Corporate governance practices and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from the Nigerian listed financial institution

Oyerogba, Ezekiel Oluwagbemiga; Oladele, Femi; Kolawole, Peace Ebunlomo; Adeyemo, Mofoluwake Adedamola Article Corporate governance practices and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from the Nigerian listed financial institution Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Oyerogba, Ezekiel Oluwagbemiga; Oladele, Femi; Kolawole, Peace Ebunlomo; Adeyemo, Mofoluwake Adedamola (2024) : Corporate governance practices and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from the Nigerian listed financial institution, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2325111 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326134 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Corporate governance practices and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from the Nigerian listed financial institution Ezekiel Oluwagbemiga Oyerogba, Femi Oladele, Peace Ebunlomo Kolawole & Mofoluwake Adedamola Adeyemo To cite this article: Ezekiel Oluwagbemiga Oyerogba, Femi Oladele, Peace Ebunlomo Kolawole & Mofoluwake Adedamola Adeyemo (2024) Corporate governance practices and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from the Nigerian listed financial institution, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2325111, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2325111 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2325111 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 20 Mar 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5703 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2325111 Corporate governance practices and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from the Nigerian listed financial institution Ezekiel Oluwagbemiga Oyerogba, Femi Oladele, Peace Ebunlomo Kolawole and Mofoluwake Adedamola Adeyemo accounting and Finance Programme, College of social and Management sciences, Bowen university, iwo, nigeria; ABSTRACT This study ascertains whether a composite corporate governance (CCG) index is related to the sustainability reporting quality of listed banks in Nigeria. We posit that, for a company to report adequately on sustainability initiatives, there must be a strong corporate governance mechanism. Using a balanced set of panel data with 190 observations from 19 quoted banks for a period of ten years (2012–2021), this study investigates the relationship between the corporate governance index and sustainability reporting quality. Categorical data were obtained using a scale of 0–6 and dichotomous data were obtained using a binary dummy. Our results show that corporate governance mechanisms have a statistically significant influence on the quality of sustainability reporting. We establish that banks with diluted ownership, greater board independence, a high level of audit committee financial expertise, and greater shareholder rights and protection are likely to have higher SRQ. Our results provide empirical support for resource-based theory which emphasizes the internal capabilities of a firm as a source of competitive advantage. In this context, effective CG can be a strategic resource that will help position the firm for sustainable performance. This study highlights the corporate governance mechanisms that banks should focus on towards achieve quality sustainability reporting, which includes diluted ownership, board independence, financial expertise in the audit committee, board diversity, shareholders’ rights, and protection. In addition, it establishes that adequate sustainability practices enhance stakeholders’ confidence in the performance of listed companies. 1. Introduction Given the current state of global economic disruptions including climate change, and economic meltdown, there is growing demand for firms to become more transparent. With current developments, traditional corporate financial reporting is no longer sufficient (Hamad et al., 2020). Oladele and Oyewole (2020) noted that given the limitations of general-purpose financial reporting, the need to enhance trust in the financial reporting framework calls for unconventional forms of reporting such as narrative reporting, dialogic accounting, innovation accounting, confidence accounting, integrated reporting, and the transnational convergence of financial reporting. There is significant agreement in the literature for a more robust reporting framework that captures the social and environmental impacts of firms’ activities as well as their economic performance (Girón et al., 2020; Moses et al., 2020). Firms do not operate in isolation: their activities affect and are affected by the environment in which they operate (Uwuigbe, 2018). As part of a larger ecosystem comprising stakeholders and key actors © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT ezekiel oluwagbemiga oyerogba ezekiel.oy[email protected].ng accounting and Finance Programme, College of social and Management sciences, Bowen university, Bank Road, P M B 284, iwo, nigeria https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2325111 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 November 2023 Revised 23 February 2024 Accepted 25 February 2024 KEYWORDS Board independence; shareholders right and protection; diluted ownership; return on capital employed; audit quality SUBJECTS Corporate governance mechanisms, Sustainability reporting quality, Management Accounting, Corporate Reporting; Business, Management and Accounting; Environmental Economics; Finance REVIEWING EDITOR Collins Ntim, University of Southampton, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ACCOUNTING, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & BUSINESS ETHICS | RESEARCH ARTIClE 2 E.O. OYEROGBA ETAl. (suppliers, customers, financiers, policy and regulations, supports, and institutions), they interact in dynamic ways to create a surviving and sustainable venture (Maroufkhani et al., 2018; Raposo et al., 2021). Consequently, many actors are interested in what firms do, how, when, and why they do so. Their perception of these actions potentially triggers certain reactions (favourable or unfavourable) (Girón et al., 2020; Jamaliah etal., 2023). Sustainability reporting is therefore essential in growing and developing security markets in which the annual financial statement is the most credible source of information for investors. Disclosure of the company’s commitment to a sustainable global economy will enable investors and other stakeholders to understand, measure, and assess a firm’s social, economic, governance, and environmental performance, and their set goals, as well as strategies for managing environmental change more effectively. Adequate disclosure enables management to be transparent about the risks and opportunities confronting them, giving stakeholders better insight into performance beyond the bottom line. However, while developing economies encourage the practice of sustainability reporting, the impetus to report on sustainability is still largely voluntary (Alatawi etal., 2023; Isa, 2014) as there are currently no mandatory requirements for reporting the social and environmental implications of a firm’s operation in Nigeria (Oyewumi et al., 2018; Sanyaolu et al., 2023). Although reporting on the economic performance (which is also a dimension of sustainability) of a firm is mandatory and there are specific guidelines such as those provided by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) (lawal et al., 2020), reporting on the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability remains voluntary. Consequently, few firms have reported sustainability in Nigeria (Osemene & Fagbemi, 2019). Therefore, adequate sustainability disclosure is a function of internal governance mechanisms and other institutional factors (Oyerogba, 2021). In this study, we ascertain whether a composite corporate governance (CCG) index influences sustainability reporting quality, represented by the three major components (economic, environmental, and social) of sustainability reporting. Previous studies have adopted legitimacy, signaling, and stakeholder theories to explain the relationship between corporate governance and sustainability reporting (Erin et al., 2022; Gao, 2010; Greek, 2011; Hassink etal., 2010; Ijewereme, 2015; Manetti & Toccafondi, 2012; Shamil etal., 2014). These authors asserted that organizations report sustainability activities to signal quality information, seek legitimacy, and meet stakeholder expectations. Similarly, Haniffa and Cooke (2005) reported that firms engage stakeholders by promoting higher corporate disclosure, including sustainability information. Meanwhile, many studies on sustainability reporting have used data from developed countries compared to developing African countries, such as Nigeria. The sustainability reporting literature in emerging countries focuses on the influence of social responsibility on financial performance, determinants of disclosure, the extent of disclosures, and international comparisons of reporting practices (Boiral & Henri, 2017; Erin et al 2022; Jian et al., 2017), and only a few studies have investigated the quality of sustainability reporting (Girón et al., 2020; Kamarudin et al., 2022; Moses et al., 2020). Concerning African countries such as Nigeria, apart from the work of Erin et al (2022) and Oluwagbemiga (2021), little has been said about sustainability reporting quality. Hence, it is important to investigate how corporate governance mechanisms influence sustainability reporting quality in Nigeria. Prior studies (Erin etal., 2022, Ogungbade & Oyerogba, 2020; Al-Shaer and Zaman 2016) have assessed sustainability quality on a scale of 0-4. The scores are as follow: SRQ = 0, where there is no sustainability report: SRQ = 1, where a sustainability report exists without a sustainability committee and assurance provision; SRQ = 2, where a sustainability report exists and went through scrutiny by the board oversight committee; SRQ = 3, where sustainability report exists and assurance is provided by the non-Big 4 audit committee; SRQ = 4, where sustainability report exists through assurance by one of the Big 4 audit firms. This approach satisfies the demand of the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI, 2015) guidelines for voluntary sustainability reporting (Adwally, 2015; Phiri et al., 2021). However, following the development of GRI G4 in 2016, this approach represents a narrow measurement of SRQ as it fails to incorporate the disclosure of quantitative information into the measurement of SRQ, which is one of the principal foci of GRI G4. The GRI G4 framework is GRI’s 4th generation of SRQ guidelines (Girón et al., 2020). It is designed for universal applicability to different forms of organizations, especially in the industrial sector, across different nations (Maroufkhani et al., 2018; Osemene & Fagbemi, 2019; Raposo et al., 2021). COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 3 literature have been very scarce in measuring company SRQ based on a quantitative disclosure approach in the developing economy, particularly, the Nigeria context (Tran et al., 2021; Oyewumi et al., 2018). Having identified this research gap, we propose a new measurement for SRQ. Consistent with Phiri et al (2021), we incorporate the disclosure of quantitative information into the measurement of SRQ on a scale of 0–6 (details can be found in the methodology section). This study can be considered a pioneer comprehensive study focusing on the assessment of sustainability reporting quality from quantitative and qualitative disclosures, with the inclusion of oversight and assurance provisions in Nigeria. This approach is fundamental to achieving transparency and assists stakeholders in conducting sound and objective assessments of a firm’s performance and taking appropriate actions (Elmghaamez et al., 2023; Inua & Emeni, 2019; Osemene & Fagbemi, 2019). Subsequently, this study applied the scale to assess the quality of sustainability reports published by listed banks in Nigeria. Nigeria banks were chosen as a sample for many unique and important reasons. Nigeria is recognized as the second largest stock market in sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2017). The country is classified as a middle-income developing African Nation (International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2016; KPMG, 2014). Nigerian companies are not impervious to the global heaves of sustainability reporting because of global competition (Adwally, 2015). Again, the nation has witnessed several reforms of accounting regulations and corporate governance frameworks in Nigeria with particular attention to corporate reporting: involving sustainability practices and reporting. The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a revised code of corporate governance on the 1st of April 2018 to improve the quality of information reported in the annual financial statement of the companies listed in Nigeria (Oyerogba, 2018; Oti & Mbu-Ogar, 2018). Similarly, the Sustainable Banking Principles introduced in 2011 by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) ensure that financial institutions take sustainability practices beyond social responsibility. The 2021 framework of the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) itemizes important areas of corporate governance, corporate reporting, and accounting practices for all listed companies in Nigeria. All regulatory frameworks have provisions regarding diluted ownership, board independence, audit committee financial expertise, board diversity, shareholder rights and protection. In Nigeria, sustainability reporting is still voluntary; hence, it is important to analyze the quality of sustainability reports. The choice of Nigerian banks is also strengthened by their uniqueness because of the weak and lapses in enforcing regulations such as the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA 2020), weak governance, and corruption (Oluwagbemiga, 2021; Oyerogba, 2021; Syder et al., 2020). Using a sample size of 19 quoted banks in the Nigerian Capital Market (NCM), we document a significant positive influence of the corporate governance index on sustainability reporting. The results highlight significant improvements in information disclosure on sustainability for banks that have embraced full compliance with the provisions in the code of corporate governance, specifically regarding diluted ownership, board independence, financial expertise in the audit committee, board diversity, shareholder rights and protection. Other variables that negatively influence sustainability reporting are family ownership, audit quality, capital gearing, firm size, and firm profitability. Finally, the study shows that the higher the number of foreign nationals on the board, the better is sustainability reporting. This study offers insightful contributions to the existing literature on sustainability practices and reporting. First, this study introduces a new measurement based on quantitative and qualitative disclosures to improve the reliability and quality of sustainability disclosure. Second, based on the presumption that no single corporate governance mechanism can significantly influence sustainability reporting, except for the totality of corporate governance mechanisms, this study developed a composite corporate governance index using 48 items. The use of certain corporate governance mechanisms, such as board size, number of board meetings, executive compensation, board independence, and CEO duality to represent the entire corporate governance practices offers a narrow assessment of corporate governance practices (Black et al., 2017; Boyd et al., 2017). Third, the CG index and SRQ measurement developed in this study provide a new platform for future studies to examine not only quantity, but also quality aspects of sustainability reporting. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature. The methodology of the study is explained in Section 3. The highlights of the results are presented in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are presented in Section 5, along with areas for future studies. 4 E.O. OYEROGBA ETAl. 2. Background The concept of sustainability reporting is a topic of debate globally, particularly with the introduction and implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs) in 2015 (Hashim et al., 2015). With the adoption of the SDGs, companies were recognized as critical partners and active participants and in advancing the global sustainable development agenda (Inua & Emeni, 2019). As a panacea to economic development, the banking sector is should be positioned to support the global and the country specific sustainable development goals (lawal et al., 2020). As contained in the 2018 Global Progress Report on sustainable banking, achieving the climate targets and SDGs requires about $70 trillion of financing by 2030 (SEC, 2018). In response to this call, the launch of the Sustainable Banking Network (SBN) commenced in order to foster guidelines, national policies, principles, and roadmaps on sustainable banking in eighteen emerging countries (Okoye etal., 2020, Oladele & Oyewole, 2020). The thrust of sustainable banking entails a system that aligns profit maximization with environmental and social concerns in the operations, investment decision and credit risk management for positive value creation in the economy (Raposo etal., 2021; Oyerogba, 2018). While remaining profitable to the owners of the company, it focuses on the doctrine of shared value, responsible business practices, and the triple bottom line of governance, environmental, and social factors to mitigate negative footprints and contribute to the economic transformation (Almoneef & Samontaray, 2019; Akinleye et al., 2019; Chin et al., 2023). In Nigeria, the Sustainable Banking Principles (NSBPs) birthed in 2012 mark a unique drive in corporate sustainability reporting where banks are expected to do measurably more to drive gains in the market, human, and environmental development (Dong & Wongvanichtawee, 2023; Elaigwu, etal., 2022; Oyerogba, 2021). The issues of concern are whether the sustainable banking principles turning the tide on major economy, social, and environmental issues in Nigeria? What factors are responsible for quality sustainable practices and reporting? In this study, we consider corporate governance practices as one of the key drivers of sustainability reporting quality in the banking sector and explore it’s influence on sustainability reporting quality. Being the life wire of any economy, the bank plays an important role in accelerating economic growth for sustainable development. The banking sector in Nigeria is dominated by commercial banks, known as Deposit Money Banks (DMBs), which provides the foundation for the development of the nation’s financial system (Moses et al., 2020). In 2019, the sector witnessed the merger of Diamond Bank with Access Bank and the establishment of additional three banks: Titan Trust Bank ltd, Globus Bank ltd, and TAJ Bank. The report from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) shows that Globus and Titan Trust Bank were licensed to operate as commercial lenders while TAJ Bank limited obtained a license to operate as a non-interest bank. This brings the total number of licensed commercial banks in Nigeria to 23. From the banking sector, the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 3.37% in 2017 and 3.31% in the second quarter of 2018 (SEC, 2018). The aggregate nominal GDP contribution of the banking industry was 3.23% in the first quarter of 2019, indicating a slight reduction from the 3.76% contributed to the preceding year, but significantly higher than the 2.84% recorded in the first quarter of 2020. In a report by the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) 2021, the banking sector non-performing loans (NPls) witnessed a reduction to the tune of 25.15% from N2.36 trillion in 2017 to 1.79 trillion in 2018. In the same report, the overall health of Deposit Money Banks in 2018 to 2020 was relatively sound and stable based on an analysis of their asset’s quality, capital adequacy, liquidity ratio, earnings quality, and market risk sensitivity. All these are clear indications that Nigerian banks are beginning to wake up to the need to conduct their businesses in a sustainable manner (Oluwagbemiga, 2021). Although, sustainability reporting is still a voluntary disclosure, the regulatory agencies appear to be stepping up the campaign for sustainable practices and owners and managers of Nigerian banks have intensified efforts at improving their sustainability activities in line with the SDG goals (Erin et al., 2022). The banks have supported causes and government initiatives across different regions and sectors in Nigeria. The government efforts toward improving life expectancy were complemented with the banking sector health intervention programs, while the capacity of relevant government agencies to address crime and promote public peace was strengthened with the banks investment in security infrastructure. Endowments, donations, and sponsorships in favor of institutions of learning represents massive support for teaching and learning, while sports and youth development initiatives provided opportunities for COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 5 many young people to pursue their dreams (SEC, 2018). It is pertinent to investigate the extent to which these efforts have yielded the desired result in terms of quality sustainability report. 3.Theoretical literature review A number of theories have been found in the literature that have been used to explain the relationship between CG and sustainability including the stewardship theory (Aras & Crowther, 2008; Mahmood etal., 2018; Okoye et al., 2020), resource based view (Hashim et al., 2015), agency theory (Omolade & Tony, 2014); stakeholder theory (Gangi etal., 2018) and the legitimacy theory (Oyewumi etal., 2018; Thomsen, 2013). Stewardship theory originates from sociology and psychology (Fanta et al., 2013). Donaldson and Davis (1991) propounded stewardship theory. This theory examines the relationship between managers and shareholders (Okoye et al., 2020). One way to view corporate performance is from the perspective of stewardship. In the context of sustainability, management is concerned with the stewardship of a firm’s internal and environmental resources (Aras & Crowther, 2008). Hence, management acts as custodians of the firms’ resources and is concerned with managing the resources outside the organization. The theory assumes that the relationship between the principal and steward explains changes in the performance of the organization. Barney’s (1991) resource-based view emphasizes a firm’s internal capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. In this context, effective CG can be a strategic resource that can help position the firm for sustainable performance (Hashim et al., 2015). Agency theory advocates that corporate ownership should be separated from controls. In turn, the agents (managers) are expected to act in the interests of the principals (shareholders). This theory prioritizes maximizing shareholder wealth. Stakeholder theory was propounded by Freeman (1984). The theory sees an organization as accountable to more than the shareholders of a company. The theory argues that firms are expected to serve the interests of various stakeholders who are affected or can affect a firm’s performance. legitimacy theory is closely related to stakeholder theory (Oyewumi etal., 2018) although Moses etal. (2020) argue otherwise. Fundamentally, the premise of the theory is that organizations can signal their legitimacy (Oyewumi etal., 2018) using the legitimacy deviceannual report (Uwuigbe, 2018). The theory attempts to explain a firm’s effort to bridge any perceived legitimacy gap in a bid to avoid situations that could threaten its survival or attract sanctions of any kind. According to this theory, business operations are based on express and implied social contracts (Uwuigbe, 2018) which determine the growth and survival of a business (Oyewumi et al., 2018). 4. Empirical literature review and hypothesis development This study assesses how corporate governance (CG) impacts sustainability reporting across three dimensions (financial, social, and environmental). From an empirical perspective, this robust focus stems from concerns raised by Aras and Crowther (2008) and Mahmood etal. (2018). Their study called for empirical research on sustainability reporting, particularly in relation to CG. This study therefore appears to represent an attempt to take a robust look at the effect of CG on sustainability reporting. As one of the contemporary issues in business, the issue of CG and sustainability reporting has received substantial attention in the literature. However, the two phenomena have mostly been studied independently (Mahmood etal., 2018; Syder etal., 2020) or in relation to financial performance (Akinleye et al., 2019; Okoye et al., 2020). Hence, few studies provide linkages between these two in developing economies (Girón et al., 2020; Masud et al., 2018), fewer in Nigerian literature (Anazonwu et al., 2018; Inua & Emeni, 2019). Corporate governanceboard of directors (executive and non-executive)- protect the interests of shareholders and attempt to satisfy the expectations of other stakeholders by taking charge of major decisions and actions of organizations, including reporting (Anazonwu et al., 2018; Hamad et al., 2020). Therefore, researchers have studied how the characteristics and functions of boards shape the level of sustainability reporting (Anazonwu et al., 2018). The literature is replete with CG and sustainability reporting issues focusing on board characteristics such as size, independence, diversity, and member nationality (Aliyu, 2019; Anazonwu et al., 2018; Mahmood et al., 2018; Osemene & Fagbemi, 6 E.O. OYEROGBA ETAl. 2019), board committees such as risk management, corporate social responsibility, and audit committees (Aliyu, 2019; Hamad etal., 2020; Mahmood etal., 2018) and CEO characteristics such as duality, compensation, and tenure (Inua & Emeni, 2019; Osemene & Fagbemi, 2019) amongst others. There are only a handful of studies linking the two phenomena in Nigeria, such as Anazonwu et al. (2018) for the manufacturing industry; Osemene and Fagbemi (2019) for consumer goods companies; Adeniyi and Fadipe (2018) in the food and beverage industry; Aliyu (2019) for industrial goods, oil and gas, and natural resources, as well as the study of Inua and Emeni (2019) which captured all firms quoted on the NGX. Moreover, most highlighted studies focused on one or two dimensions of sustainability reporting. This is not to mention the lack of consistency in the past empirical literature (lyndon & Otuya, 2018; Masud et al., 2018). Consequently, the relationship between CG and corporate sustainability reporting remains unclear (Mahmood et al., 2018) particularly in developing economies (Girón et al., 2020). The existing literature on sustainability reporting has focused primarily on a certain set of individual factors influencing sustainability reporting in developed countries, with limited literatures in emerging countries. These studies documented significant relationships between sustainability reporting and firm-specific factors (Cohn, 2014; Seda & Kramer, 2014), regulatory factors (Achua, 2009; Adesola, 2008; Omar etal. 2013) and corporate governance-related factors (Agrawal & Chadha, 2015; Ghafran & Yasmin, 2017; Nehme et al., 2015; Sultana et al., 2015; Tauringana et al., 2008). Specifically, Ijewereme (2015) observed that research on the determinants of sustainability reporting places greater emphasis on firm-specific variables and other related factors. Christensen et al. posited that previous studies focused on regulatory factors (e.g., conceptual framework and International Financial Reporting Standards), and industry-related factors (e.g., risk exposure and recovery plan) (Oyerogba, 2021; Seda & Kramer, 2014). In conclusion some research on corporate governance and sustainability reporting focuses on certain board characteristics (Mui & Mailley, 2015; Oyerogba et al., 2016; Ogungbade & Oyerogba, 2020) and audit committee effectiveness (Ibietan, 2013; Imhonopi & Urim, 2013; Kramer et al., 2017). Additionally, an appreciable number of studies have devoted efforts to investigating the combined effects of corporate governance mechanisms on sustainability reporting (Gao, 2010; Greek, 2011; Hassink et al., 2010; Ijewereme, 2015). Previous studies have presented mixed and contradictory findings on the link between corporate governance mechanisms and sustainability reporting. For example, Greek (2011) observed a significant negative relationship between board oversight function and sustainability reporting. However, Oyerogba etal., (2017) reported insignificant relationships between ownership structure, board oversight functions, and sustainability reporting. Based on the existing literature, this hypothesis is proposed Hi: Corporate governance practices have no statistically significant relationship with SRQ 5. Research design 5.1. Population and study sample The study focused on the 23 banks quoted on the Nigeria Exchange Group (NEG) for a period of ten years from 2012 to 2021. Data were extracted from various sources, including audited annual reports and financial statements of the selected banks, stock exchange factbooks, Nigerian central banks statistical bulletins and other internet sources. The final sample consisted of balanced panel data comprising 190 firm-year observations for 19 quoted banks for the ten-year period. The details are listed in Table 1. As shown Table 1, two banks were removed from the sample because they were non-interest bank. Their Table 1. Population and sample for the study. number of Banks number of firm year % of the target observations population Listed banks as at 31st Dec, 2021 23 230 100 Less: non-interest banks (2) (20) (9) Less: Regional banks (2) (20) (9) Listed Banks in the final sample 19 190 8 COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 7 exclusion from the final sample was necessitated by the fact that their governance structure is not identical to that of other listed banks. The other two banks were removed because the banking reform of 2016 reduced them to regional status. 5.2. Computation of corporate governance index The main explanatory variable in this study is the corporate governance index and its constituent components. The primary list of corporate governance mechanisms was developed from the following sources: 1. The revised OECD Code of Corporate Governance 2. The provisions of the 2018 SEC revised corporate governance code in Nigeria 3. The corporate governance provisions in the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 4. The provisions in the Central Bank of Nigeria corporate governance codes for banks and other financial institutions operating in Nigeria 5. Other corporate governance items were borrowed from the existing literature (Black et al., 2017; Oluwagbemiga, 2021; Oyerogba, 2018) From these sources, a comprehensive corporate governance index with 48 items was developed. For the final items to be included in the corporate governance index to be determined, the following procedures are followed: i. In previous studies, all variables that were found to be significant were selected. Hence, CG variables such as ownership structure, audit committee experience, board oversight functions, audit committee independence, board meetings and shareholders rights and protection have a consistent and significant relationship with sustainability reporting (Kramer et al., 2017; Ibietan, 2013; Imhonopi & Urim, 2013). ii. In line with Black et al. (2017), we performed a panel multivariate regression using 48 corporate governance mechanisms and sustainability to establish the significant corporate governance mechanisms (at the 5% significance level) for the selection of items to be included in the corporate governance index. The estimated model for this function is as follows; SRQ A o n CGM tj it ij it i t t =− + ++ + ∑ α β φλε - (i) where SRQ is the figure obtained the for-sustainability reporting quality of company i at time t, the specific corporate governance mechanism included in the corporate governance index is represented by CGM. Considering the observed heterogeneity in corporate governance practices among the 19 quoted banks in our sample, firm-year and cross-sectional controls were included in our model. The corporate governance mechanisms with significant results from the estimation model are diluted ownership, board independence, board diversity, audit committee financial expertise, shareholder rights and protection, and foreign national and family ownership. Considering the results from Steps (i) and (ii), the final corporate governance index consisting of seven commonly shared and statistically significant corporate governance characteristics was developed. 5.3. Measurement of sustainability reporting quality To measure the SRQ, we rely of the provision from the following documents i. USEPA framework for sustainability indicators ii. Provisions from the Nigerian Sustainable Banking Principles (NSBP) issued by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN, 2012) 14 E.O. OYEROGBA ETAl. number of branches. As can be seen in Table 8, the re-estimation produced a Beta Coefficient of 0.791 and t-statistics of 3.228, which is significant at 1% and 5% levels of significance. Except for the beta coefficients for ROA and FSIZE, the results for the control variables remain as previously reported. There is a minimal decrease in the reported beta coefficient for firm size. This decrease persisted for all the differential results. However, a negative sign was maintained, indicating a high degree of agreement with the baseline regression results. 7. Summary and conclusion In this study, we ascertain whether a composite corporate governance (CCG) index has a relationship with the sustainability reporting quality (economic, environmental, and social). This study is motivated by the persistent call for adequate disclosure of sustainability activities from different stakeholders. We premised our argument on stakeholders’ theory and state that for the full effect of corporate governance mechanisms to be felt on sustainability reporting quality, an examination of a full set of corporate governance mechanisms is warranted. listed firms can focus on certain elements of corporate governance mechanisms, as established by previous studies with a view to enhancing the sustainability reporting quality. This leaves the question of whether the interests of all stakeholders are protected by the specific elements of corporate governance mechanisms. This also raises the question of which corporate governance elements are useful in enhancing sustainability reporting quality. How can a mix of corporate governance elements be achieved to ensure improved sustainability reporting quality. These questions motivated this study. Considering the myriad of literature on the drivers of SRQ spanning three decades, we focus on more recent literature that investigates the link between corporate governance and SRQ. This resulted into a review of 39 recent articles on the variables under investigation. We measured SRQ using a scale of 0–6. The highest score is obtained when a sustainability report is objectively reviewed by an independent audit firm, whereas the lowest score represents the absence of sustainability reports in a bank. With a sample of 19 listed banks for a period of ten years (2012–2021), using the ordered probit and binary logistics regression methods, our results shows that corporate governance mechanisms have a statistically significant influence on sustainability reporting quality. Therefore, we establish that banks with diluted ownership, greater board independence, a high level of audit committee financial expertise and Table 8. ordered logistic regression for Cg-index and sRQ with alternative measures. Categorical data for marginal effects Variables Baseline Reg Low Fair Moderate good High excellent DoWs 0.426*** (0.139) BinD 0.311** (.318) aDFine 0.637** (0.399) BDiV −0.329** (0.181) sHRP 0.249** (0.115) Fnat −0.572*** (0.105) FoWs −0.662*** (0.214) Cg-inDeX 0.791*** −0.076*** −0.159** 0.438** 0.207** 0.179** 0.093** (0.384) (0.066) (0.048) (0.137) (0.019) (0.111) (0.036) Roa 1.995** −0.067** −0.091** −0.226** 0.189** 0.095** 0.007* (0.887) (0.013) (0.041) (0.118) (0.016) (0.007) (0.009) FgRW 1.228** 0.117*** 0.078*** 0.189** 0.213*** 0.052** 0.047** (0.745) (0.019) (0.031) (0.052) (0.164) (0.013) (0.026) CgeaR 0.652** 0.555** 0.611** −0.317** −0.240*** −0.138** −0.104** (0.276) (0.201) (0.100) (0.225) (0.289) (0.079) (0.059) aQua 0.085** −0.197** −0.294** 0.526** 0.159** 0.041** 0.009 (0.009) (0.068) (0.005) (0.029) (0.049) (0.023) (0.107) FsiZe −4.048** 1.311** −2.126** −2.231** −1.574** −1.135** −0.951** 5.989 (0.262) (0.144) (0.416) (0.393) (0.118) (0.031) COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 15 greater shareholder rights and protection are likely to have higher sustainability practices and reporting quality. By contrast, banks with higher board diversity, larger foreign nationals and a greater proportion of family ownership are less likely to report quality sustainability. Our results provide empirical support for Barney’s (1991) resource-based theory which emphasizes a firm’s internal capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. In this context, effective CG can be a strategic resource that can help position the firm for sustainable performance (Hashim et al., 2015) Further analysis reveals that external assurance is a useful tool for enhancing the quality of sustainability reporting. We also found that having a standing committee to provide oversight functions on sustainability activities contributes to an increase in sustainability reporting quality. The results are useful in determining corporate governance practices that contribute positively toward sustainability reporting quality and those that do not. It is essential for listed banks to consider which aspects of their governance structure could potentially improve their sustainability reporting quality and concentrate on them. Our results highlight that external assurance and board oversight appear to be the principal instruments that promote higher SRQ levels. Therefore, it is essential for the board of directors to have a standing committee with the required expertise to regulate sustainability-related tasks. While it is recommended that boards of listed banks should ensure that sustainability reports are subjected to external review before publication, it is crucial for regulatory agencies such as the Central Bank of Nigeria, Security Exchange Group, and so on to enact law that will make provision of external assurance on sustainability reporting as a regulatory requirement. This will strengthen non-financial disclosure, which will ultimately enhance the credibility of corporate reporting in listed banks in Nigeria. 8. Limitation and areas for future research Being the study of a single sector, the sample size could be considered as a limitation. However, it should be kept in mind that a rigorous and exhaustive search of all the corporate government mechanisms that have been found to have a significant influence on sustainability reporting quality in studies conducted using data from other sectors were included in the development of our corporate governance index. Future studies can consider using data from the entire listed companies with the exclusion of financial institutions. We are currently conducting a similar study on the manufacturing sector. Also, we employed secondary data in this paper. Although, most of the corporate governance attributes could be sourced from the audited annual reports and other reliable sources, it would be enriching to conduct primary interviews with the management and board members to obtain additional information on other unobservable drivers of sustainability reporting quality that are not usually captured in the annual reports. Authors contributions Ezekiel Oluwgbemiga OYEROGBA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Analysis, Writing-Original Draft Femi OlADElE: Validation, Data analysis, Writing – review and editing Peace Ebunoluwa KOlAWOlE: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing. Mofoluwake Adedamola ADEYEMO: Data curation, Interpretation of results, Writing – review and editing Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). About the authors Dr Ezekiel Oluwagbemiga Oyerogba is an Associate Professor of Accounting at the Bowen University, Nigeria, with expertise in corporate governance and corporate reporting. He holds a PhD in Accounting and has put over 15 years 16 E.O. OYEROGBA ETAl. into teaching, research, and consultancy. He has published several papers in top rated academic journals and supervised eleven (11) PhD students and several MSc Students. Femi Oladele is a Public Policy Enthusiast who has authored and co-authored peer reviewed publications on accounting, innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship. His doctoral thesis won the 2021 Emerald & HETl Outstanding Doctoral Research Awards (Highly Commended Prize). Femi uses research to support public policy discourse, strategies, and outcomes. Peace Ebunlomo Kolawole is a lecturer at Bowen University, Osun State, Nigeria with expertise in financial reporting and auditing. She holds a PhD in Accounting and is involved in teaching and research. Her research interest is in corporate reporting and has published quality papers in international journals in this area. She is currently supervising some postgraduate students in corporate reporting. Mofoluwake Adedamola Adeyemo is an educator, she currently works at Bowen University as a lecturer in the department of Accounting and Finance. Adeyemo Mofoluwake is a graduate of Bowen University, Iwo, Osun State from the department of Accounting where she obtained her bachelor’s degree and Master of Science degree as well. She is pursuing a Ph.D in one of the reputable University in Nigeria. She is a young enthusiastic researcher, and her area of specialty is Corporate Governance and Corporate Finance. Funding No funding was received for this study. Data availability statement Data for this study were extracted from the annual financial statements of the selected banks. References Achua, J. K. (2009). Reinventing governmental accounting for accountability assurance in Nigeria. Nigeria Research Journal of Accountancy, 1(1), 1–20. Adeniyi, S. I., & Fadipe, A. O. (2018). Effect of board diversity on sustainability reporting in Nigeria: A study of beverage manufacturing firms. Indonesian Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1(1), 43–50. Adesola, A. (2008). Government’s anti-corruption initiative: The role of computer assisted audit techniques in fraud detection and prevention. Nigeria Accountant, 41(1), 248–265. Adwally, P. M. (2015). Where auditors fear to tread: internal auditors should be proactive in educating companies on the perils of earnings management and in searching for signs of its use. Internal Auditor, 60(4), 75–80. Agrawal, A., & Chadha, S. (2015). Corporate governance and accounting scandals. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 371–406. https://doi.org/10.1086/430808 Akinleye, G. T., Olarewaju, O. M., & Fajuyagbe, B. S. (2019). Corporate governance and financial performance: an empirical analysis of selected multinational firms in Nigeria. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(1), 11–18. Alatawi, I. A., Ntim, C. G., Zras, A., & Elmagrhi, M. H. (2023). CSR, financial and non-financial performance in the tourism sector: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Review of Financial Analysis, 89, 102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102734 Aliyu, U. S. (2019). Board characteristic and corporate environmental reporting in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 4(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-09-2018-0030 Almoneef, A., & Samontaray, D. P. (2019). Corporate governance and firm performance in the Saudi banking industry. Banks and Bank Systems, 14(1), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.14(1).2019.13 Al-Shaer, H., & Zaman, M. (2016). Board gender diversity and sustainability reporting quality. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 12(3), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2016.09.001 Al-Sheer, H. (2020). Sustainability reporting quality and post-audit financial reporting quality: empirical evidence from the UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2355–2373. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2507 Anazonwu, H. O., Egbunike, F. C., & Gunardi, A. (2018). Corporate board diversity and sustainability reporting: A study of selected listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 2(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.28992/ijsam.v2i1.52 Anwer, S. A., Neel, M., & Wang, D. (2013). Does mandatory adoption of IFRS improve accounting quality? Preliminary evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(4), 1344–1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01193.x Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2008). Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and sustainability. Management Decision, 46(3), 433–448. https://doi. org/10.1108/00251740810863870 COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 17 Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Black, B., de Carvalho, A. G., Khanna, V., Kim, W., & Yurtoglu, B. (2017). Corporate governance indices and construct validity. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 25(6), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12215 Boiral, O., & Henri, J. F. (2017). Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Business & Society, 56(2), 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315576134 Boyd, B. K., Adams, R., & Gove, S. (2017). Research methodology of governance studies: challenges and opportunities. Corporate Governance, 25(6), 382–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12225 Central Bank of Nigeria. (2012). Implementation of sustainable banking principles by banks, discount houses and development finance institutions in Nigeria. www.cenbank.org/out/ 2012/ccd/circular-nsbp.pdf Chin, S. F., Nor, S. A., Tye, W. l., Premagowrie, S., & Nurliyana, H. K. (2023). Tenure of independent directors and analysts following: Moderating role of institutional ownership. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2256500. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2256500 Cohn, S. (2014). From health behaviours to health practices: an introduction. Sociology of Health & Illness, 36(2), 157– 162. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12140 Donaldson, l., & Davis, J. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49– 64. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629101600103 Dong, S., & Wongvanichtawee, C. (2023). An analysis on the relationship between ESG information disclosure and enterprise value: A case of listed companies in the energy industry in China. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2207685. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207685 Elaigwu, M., Abdulmalik, S. O., & Talab, H. R. (2022). Corporate integrity, external assurance and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from the Malaysian public listed companies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 16(2), 410–440. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-07-2021-0307 Elmghaamez, I., Ntim, C. G., & Nwachukwu, J. C. (2023). ESG disclosure and financial performance of multinational enterprises: the moderating effect of board standing committees. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 17(2), 155–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2846 Erin, O., Adegboye, A., & Bamigboye, O. A. (2022). Corporate governance and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from Nigeria. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(3), 680–707. https://doi. org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2020-0185 Erin, O., Bamigboye, O., & Arumona, J. (2021). Risk governance and financial performance: an empirical analysis. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), 758–768. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.10850 Fanta, A. B., Kemal, K. S., & Waka, Y. K. (2013). Corporate governance and impact on bank performance. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 1(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20130101.12 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Gangi, F., Meles, A., Angelo, E. D., & Daniele, l. M. (2018). Sustainable development and corporate governance in the financial system: Are environmentally friendly banks less risky? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1699 Gao, G. P. (2010). Prevention of white collar crime: The role of accounting. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 3(1), 23–48. Gassen, J., & Schwedler, K. (2009). The Decision Usefulness of Financial Accounting Measurement Concepts: Evidence from an Online Survey of Professional Investors and Their Advisors. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.1351391 Ghafran, C., & Yasmin, S. (2017). Audit committee chair and financial reporting timeliness: a focus on financial, experiential and monitoring expertise. International Journal of Auditing, 22(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12101 Girón, A., Kazemikhasragh, A., Cicchiello, A. F., & Panetti, E. (2020). Sustainability reporting and firms’ economic performance: Evidence from Asia and Africa. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(4), 1741–1759. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13132-020-00693-7 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2015). GRI’s history. GRI News letter. Greek, I. (2011). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Management & Organization, 10(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2004.10.1.14 Hamad, S., Draz, M. U., & lai, F. (2020). The impact of corporate governance and sustainability reporting on integrated reporting: A conceptual framework. SAGE Open, 10(2), 215824402092743. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244020927431 Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001 Hashim, F., Mahadi, N. D., & Amran, A. (2015). Corporate governance and sustainability practices in Islamic financial institutions: The role of country of origin. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2212-5671(15)01129-6 Hassink, H., Meuwissen, R., & Bollen, l. (2010). Fraud detection, redress and reporting by auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(9), 861–881. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901011080044 Ibietan, J. (2013). Corruption and public accountability in the Nigerian public sector: Interrogating the omission. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(15), 41–49. 18 E.O. OYEROGBA ETAl. Ijewereme, O. B. (2015). Anatomy of corruption in the Nigerian public sector: Theoretical perspectives and some empirical explanations. SAGE Open, 5(2), 215824401558118. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015581188 Imhonopi, D., & Urim, U. (2013). leadership crisis and corruption in the Nigerian public sector: An albatross of national development. The African Symposium, 13(1), 78–87. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2016). Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC): Common policies of member countries–staff report. IMF Country report 15/222, Washington. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513561851.002 Inua, O. I., & Emeni, A. A. (2019). Corporate governance attributes and social sustainability reporting. International Journal of Accounting & Finance, 8(1), 21–37. Isa, M. A. (2014). Sustainability reporting among Nigeria food and beverages firms. International Journal of Agriculture and Economic Development, 2(1), 1–9. Jamaliah, A. M., Noriah, C. A., Norbaya, A. R., & Razita, R. (2023). CEO power, regulatory pressures, and carbon emissions: An emerging market perspective. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2276555. https://doi.org/10.1080/23 311975.2023.2276555 Jian, W., Jaaffar, A., Ooi, K., & Amran, A. (2017). The effects of national culture, corporate governance and CSR governance on CSR disclosure quality. Global Business and Management Research, 9(4), 298–314. Kamarudin, N. A., Abdullah, M. R., Musa, R. M., Eswaramoorthi, V., Maliki, A. B. H. M., Rasid, M. A., & Nadzmi, A. (2022). Physical fitness performance comparison based on body mass index between individual sports and team sports athletes. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(1), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i1/12057 KPMG. (2014). Focusing on quality. International annual review (pp. 8–9). Centre of Excellence, United States. Kramer, l., Seda, l., & Bobashev, Q. (2017). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409–424. lawal, A. I., Oseni, E., Babajide, A. A., lawal-Adedoyin, B., & Bonetipin, F. (2020). The impact of international financial reporting standard (IFRS) adoption on key financial ratios in Nigeria. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 8(4), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8430 lyndon, M. E., & Otuya, S. (2018). Environmental responsibility reporting and financial performance of quoted oil and gas companies in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 6(6), 23–34. Mahmood, Z., Kouser, R., Ali, W., Ahmad, Z., & Salman, T. (2018). Does corporate governance affect sustainability disclosure? A mixed methods study. Sustainability, 10(1), 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010207 Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1044-1 Maroufkhani, P., Wagner, R., & Ismail, W. K. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic review. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 12(4), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-03-2017-0025 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(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-018-0019-x Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., & Sergenti, E. (2004). Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.1086/421174 Modugu, M., & Anyaduba, D. (2013). Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 372–405. Moses, E., Che-Ahmad, A., & Abdulmalik, S. O. (2020). Board governance mechanisms and sustainability reporting quality: A theoretical framework. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1771075.https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2 020.1771075 Mui, G., & Mailley, J. (2015). A tale of two triangles: Comparing the Fraud Triangle with criminology’s Crime Triangle. Accounting Research Journal, 28(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-10-2014-0092 Nehme, K., Kunori, N., & Ntim, C. (2015). Corporate sustainability reporting: linkage of corporate disclosure information and performance indicators. Cogent Business and Management, 5(1), 1–12. Ogungbade, OI., & Oyerogba, EO. (2020). Firm culture and management accounting practices among manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00034-9 Okoye, U. l., Adedayo, E. O., Ahmed, A., & Isibor, A. (2020). Corporate governance and financial sustainability of microfinance institutions in Nigeria. Sustainable Economic Growth, Education Execellence, and Innovation Management through Vision 2020, 4035–4045. Oladele, F., & Oyewole, T. G. (2020). literature discourse. In Dwekat, C.l. (ed)., Social media, mobile and cloud technology use in accounting: Value-analyses in developing economies (1st ed., pp. 9–80). Emerald Publishing limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-160-820201004 Oluwagbemiga, O. E. (2021). The influence of IFRS adoption on the quality of financial reporting in Nigerian listed companies. In lee, C.-F. and Yu, M.-T. (Ed.) Advances in pacific basin business, economics and finance (Vol. 9, pp. 137–160). Emerald Publishing limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-465020210000009005; Omar, N. B., Mohamed, N., Jomitin, B., & Haron, R. (2013). The relevance of forensic accounting in public sector (A study of selected government agencies in Klang Valley). International Conference of Financial Criminology, (28–29 May), 1–14. COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 19 Omolade, O. O., & Tony, O. A. (2014). Effect of corporate governance on the survival and sustainability of banks in Nigeria. American Journal of Engineering Research, 03(02), 73–83. 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. Oti, P. A., & Mbu-Ogar, G. (2018). Analysis of environmental and social disclosure and financial performance of selected quoted oil and gas companies in Nigeria (2012–2016). Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 4(2), 1–12. Oyerogba, E. O. (2018). Corporate governance practices and foreign direct investment: The case of Nigerian listed companies. International Journal of Accounting and Finance, 8(4), 312–339. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAF.2018.10019778 Oyerogba, E. O. (2021). Forensic Auditing mechanisms and fraud detection in the Nigerian public sector. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 11(5), 752–775. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-04-2020-0072 Oyerogba, E. O., Alade, M. E., Idode, P. E., & Ogungbade, O. I. (2017). Impact of board oversight functions on the performance of listed companies in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Management Information System, 16(3), 143–151. Oyerogba, E. O., Memba, F., & Riro, G. K. (2016). Impact of board size and firm’s characteristics on the profitability of listed companies. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 7(4), 143–115. Oyewumi, O. R., Ogunmeru, O. A., & Oboh, C. S. (2018). Investment in corporate social responsibility, disclosure practices, and financial performance of banks in Nigeria. Future Business Journal, 4(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fbj.2018.06.004 Phiri, J., Malec, K., Majune, S., Appiah-Kubi, S., Gebeltová, Z., Kotásková, S., Maitah, M., Maitah, K., & Naluwooza, P. (2021). Durability of Zambia’s agricultural exports. Agriculture, 11(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11010073 Raposo, M., Fernandes, C. I., & Veiga, P. M. (2021). We dreamed a dream that entrepreneurial ecosystems can promote sustainability. Management of Environmental Quality, 33(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-01-2021-0010 Sanyaolu, W. A., Sanni, M. R., Sultanova, M., Kenzhin, Z., Kuangaliyeva, T., & Adesina, B. H. (2023). Board gender diversity and corporate social responsbility. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2257834. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2023.2257834 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2018). SEC revised guidelines for sustainable financial principle. https:// sec.gov.ng Seda, D., & Kramer, N. (2014). Standalone CSR reporting by US retail companies. Accounting Forum, 38(2), 132–144. Shamil, M., Shaikh, J., Ho, P., & 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 Sultana, N., Singh, H., & Van der Zahn, J.-l. (2015). Audit committee characteristics and audit report lag. International Journal of Auditing, 19(2), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12033 Syder, I. D., Ogbonna, G. N., & Akani, F. N. (2020). The effect of sustainability accounting report on shareholder value of quoted oil and gas companies in Nigeria. International Journal of Management Sciences, 7(5), 44–57. Tauringana, V., Kyeyune, M. F., & Opio, P. J. (2008). Corporate governance, dual language reporting and the timeliness of annual reports on the Nairobi Stock Exchange. In M. Tsamenyi & S. Uddin (Eds), Research in accounting in emerging economies, corporate governance in less developed and emerging economies (Vol. 8, pp. 13–37). Emerald. Thomsen, C. (2013). Sustainability (World Commission on Environment and Development Definition) BT - encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility (pp. 2358–2363). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_531 Tran, M., Beddewela, E., & Ntim, C. G. (2021). Governance and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Accounting Research Journal, 34(6), 516–545. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-05-2019-0095) USEPA. (2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) international decontamination research and development conference (EPA/600/R-15/283). Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Uwuigbe, U. (2018). Sustainability reporting and firm performance: A bi-directional approach. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 1–16. World Bank. (2017). World development report 2017: Governance and the law. The World Bank Group.