (2020). Does environmental information disclosure contribute to improve firm financial performance? An examination of the underlying mechanism. Science of the Total Environment, 714(96), 136855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136855
World Economic Forum. (2021). Fostering Effective Energy Transition 2021 edition (Issue April).
Yeoh, J. (2005). Compliance with Mandatory Disclosure Requirements by New Zealand Listed Companies. Advances in International Accounting, 18(0), 245–262. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0897-3660(05)18012-X
Zaid, M. A. A., Abuhijleh, S. T. F., & Pucheta-Martínez, M. C. (2020). Ownership structure, stakeholder engagement, and corporate social responsibility policies: The moderating effect of board independence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1344–1360. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1888
Zhang, T., & Xie, L. (2020). The protected polluters: Empirical evidence from the national environmental information disclosure program in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120343

Table 2 is available in the Supplementary Files section.

No competing interests reported.

Table2.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Corporate board attributes, institutional strength and energy disclosure practices for controlling greenhouse gas emission in Nigeria

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review And Hypotheses Development

3. Research Methodology

3.2 Method of Data Analyses and Model Specification

4. Results And Discussion

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

4.2 Correlation Analysis

4.3 Regression Results

Conclusion

Contribution Of The Study

Practical Implications

Social Implications

Recommendation

Limitations And Future Directions

Declarations

References

Table 2

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1