SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING AND FINANCIAL

PERFORMANCE OF LISTED NON- FINANCIAL COMPANIES IN

NIGERIA

IHIMEKPEN, Aigbe Friday

PG/16/019861/ BMS

IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA

OCTOBER, 2021

i
 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING AND FINANCIAL
PERFORMANCE OF LISTED NON- FINANCIAL COMPANIES IN
NIGERIA

IHIMEKPEN, Aigbe Friday

PG/16/019861/ BMS

BEING A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

ACCOUNTING, SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR
OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D IN ACCOUNTING) IN IGBINEDION
UNIVERSITY, OKADA, OKADA, EDO STATE, NIGERIA.

OCTOBER, 2021.

i
 DECLARATION

I, Ihimekkpen Aigbe Friday, A Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) candidate in Accounting Department,

Mallam Sanusi College of Business and Management Studies. Igbinedion University, Okada,

Nigeria, and his hereby declare that this thesis was my original work and has not been submitted,

either in whole or in part for an award of any degree in this or in any other institution of learning

Signature: __________________________
IHIMEKKPEN, Aigbe Friday
PG/16/019861/ BMS

DATE: _____________________
DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING
IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA

ii
 DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to the following;

i. God Almighty for His grace and mercy to finish well.

ii. My late father: Pa. Jacob Ihimekpen Egogo.
iii. My late uncle, Pa. Oriabure Isibor.

iii
 CERTIFICATION

We certify that this thesis written by Ihimekpen, Aigbe Friday, PG/16/019861/ BMS is

adequate in scope and quality in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the Department of Accounting, Malam Sanusi Lamido
Sanusi College of Business and Management Studies, Igbinedion University, Okada, Edo
State, Nigeria.

Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Josiah (CNA, ACA ACTI) ________________ ______________

Head of Department Sign Date

Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Josiah (CNA, ACA ACTI) ________________ ______________

(Supervisor) Sign Date

Dr. Atu, Omimi-Ejor Osaretin K. (FCA, FCTI, FCMA) __________ ______________

(Supervisor) Sign Date

Dr. Ochen E. Charles ________________ ______________

(Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies & Research) Sign Date

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Every successful leaning initiative requires key people to allocate hours to new types of initiatives,

reflection, planning, collaborative work and training. This research could not have seen the light of

day let alone come out in the presentable quality it has, had it not benefited immensely from the

guidance and mentorship of my project supervisors, Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Josiah and Dr. Omimi-Ejor

Kingsley Osaretin Atu. They guided me successfully throughout the writing of this research and

were a source of inspiration. I owe them a world of gratitude.

My gratitude also extends to resource persons in Igbinedion University Okada. I specially mention

Prof. F.O. Izedonmi, Late Prof. E.A. Okoye, Dr. Mrs. Josiah, Dr. Atu, Prof. R. Adeghe for their

dedication and selfless assistance. To my peer colleagues, Dr. Osamende, Dr. Clement and others,

for providing a competitive atmosphere which made me strive harder to achieve this success.

To my wife, Mrs. Juliet Ihimekpen, children: Obehi, Edose, Ehikioya and Oseghale, grandchild,

Laureen Okosun, my mother, Mrs. Rose Ihimekpen, brothers and sisters, Andrew, Victor, Richard

Ivie and Francisca, I declare that all I am today and ever will be is a tribute and declaration to a

family which kept the faith in the face of many obstacles. You have always played a role in the

important stages of my academic and social life. Thanks for your support and prayers.

“God’s gift to us is the many different talents He has endowed us with and what we choose to do

with them in our gift to humanity”. Thank you Lord for such a wonderful deed! And to you my

spiritual fathers, the Rt. Rev. Elabor Gabriel, the Bishop of Esan Diocese, Ven. A. O. T. Akande,

Rev Cann. Ijiehon and all the Priests in St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Eguare, Ekpoma, for your

continuous prayers for me and my household, I say thank you. Lastly to the Bishop’s Court, Auchi

Polytechnic, Auchi, God bless you.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover page
Title page i
Declaration ii
Dedication iii
Certification iv
Acknowledgement v
Table of contents vi
Abstract xi

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Objectives of the Study 6
1.4 Research Questions 7
1.5 Hypothesis of the Study 7
1.6 Significance of the Study 8
1.7 Scope of the Study 9
1.8 Limitations of the Study 10
1.9 Definition of Operational Terms 10

CHAPTER TWO
Review of Related Literature 12
2.0 Introduction 12
2.1 Sustainability Reporting 12
2.1.2 Environmental Sustainability Reporting 13
2.1.3 Social Sustainability Reporting 16
2.1.4 Economic Sustainability Reporting 18
2.1.5 Employee Health and Safety Reporting 18
2.2 Financial Performance 19
2.2.1 Return on Capital Employed 21
2.2.2 Gross Profit after Tax Margin 22
2.2.3 Earnings before Interest and Tax 23
2.2.4 Control Variable 23
2.2.5. Earnings Yield 24
2.2.6 Sustainability Accounting and Reporting 24
2.2.7 Business Case for Sustainability Reporting 27
2.3 Theoretical Framework 29
2.3.1 Stakeholder Theory 29
2.3.2 Legitimacy Theory 30
vi
2.3.3 Agency Theory 32
2.3.4 Political Economy Theory 32
2.4 Theoretical Expository Literature 33
2.4.1 Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance 33
2.4.2 Environmental Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance 34
2.4.3 Social Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance 34
2.4.4 Economic Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance 39
2.4.5 Employee Health and Safety Sustainability Reporting and Financial
Performance 40
2.5 Empirical Review 41
2.5.1 Webometric Analysis of Review Literature 66

CHAPTER THREE
Methodology 80
3.0 Introduction 80
3.1 Research Design 80
3.2 Sources of Data 80
3.3 Population of Study 81
3.4 Sampling Size 81
3.5 Sampling Technique 82
3.6 Method of Data Analysis 82
3.7 Method of Data Collection 83
3.7.1 Content Analysis 83
3.8 Model Specification 84
3.9 Operationalization of variables 85
3.10 Decision Rule 86

CHAPTER FOUR
Data Presentation and Analysis 87
4.0 Introduction 87
4.1 Data Presentation 87
4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics Discussion 89
4.1.2 Test for Normality of Residua 91
4.1.3 Correlation Analysis 92
4.1.4 Regression Analysis 94
4.1.5 Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Test 94
4.1.6 Test for Heteroscedasticity 94
4.1.7 Test for Fixed Effect (FE) 95
4.1.8 Test for Random Effect 95
4.1.9 Least Square Dummy Variable Estimator 97
4.2 Test of Hypotheses 99

vii
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion of Findings 103
5.0 Introduction 103
5.1 Environmental Sustainability Reporting 103
5.2 Social Sustainability Reporting 104
5.3 Employee Health and Safety Sustainability Reporting 105
5.4 Economic Sustainability Reporting 106

CHAPTER SIX

Summary of Finding, Conclusion and Recommendation 107

6.0 Introduction 107
6.1 Summary of Findings 107
6.2 Conclusion 108
6.3 Recommendation 109
6.4 Contribution to knowledge 110
6.5 Suggestions for Further studies 110
References 112
Appendix I 119
Appendix II 138

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Presentation of Variable Measurement and Sources 85

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics by Sector 88

Table 4.2 Test for Normality of Residence 91

Table 4.3 Spearman Rank Correlation Matrix Result 93

Table 4.4 Panel Least Square Regression Diagnostic Result 96

Table 4.5 Least Square Dummy Variable and Result Least Square 98

Regression Estimators

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 29

x
 ABSTRACT

The broad objective of this study was to examine the effect of sustainability reporting on
financial performance of non-financial listed companies in Nigeria. To achieve that objective,
the study specifically sought to ascertain the extent to which environmental sustainability
reporting, social sustainability reporting, employee health and safety sustainability reporting,
and economic sustainability reporting affected accounting and market performance proxies
(Gross Profit after Tax, Earnings before Interest and Tax and Return on Capital Employed). In
this study, ex-post facto research design was employed on panel data which was sourced from
related company annual financial reports. Pooled Ordinary Least Square (POLS) regression
analysis was conducted, and diagnostic test conducted to ensure that there was no violation of
a vital least square assumption while the formulated hypotheses were tested based on the
uniqueness of the specified model. In this study the least square dummy variable regression was
employed on Return on Capital Employed and Gross Profit after Tax Margin models while
Robust Least Square Regression analyses technique was employed on Earnings before Interest
and Tax model. The probability values, (p- values) of the regression results formed the basis
for decision making. The findings revealed that environmental sustainability reporting had a
positive and significant effect on the performance measure of earnings before interest and tax,
but it revealed an insignificant effect on return on capital employed and gross profit after tax
margin. That was seen to be consistent with the legitimacy theory which suggested that
corporate duties did not end at reaping profit but that commitment to environmental support
programme and activities would result in profit for shareholders. It was found that social
sustainability reporting had both positive and negative effects on performance to the extent that
while it was seen to be negative on return on capital employed and gross profit after tax, its
effect on earnings before interest and tax was positive. Therefore, it was recommended that
policies that would sustain reporting on environmental issues (such as mandatory disclosure on
environmental issues) should be encouraged since it had been shown to be beneficial to the
health and survival of the firms. Furthermore, corporate managers should show genuineness in
their motives and purposes while pursuing social sustainability objectives as it would minimize
the risk of incurring losses. Moreover, organizations should strive towards satisfying specific
needs of customers as that would go a long way to increasing the chances that policies on
social sustainability engagement would get approval, and accordingly minimize corporate
losses.

Keywords: Return on Capital Employed, Gross Profit, Environmental Sustainability,

Economics Sustainability and Social Sustainability

Word Count: 420

xi
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The key objective of any organization is to consistently grow and survive on a long-term basis.

Most managers are also aware that their organizations are part of a large system which has

profound direct and indirect influence on their operations. This implies that if these organizations

must effectively and efficiently meet their objectives, they should properly adapt themselves to

their environments (Baboukardos & Rimmel, 2016). Adapting organizations (especially large

firms) to their environments signifies a reciprocal or a symbiotic relationship between the ‘duos’ as

typified by systems model of viewing business, which is in line with the position taken by Kim,

Park and Wier (2012) and Dalal, and Thaker (2019) who noted that due to the current

environmental crisis, businesses must give more to their environment. In 2011, the International

Federation of Accountants (IFAC) developed a sustainability framework which enabled business

organizations to incorporate sustainability issues in their business approach, process and reporting

practices. The reporting aspect of IFAC’s sustainability framework involves providing audit and

assurance on sustainability performance to enhance the credibility of sustainability reports,

incorporating sustainability impacts in financial statements and employing narrative reporting to

capture sustainability information not included in financial statements.

Furthermore, studies such as those of Abdullah, Ashraf and Sarfraz (2017), Baboukardos and

Rimmel (2016) have shown that there is continuing concern about nature fragmentation and loss of

biodiversity, shortages in freshwater availability, over-fishing of the seas, global warming, extreme

weather events, air pollution, water pollution, environmental noise and utter neglect of and

disregard for the protection of the immediate environment, much more the future environment. This

type of environmental unsustainability associated with continuously rising demand and a shrinking

resource base now spills over into social and economic instability. Therefore, from the foregoing, it

is seen that many businesses now look to be part of the solutions because of a business organization

1
is central to the problem hence, it must be central to the solution (Choi & Lee, 2018). Indeed, the

expectations of sustainability in areas such as environmental protection, human rights, human

capital and product safety are rising rapidly. Key stakeholders such as shareholders, employees and

financial institutions want business to be responsible, accountable, and transparent. Unerman,

Bebbington and O’Dwyer (2007) state that human activities taking which took place today were

regarded by some people as having a detrimental impact on society, ecology and economy which

future generations would experience. Indeed, this is a position ever more widely accepted by a

growing number of people all over the world. For example, only a very small proportion of

scientists including Choi and Lee (2018) argue that human activity is not a major contributory

factor to the global warming which is causing wide scale environmental damage – and which is

likely to cause even more damage to the ecosphere unless substantive action is taken to reduce the

levels of many pollutants.

Even more, scholars argue that the growing social injustice being experienced and the growing

damage to the ecosphere are a result of a dominant – and almost unquestioned – objective of

maximizing economic growth characterized by energy and material-intensive production and

exploitative social relations yielding socially and environmentally unsustainability (Unerman et al,

2007). In Du and Zhang (2020) opinion, the positive response of business leaders to these issues

help companies mitigate risks, protect corporate brand, gain a competitive advantage, help reduce

poverty and improve the quality of life for many. In some extreme cases, companies may see their

licenses to operate threatened if their key stakeholders perceive significant discrepancies between

their own values and the companies’ values. Unerman, Bebbington and O’dwyer (2007) maintained

that one way to look at these issues was in terms of the long-term need to ensure that economic

activities were socially and environmentally sustainable. In the short-term, it may be possible to

have economic growth while damaging society and the environment but, in the long-term, this is

impossible (Abdullah, Ashraf & Sarfraz, 2017). Therefore, if businesses operate in a manner which

causes damage to society thereby causing a break down in the social harmony necessary to provide
2
a stable context for operation, then such business activities are neither economically nor socially

sustainable. In the longer term, if business activities cause a level to damage to the ecosphere such

that it cannot sustain human life, then it is clearly neither socially nor economically sustainable as

there can be no economic activities - let alone economic growth – without human life to sustain it.

There is now increasing awareness that companies are made increasingly responsible for

consequential environmental and social impact of their activities on host communities and other

stakeholders. According to Ekwueme (2011), the big corporations once looked upon as the

exclusive concern of its owners are now viewed as being responsible to society also. This implies

that companies no longer pay attention to the maximization of shareholder’s wealth alone but, as

noted by Gupta and Gupta (2020), were embracing activities that tended to maximize the benefits

accruable to all the stakeholders. This, to a larger extent means that companies respond positively

to issues of sustainability. Thus, White (2009) maintained that the pressure on corporations to

reassure the public of their good behaviour had increased organizations’ attention to their

stakeholders and stockholders. Business managers are beginning to see that this approach to

conducting business must become a part of their companies’ strategy to prosper in the future. There

is the increased expectation of all companies to be more transparent in how they treat the

environment, handle their corporate governance issues, treat their employees and communities

Duke II & Kankpang 2013; Edwards, 2016). According to Epstein (2008), corporations have

become more sensitive to social issues and stakeholder concerns, and are striving to become better

corporate citizens. Whether the motivation is concern for society and environment, government

regulation, stakeholder pressures or economic profit, the result is that managers must make

significant changes to manage their social, economic and environmental impact more effectively.

Hart (2007) explained that corporations were the only organizations with resources, technology,

global reach and ultimately, the motivation to achieve sustainability. In response to their

sustainable development policies and practices, many companies claim that they recognize their

3
social and environmental responsibilities in addition to their economic responsibilities and seek to

manage and account for these activities in an appropriate manner (Hubbard, 2008).

Statistics from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reflect the trend in sustainability reporting and

as noted by Peiyuan, Xubiao and Ningdi (2007), the number of enterprises writing sustainability

reports based on GRI framework worldwide increased from 150 in 2002 to 750 in 2005. The

number of sustainability reports registered on the GRI Reports list increased by 22 percent (GRI,

2011). Therefore, an understanding of the basis of this reporting system and how it affects

corporate performance is very crucial in determining the essence of its application. It provided the

justification for this study whether sustainability reporting reflected on the performance of listed

firms in Nigeria.

1.2 Statement of the Research Problem

People all over the world express considerable concern about the damage to the environment by

companies and its effects on their lives. There have been calls for firms to engage in activities in a

sustainable and responsible manner. Adegboyegun, Alade, Ben-Caleb, Ademola, Eluyela,and

Oladipo (2020) observed that such calls were not really heard as information about sustainability

was not being captured in the annual reports of some corporations and that made them not to be

accountable to their immediate environment. Also, the increasing awareness that companies should

be held responsible for the consequential social impact of their activities on the host communities

and other stakeholders has put pressure on companies to reassure the public of their good

behaviour. As a result, companies no longer lay all emphasis on the maximization of shareholders’

wealth alone but now embrace activities that tend to maximize the benefits accruable to all

stakeholders. Firms are now conscious that involvement in controversial events that may damage

the company’s credibility and reputation in the market, might negatively affect both the financial

and market performance and the sustainable growth of the company (Oprean-Stan, Oncioiu, Iuga &

Stan, 2020). This, to a larger extent, means that companies are made to respond positively to issues

4
of sustainability, making it clear that sustainable development is an important concept to the future

fortunes of nations and individuals (White, 2009; Edwards, 2005).

The realization that being socially and environmentally responsible can facilitate long-term growth

goals, raise productivity and optimize shareholder value has made sustainability issue a major

concern for businesses of all sizes to preserve capital for future generations (Oprean-Stanet et al,

2020). This consciousness has led an increasing number of firms to provide sustainability reports in

addition to the traditional reporting framework. It is worthy to note here that while some countries

of the world have made regulations for sustainability reports others are providing information about

sustainability issues on a voluntary basis (Hu, Du & Zhang 2020).

Some extant studies focused on the determinants which influenced sustainability disclosures in

firms (Sharma, Panday & Dangwal, 2020; Vitolla, Raimo, Rubino & Garzoni, 2020; Dyduch &

Krasodomska, 2017; Kuzey & Uyar, 2017; Giannarakis, 2014; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). Others

focused on the value relevance of sustainability disclosures (Aureli, Gigli, Medei & Supino, 2020;

Cordazzo, Bini & Marzo, 2020; Baboukardos & Rimmel, 2016; Ntim, Opong & Danbolt, 2012)

while some others examined the link between sustainability disclosures and firm performance

which was closely related to this present study.

Furthermore, we found that existing studies on the effect of sustainability reporting on firm

performance produced conflicting views. For instance. Albitar, Hussainey, Kolade and Gerged

(2020), Hongming, Ahmed, Hussain, Rehman, Ullah and Khan (2020); Emeka-Nwokeji and

Osisioma (2019), Amran and Siti-Nabiha (2017), Guthrie, Cuganesan and Ward (2016); Ifurueze,

Lydon and Bingilar (2013) and Menassa (2010) documented the positive effect of different

measures of sustainability and social and environmental disclosures on financial performance of

firms. Ezejiofor, Rachael and Chigbo (2016), Dibua and Onwuchekwa (2015), Emeakponuzo and

Udih (2015) and Bessong and Tapang (2016) established a negative insignificant effect of

sustainability disclosures on firm performance. Specifically, the results by Nnamani, Onyekwelu

5
and Ugwu (2017) and Usman and Amran (2015) showed that sustainability information disclosure

led to a decrease in both accounting and market proxies for financial performance while Emeka-

Nwokeji and Osisioma (2019), Amran and Siti-Nabiha (2017), Guthrie, Cuganesan and Ward

(2016), Ifurueze, Lydon and Bingilar (2013) and Menassa (2010) documented a positive effect of

sustainability information disclosure on both accounting and market base proxies for firm

performance. In the light of those contradictory results obtained from existing literature conducted

using Nigerian data, this study sought to find out the effect of sustainability reporting on corporate

performance (accounting & market proxies) of listed companies in Nigeria. The study provided up

to date knowledge of empirical evidence from samples collected from all industries embedded

within the non-financial sector which most previous related studies in Nigeria did not consider.

Furthermore, several related studies had analysed the impact of environmental, social and

governance sustainability information reporting on firm performance but only a handful studies

Ioannou & Serafeim 2019; Khaveh, Nikhashemi, Yousefi & Haque 2012; Mishra & Suar 2010).

(considered economic sustainability disclosure (another proxy for social sustainability) effect on

firm performance. Hence, this study was motivated by two key ideas: expanding sectoral coverage

of prior related studies and introducing a rare measure of sustainability disclosure of evaluating the

effect of sustainability reporting on financial performance of companies in Nigeria.

1.3 Objective of the Study

The main objective of this study was to investigate the effect of sustainability reporting on the

financial Performance of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. Specifically, this study intended to:

1. Ascertain the effect of Environmental Sustainability Reporting on the Financial

Performance of listed non-Financial Companies in Nigeria

2. Evaluate the impact of Social Sustainability Reporting on the Financial Performance of

listed Non-financial Companies in Nigeria.

3. Analyse the effect of Economic Sustainability Reporting on the Financial Performance of

listed Non-financial Companies in Nigeria.

6
 4. Examine the effect of Employee Health and Safety Sustainability Reporting on the financial

Performance of listed Non-financial Companies in Nigeria.

1.4 Research Questions

In line with the objectives of this study, the following research questions were set up to guide the

study.

1. What is the effect of Environmental Sustainability Reporting on the Financial Performance

of listed non-financial companies in Nigeria?

2. How does Social Sustainability Reporting affect the Financial Performance of listed non-

financial companies in Nigeria?

3. To what extent does Economic Sustainability Reporting affect the Financial Performance of

listed non-financial firms in Nigeria?

4. How does Employee Health and Safety Sustainability Reporting affect the Financial

Performance of listed non-financial companies in Nigeria?

1.5 Hypotheses of the Study

The following null hypotheses were presented to guide this study:

Ho1 Environmental Sustainability reporting has no significant effect on the Financial Performance

of listed Non-financial Companies in Nigeria

Ho2 Social Sustainability Reporting has no significant effect on the Financial Performance of listed

non-financial companies in Nigeria.

Ho3: Economic Sustainability Reporting has no significant effect on the Financial Performance of

listed non-financial companies in Nigeria.

Ho4: Employee Health and Safety Sustainability Reporting has no significant effect on the

Financial Performance of listed Non-financial Companies in Nigeria.

7
1.6 Significance of Study
The significance of this research was viewed from two major perspectives: practice and academic.

Practical Significance: This research would assist various stakeholders in the following ways:

Organizations Management
Sustainability reporting is rapidly evolving, and different standards and frameworks have emerged.

This research would assist organizations’ management in determining which sustainability

standards and guidelines to follow.

Regulatory Authorities
From a regulatory perspective, there are currently no legislative requirements in Nigeria for

companies to prepare and publish sustainability reports. This research would help in enhancing the

scope of knowledge of regulatory authorities like the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and the

legislative arm of government in putting in place regulations that encourage sustainability

reporting.

Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria

From a standard setting perspective, there is currently no local standard set for companies to

prepare and publish sustainability reports. This research would serve as a wakeup call for the

Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria to put machinery in place for sustainability reporting

standard or guidelines.

Local Communities and other Stakeholders

This research l help to educate local communities where these companies operate and other

stakeholders like employees and social and environmental non-governmental organizations

regarding the adequacy and potentials of social sustainability reporting to meet their information

needs and help them hold companies to account.

Companies yet to adopt Sustainability Reporting

This research will help companies that are yet to adopt Sustainability Reporting practices to

understand the pros and cons of this evolving reporting system and its impact on corporate

8
performance. They will be better placed to take decision on whether to adopt this reporting system

or not.

Professional Accountancy Bodies

This is a study on a contemporary issue in accounting development. It will enrich the mandatory

continuing programs of professional accountancy bodies in Nigeria.

Academic Significance
In academics, the significance of this research would been seen in from the following ways:

It would contribute to the enrichment of the literature on sustainability reporting and provide more

knowledge to students, scholars, and academics on the relationship between sustainability reporting

and corporate performance of companies. The research would serve as a body of reserved

knowledge for reference by researchers.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The aim trust of this study was to ascertain the effect of sustainability reporting on corporate

performance of non-financial companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange Group. The independent

variable of the study was sustainability reporting disclosure which was. This is measured as

environmental sustainability reporting, social sustainability reporting, employee health and safety

reporting and economic sustainability. However, the dependent variables of the study were

performance indicators measured as, return on capital employed, gross profit after tax margin, and

earnings before interest and tax which spanned a ten-year period, beginning from 2010 to 2019. In

this study, we included earnings yield as a variable to control the specified econometric models.

Some of the theories that provided the baseline expectations regarding the justification for

sustainability reporting and financial performance in the corporate environment were the legitimacy

(Deegan, 2007) stakeholder (King 2002), agency (Jenseen and Meckling, 1976) and political

economics (Gray, Olwen and Adams, 1996).

9
1.8 Limitations of Study
The study was limited firms within the non-financial sector of the Nigerian Exchange Group.

Hence financial companies which includes banks, mortgage houses, and insurance companies have

not been captured. Further, the study is limited to a sample size of sample size of seventy-five (75)

non-financial companies. Our technique of data analyses is limited to effects regression estimation

technique which may not be able to cater for the problem of endogeneity and the word count

content analyses measurement of corporate sustainability proxies employed may suffer some error

of parallax.

1.9 Definition of Operational Terms

Sustainability Reporting: A report published by a company or an organization about economic,

environmental and social impacts caused by its everyday activities.

Firm Performance: Is a set of financial and non- financial indicators which give information on

the extent of achievement of objectives and results.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): Is an Independent International organization launched in 1997

by the Environmentally Responsible Coalition (CERES) and the United Nations’ Environmental

Programme (UNEP) with the mission to support companies to make decisions on the sustainable

development of their businesses.

Return on Assets (ROA): The return on assets shows the percentage of how profitable a

company’s assets are in generating revenue.

Return n Equity (ROE): This is a measure of the profitability of a business in relation to the

equity. It is also known as net assets, that is, assets minus liabilities.

Dividend Per Share (DPS): This is the sum of declared dividends issued by a company for every

ordinary share outstanding.

Financial Information: This is a formal record of the financial activities and position of a

business, person or other entities. Relevant financial information is presented in a structured

manner and in a form easy to understand.

10
Social Sustainability: Social sustainability is the process or framework that promotes well-being

within an organization’s own members while also supporting the ability of future generations to

maintain a healthy community.

Economic Sustainability: Economic sustainability refers to practices that support long-term

economic growth without negatively impacting the social, environmental and cultural aspects of the

community.

Environmental Sustainability: Environmental sustainability is the rate of renewable resources

harvest, pollution creation and non- renewable resources depletion that can be continued

indefinitely.

After Tax Profit Margin: After tax profit margin is the percentage of revenue that remains after

all operating expenses, interest, taxes and preferred stock dividends have been deducted from a

company’s total revenue.

Earnings Before Interest and Tax: Earnings before interest and tax is an indicator of the

company’s profitability.

11
 CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction
This chapter provides the literature for key concepts which relate to both dependent and

independent variables. These gives rise to different authors’ perception and idea on different

concepts employed in this study.

2.1 Sustainability Reporting

There is no single, generally accepted definition of sustainability reporting. It is a broad term

generally used to describe a company’s reporting on its economic, environmental and social

performance (Mishra & Suar 2010). It can be synonymous with triple bottom line reporting,

corporate responsibility reporting and sustainable development reporting, but increasingly, these

terms have become more specific in meaning and therefore, subsets of sustainability reporting

(Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler KPMG, 2008). Schaltegger (2004) defined sustainability

reporting as a subset of accounting and reporting that deals with activities, methods and systems to

record, analyse and report, firstly, environmentally and socially induced financial impacts and

secondly, ecological and social impacts of a defined economic system (example, a company).

Thirdly, sustainability reporting deals with the measurement, analysis and communication of

interactions and links among social, environmental and economic issues constituting the three

dimensions of sustainability (Ioannou & Serafeim (2019)

Sustainability reporting has become more prevalent, driven by a growing recognition that

sustainability related issues can materially affect a company’s performance, demands from various

stakeholder groups for increased levels of transparency and disclosure and the need for companies

(and the business community more generally) to appropriately respond to issues of sustainable

development (KPMG, 2008; Ivan, 2009). According to the Parliament of Australia (2010),

sustainability reporting involves companies and organizations demonstrating their corporate

responsibility through measuring and publicly reporting on their economic, social and

environmental performance and impacts. However, some of the more useful definitions of
12
sustainability reporting include that given by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). According to

GRI (2011), sustainability reporting is the practice of measuring, disclosing and being accountable

to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance of the goals of sustainable

development. Similarly, Dow Jones sustainability index in KPMG (2008) looked at sustainability

reporting as a business approach that created long term shareholder value by embracing

opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social developments.

Corporate sustainability leaders achieve long term shareholder value by gearing their strategies and

management to harness the market’s potential for sustainability products and services while, at the

same time, successfully reducing and avoiding sustainability cost and risks. According to Arndt,

Isenmann, Brosowski, Thiessen and Marx-Gomez (2006), sustainability reporting has its roots in

environmental or non-financial reporting. It describes a development path towards a concept of

balanced reporting of an organization, often communicating the three pillars of environmental,

social and economic performance and its mutual interrelations that in business terms, are called the

triple bottom line approach or social sustainability reporting respectively.

2.1.2 Environmental Sustainability Reporting

Environmental reporting and its later development into sustainability reporting has been the most

important aspect of accounting and the environment especially in the last two decades (Gray,

2014). Environmental reporting provides a strategic framework for achieving a holistic re-appraisal

of corporate performance. Although it is not a new concept, environmental reporting remains an

interesting area of discourse for academics and an intensely debatable issue for business managers

and their stakeholders. According to Deegan and Rankin (1996), corporate environmental

sustainability reporting refers to the way and manner by which a company communicates the

environmental effects of its activities to particular interest groups within society and to society at

large. Companies, through the process of environmental communication, may seek to influence the

public’s perception of their operations. They attempt to create a good image as they interact with

the environment at large, including the use of natural resources and a company’s impact on earth’s
13
ecosystems, compliance with environmental regulations, leadership in addressing climate change,

energy-efficient operations, renewable energy, natural resource conservation, pollution prevention

programmes, strategy towards sustainable development and programmes to engage stakeholders in

environmental improvement. Considering that accounting provides the most important corporate

system of information collection and analysis in environmental accounting context, it means that

someone has the duty to give an explanation of how resources have been used (Schaltegger &

Burritt, 2000). Therefore, the goal of environmental accounting is to prepare environmental reports

for interested users. According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA 1998), environmental

reports are “the principal vehicle for company communication on the environment and a fair and

credible reflection of the company’s environmental activities.

Environmental reports are provided to inform stakeholders about companies’ environmental

responsibilities, ensure business transparency and create the reputation of responsible partners who

contribute to environmental protection and the quality of life of the local community. A pre-

requisite for good environmental reporting is the establishment of an environmental management

system and the foundation for any substantive environmental accounting (Gray, 2014). Therefore,

the integration of and synergies between environmental management system and environmental

accounting are needed in encompassing environmental aspects. The disclosure of environmental

information can be viewed as an instrument which can help in the management of precious

environmental resources (Batra, 2013). Environmental reporting can be considered as a business

practice that demonstrates companies’ commitment to addressing environmental issues. However,

the implementation of environmental accounting, collecting environmental data and preparing

environmental reports are not easy tasks. There are many obstacles that can affect this process. In

previous research, authors discussed various influencing factors. For example, Doody (2010)

pointed to knowledge deficiency, owner and manager attitudes, human resources, finance, customer

attitudes, operational structure of a company as well as legislation and accreditation, as the barriers

in implementing environmental practices. Hillary and Burr (2011) pointed out that not engaging

14
employees in the process of environmental management, lack of internal skills, knowledge and

experience, complexity of the management system, unclear benefits, limited human resources and

cost of external support were the main barriers to environmental management implementation

which was likely to affect the implementation of environmental reporting processes.

Corporate environmental reporting has become a tool for promoting companies’ communication,

demonstrating their accountability regarding environmental issues, and providing useful

information for decision-making. It refers to the systematic and holistic statements of

environmental burden and environmental efforts in organizations’ activities such as environmental

policies, objectives, programmes and their outcomes and organizational structures in accordance

with the general reporting principles of environmental reporting (Ministry of the Environment,

Japan Government, 2004). Motivating forces for environmental reporting can be both internal and

external, tangible and intangible, financial or ethical. The reasons for reporting have changed over

the years. The Global Reporting Initiative (2011) documented that some of the main motives for the

reporting were: (a) to show commitment and be transparent; (b) to demonstrate the ability to

participate in competitive markets; (c) to plan activities, become more sustainable and position the

company; and (d) to comply with regulations.

Corporate environmental reporting is a contemporary management tool that companies can use to

provide information to external stakeholders and find opportunities to improve internal processes,

gain benefits and ensure its own sustainability. Environmental reports (a) enable greater distinction

of companies in terms of environmental risk which is the purpose sought by the business

community; and (b) adequate accountability to the community which is the purpose sought by the

regulating entities, non-government organizations and society (Borges & Bergamini, 2001).

Companies report environmental information to respond to stakeholders expectations and

contribute to the welfare of society (Morsing & Schultz, 2006), to manage their own legitimacy

(Reverte, 2009), to preserve their reputation (Reynolds & Yuthas, 2008), and to make profitability

in the long run by reducing information asymmetry (Merkl-Davies & Brennan, 2007, Du; 2010).
15
Corporate environmental reporting as an important part of sustainability reporting instills discipline

and helps a company think about and define its long-term while raising awareness of sustainable

practices in the whole organization (Association of Certified Chartered Accountants ACCA, 2013).

Corporate environmental reports are the result of functioning an internal system for collecting,

analyses and processing data on the company’s environmental aspects. Hence, it is a systematic and

formal approach to addressing environmental impacts and integrating environmental issues into

business processes. Due to the growing pressure for companies to consider the environmental

effects of their operations, accounting and disclosure of environmental matters have rapidly

emerged as an important dimension of environmental management (Batra, 2013).

2.1.3 Social Sustainability Reporting

Social sustainability includes improving human resource related practices (e.g.) employees’

training and development, employees’ health and safety, diversity, equal opportunity and wage

discrimination issues), addressing consumers’ issues (e.g.) customers’ health & safety, product

labelling, communication practices, customers’ complaints and compliance with product laws),

protecting human rights (e.g.) freedom of association, removing child labour issues, non-

discrimination and other safety measures, etc.), and addressing other issues of broader stakeholders

and community concerns such as involving the local community, reducing corruption, showing

public policy concerns, discouraging anti-competitive behaviour, and complying with the law (GRI

3.1 2011). The concept gained prominence as a result of the ethical perspective of the organizations

which recognized the value of social responsibilities in addition to their prime objective of wealth

maximization.

Social sustainability can be described as a company’s commitment to behave socially and

environmentally responsibly while striving for its economic goals. It includes the company’s

relationship with all its stakeholders, from market-related stakeholders (customers, share owners,

suppliers) to internal (e.g., employees, board of directors) or societal stakeholders (e.g.,

16
government, Non-Governmental Organizations). It is assumed that the variety of stakeholders and

their concerns lead to corporate responsibility including economic, environmental and social

aspects (Zink & Steimle 2008). Social sustainability is a hard–edged business decision not because

it is a nice thing to do or because people force us to do it but because it is good for our business

(Akinyomi, 2013). According to McWilliams and Siegel (2001), social sustainability refers to

doing all those activities which are not forced by law of those countries where they operate their

businesses, and which are not for the primary benefits of the business but for the benefits of the

society. Likewise, social sustainability is expressed as a persistent commitment by the businesses

regardless of their nature, to behave in a way that aligns with ethics and contributes to the economic

development by fine-tuning and improving the standard of living of the people.

Mughal (2014) argued that it was a persistent commitment by businesses, regardless of their nature,

to behave in a way that was in line with ethics and contribute to economic development which had

been declared as an integral part of governance. Tilt (1999) documented that social sustainability

was a mechanism whereby companies disclosed the social and environmental aspects of their

corporate activities to their stakeholders. It was also seen as the process of communicating

information (both financial and non-financial) about the resources and social performance of the

reporting entity (Dutta & Bose, 2007). Furthermore, it was seen as an organization’s commitment

to operate in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner while recognizing the

interests of all its stakeholders (Carrol 1991). But Dahlsrud (2008) opined that social sustainability

was a social construct that could not be universally defined. However, for the success of any

organization, corporate social disclosure is dependent upon its corporate social orientation, values

and largely, on its ethical orientation (Logsdon & Yuthas, 1997).

The European Commission (2002) provided a broader definition of social sustainability. It stated

that “corporate social responsibility is about companies having responsibilities and taking actions

beyond their legal obligations and economic/business aims. These wider responsibilities cover a

17
range of areas but are frequently summed up as social and environmental where social means

society broadly defined, rather than simply social policy issues. This can be summed up as the

triple bottom line approach: i.e. economic, social and environmental”. Rahman (2011) then

explored the dimensions of social sustainability concept and concluded with a ten dimension which

social sustainability covered to include: obligation to society; stakeholders’ involvement;

improving the quality of life; economic development; ethical business practice; law abiding;

voluntariness; human rights; protection of environment; transparency; and accountability.

2.1.4 Economic Sustainability Reporting

Economic sustainability aims to keep the capital intact. If social sustainability focuses on

improving social equality, economic sustainability aims to improve the standard of living. In the

context of business, it refers to the efficient use of assets to maintain company profit over time. As

stated by the UK Government (Annual Report 2000, January 2001) “Maintaining high and stable

levels of economic growth is one key objective of sustainable development, hence, abandoning

economic growth is not an option. Sustainable development is more than just economic growth and

the quality of growth matters as well as the quantity.” Critics of this model acknowledge a great

gap in modern accounting practices which do not include the cost of damage to the earth in market

prices (Hawking, 2010). A more recent approach to economics acknowledges the limited

incorporation of ecological and social components in the model. New economics is inclusive of

natural capital (ecological systems) and social capital (relationships amongst people) and

challenges the mantra of capital that continual growth is good and bigger is better if it risks causing

harm to the ecological and human system (Benn et al., 2014).

2.1.5 Employee Health & Safety Sustainability Reporting

The nature of the modern corporate worker’s wellbeing and security arrangement has driven

analysts to note that announcing on worker can best be portrayed as “worker washing” (Behm &

Schneller, 2011; O’Neill; Flanagan & Clarke, 2016) because it ventures a positive picture of

18
companies that, whereas given authenticity, it ought to reflect a company’s work conditions or

workers’ encounters. Work environment is seen as all perspectives of the plan and administration

of the work framework that influence employees’ interactions with the working environment. This

may incorporate the physical plan, counting formats and the built environment, division of work,

utilization of innovation, supervisory structures, human asset administration techniques, and co-

worker intelligence that can influence the physical, mental and enthusiastic workload which

decides the positive or negative results of work for the worker. Be that as it may, there have been

calls to move the wellbeing of workers forward through corporate social duty (Granerud, 2011;

Montero, Araque, Rey, Zwetsloot & van Scheppingen, 2009; Dijkman, 2013). But relative to other

zones of social sustainability such as the characteristic environment, there is the need for

information on how representative concerns tend to incorporate social duty detailing.

2.2 Financial Performance

The subject of financial performance has received significant attention from scholars in various

areas of business and strategic management (Jat, 2006). It has also been the primary concern of

business practitioners (managers and entrepreneurs in all types of organizations) because corporate

performance is essential in organizations’ success stories because of their perceived effectiveness

and efficiency in managing their operations and their positive contributions to the well-being of

their stakeholders. But low performance organizations owe to their lack of such essential attributes

(Makhamreh, 2000).

Performance is however, a difficult concept in terms of definition and measurement. It has been

defined as the result of activity and the appropriate measure selected to assess corporate

performance is considered to depend on the type of organization to be evaluated and the objectives

to be achieved through that evaluation (Hunger & Wheelan, 1997). According to the Encyclopedia

of Business (2011), performance measures can be grouped into two basic types: those that relate to

results (outputs or outcomes such as competitiveness or financial performance) and those that focus

on the determinants of the results (inputs such as quality, flexibility, resource utilization and
19
innovation). This suggests that performance measurement frameworks can be built around the

concepts of results and determinants. Zuriekat, Salameh and Alrawashdeh (2011) on the other hand

opined that performance measurement systems were considered information systems that were used

to evaluate both individual and organizational performance. Until recently, companies concentrated

on the use of financial performance measures as the foundation of performance measurement and

evaluation purposes. According to Lin and Liu (2005), in business management, financial ratios are

usually one of the indicators used to evaluate a firm’s performance. Generally, the financial

information of a company’s business operations will be reported in the yearly financial statements,

and a financial ratio simply constitutes one item divided by another in the financial statement.

Financial ratios can be viewed as a preliminary reference to the analysis of the business

performance. This agrees with Osisioma’s (1996) assertion that “ratios relate one set of values to

another, with the resulting quotient serving as a measure, a standard or a norm by which

performance is judged.”

Traditionally, the measurement of a firm’s performance usually employs a financial ratio method

because it provides a simple description about the firm’s financial performance in comparison with

previous periods, helps to improve its performance of management. According to Berger and Patti

(2002) the measures of firm performance are usually ratios fashioned from financial statements or

stock market prices such as industry-adjusted operating margins or stock market returns. Glautier

and Underdown (2001) maintained that there were two aspects of a company’s financial

performance of interest to investors. First, its financial performance could be assessed by reference

to its ability to generate profit. That agreed with Pandey’s (2005) assertion that it was assumed that

profit maximization caused the efficient allocation of resources under the competitive market

conditions, and profit was considered as the most appropriate measure of a firm’s performance. Hill

and Jones (2009) also asserted that the key measure of a company’s financial performance was its

profitability.

20
Thus, ratios of financial efficiency in this respect focus on the relationship between profit and sales

and profit and assets employed. Second, the company’s financial performance may be assessed in

terms of the value of its shares to investors. In this way, the ratios of financial performance focus

on earnings per share, dividend yield and price/ earnings ratios (Said & Tumin 2011). The ratios

used to measure the overall profit performance of a firm are termed profitability ratios. Pandey

(1995) and Khan and Jain (2004) maintained that profitability ratios were determined based on

either sales or investment. According to Osisioma (1996), the ratios are aimed at bringing to light

the profitability of a firm’s operation, the management efficiency as measured by the returns on

capital employed and the intensity of capital usage – the rapidity with which invested capital is

turned over. Osisioma (1996) identified the following profitability ratios in his study: Return on

capital employed or return on investment; return on equity; and net profit margin and gross profit

margin. Pandey (1995) state that the profitability of the common shareholders’ investment could

also be measured in many other ways. One such measure was to calculate the earnings per share

which was the most used measure of entities performance. It indicated the amount of net profit after

tax, minority interest and extraordinary items that were attributable to each ordinary share in issue

and ranking for dividend in the period (Ofoegbu, 2003). However, three different performance

measures which are well established in performance literature have been chosen for the purpose of

this study. These measures include; return on capital employed, gross profit after tax margin and

earnings before Interest and Tax and they have been briefly explained below.

2.2.1 Return on Capital Employed

Return on capital employed (ROCE) is a financial ratio that measures a company’s profitability and

the efficiency with which its capital is employed. ROCE is calculated as: Earnings before Interest

and tax divided by capital employed. “Capital Employed” as shown in the denominator is the sum

of shareholders equity and debt liabilities; it can be simplified as (Total Assets Less Current

liabilities. Instead of using capital employed at an arbitrary point in time, analyst and investors

often calculate ROCE based on “average capital employed” which takes the average opening and
21
closing capital employed for the time period (Averkamp, 2020). A higher ROCE indicates a more

efficient use of capital. ROCE should be higher than the company’s capital cost, otherwise it

indicates that the company does not employ its capital effectively and does not generate

shareholder value. Adjustments may sometimes be required to get a truer depiction of ROCE. A

company may occasionally have an inordinate amount of cash at hand, but since such cash is not

actively employed in the business, it may need to be subtracted from the “capital employed” figure

to get a more accurate measure of ROCE. In general, investors tend to favour companies with

stable and rising ROCE numbers over companies where ROCE is volatile and bounces around from

one year to the other (Kuruez, Colbert & Wheeler, 2008). ROCE is especially useful when

comparing the performance of companies in capital – intensive sectors such as utilities and

telecoms. This is because unlike return on equity (ROE) which only analyses profitability related

to a company’s common equity, ROCE considers debt and other liabilities as well. This provides a

better indication of financial performance for companies with a significant debt.

2.2.2 Gross Profit after Tax Margin

A company’s gross margin is a very important measure of its profitability because it looks at the

company’s major inflows and outflows of money: sales (money in) and the cost of goods sold

(money out). It is a real measure of profitability because it must be high enough to cover costs and

provide for profits. However, since it is an important barometer, it should be stable and monitored

closely. After tax profit margin is a financial performance ratio calculated by dividing net income

by net sales. It is significant because it shows how well a company controls its stock; the

percentage of the revenue remaining after all operating expenses, interest, taxes and preferred stock

dividend (but not common stocked dividend) have been deducted from a company’s total revenue.

Similarly, gross profit margin is viewed as a metric which analysts use to assess a company's

financial health by calculating the amount of money left over from product sales after subtracting

the cost of goods sold (COGS). Sometimes referred to as the gross margin ratio, gross profit margin

is frequently expressed as a percentage of sales. Gross profit is needed to support operating

22
expenses, income taxes, and net earnings (Edwards, 2016) Practitioners in recent years have

devoted increasing attention to gross profit as a signal of future profitability, particularly for firms

whose expansion activities temporarily depress earnings (Chiu & Haight, 2014). As gross profit

purges earnings of nonrecurring items (e.g., special items) and recurring items that may not persist

at their current levels (e.g., advertising expense to increase product awareness), future returns

stemming from earnings surprises are likely to capture a sizeable component related to information

in gross profit surprises (Chiu & Haight, 2014)

2.2.3 Earnings before Interest and Tax

Earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) measures the profit a company generates from its

operations, making it synonymous with operating profit. By ignoring taxes and interest expenses.

EBIT focuses solely on a company’s ability to generate earnings from operations, ignoring

variables such as the tax burden and capital structure. EBIT is an especially useful metric because it

helps to identify a company’s ability to generate enough earnings to be profitable, pay down debt

and fund ongoing cooperation (Said & Tumin 2011). Earnings before interest and tax is an indicator

of a company’s profitability. EBIT can be calculated as revenue minus expenses excluding tax and

interest. EBIT is also referred to as operating earnings, operating profit and profit before interest

and taxes. It is used to analyse the performance of a company’s core operations without the costs of

the capital structure and tax expenses impacting profit. It shows the amount of profit that the

company generates from its operating activities only (Dermawan & Indrajathi, 2017)

2.2.4 Control Variable

A central element in empirical research is control where researchers attempt to exert control in

research designs to rule out threats to valid inferences (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Not only do

researchers want to determine whether the focal independent variables have the relationship that is

hypothesized (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991), but they must minimize the possibility of confounded

results that limit the explanatory power of the model (Kish, 1959; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

23
Hence, in this study, we employed earnings yield as the control variable for the various models

based on prior related knowledge (Jackson, 2016)

2.2.5 Earnings Yield

Earnings yield is defined as the ratio of net income to price or the reciprocal of the price-earnings

ratio. Intuitively, it is the portion of variation in the stock price that is attributable to changes in

corporate profitability (Hjalmarsson, 2010). It is the ability of firms to earn profits from the sale of

goods and services, or the fundamental ability to succeed in employing resources to produce a

stream of products that attracts a growing customer base. Thus, it is a true measure of corporate

performance-based value-creation. From a business standpoint, earnings yield improves the

accuracy of performance measurement over earnings which may be manipulated through earnings

management (Barton, Hansen & Pownall, 2010) Managers may be evaluated based on earnings so

that they may postpone necessary investments in training and upgrading equipment to show higher

earnings. In contrast, earnings yield relates earnings to price so that any inflation of earnings will be

reflected in a reduction in stock prices and a negative impact on return on assets or return on equity.

Earnings yield helps investors know how much they earn per share. If a company has an earnings

yield of 8%, it means that the investor has earned N8 for every N100 worth of shares owned. This

information is important for investors to compare investment made in different companies, not just

in stocks but also in debentures, fixed deposits etc. Earnings yield helps investors know whether

their shares are undervalued or overvalued depending on the percentage of the yield when

compared to other companies in the same sector (LiDestri, Picone & Mina, 2012)

2.2.6 Sustainability Accounting and Reporting

The interrelationship between corporate sustainability elements i.e., natural environment, economic

system, and society is highly complex, context-specific and most often, also concerns various

stakeholders with heterogeneous preferences (Schneider, 2015). To follow up the above-mentioned

interrelationship with the aim to achieve a balance between the requirements of all dimensions in

an ethical and transparent way, a new field of accounting emerged – sustainability accounting.

24
Sustainability accounting has become a generic term with related expressions, as sustainability

management accounting and sustainability financial accounting (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010).

Sustainability accounting has a reason to evaluate the environmental, social and governance

performance of a company and provide a report on the matter (Rogošić & Čaljkušić, 2015).

Sustainability accounting is seen to play a central role as it can support the implementation of the

sustainability strategy, embedding sustainability into day-to-day operations and decision-making,

and developing relationships with stakeholders based on trust and legitimacy (Schaltegger & Burritt

2010). In fact, it comprises internal and external accounting practices and mechanisms devoted to

measuring, representing, and communicating the company’s performance (Pistoni, 2013).

Sustainability accounting is mainly focused on the integration of social, environmental, and

economic facets of organizational activities (Ulterlerchner & Malan 2008). More specifically,

sustainability accounting currently represents the zenith of extended accounting and reporting. The

emphasis is on accounting for ecosystems and communities, consideration of eco-justice as well as

issues of effectiveness and efficiency (Gray & Milne, 2002; Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010).

Compiling the literature on sustainability accounting, Schaltegger and Burritt (2010) summed up

five reasons that could encourage managers to establish an accounting system that provides

information for assessing corporate actions on sustainability issues.

The Green Washing motive can be derived from the motivation of management to signal concern

and to collect data for communicating and reporting purposes rather than to improve sustainability

performance. In this view, accounting serves as a tool to support cost efficient communicative

activities contra sustainability (Gray, 2006). The Mimicry and industry pressure may also be a

motivation for management to talk about and deal with sustainability accounting. Mimicry can be

seen as a way in which new accounting ideas about sustainability can be introduced, but emulation

of methods can also be seen as being uncritical of associated problems (Qian & Burritt, 2008).

Further, Legislative pressure, stakeholder pressure and ensuring the ‘‘license to operate’’:

stakeholder pressure and the introduction of mandatory information and reporting requirements
25
through governmental legislation is another possibility. It is the easiest for most people to think of

(e.g., as discussed in relation to the European Union (EU) chemical regulation, REACH, or in the

context of stakeholder pressure with published toxic release information). In case of enforced

information requirements on sustainability, institutional compliance and stakeholder

communication and dialogues can become necessary for the continuation of corporate activities

(Murillo-Luna, Garces-Ayerbe, & Rivera-Torres, 2008). Self-regulation which is the fourth motive

is a voluntary activity where a company or an industry association restrains its actions or commits

itself to certain non-market actions (e.g., the disclosure of social and environmental information)

seeking to improve its performance and reputation in a voluntary way, set within a framework

whereby commercial or profit-making considerations may be important (CMAC 2005), but not

necessarily the main driver. Self-regulation on an industry level is often introduced in order to

impede further mandatory government regulations, to maintain social acceptance and reputation, or

to prevent competing companies from free riding (e.g., by not bearing the costs of information

management) (Gunningham, 2007). From the perspective of corporate responsibility, which is

another motive, the corporate information gathering system provides it with a way of perceiving,

the first step in acting responsibly (Stone, 1976), prior to the identification of the morally

significant features of corporate activities. If the information system is incomplete, lacks relevance,

or does not assist with comparability of different alternatives the likely outcome is irresponsible

corporate activity and impacts (Campbell, 2007). The centrality of accounting information in the

process of promoting and maintaining responsible corporations is linked with the view that

accounting is concerned with the individual behaviour or the behaviour of individuals in groups,

such as in departments, divisions or corporations (Card, 2005). Ethical motivation and legitimation

for accounting to address sustainability issues is of uncontested importance (Dillard, 2007). The

focus of accounting information will direct and guide corporate decision makers (Burritt, Hahn, &

Schaltegger, 2002). Therefore, for managers who aim to improve corporate sustainability,

sustainability accounting thus plays a crucial role.

26
2.2.7 Business Case for Corporate Sustainability Reporting
A key reason for introducing sustainability accounting is to identify and realize the economic (e.g.)

cost reduction or sales revenue increasing) potential of voluntary social and environmental

activities. Corporate management will be motivated by this reason if it has some inkling that the

company may have a business case for pursuing sustainability, but which would only be more

transparent with better information. Sustainability reporting as an outcome of sustainability

accounting is promoted by institutions. In this vein, the European Union in 2014 mandated the

disclosure of non-financial indicators and diversity of information by certain large companies to

improve consistency and comparability of such information throughout the European Union (EU).

Among others, it requires the preparation of a consolidated non-financial statement, which includes

a description of the business model, the policies pursued, principal risks and key non-financial

performance indicators (Wagenhofer, 2015). Although sustainability reporting is still voluntary

globally, the practice of this type of disclosure snowballs all over the world.

Sustainability reporting appears to reach a “tipping point” as it moves beyond the realm of the

innovators and early adopters into the mainstream. The failure to engage in the reporting process

could have a negative impact on performance, reputation and even the ability to raise capital (Ernst

& Young, 2014). Since sustainability reporting in most countries is not mandatory, the form of

disclosure is unrestricted and consequently, varies among companies even within the same country

and industry (Orazalin & Mahmood 2019). Companies often use their official websites to publish

their socially responsible activities through many links or in a comprehensive report. In order to

make those reports comparable, several frameworks emerged to include: GRI (GRI's Sustainability

Reporting Guidelines), the United Nations Global Compact (the Communication on Progress), the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO 26000, International Standard for social

responsibility) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD

Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises).However, the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines

are the most developed and used outline that enables organizations worldwide to quantify their
27
impact on society, the environment and the economy. According to GRI (2018), the benefits of

implementing their sustainability guidelines are many. An effective sustainability reporting cycle

which includes a regular programme of data collection, communication and responses should

benefit all reporting organizations, both internally and externally. GRI points out several internal

benefits for companies like: increased understanding of risks and opportunities; emphasizing the

link between financial and non-financial performance; influencing long term management strategy

and policy as well as business plans; streamlining processes; reducing costs and improving

efficiency; benchmarking and assessing sustainability performance with respect to laws, norms,

codes, performance standards; and voluntary initiatives; avoiding being implicated in

environmental, social and governance failures; and comparing performance internally as well as

between organizations and sectors.

Also, external benefits of corporate sustainability reporting are important and include mitigating or

re-versing negative environmental, social and governance impacts, improving reputation and brand

loyalty, enabling external stakeholders to understand the organization’s true value of tangible and

intangible assets, and demonstrating how the organization influences, and is influenced by

expectations about sustainable development. Zimara and Eidam (2015) stated that transparent and

detailed reports could lead to improved reputation among stakeholders and, although the benefits

were non-monetary in the short-term, sustainability reporting enabled companies to expand and

secure their social and human capital hence, provided an enhanced competitive position. Bouten

and Hoozée (2015) pointed out that the future communication of companies would certainly be

characterized by the integration of their financial and non-financial (societal and environmental)

strategies and the accompanying results (Bouten & Hoozée, 2015; Skouloudis et al., 2010;

Giannarakis & Theotokas, 2011; Faisal, 2012; Young & Marais, 2012; Gallén & Peraita, 2015; de

Villiers & Marques, 2016; Chauvey, 2015).

28
Figure 1 Diagrammatical Representation
of Conceptual Framework Dependent Variables
Environmental Sustainability
Reporting
Return on Capital
Social Sustainability Reporting Employed, Gross Profit after
Tax Margin and Earnings
Economic Sustainability Reporting before Interest and Tax

Employee Health & Safety

Sustainability Reporting

Authors Compilation (2021)

2.3 Theoretical Framework

There are several theories that can be employed to explain the motivation for corporate

sustainability reporting. These include stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, agency theory and

political economy theory.

2.3.1 Stakeholder Theory

This study was anchored on the stakeholder theory which was propounded by Edward Freeman in

1984. It is one of the major approaches to social, natural and administration investigation. Scholars

portray stakeholders as “those people who can influence or be influenced by the activities

associated with trade” or as “the people who depend on the firm to attain their individual objectives

and on whom the firm depends on for its existence”. The idea of stakeholder theory began to

receive significant attention in organizational and management research after the publication of

Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach by Edward Freeman in 1984. The theory refers to

how business works at its best, and how it can work. It is about value creation, trade and how to

manage the business effectively. The stakeholder theory argues that firms have a moral obligation

to consider and appropriately balance the interest of all stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). Successful

firms protect the interest of different stakeholder groups such as: shareholders, creditors,

employees, suppliers, customers, communities and the public (Hill & Jones, 2012). The

29
stakeholder theory has fundamentally become a basis of knowledge for companies to secure their

relationship with stakeholders through social and environmental reporting. Sustainability reporting

is considered as a strategic approach by which organizations denote stakeholders participation and

reduce information asymmetry. It has been recognized that organizations that consider

stakeholders’ requirements tend to show a better a performance than those which do not (Masud et

al. 2017). This theory relates to the study since sustainability reporting is the incorporation of

environmental, societal and economical aspects of an organization to reporting and communication

of vital information to a wider stakeholder base of the organization (Cheng, Ioannou & Serafein,

2014). This vital information has proved to be a useful tool for promoting firm performance.

2.3.2 Legitimacy Theory

Legitimacy theory was derived from the concept of organizational legitimacy, and it was

propounded by Dowling and Pfeffer in 1975. Legitimacy theory posits that organizations

continually seek to ensure that they operate within the bounds and norms of their respective

societies. In accordance with this theory, external stakeholders require the enterprise to take all

such actions that will make its operations recognized as transparent which should be in accordance

with the law and the principles of economics. The theory is hinged on the assumption that

accounting for sustainable development and the associated role of management accounting in

sustainable development are used as communication mechanisms to inform and/or manipulate the

perception of the entity’s actions (Mistry, Sharma & Low, 2014). The objectives of this theory can

be identified as describing the relationship between a company and the community; explaining

companies’ motivations for social and environmental disclosures presenting how companies can

use legitimacy strategies and determining the impacts of social and environmental disclosures on

the public and society. Legitimacy theory can be regarded as a conceptual framework based on the

existence of social and exchangeable relationships between a company and the community. It may

help in predicting management’s responses to events or crises and aim to explain why companies

30
may engage social and environmental disclosures, how they do that, as well as what impact

environmental disclosure has on the public and the community.

A company’s behaviour towards the community may reveal the type of relationship between them,

whether it is contributory or hazardous. In this regard, legitimacy theory may be defined as logical

reasoning in the form of a set of broad principles by which environmental disclosure practices can

be explained or may be predicated. Since legitimacy theory seeks to explain companies’

motivations for social and environmental disclosures, it may help to explain these motivations for

any company (whatever its activities). In a world where economic activity systematically generates

environmental harm, regulation is seen to offer a solution (Everett & Neu, 2000). Little wonder

Gray (1996) noted that if environmental reporting was to become systematic, widespread and

useful, it must be covered by regulation. In contrast, Deegan. (2000) argued that stakeholders had a

right to always know about the environmental implications of a company’s operations, not just

when management had been shocked into action by legitimacy threatening events. Regulation

might be necessary to ensure that the right to know is satisfied. Gray (1992) pointed out that the

information content in companies’ statements has governed by the categories recognized in law,

and quasi-law could probably be expanded to include particularly, social and environmental impact

information.

Among several theories that were employed to explain the various factors that influenced

sustainability reporting, we found that legitimacy theory was relevant to this study since it

described the relationships between a corporate organization and the community. It explains

companies’ motivation for social and environmental disclosures, presents how companies can

employ legitimacy strategies and determines the impact of social and environmental disclosures on

the public and society which can be readily applied to the Nigerian situation where environmental

degradation dispute in Ogoni Land in Rivers State provided changes in environmental legislation

law vis a vis increased civil and criminal penalties forcing financial stakeholders to consider

environmental issues in their risk/ return assessments.

31
2.3.3 Agency Theory

The agency theory was first developed by Alchian and Densetz (1972) and later by Jensen and

Meckling (1976). They focused exclusively on the positive aspect of the agency relationship as it

applied to corporations. It shows the structural contractual relationship between the owner and

manager where the manager makes choices for self-maximization given that uncertainty and

imperfect monitoring exist due to separation of ownership from control. Moreso, agency theory

believes that managers (agents) may act and make decisions in an opportunistic manner which may

conflict with the goals of the owners and therefore destroy shareholders’ wealth (Hamid, 2008).

Furthermore, Sanda et al (2005) explained further that the presence of information asymmetry

could make agents to pursue an interest that could be detrimental to that of the principal. Therefore,

in the absence of adequate public information by companies, the amount of perceived risks by

investors rises significantly (De Islers & De Villiers, 2012). This causes the market to undervalue

the shares or demand more returns from firms which do not disclose appropriately. Sustainability

reporting reduces information asymmetry and risks perceived by investors, increases market

efficiency, and reduces the cost of capital to firm (Dhaliwal, Li, Tsang & Yang, (2011). Looking at

this theory, one can deduce that the downside of it is that it has neglected other shareholders as it

focuses only on the relationship between the owners and the management of the business. The

question then arises as to what happens to other stakeholders like the government, customers,

suppliers and the community where the business is located. However, sustainability reporting helps

to mitigate information asymmetries that exist between the principal and the agent.

2.3.4 Political Economy Theory

The political economy was defined by Gray, Qwen and Adams (1996) as the social, political, and

economic framework within which human life took place. Political economy theory explicitly

recognizes the power conflict that exists within society and the various struggles that occur between

various groups within society. The perspective embraced in political economy theory is that

society, politics, and economics are inseparable, and economic issues cannot meaningfully be
32
investigated in the absence of considerations about the political, social and institutional framework

where the economic activity takes place. It is argued that by considering the political economy, a

researcher is better able to consider broader (society) issues which impact on how an organization

operates, and what information it selects to disclose. Following from the above point, Guthrie and

Parker (1990) explained the relevance of accounting from a political economy perspective. They

stated that the political economy perspective perceived accounting report as social, political and

economic documents which served as a tool for constructing, sustaining and legitimizing economic

and political arrangements, institutions and ideological themes which contributed towards the

corporation’s private interests. Political economy theory relies on the concept that society, politics,

and economics are indivisible, and economic events cannot be studied in a comprehensive manner

without reference to political, social and institutional framework where the event occurs. A study

of political economy allows scholars to contemplate broader issues about the information which

companies select to disclose in their annual reports (Kenth & Stewart, 2008).

2.4 Theoretical Expository Literature

In this subsection of theoretical exposition, we showed the theoretical nexus that existed between

the independent and dependent variables of interest.

2.4.1 Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance

Ivan (2009) maintained that the release of the Brundtland Report in 1987 and the subsequent

Summits in Rio and Johannesburg which were supported by the United Unions helped to bring

about the development of share consciousness on the need to reflect on how society could

contribute to social welfare without threatening the survival of biodiversity. This goes to show that

companies now operate in a world where issues of sustainable development are increasingly on the

agenda, in government, in the business community and in society in general. According to

Bebbington (2007), the elements of the sustainable development agenda and specially, the need to

embed environmental and social elements into decision making, have begun to affect the language

used by companies which increasingly assert that they seek to act in accordance with the principles
33
of sustainable development. One way in which the commitment to sustainable development is

evidenced is by production of social, environmental, sustainable development and/or corporate

social responsibility report by organizations. The trend towards sustainability reporting is therefore,

driven by two principal factors. First, an increasing recognition of the potential for sustainability

related issues to materially affect a company’s long term economic performances and second, the

need for the business community (and individual companies) to appropriately respond to issues of

sustainable development (KPMG, 2008; Ivan, 2009). Since sustainability reporting is directly tied

to the concept and goal of sustainable development, its purpose is to provide information which

holistically assesses company performance in a multi-stakeholder environment. Thus, to investors,

sustainability reports are important in two aspects: First, the environmental performance and social

performance are important bases for social and environmental analyses, as the current financial

disclosure cannot comprehensively reveal the risk, debts, and returns of enterprises. Second,

investors have gradually increased their regard for environmental and social risks as important

indicators of enterprises’ efforts to improve corporate governance and increase transparency. At the

same time, sustainability reports also enhance the efficiency of corporate management as the

process of reporting helps the company’s collect information on sustainable efforts and

achievements and acknowledging the value of such information. More than this, sustainability

reporting helps companies find direction of innovation. It has been suggested that increased

communication with stakeholders based on sustainability reports is more effective than any other

means of fostering dialogue. A good report can comprehensively show stakeholders the ability of

the companies to manage environmental and social duties and risks to display their ability to

manage financial risks. Through reports, enterprises can find a benchmark in sustainable

development performance.

2.4.2 Environmental Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance

According to Makori and Jagongo (2013), green accounting is the practice of providing accurate

information (in firms’ annual reports and accounts) on the probable social costs which emanate
34
from production externalities upon the environment and how many deliberate intervention costs

have been incurred to bridge the gap between marginal social and private costs. But Huang and

Kung (2010) described corporate environmental disclosure as a means for firms to exhibit their

social responsibility and obligation to meet the demands of the various stakeholder groups. Hence it

is imperative that for corporate firms to develop green cost responsiveness, they should disclose

such green costs in their annual reports and accounts (Hoje, Kim & Park, 2014; Ezejiofor, Racheal

& Chigbo, 2016). The disclosure of a firm’s green costs is believed to make the firm responsive

(Shelly, Fust & Lisa, 2007; Cortez & Cudia, 2011; Muller, Mendelsohn & Nordhaus, 2011); a firm

is given a chance to minimize its costs in the medium- and long-term (Hasan & Hakan, 2012), and

it is also the fundamental determinant of profitability/ performance (Lee, Pati & Roh, 2011; Okoye

& Ezejiofor, 2013; Jeroh & Okoro, 2016).

Already, there has been an increased level of public awareness of and concern about the negative

effects of firms’ activities on the environment (Ahmad & Sulaiman, 2004). Hence, Wilmshurst and

Frost (2000) stated that “if the members of the community are becoming more interested in the

environmental impact of companies, it is likely that senior management will be called on to explain

the company’s activities affecting the environment. Such accessibility may be promoted through

disclosure within the annual report”. All such disclosures are fundamentally supposed to provide

information to attract investors (Lang & Lundholm 1993). However, they may be used as a tool to

lessen the firms’ political risk and social pressure exposure. The same has also been used over time

by firms as a tool to manage the stakeholders’ impression about the firms (Guidry & Patten, 2012).

As noted by several authors, understanding the relationship between environmental sustainability

and financial performance has been the focus of considerable research since the 1970s (Ambec &

Lanoie, 2008; Barnett & Salomon 2006; Dixon-Fowler, Slater, Johnson, Ellstrand & Romi, 2013;

Endrikat, 2015; Endrikat, Guenther & Hoppe, 2014; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky et al.,

2003). Many scholars investigated whether firms were financially rewarded for improving

35
environmental performance. One plausible argument is that any investment in the natural

environment comes at a cost to firms and detracts from profit maximization (Friedman 1970).

Without clearly defined ownership rights to public goods such as air or water quality, society incurs

the cost of a firm’s pollution (Figge & Hahn, 2004; McWilliams, Siegel & Wright 2006). A firm

that voluntarily internalizes these externalities incurs cost and does not maximize profit.

On the other hand, proponents of a “win–win” argument like Porter and van der Linde (1995)

claimed that environmental performance often constituted latent profit maximization opportunities.

Ambec and Lanoie (2008) presented arguments in support several opportunities for firms to

increase revenue or reduce costs by reducing their environmental impact. Porter and van der

Lindem (1995) in their study noted that research and development into greener production

processes can lead to revenue-generating or cost-minimizing innovations that would otherwise be

unexploited. Some researchers fuse the two approaches by proposing an inverted U–shaped or a U-

shaped relationship between financial and environmental performance (Fujii, Iwata, Kaneko &

Managi, 2013; Lankoski, 2008). Whether it is an inverted U or a U depends on whether the

“additional cost” or the “win–win” argument prevails as environmental performance increases.

However, the balance of empirical studies suggests a positive relationship between improved

environmental performance and financial performance. Indeed, if the returns from proactive

environmental strategies were immediately tangible, then more firms would invest in such

strategies. However, so far, studies observed more corporate resistance to the enthusiasm for

investing in environmental proactive strategies (Boiral, 2006; Delmas & Pekovic, 2013; Jones &

Levy, 2007; Kolk & Pinkse, 2005; Rivera, 2010). In summary, scholars have empirically

investigated the relationship between environmental sustainability and financial performance for

several decades with varying results, but recent studies predominantly supported a “win–win”

relationship.

36
2.4.3 Social Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance
Financial reporting is often criticized for its focus on historic, quantitative and short-term

performance rather than on long-term value creation. Corporate reporting based only on accounting

standards allows companies to externalize environmental and social costs since financial results are

not placed within the context of the greater economy, society or the environment where the

business operates (Terry, 2008). Traditional corporate reports are increasingly less relevant and less

useful for analysts and investors as they are difficult for most sophisticated users to understand

(Bayoud et al. 2012). The users of financial information today need the data that will allow them to

assess whether the entity is socially and financially responsible. It is expected that businesses

should do more than simply turn in financial statements in line with accounting standards. They are

expected to operate in a manner that is socially and ethically responsible as well as minimize

negative impacts on the environment. They should also contribute positively to the community

where they operate by taking into consideration the varied needs of their stakeholders. Currently, in

most jurisdictions around the world, the minimum requirement is the inclusion of significant non-

financial information in company reporting.

The Global Reporting Initiative launched in 1997 has taken the lead in delineating a global

disclosure framework for corporate social responsibility and sustainability. KPMG (2015) shows

that Global Reporting Initiative remains the most popular voluntary reporting guideline worldwide,

with 60 percent of all social responsibility reporters in 45 countries surveyed referencing the Global

Reporting Initiative. This is roughly stable with the 2013 rate (61 percent). Of course, firms have

been put under increasing pressure from a variety of stakeholders to integrate social and

environmental considerations into their operations and to ensure higher standards of governance.

Only few countries have mandated the use of integrated reporting, but there has been evidence of

voluntary participation worldwide. (Nigerian corporations inclusive) The largest companies in

Denmark are now obliged to report on non-financial information while South Africa has made

significant progress in addressing the challenges of Integrated Reporting (IR) by mandating all

37
listed entities to issue annual integrated reports instead of annual financial and sustainability

reports.

Attempts to identify the relationship between corporate social sustainability and performance of

firms were made by many scholars (Aupperle et al. 1985; Mittal, Sinha & Singh, 2008; Crisóstomo,

Freireand and deSouza Vasconcellos, 2011). The possible explanations for the lack of consensus

and difficulties in measuring corporate social sustainability were given in previous studies

(Waddock & Graves, 1997). One possibility is to attribute the inconsistency to the

multidimensional corporate social sustainability concept and its interrelationship across many

disciplines: varying concepts and issues from strategic perspectives to human resource

management, culture and stakeholder/shareholder perspective. Another research group suggested

that the unidentified and omitted explanatory variables made it difficult to understand the latent

mechanisms. Meanwhile, several studies tested the existence of a relationship between a firm’s

corporate social sustainability and performance. However, the findings were rather inconclusive in

answering the question as to whether a firm’s performance in terms of its corporate social

responsibility could be translated into a positive corporate performance. While such a relationship

sounds appealing, the findings are still fragile since a range of other studies reported either negative

(Mittal et al. 2008) or mixed results (Schreck, 2011).

Most prior studies relied heavily on the dataset provided by different data set providers and the

shortfall (Margolis et al 1994) suggested the need to consider alternative measures of corporate

social sustainability performance. Furthermore, prior studies only tested for a linear relationship

between a firm’s corporate social sustainability and its financial performance. However, recent

developments in microeconomic theory suggested that a non-linear set-up should be considered

(Manasakis; Mitrokostas & Petrakis 2013, 2014; García-Gallego & Georgantzis, 2009). A non-

linear relationship between corporate social sustainability and firm performance is therefore, in line

with economic intuition but had rarely been tested, as pointed out in Barnett & Salomon (2012).

38
For instance, firms which voluntarily engage in more socially responsible activities incur higher

corresponding costs at an earlier stage therefore, the increase in their sustainability score has a

negative relationship with their performance if the study is done only linearly.

Specifically, it was noted that numerous motives could be employed to explain companies‟

involvement in social responsibility disclosure practices (Holder-Webb., Cohen, Nath & Wood

2009). In that light, Margolis and Walsh (2003) claimed that corporations’ engagement in corporate

social responsibility activities could foster corporate performance and, as such, their research found

a positive relationship between corporate social responsibility performance and financial

performance (shareholder approach). Roberts (1992) asserted that one way that firms considered

corporate social responsibility activities was that it increased the access to capital and shareholder

value by satisfying stakeholders’ expectation. Investors choose to invest in organizations that

demonstrate a high level of corporate social responsibility. Similarly, Branco and Rodrigues (2008)

argued that socially responsible activities was an important mechanism in enhancing profitability

and representing a signal of improved social and environmental conduct while Bayoud et al. (2012)

confirmed that a high level of corporate social responsibility disclosures was strongly associated

with a positive firm performance.

2.4.4 Economic Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance

The main objective of businesses is to maximize and increase their market value on a long-term

basis. Hence, economic sustainability performance encompasses financial costs and benefits, and

reflects the long-term profitability and financial sustainability of a company. Economic

sustainability performance is measured in terms of long-term operational effectiveness, efficiency,

and productivity, and is normally disclosed by financial indicators in financial statements such as

return on equity and economic value added. These key performance indicators (KPIs) help

investors to better assess the risks and returns associated with their investments. Thus, a fair

disclosure of economic sustainability performance assists investors and other stakeholders in

39
properly assessing the long-term profitability, earnings quality and cash flows of companies

(Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017; Jensen & Meckling, 1976).

The underlying principle behind environmental and social governance (ESG) disclosure–economic

sustainability performance lies in identifying and quantifying the intangible value possessed by

environmentally friendly, socially responsible firms with robust governance policies in place. In

line with the stakeholder, the agency and the information asymmetry theories, managers that

disclose their ESG practices can reduce the company’s exposure to future risks, which, in turn,

creates value for investors and other stakeholders with long-lasting business models. Therefore,

incorporating ESG strategy and policies within a firm, the improved accountability and enhanced

stakeholder trust (social reputation) will enhance the said firm’s economic performance. In fact, a

firm’s economic sustainability performance is formed by means of investors’ appreciation, as well

as customers’/stakeholders trust which supports income.

2.4.5 Employee Health & Safety Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance
Employees are major stakeholders whose welfare is paramount for enhanced organizational

performance and, as such, workers’ health and safety cannot be undermined. Hence, the need for

the disclosure of healthy and safer work conditions is gaining wider recognition as an expansive

idea influence as the quality of life of employees as well as its significant influence on the

social/societal sphere. Employee health and safety encompasses the physical, mental and emotional

welfare of an employee relative to the performance of his duties and, as a result impact positively

on the achievement of organizational goals (Amponsah-Tawaiah & Dartey Baah, 2011). In that

light, the International Labour Organization (ILO) (1959) emphasized that employee health and

safety should be part of organizations culture aimed at protecting workers against health hazards

because of work schedules. Similarly, Cole (2002) noted that employees who were healthy and safe

at work were more committed and utilized the best of their potential to work, thereby yielding

better results.

40
Specifically, we documented that reporting on employees’ health and safety was reports/

programmes geared towards the protection of employees against organizations activities, products

and service hazards. Increased industrialization and economic development have further heightened

industrial accidents and exposure to dangerous chemicals and toxic substances with their attendant

health implications for employees and the environment. Cooper (1995) opined that as much as

profitability was imperative to business, organizations must put in place an integrated mechanism

that promoted quality management and employees and environmental safety. According to the

International Labour Organization (ILO) statistics, about 2.3 million employees die from job

related mishaps or illnesses every year and 317 million occur on the job annually leading to

absenteeism, an increase in personnel cost and a decrease in firm value. Developing countries such

as Nigeria which are endowed with mineral resources, but with less employee health and safety

standards are prone to occupational, job and health related deaths, most of which are as a result of

employees engaging in hazardous activities. This impedes employee performance adversely

(Demba, Ceesay & Mendy, 2016; Amponsah-Tawiah & Mensah, 2016). Organizations

environmental and social policies boast environmental sustainability and enhances firms’

opportunity to gain increased market share and profitability.

2.5 Empirical Review

Shahzad, Baig, Rehman, Saeed and Asim, (2021) examined the effect of corporate social

responsibility on firm performance by accounting for the role of Intellectual capital efficiency as a

mechanism underlying Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)-firm performance association. In

this study, the authors considered 2132 US companies and developed a structural model for CSR,

Intellectual Capital (IC) and firm performance while contemplating endogeneity issues in analyses

over the period 2009-2018. The value-added intellectual capital co-efficient was employed as a

proxy measure for IC performance, taking into consideration corporate performance and

governance measures. The findings were that CSR had a significant effect on firm performance. In

41
particular, the findings revealed that CSR had a link with IC, indirectly affecting firm performance,

and the association between CSR and firm performance was partially mediated by Intellectual

capital efficiency. Shahzad, Baig, Rehman, Saeed and Asim, concluded that CSR activities were as

useful in ameliorating the managers’ operational efficiency and effectiveness as they were in

strengthening the relationship of trust between a firm and its stakeholders.

Şimşek and Öztürk (2020) evaluated the impact of environmental accounting approaches of

businesses on the overall performance of businesses. In addition, it intended to determine the

activities of the businesses within the scope of the research on environmental issues. For that

purpose, the study was carried out on businesses, at Beylikdüzü Organized Industrial Zone.

Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted for evaluating the relationship between the

environmental accounting approaches of businesses, and the overall performance of businesses. In

the analysis, the sub-dimensions of environmental accounting were addressed as the independent

variables, and business performance was addressed as dependent variable. The data which were

obtained by random sampling method was analysed in the SPSS 20 software package. As a result

of the study, it was determined that there was a mutually significant relationship between

environmental accounting and performance. However, the environmental accounting approaches of

the companies covered by the study were found to be at a low level. The authors concluded that

professional associations needed to organize seminars and conferences to help managers and

accountants raise awareness and establish a learning mechanism for “environmental accounting”.

Khan, Yu and Umar (2020) explored the linkage among environmental awareness, green practices,

firm reputation and performance. The authors noted that undeniably, very few studies had been

conducted on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its effect on firms’ performance. The data

were collected from 404 firms located in Pakistan, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was

employed to validate the hypotheses. The results showed that green practices were statistically

significant to build a positive image of firms. Also, practices enhanced firm performance.

42
Furthermore, the results also confirmed that CSR practice which provided “indirect support to the

community” had an insignificant relationship with firm reputation due to mismanagement and

corruption involvement at governmental levels. The study suggested that the firms’ management

should spend money on CSR activities and concentrate on proper monitoring of CSR activities to

utilize funds efficiently.

Benali, Yaagoubi and Moufdi. (2021) aimed to empirically study the relationship between

corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial performance (FP) in the Moroccan context. The

authors opted for a longitudinal study of listed companies over the period 2012-2017. They used

the accounting and financial indicators to assess FP. In the absence of an index that measured the

score of the CSR, they opted for a dichotomous variable which took a value of 1 if the company

was labelled CSR by the CGEM and value 0 if not. The control variables were measured by size,

age, risk and industry. Panel data were used as well to analyse the data. The findings of the study

indicated mixed results. Indeed, the authors found a positive impact of CSR on FP,when using

ROA as a proxy for FP. However, when using ROE as a proxy for FP, they did not find any impact

of CSR on FP (neutral impact). The authors concluded that the company should encourage its main

stakeholders to define their needs. Based on that, it could engage in social and environmental

projects.

Fakoya and Fakoya (2021) examined the effect of environmental accounting on the quality of

accounting disclosure of shipping firms in Nigeria. They administered questionnaires to the staff of

registered shipping firms in Nigeria and analysed the data using multiple regression. The findings

showed that environmental accounting influenced the quality of accounting disclosure of shipping

firms in Nigeria. They found a significant positive association between environmental accounting

and the quality of accounting disclosure of shipping firms in Nigeria. The authors concluded that

firms need to recognize a liability in the statement of assets and liabilities once it was feasible that

the economic benefit of an outflow of resources would offset a present obligation. They

43
recommended that firms should decide, by discretion, which expenditure or cost should be included

as environmental expenses or costs.

Ekundayo, Echobu and Ujah (2020) aimed to investigate the effects of corporate social

responsibility on the financial performance of industrial goods companies listed on the Nigeria

Stock Exchange from 2009 to 2018, the used the descriptive research design, the purposive

sampling technique was applied on the study’s population of 14 industrial goods firms to determine

the sample size of 5 industrial goods firms. Panel data were obtained from the annual reports and

accounts of the sampled industrial goods firms and analszed using multiple regression technique

via STATA 12.0 software. They results showed that CSR variables of community corporate social

responsibility and employee relation of firms had a statistically significant positive impact on the

financial performance (ROA) of listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria. The author concluded that

corporate social responsibility played a significant role in the financial performance of listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria. It was recommended that the management of industrial goods

firms should adopt CSR because it had a positive effect on the overall financial performance of

their business entities.

Ldama and Pembi (2020) examined the effect of social responsibility on business performance

using qualitative approach to research. It was found from the literature that the fulfillment of

corporate social responsibility has significant positive effect on business performance. Also, the

fulfillment of corporate social responsibility was legal and ethical to the competitive success of

business organizations. In conclusion, the fulfillment of social responsibility served as a resource

contributing factor to the long-term competitive success of business organizations. Therefore,

organizations wishing to survive in a volatile business environment like Nigeria ought to be

socially responsible. The authors recommended that organizations should endeavour to invest more

resources in the communication of their behaviour regarding social commitment like the

44
involvement in community, corporation and development, programme supporting culture or

measures for helping employees.

Indriastuti and Chariri (2021) explained the effect of carbon and environmental performances on a

sustainability report with financial performance as an intervening variable. The population of the

study comprised mining companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2015-2019. The total

samples obtained were 80 companies for five years. All the data related to the research variables

were processed using the structural equation modelling (SEM-WarpPLS) method. The results of

the study indicated that carbon performance had a positive effect on financial performance.

Meanwhile, the environmental performance had a negative effect on the financial performance. On

the other hand, carbon and environmental performances did not affect the sustainability report.

Financial performance variables could not mediate the variables of carbon and environmental

performances on the sustainability report.

Olatunde, Mary and Sulaiman (2021) focused on the effect of Environmental accounting and the

corporate performance of selected quoted companies in Nigeria. Ten (10) quoted oil companies

were randomly selected from the Nigerian Stock Exchange. The secondary data used were from the

audited financial statements of the oil companies. Environmental accounting reporting was

measured by environmental cost and disclosure. The corporate performance of the oil companies

was measured using return on capital employed (ROCE); net profit margin (NPM), return on equity

(ROE) and return on assets (ROA). The data were analysed using multiple regression analysis. The

findings of the result showed that there was a significant positive relationship between

environmental accounting and return on capital employed (ROCE) and net profit margin (NPM)

return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA).Based on the findings, it was therefore,

recommended that government should make environmental disclosure compulsory and also impose

sanctions on the violation by any oil company in Nigeria and compliance by the oil companies

45
should be taken seriously so that the environment would be safe for economic growth and

development.

Ojo and Balogun (2019) established whether there was any significant relationship between

environmental accounting disclosure and profitability of selected firms quoted on the Nigerian

Stock Exchange (NSE). The data for the study were collected from annual reports and accounts of

eighteen (18) randomly selected quoted companies on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. The data were

analyzed using multiple regression models. The key findings of the study were that there was a

significant negative relationship among environmental accounting disclosure and return on capital

employed (ROCE) and earnings per share (EPS), and a significant positive relationship between net

profit margin (NPM) and dividend per share (DPS). Based on that it was recommended that

government should enforce compliance with environmental accounting disclosure in the companies

annual reports and accounts.

Al-Waeli, Khalid, Ismail and Idan (2021) primarily examined the link between the environmental

disclosure of industrial companies in Iraq and their financial performance. The inductive approach

was used in the study which entailed surveying, studying, comparing and summarizing all papers

published in prominent accounting journals in the past nineteen years. The authors found that

environmental disclosure was weak in Iraq compared to developing countries in the analysed

studies. They also found that financial performance and environmental disclosure have a more

positive (61.29%) than a negative (38.71%) relationship. The researchers used the accountability

theory as a new theory in determining the link between both variables.

Amao (2008) examined the Nigerian legal framework for the regulation of multinational companies

(MNCs) with a view to underlining the weaknesses in the domestic forum and the prospects for

enhancing the capacity of a domestic framework for the effective control of MNCs. The author

argued that while corporate social responsibility practice by MNCs was becoming well entrenched,

the development could not replace the need for an effective host state regulation. The author

46
focuses on company law and human rights law and suggests viable possibilities within the local

context that could enhance the control of MNCs.

Umoren, Akpan and Okafor (2018) examined the nature of the relationship existed between

environmental accounting reporting and oil companies’ performance in Nigeria. Eleven (11) quoted

oil companies were randomly selected from the Nigerian Stock Exchange. The secondary data used

were from the audited financial statements of the oil companies. Environmental accounting

reporting was measured by the costs of air pollution, water pollution, land degradation, staff

welfare, community welfare, and litigations. The performance of the oil companies was measured

using return on capital employed (ROCE), net profit margin (NPM), divided per share (DPS) and

earnings per share (EPS). The statistics used in testing the hypothesis is multiple linear regression.

The results of the analysis showed insignificant relationships between environmental accounting

reporting and performance variables, that is, return on capital employed, net profit margin, earnings

per share and dividend per share. Based on the findings, it was therefore recommended that

government should make environmental disclosure compulsory and impose sanctions on the

violation by any oil company in Nigeria and compliance by the Oil companies should be taken

seriously so that the environment would be safe for economic growth and development.

Omofowa, Omofowa, Nwachukwu and Nguyen (2021) examined the impact of business ethics on

corporate social responsibility. They employed surveys conducted on 50 manufacturing companies

listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. 236 employees participated in the study. The regression

results suggested that ethical code, corporate image, ethical leadership and brand equity influence

the corporate social responsibility of sample manufacturing firms. Their results lent support to the

role business ethics played in fostering corporate social responsibility in the emerging country

context. Drawing on the stakeholder perspective, the study addressed business ethics and corporate

social responsibility, thus adding to strategic management literature, especially in Nigeria. The

authors concluded that the study informed managers and stakeholders in the manufacturing sector

47
of the importance of creating an enabling environment that encouraged corporate social

responsibility

Adegoke and Onuora’s (2021) focus on the “effect of corporate social responsibility on companies’

performance” was prompted because of manufacturing companies not being environmentally

friendly and able to carry out their corporate responsibility to their host communities. Thus, the

study ascertained the impact of community donation on earnings per share of companies listed on

the Nigerian Stock Exchange and determined the impact of employee compensation on earnings

per share of companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. Only secondary data were used for

the successful execution of study. Four hypotheses were formulated for the study, while the data

were extracted from the annual report and financial statement were tested with descriptive,

correlation and regression statistical tool using E- View Version 9. The outcome of the analyses

carried out showed that community donation had a negative and a weak significant impact on

earnings per share of companies listed on the Nigeria Stock Exchange. It was therefore,

recommended that managements of companies should develop and design a sound employee

compensation system in other to maximize employee productivity and increase shareholders’

earning per share because employees tried to put in their best when adequate benefit was given to

them

Abada, Ejiofor and Anumege (2021) determined the effect of price-earnings ratio on corporate

social responsibility of consumer goods firms in Nigeria. The specific objective was to evaluate

corporate social responsibility's influence on consumer goods firms' price-earnings ratio in Nigeria.

The study adopted the Stakeholders theory as a theoretical framework and employed simple linear

regression using panel data analysis to determine the influence of price-earnings ratio to CSR of

consumer good firms for the period 2008- 2017. The study’s results showed that corporate social

responsibility had a significant and positive effect on the price-earnings ratio while size had an

insignificant effect on the sampled consumer goods firms in Nigeria. The recommendation of the

48
study was that firms should engage in CSR activities to improve their image, goodwill, and

profitability

Nkwoji (2021) investigated the relationship between environmental accounting and profitability of

selected quoted oil and gas companies in Nigeria in years 2012-2017. Specifically, it examined the

relationship between environmental expenditure and the Net profit of quoted oil and gas companies

in Nigeria. Explanatory, historical and correlational designs were adopted while secondary data

were utilized for the study. The data were gathered from annual reports and accounts of the

companies available on their websites and from the Nigerian Stock Exchange (various years). The

data collected were from the period 2012 – 2017. The annual reports includes annual financial

statements, annual sustainability reports and annual reports of global tax payment to nations by the

quoted oil firms and annual returns submitted on the Nigerian Stock Exchange for the years under

study. Regression was used for the data analysis and testing of the hypothesis. The result of the

study showed that there was no significant relationship between environmental expenditure and net

profit of the oil and gas companies in Nigeria under study. The study therefore recommended that

among other things the managements of the oil and gas companies should channel efforts towards

engaging in adequate environmental spending and its disclosure as a way of increasing stakeholders

trust and showing more transparency in their operations.

Ezeagba, John-Akamelu, and Umeoduagu (2017) investigated the relationship between

environmental accounting disclosures and financial performance of food and beverage companies

in Nigeria. Specifically, the study examined the relationship between environmental accounting

disclosures and return on equity of food and beverage companies in Nigeria. It also examined the

relationship between environmental accounting disclosures and return on capital employed by food

and beverage companies in Nigeria, among others. Four hypotheses were formulated and tested in

line with the objectives of the study. The data for the study were collected through secondary

sources and they were analysed using Pearson’s correlation statistical technique and multiple

49
regression, with the aid of SPSS version 20.00. The study revealed that there was a significant

relationship between environmental accounting disclosures and return on equity of selected

companies. It also revealed a negative relationship between environmental accounting disclosures

and return on capital employed and net profit margin of selected companies. Based on the findings,

the researcher recommended that firms should adopt uniform reporting and disclosure standards of

environmental practices.

Rahman, Zahid and Khan (2021) investigated the impact of women directors (WOB), independent

directors (BIND), board size (BSIZE), and sustainability Committee (SC) on firm financial

performance (FFP) with a unique mediation of corporate sustainability practices (CSP) in a

stratified random sample of 255 non-financial Pakistani listed companies from 2012 to 2016. By

using the ordinary least squares (OLS) and OLS with panel corrected standard errors (PCSE), it

revealed that BIND and large BSIZE were the significant positive predictors of CSP. Besides, a

positive association between CSP and FFP (Tobin’s Q and ROE), it was also noted that CSP

positively mediated the nexus of BIND and BSIZE with FFP. However, WOB and SC had no

significant or positive effect on CSP and FFP. The authors concluded that the significant positive

effect of BIND slightly decreases with its increased beyond a certain limit in relation to CSP and

FFP.

Ofogbe, Ezuwore-Obodoekwe, Ozoji, Nnmani, Anisiuba, Ojiakor and Okafor (2021) aimed to

examine the effect of CSR on the performance of oil and gas companies in Nigeria using the

Thomson Reuter index as a measure of CSR and price-cost margin in addition to return on assets

(ROA) and earnings per share (EPS) as measures of performance. Annual panel data from 55 oil

companies for the period 2010–2019 operating in upstream, midstream, and oil-servicing activities

were used. The findings revealed a negative non-significant relationship between CSR and price-

cost margin (PCM) of the firms under study. The findings supported the shareholder theory which

hypothesizes that the corporate social responsibility of the citizens is solely the responsibility of the

50
government, and that the responsibility of firms is profit-making. Mixed results of negative non-

significant and positive significant relationships were recorded between CSR and ROA. The result

also supported the stakeholder theory, which emphasize shareholders’ interest in all aspects of a

business operation. The corporate social performance (CSP) dimension correlated with the true

nature of the Nigerian economy where firms made donations to communities and erected buildings

for health and education purposes. A positive non-significant correlation was reported between

CSR and earnings per share. The authors concluded that there was room for improvement regarding

the performance and that could be achieved by increasing the CSR scores. The failure to do that

could lead to a crisis which would inevitably affect performance.

Tiamiyu and Oyekunle (2019) provided empirical evidence of firm characteristics and

sustainability reporting practice of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The study was supported

by the stakeholders’ theory. The data were collected from secondary sources, mainly from annual

reports and accounts, environmental reports and corporate websites. A data analysis was carried out

using regression model. The findings revealed that firm size and asset tangibility had positive

significant influence on sustainability reporting. Ownership structure had a positive influence on

sustainability reporting and growth have positive insignificant effect on sustainability reporting

while board size and firm profitability had a negative influence on sustainability reporting. The

study recommended that firm characteristics with positive outcomes used in the study should be

heavily invested on and recommended for others by the regulating agencies of government in view

of the role they played in ensuring that managers acted responsibly towards people (social), profit

(economic) and the planet (environment) by preparing sustainable financial reports.

Kasamani and Mostafa (2020) examined a mediated model to understand the link between

corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance (FP). Based on the research findings

from a sample of 110 respondents from Lebanese firms, the results suggested that the CSR and FP

association was an entirely mediated relationship. CSR was positively linked to firms financial

51
performance indirectly through the enhancement of reputation, customer satisfaction, and

competitive advantage. Hence, the findings reduced the ambiguity around CSR’s direct role, and

revealed that CSR promotes firm performance indirectly through building intangible assets

(reputation, customer satisfaction and competitive advantage) that were essential to the survival of

a firm.

Oraka (2021) ascertained the effect of environmental costs on the financial performance of oil and

gas companies on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. The specific objectives were to: ascertain the

effect of environmental remediation cost on Tobin’s Q of oil and gas companies listed on the

Nigeria Stock Exchange and evaluate the effect of compliance cost on Tobin’s Q of oil and gas

companies on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. The ex post facto research design was adopted for the

study. The data were gathered from the published financial statements of the eleven (11) oil and gas

companies for eleven (12) years period. The study found that compliance cost and environmental

remediation cost had a significant effect on Tobin’s Q of oil and gas companies listed on THE

Nigeria Stock Exchange. Based on that the researchers recommended that since environmental

remediation cost and financial performance were positively related, then oil and gas firms should

be environmentally friendly to enable them to gain a competitive advantage, high liquidity and

reduced environmental cost in the long run.

Lei and Heng (2021) noted that on the question whether environment, social or governance (ESG)

activities had promoted or reduced firm performance, there was still no consensus. Especially for

China, a representative country in emerging markets whose corporate ESG activities were still in

their infancy, and related systems and regulatory measures not complete, its theoretical and

practical circles more urgently needed to get an accurate answer to that question. Therefore, they

took China’s Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed companies which had ESG rating data from

2015 to 2019 as samples and found that corporate ESG activities had a significantly negative

impact on firm performance. The authors concluded that further research showed that compared

52
with state-owned enterprises and environmentally sensitive enterprises, non-state-owned

enterprises and non-environmentally sensitive enterprises provided stronger evidence to support the

above conclusions.

Xue, Yim, and Khuntia (2021) focused on deriving value-oriented business intelligence from the

voluntary disclosure of sustainability reports. The analysis in this study involved a three-stage

approach: (1) Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) based topic modelling algorithm to identify and

summarize typical contents expressed in various documents, (2) a firm’s sustainability maturity

modeled as a function of its strategic intent using a latent Markov model (LMM) to estimate the

statistical significance and the extent of their relationships, and (3) an empirical analysis using

random effect linear and non-linear probit models to explore the impact of antecedents and firm

performance consequences of three strategic intents. This study used an advanced business

analytics approach, specifically with latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic modelling, to codify

intangible knowledge embedded in annual sustainability reports to infer a firm’s strategic intent

behind voluntary disclosure. A secondary panel dataset consisting of information on 680 firms in 3

years was constructed by matching the text mined data with information from other sources. The

results indicated that, on the one hand, while external stakeholder engagement was the primary

motivation behind voluntary disclosure of sustainability reporting, firms to engaged in internal

stakeholders through workforce practices. On the other hand, internal employee-oriented intent had

more influence on firm performance than external customer-oriented intent. This study

demonstrated a toolset to index firms’ sustainability indicators and evaluated firms’ sustainability

practice as an intangible asset and its impact on firms’ financial performance.

Pham, Do, Doan, Nguyen and Pham (2021) aimed to empirically explore the influence of

sustainability practices on the financial performance of 116 listed Swedish companies in the year

2019. The research findings indicated a positive relationship between corporate sustainability and

financial performance that was measured by earnings yield, return on asset, return on equity and

53
return on capital employed. However, when it came to a market-based financial measure, Tobin’s

Q, the result was inconclusive. Finally, to improve financial performance, firms are recommended

to engage in Dow Jones Sustainability Index, prepare their sustainability report in accordance with

the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, improve their sustainable growth rate as well as

keep a high position in the corporate social responsibility ranking.

Plumlee, Brown, Hayes and Marshall (2015) studied voluntary environmental disclosure quality

and firm value of US firms. Their aim was to determine the effect of environmental disclosure

activities on firm value. The dependent variable of firm value was measured by future expected

cash flows (FECF) and Cost of equity, while the independent variable was environmental

disclosure index consistent with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) disclosure framework.

Regression analysis was carried out and the findings showed that there was both a negative and

positive association between some aspects of voluntary environmental disclosure quality and a

firm’s cost of equity capital.

In the study by Oti, Effiong and Tapang (2012), the aim was to evaluate the implication of

environmental costs on return on investment among listed companies in Nigeria. Their study

revealed that there was a significant relationship among employee health and safety waste

management, community development and return on investment of environmentally responsible

firms. There was also a significant relationship among employee health and safety, waste

management, community development and level of fines, penalties and compensation that were

assigned. The study employed ordinary least square regression analysis techniques and concluded

that money expended in settling disputes could be applied to enhance corporate liquidity and that

management was better able to plan and make decisions when it was not engrossed in disputes. The

study recommended that the Environmental Regulatory Authority (ERA) should compel

manufacturing companies to disclose environmental cost in their financial statement and

54
environmental management accounting should be incorporated into the traditional accounting

systems of manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

The study by Nwokeji and Okeke (2019) aimed to explore the effect of corporate environmental

disclosures on the financial performance of listed nonfinancial firms on the Nigerian Stock

Exchange by examining the topic “Evaluating Corporate Environmental Disclosures and

Performance of Quoted Non-Financial Firms in Nigeria” The data set which was analysed with

ordinary least square regression revealed that aggregate environmental disclosures had significant

positive effects on firm performance. The study recommended among other things, that corporate

firms in Nigeria should adopt and disclose environmentally friendly policies such as making

donations to environmental protection and avoiding pollution and hazardous wastes to the

environment as these would assist firms in gaining social legitimacy which would enable them to

enjoy increased patronage and revenue. However, the authors concluded that environmental

sustainability activities when implemented allow managers to achieve both social and firm

purposes.

The objective of the study by Behram (2015) on the topic “A Cross-Sectoral Analysis of

Environmental Disclosures in a Legitimacy Theory Context” extended organizational legitimacy

arguments by analysing the extent and content of environmental disclosures across sectors

according to their environmental impact. The study employed a content analysis data set obtained

from 223 companies quoted the on Turkey Stock Exchange. The results of the study failed to

confirm legitimacy theory as an explicator of environmental disclosure in the Turkey case, it

concluded that environmental regulation in developing countries generally was inadequate due to

lack of funds, trained personnel, and social infrastructure and, in some cases, political will.

Makori and Jagongo (2013) aimed at evaluating environmental accounting and firm profitability of

firms listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange in India for the year 2007. The study employed return

55
on capital employed; net profit margin; dividend per share and earnings per share as dependent

variables. Environmental Cost measured by the amount spent on environmental protection was

used as the independent variable. Regression analysis was employed on the data set and the

findings showed that environmental cost had a positive relationship with net profit margin and

dividend per share but a negative relationship with return on capital employed and earnings per

share. The authors concluded that different firms could convert different elements into

environmental costs but it was important that all significant and relevant costs were incorporated

for sound decision making purpose. The authors recommended that the government should provide

tax credit to organizations that complied with its environmental laws and that environmental

reporting should be made compulsory in India so as to improve the performance of organizations

and the nation as a whole.

Nyirenda, Ngwakwe and Ambe (2013), in their study of environmental management practices and

firm performance in South Africa, aimed at demystifying the effect of environmental management

practices on firm performance. The study employed return on equity as the dependent variable and

carbon emission reduction, energy usage and water usage as the independent variables for the

period 2003 to 2011. The study controlled for net income and shareholders’ equity and adopted

ordinary least square regression technique as the method of its analysis. The results showed that

there was no significant relationship among carbon emission reduction, energy usage, water usage

and return on equity. There was a significant relationship among the control variables of

shareholders’ equity, net income and return on equity. The authors concluded that it could not be in

all cases that firms’ environmental management practices were driven by financial motive and, that

firms may still possess the moral and ethical obligation to curb a negative climate impact and

respect environmental regulations. The study recommended that further studies should focus on the

impact of regulations and ethics on corporate environmental management practices in developing

economies.

56
Following the objective of examining the impact of Environmental accounting and reporting on

organizational performance of selected oil and gas companies in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria,

Bassey, Effiok and Eton (2013) adopted firm performance as the dependent variable while

environmental cost and firm size were the independent variables. The results from the Pearson

Correlation analyses revealed that environmental cost significantly influenced firm profitability and

the disclosure of environmental information in the annual report was positively related to firm size.

From the results of the study, the authors concluded that environmentally friendly firms would

significantly disclose environmental related information in financial statements and reports. The

study recommended that firms should adopt a uniform method of reporting and disclose

environmental issues for the purpose of control and measurement of performance. Furthermore,

accounting standards should be published locally and internationally, and reviewed continually to

ensure dynamism and compliance with environmental and situational needs.

In a study of environmental disclosure quality of Malaysian firms with the objective of finding out

the quality of environmental disclosure, Latridis (2013) employed environmental disclosure score

which was GRI-based as the independent variable for the period 2005 to 2011. In the study,

hazardous waste, toxic chemicals or substances, percentage of independent directors on the board,

percentage of independent directors on the audit committee, presence of an audit committee, big 4

auditor, managerial ownership, institutional ownership, change in company management and cross-

listed were the independent variables. The study controlled for leverage, firm value (TobinQ), stock

price volatility, return on assets, market to book value of equity, size, capital spending and Janis –

Fadner coefficient. By employing ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis, the results

showed that environmental disclosure was positively associated with environmental performance.

Companies that displayed smaller amounts of hazardous waste and took on initiatives to reduce,

reuse, substitute or phase out toxic chemicals or substances exhibit higher environmental disclosure

scores. Company attributes such as large size, the need for capital, profitability and capital spending

57
were positively associated with environmental disclosure quality. Environmental disclosure score

was positively associated with the percentage of independent directors sitting on the board of

directors, percentage of independent directors sitting on the audit committee and the presence of an

audit committee. The author concluded that a high quality environmental disclosure displayed

effective corporate governance and would tend to face less difficulties in accessing capital markets.

Asuquo (2012) examined environmentally friendly policies and their financial effects on corporate

performance of selected oil and gas companies in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. The ordinary

least square regression was used to analyses the data. In the study, profitability was employed as

the dependent variable while cost of environmentally friendly policies and firm competitiveness

were included as the independent variables. The results showed that firm performance had a

significant positive relationship with environmentally friendly policies and firms’ competitiveness.

Asuquo concluded that the related cost of environmental protection and management positively

influences firm profitability, and environmentally friendly organization enjoyed a high level of

corporate competitiveness resulting in a high performance. The study recommended that firms

should formulate and implement environmentally friendly policies to enhance their

competitiveness, acceptability and stability, which would subsequently result in a high

performance.

Oba, Fodio and Soje (2012) examined the Value relevance of environmental responsibility

information disclosure in Nigeria for the period 2005 to 2009 with the objective of determining the

relevance of environmental information disclosure on firm performance in Nigeria. The study

employed return on capital as the dependent variable while an environmental disclosure score from

the indices of twelve (12) established environmental checklists was the independent variable.

Adopting ordinary least square and logistic regression as its data analysis techniques, the study

reveals that there was a positive and significant relationship among the explanatory variables:

quality of environmental responsibility disclosures; foreign directors on the board and financial

58
performance. The authors recommended an embrace of sound environmental policies and

disclosure practices for listed Nigerian firms.

Hasan, Kobeissi, Liu and Wang (2016) aimed at decoupling the effects of corporate social

responsibility and firm financial performance for US firms for the period 1992 to 2009. The market

performance measures of Tobin’s Q were employed as the dependent variable while the indices of

corporate social performance evaluated in six major qualitative issue areas: environment,

community relation, human rights, employee relations, diversity dimension, product quality and

safety obtained from Compustat and KLD database were used as independent variables. The study

employed firm size, leverage, assets tangibility, sales growth and industry competition as control

variables. The regression analyses revealed a significant positive effect of corporate social

performance on Tobin’s Q. Employee relations revealed a significantly positive relationship with

total factor productivity. Mediation analysis revealed a significant direct effect of corporate social

performance on total factor productivity as well as a significant partial mediation effect of total

factor productivity on corporate social performance-corporate financial performance relationship.

The result also showed a significant positive moderating effect of discretionary cash on the

relationship between corporate social performance and total factor productivity. The authors

concluded that CSR investment possessed instrumental value because it helped firms build

productive intangibles that ultimately created value for shareholders.

The objective of Gherghina, Vintilă and Dobrescu (2015) has to empirically evaluate the

relationship between corporate social responsibility ratings and market performance of U.S. listed

Companies for the period 2008 to 2011. The study employed Tobin Q as the measure for market

performance and three dimensions of corporate social responsibility index (CSRI): citizenship (the

community and the environment), governance (ethics and transparency), and workplace practices

with control variables: size, leverage, growth and listing age. Applying multivariate panel data

regression, the results showed that there was a positive relationship between corporate social

59
responsibility index and firm market value, and a negative relationship among leverage ratio, firm

age and firm market value. Sales growth was also seen to positively influence firm market value.

The study concluded that the image on the market for a company with high social involvement and

good disclosure of corporate social responsibility undertakings was reflected in the rise of its

number of customers and sales.

Adeneye and Ahmed’s (2015) study on corporate social responsibility and company performance

of firms in UK was to determine the relationship between social responsibility and firm

performance. The study employed corporate social responsibility index as the independent variable

and company performance measured by market to book value, company size, and return on capital

employed as the dependent variables. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were carried out and the

results showed that there was a significant positive relationship between market to book value and

corporate social responsibility. It also revealed that there was a positive insignificant relationship

between size and corporate social responsibility. The study recommended that for increased

financial performance, UK firms should intensify more efforts in carrying out their corporate social

responsibilities in order to serve as a source of competitive advantage.

Xie (2015) aimed at examining the effect of corporate social responsibility on firm performance of

Chinese firms by employing ordinary least square (OLS) and granger causality analysis. The study

used ordinary least square regressions techniques for its analyses and employed corporate social

responsibility index evaluated across six different categories: environment, community relation,

human rights, employee relations, diversity dimension, product quality and safety based on KLD

rating as the independent variables while Tobin’s Q, firms’ leverage, book-to-market ratio,

tangibility, return on asset, firm size and research and development was the dependent variables.

The study controlled for industry effect and the findings showed that all the independent variables

were statistically significant. The study concluded that industries whose focus was on the

community and external environment (manufacturing, service and retail) had more intention to put

60
positive impacts on the environment and stakeholders which, in the end, produced a higher level of

corporate social responsibility.

Vujicic (2015) undertook a study with the objective of investigating the effect of corporate social

responsibility on stock returns of US stock listed companies from year 2002 to 2004. The author

adopted cross-sectional regressions as the method of his analysis. The dependent variable was

measured as return on asset. Social scores were obtained from Morgan Stanley Capital International

- MSCI formerly KLD: community, employee relations, and environment. The study controlled for

firm size, market momentum correlation, firm beta value, price-to-book value and the previous

year’s return. However, the study revealed that KLD CSR score had an extremely statistically

significant negative impact on the firm performance. With the control variables, the overall CSR

rating still had a negative and statistically significant relationship with returns. The results also

showed a very little impact of the various CSR indicators on returns in individual sectors. From the

findings of the study, the author concluded that the expenditure on corporate social responsibility in

business strategies was in fact destructive to the profits of the firm and shareholder value.

In Ghana, Marfo, Chen, Xuhua, Antwi and Yiranbon (2015) evaluated corporate social

responsibility with the objective of revealing its driving dynamics on firm profitability between the

period 2005 and 2014. The study measured the dependence of profitability with the profit after tax

and the independent variable with the corporate social responsibility of the selected organization.

For its data analysis, the study used ordinary least square regression and the results indicated a

negative relationship between companies’ performance standards and corporate social

responsibility investments (CSRI)

The study by Manchiraju and Rajgopal (2015), tried to answer the question ‘Does corporate social

responsibility (CSR) create shareholder value? Their study was an exogenous shock-based

evidence from Indian Companies Act of 2013. Cumulative abnormal return and Tobin’s Q were

used as measures of the dependent variables while CSR spending related to community welfare,

61
education, environment and health care, rural development, women empowerment, children health,

donations, disaster relief, sports, support for physically challenged classified according to: spender

and non-spender were identified as the independent variables. Furthermore, the study controlled for

size, book to market value of equity, leverage, sales growth, return on asset (ROA), capital

expenditure, cash, business group, multinational corporation, government owned, board

independence, Big 4 auditor, advertisement expenses, political connectedness and polluting

industry. The regression discontinuity results showed that an average three-day cumulative

abnormal return (CAR) around key events leading to the passage of the mandatory CSR regulation

was negative for firms that were affected by the regulation. The negative returns were more

pronounced for the subgroup of affected firms that did not spend on CSR, compared to those that

did spend on CSR. The authors concluded that firms with greater agency costs and political

connections benefited from mandatory CSR.

The objective of Chen and Lee (2015), in a related study, was to examine the quantile causality

between corporate social responsibility and corporate performance of firms in Taiwan with a scope

2010 to 2011. The study used non-parametric Granger causality test for its data testing. Firm value

as the dependent variable was measured by Tobin’s Q and the independent variable was CSR

Index. The study revealed that a higher involvement in CSR was correlated with a higher firm

value, and a higher firm value then gave rise to better involvement in CSR. In conclusion, the

authors asserted that corporate social responsibility affected firms in very different ways since only

low valued firms got a significant boost in firm value from performing CSR.

Nguyen (2015) carried out a study with the broad objective of finding the association between

corporate social responsibility disclosures and firm value of Vietnamese companies for the period

2010 to 2013.The study employed Tobin’s Q as the dependent variable and CSR as the independent

variable measured by community disclosures, environment disclosures, employees’ disclosures,

customers and suppliers’ disclosures. The study used content analysis and panel least squares

62
regression analysis for its data analysis. The study controlled for firm size, financial leverage,

liquidity and revenue growth, and the results revealed that social responsibility disclosures were

associated with following years’ firm value. Specifically, the relationship between environmental

disclosure and following years’ firm value was positive while the one between employee

disclosures and firm value was negative. The results showed a positive sign for Vietnamese firms

that tool on environmental responsibilities. They concluded that the disclosure of corporate social

responsibility was an essential requirement for international economic integration due to its benefits

to society.

The empirical study by Simionescu and Gherghina (2014), was aimed at analysing the effect of

corporate social responsibility on the corporate performance of firms listed on the Bucharest Stock

Exchange for the period 2008 to 2011. The study’s variables were accounting-based performance

measures: return on asset, return on equity and return on sales. Market-based performance

measures: earnings per share, price to book value and CSR index controlled by size, indebtedness

as well as the company’s tenure. For the data analysis, the authors used regression analysis, and

their findings suggested that there was a significant positive relationship between CSR and earnings

per share. By estimating fixed-effects panel data regression models, the positive relationship

between CSR and earnings per share was reinforced. The analysis revealed that there was a

negative relationship between CSR and return on sales. The authors concluded that the findings of

the study were important to both managers and investors since CSR undertakings improved

corporate performance.

Aditya and Juniarti (2016) aimed to examine the effect of corporate social responsibility on accrual

quality in Indonesia by exploring the topic “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Performance

and Accrual Quality”. The study employed the ordinary least square regression data analysis

technique and found that corporate social responsibility performance did not explain the changes in

accrual quality. Hence, the study concluded that miscellaneous industries in Indonesia would carry

63
out corporate social responsibility only to comply with goverment regulation as a formality but

there would be no moral justification for such an action. Furthermore, the study recommended

private debt financing for Indonesian firms since private lenders had easier access to firms’

business and financial information, and also have right to monitor management so that management

could not use an accrual policy to manage earning.

Alman (2010) stated that organizational health referred to an organization’s ability to achieve its

goals based on a work environment that sought to improve employees’ well-being. Improving

organizational performance involves applying a system that thinks about the organizations’ process

and role levels and supports employees’ well-being by addressing both employee satisfaction and

employee health (physical, mental and social)

Reich et al. (1992) suggested that the basic objective of employee health programmes was to meet

regulatory requirements, protect organizational assets and provide safe and healthy working

conditions for the workforce, public and the environment. They also observed that a healthy

employee was the key factor for sustainable social and economic development. They argued for a

relationship between a person’s work and his health condition. Health and safety are inevitable

aspects of a manufacturing process that affect employees’ work and performance; therefore, a

healthy worker is a productive worker.

Ballard (2012) evaluated healthy workplace programmes and suggested that successful

organizations learnt that high performance and sustainable results required that attention be paid to

the relationships among employees, organizations, customers, and the community. He stated that to

sustain high performance, organizations must build the capacity to learn and keep changing over

time, and that getting and staying healthy involved tending to people-oriented aspects of leading an

organization.

In a study on whether there was a relationship between sustainable disclosure and performance,

Pajuelo Moreno and Duarte-Atoche (2019) extended Ullmann’s model. The study introduced
64
economic performance, size and membership in sensitive sectors as the determinants of

sustainability disclosure and a sustainable performance link. Specifically, the study showed that

firms that were concerned with sustainability and acted sustainably had a higher sustainability

disclosure in their annual report. Also, a greater economic performance had a significant effect on

sustainability disclosures.

65
2.5.1 Webometric Analyses of Reviewed Literature
Author & Year Objectives of study Market studied
of Publication
Shahzad, Baig, Examined the effect of US companies
Rehman, Saeed, corporate social
& Asim (2021) responsibility on firm
performance by accounting
for the role of Intellectual
capital efficiency as a
mechanism underlying
Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR)-firm
performance association.
Şimşek and Evaluated the impact of
Öztürk, (2020) environmental accounting
approaches of businesses on
the overall performance of
businesses.
Khan, Yu & Explored the linkage among
Umar (2020) environmental awareness,
green practices, firm
reputation and performance.
Methodology Findings
Moderated The findings suggested that
Regression CSR had a significant effect
Analysis on firm performance. In
particular, the findings
revealed that CSR had a link
with IC, indirectly affecting
firm performance, and the
association between CSR and
firm performance was
partially mediated by
Intellectual capital efficiency.
Beylikdüzü Multiple linear As a result of the study, it
Organized regression was determined that there
Industrial Zone was a mutually significant
relationship between
environmental accounting,
and performance. However,
the environmental accounting
approaches to the companies
covered by the study were
found to be at a low level.
Pakistan Structural equation The results showed that
modeling (SEM) green practices were
statistically significant to
build a positive image of
firms. Also, those practices
enhanced firm performance.
Furthermore, the results also
confirmed that CSR practice
“indirect support to the
community” has an
insignificant relationship
66
Conclusion/Recommendation
The authors concluded that CSR
activities were as useful in
ameliorating the managers’
operational efficiency and
effectiveness as they were in
strengthening the relationship of
trust between a firm and its
stakeholders.
The authors concluded that
professional associations needed
to organize seminars and
conferences to help managers
and accountants raise awareness
and establish a learning
mechanism about
“environmental accounting”.
The study suggested that the
firms’ management should spend
money on CSR activities and
concentrate on proper monitoring
of CSR activities to utilize funds
efficiently.

Benali, Aimed to empirically study
Yaagoubi, and the relationship between
Moufdi (2021) corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and
financial performance (FP)
in the Moroccan context.
Fakoya and Examined the effect of
Fakoya (2021) environmental accounting on
the quality of accounting
disclosure of shipping firms
in Nigeria.
Ekundayo, Aimed to investigate the
Echobu, & Ujah effects of corporate social
(2020) responsibility on the
financial performance of
industrial goods companies
listed on the Nigerian Stock
Exchange from 2009 to
2018, using descriptive
research design.
Ldama & Pembi Examined the effect of social
with firm reputation due to
mismanagement and
corruption involvement on
governmental levels.
Morroco Panel Regression Indeed, the authors found a
positive impact of CSR on
FP when using ROA as a
proxy for FP. However,
when using ROE as a proxy
for FP, they did not find any
impact of CSR on FP
(neutral impact).
Nigeria Multiple regression The findings showed that
environmental accounting
influenced the quality of
accounting disclosure of
shipping firms in Nigeria.
They found a significant
positive association between
environmental accounting
and the quality of accounting
disclosure of shipping firms
in Nigeria.
Nigeria Multiple regression The results showed that CSR
technique variables of community
corporate social
responsibility and employee
relation of firms had a
statistically significant
positive impact on the
financial performance (ROA)
of listed industrial goods
firms in Nigeria.
Nigeria Literature Review It was found from the
67
The authors concluded that the
company should know very well
its main stakeholders to define
their needs. Based on that, it
could engage in social and
environmental projects.
The authors concluded that firms
needed to recognize a liability in
the statement of assets and
liabilities once it was feasible
that the economic benefit of an
outflow of resources would
offset a present obligation.
The authors concluded that
corporate social responsibility
played a significant role on the
financial performance of listed
industrial goods firms in Nigeria.
It was recommended that the
management of industrial goods
firms should adopt CSR because
it had a positive effect on the
overall financial performance of
their business entities.
In conclusion, the fulfilment of
(2020) responsibility on business
performance using
qualitative approach to
research.
Indriastuti and Explained the effect of the
Chariri (2021) carbon and environmental
performances on
sustainability report with
financial performance as an
intervening variable.
Olatunde, Mary, Focused on the effect of
& Sulaiman environmental accounting
(2021) and the corporate
performance of selected
quoted companies in Nigeria
Ojo and Balogun Established whether there
was any significant
relationship between
environmental accounting
disclosure and profitability
of selected firms quoted on
the Nigerian Stock Exchange
(2019) (NSE).
literature that fulfilment of
corporate social
responsibility had a
significant positive effect on
business performance.
Indonesia stock Structural equation The results of the study
exchange modelling (SEM- indicated that carbon
WarpPLS) performance had a positive
effect on financial
performance. Meanwhile, the
environmental performance
had a negative effect on
financial performance.
Nigeria Multiple regression The findings of the result
analysis. showed that there was a
significant positive
relationship among
environmental accounting
and Return on Capital
Employed (ROCE) and net
profit margin (NPM), Return
on Equity (ROE) and Return
on Assets (ROA).
Nigeria Multiple regression The key findings of the study
models use a significant negative
relationship between
environmental accounting
disclosure and return on
capital employed (ROCE),
earnings per share (EPS) and
a significant positive
relationship and net profit
margin (NPM) and dividend
68
social responsibility served as a
resource contributing factor to
the long-term competitive
success of business
organizations.
Financial performance variables
could not mediate the variables
of carbon performance and
environmental performance on
the sustainability report.
Based on the findings, it was
therefore, recommended that
government should make
environmental disclosure
compulsory and also impose
sanctions on the violation by any
oil company in Nigeria;
Compliance by the Oil
companies should be taken
seriously so that the environment
would be safe for economic
growth and development.
Based on that it recommended
that government should enforce
compliance of environmental
accounting disclosure in the
company’s annual reports and
accounts.

Al-Waeli, Primarily examined the link Iraq
Khalid, Ismail, between the environmental
& Idan (2021) disclosure of industrial
companies in Iraq and their
financial performance.
Amao (2008) Examined the Nigerian legal Nigeria
framework for the regulation
of MNCs with a view to
underlining the weaknesses
in the domestic forum. It also
examined the prospect of
enhancing the capacity of a
domestic framework for the
effective control of MNCs.
Umoren, Akpan Examined the nature of the Nigeria
& Okafor (2018) relationship between
environmental accounting
reporting and oil companies’
performance in Nigeria
Omofowa, Examined the impact of Nigeria
Omofowa, business ethics on corporate
Nwachukwu & social responsibility.
Nguyen (2021)
per share (DPS).
Literature review The authors found that
environmental disclosure was
weak in Iraq compared to
developing countries in the
analysed studies.
The author argued that while
corporate social
responsibility practice by
MNCs had become well
entrenched, the development
could not replace the need for
an effective host state
regulation.
Multiple linear The results of the analysis
regression showed insignificant
relationships between
environmental accounting
reporting and performance
variables, that is, return on
capital employed, net profit
margin, earnings per share
and dividend per share.
Regression Their results lent support to
technique the role business ethics
played in fostering corporate
social responsibility in the
emerging country context.
Drawing on the stakeholder
perspective, the study
addressed business ethics and
corporate social
responsibility, thus adding to
strategic management
69
The researchers used the
accountability theory as a new
theory in determining the link
between both variables.
The author focused on company
and human rights laws and
suggested viable possibilities
within the local context that
could enhance the control of
MNCs.
The results of the analysis
showed insignificant
relationships among
environmental accounting
reporting and performance
variables, that is, return on
capital employed, net profit
margin, earnings per share and
dividend per share.
The authors concluded that the
study informed managers and
stakeholders in the
manufacturing sector of the
importance of creating an
enabling environment that
encouraged corporate social
responsibility

Adegoke and The focus on the “effect of
Onuora (2021) corporate social
responsibility on companies’
performance” was prompted
because of manufacturing
companies not being
environmentally friendly and
able to carry out their
corporate responsibility to
their host community.
Abada, Ejiofor, Determined the effect of the
& Anumege price-earnings ratio on
(2021) corporate social
responsibility of consumer
goods firms in Nigeria.
Nkwoji (2021) Investigated the relationship
between environmental
accounting and the
profitability of selected
quoted oil and gas
companies in Nigeria in
recent years from 2012-
2017.
Ezeagba, John- Investigated the relationship
Akamelu, & between environmental
Umeoduagu accounting disclosures and
literature, especially in
Nigeria.
Nigeria Correlation and The outcome of the analyses It was therefore recommended
regression carried out showed that that management of companies
community donation had should develop and design a
negative and weak significant sound employee compensation
impact on earnings per share system in other to maximize
of companies listed on the employee productivity and
Nigeria Stock Exchange. increase shareholders’ earning
per share, because employee try
to put in their best when
adequate benefit is given to
them.
Nigeria Simple linear The study results showed that The recommendation regarding
regression corporate social this study was that firms should
responsibility had a engage in CSR activities to
significant and positive effect improve their image, goodwill
on the price-earnings ratio and profitability.
while size had an
insignificant effect on the
sampled consumer goods
firms in Nigeria.
Nigeria Regression Analysis The result of the study The study therefore,
showed that there was no recommended that, among
significant relationship others, the management of the oil
between environmental and gas companies should
expenditure and net profit of channel efforts towards engaging
the oil and gas companies in in adequate environmental
Nigeria under study. spending and its disclosure a way
of increasing stakeholders trust
and showing more transparency
in their operations.
Nigeria Pearson’s The study revealed that there Based on those findings, the
correlation was a significant relationship researcher recommended among
statistical technique between environmental others, that firms should adopt
70
(2017) financial performance of
food and beverage
companies in Nigeria.
Rahman, Zahid, Investigated the impact of Pakistan
& Khan (2021) women directors (WOB),
independent directors
(BIND), board size (BSIZE),
and sustainability committee
(SC) on firm financial
performance (FFP) with a
unique mediation of
corporate sustainability
practices (CSP) in a stratified
random sample of 255 non-
financial Pakistani listed
companies from 2012 to
2016
Ofogbe, Aimed to examine the effect Nigeria
Ezuwore- of CSR on the performance
Obodoekwe, of oil and gas companies in
Ozoji, Nnmani, Nigeria using the Thomson
Anisiuba, Reuter index as a measure of
Ojiakor & CSR and price-cost margin
Okafor (2021) in addition to return on assets
(ROA) and earnings per
share (EPS) as measures of
performance.
Tiamiyu and Provided empirical evidence Nigeria
Oyekunle (2019) of firm characteristics and
and multiple accounting disclosures and
regression return on equity of selected
companies. It also revealed a
negative relationship
between environmental
accounting disclosures and
return on capital employed
and net profit margin of
selected companies.
Ordinary Least It was revealed that BIND
Squares (OLS) and and large BSIZE were the
OLS with Panel significant positive predictors
Corrected Standard of CSP. Besides a positive
Errors (PCSE) association between CSP and
FFP (Tobin’s Q and ROE), it
was also noted that CSP
positively mediated the
nexus of BIND and BSIZE
with FFP. However, WOB
and SC had no significant or
positive effect on CSP and
FFP.
Multiple Regression The findings revealed a
Technique negative non-significant
relationship between CSR
and price-cost margin (PCM)
of the firms under study.
Multiple Regression The findings revealed that
Technique firm size and asset tangibility
71
uniform reporting and disclosure
standards of environmental
practices to enhance the control
and measurement of
performance.
The authors concluded that the
significant positive effect of
BIND slightly decreased with its
increase beyond a certain limit in
relation to CSP and FFP.
The authors concluded that there
was room for improvement
regarding performance and that
could be achieved by increasing
the CSR scores. Failure to do
that would lead to a crisis which
would inevitably affect
performance.
The study recommended that
firm characteristics with positive
 sustainability reporting
practice of listed
manufacturing firms in
Nigeria.
Kasamani and Examined a mediated model
Mostafa (2020) to understand the link
between corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and
firm performance (FP).
Oraka (2021) Ascertained the effect of
environmental costs on the
financial performance of oil
and gas companies on the
Nigeria Stock Exchange.
Lei and Heng Noted that on the question
(2021) whether ESG activities
promoted or reduced firm
had a positive significant
influence on sustainability
reporting.
Lebanese firms Structural Equation In particular, CSR was
Modeling positively linked to firm
financial performance
indirectly through the
enhancement of reputation,
customer satisfaction and
competitive advantage.
Nigeria Multivariate The study found that
Regression compliance cost and
environmental remediation
cost had a significant effect
on Tobin’s Q of oil and gas
companies listed on the
Nigeria Stock Exchange.
China Multiple Regression Found that corporate ESG
activities had a significantly
negative impact on firm
72
outcomes used in the study
should be heavily invested upon
and recommended to others by
the regulating agencies of
government in view of the role
they played in ensuring that
managers acted responsibly
towards people (social), profit
(economic) and planet
(environment) by preparing
sustainable financial reports.
Hence, the findings reduced
ambiguity around CSR’s direct
role, and revealed that CSR
promoted firm performance
indirectly through building
intangible assets (reputation,
customer satisfaction and
competitive advantage) that were
essential to the survival of a firm.
Based on that, the researchers
recommended among others, that
since environmental remediation
cost and financial performance
were positively related, then oil
and gas firms should be
environmentally friendly to
enable them to gain a
competitive advantage, high
liquidity and reduced
environmental cost in the long
run.
The authors concluded that
further research founds that
compared with state-owned
 performance, there was still
no consensus
Xue, Yim and Focused on deriving value-
Khuntia (2021) oriented business
intelligence from the
voluntary disclosure of
sustainability reports
Pham, Do, Aimed at empirically
Doan, Nguyen exploring the influence of
& Pham (2021) sustainability practices on
the financial performance of
116 listed Swedish
companies in the year 2019
performance.
Random effect Results indicated that, on the
linear and non- one hand, external
linear probit models stakeholder engagement was
the primary motivation
behind the voluntary
disclosure of sustainability
reporting and firms were
starting to engage internal
stakeholders through
workforce practices. On the
other hand, internal
employee-oriented intent had
more influence on firm
performance than external
customer-oriented intent.
Sweden The research findings
indicated a positive
relationship between
corporate sustainability and
financial performance that
was measured by earnings
yield, return on asset, return
on equity and return on
capital employed. However,
when it come to a market-
based financial measure,
Tobin’s Q, the result was
inconclusive.
73
enterprises and environmentally
sensitive enterprises, non-state-
owned enterprises and non-
environmentally sensitive
enterprises provided stronger
evidence to support the above
conclusions.
The study demonstrated a toolset
to index firms’ sustainability
indicators and evaluated firms’
sustainability practice as an
intangible asset and its impact on
firms’ financial performance.
Finally, to improve financial
performance, firms were
recommended to engaging in
Dow Jones Sustainability Index,
prepare their sustainability report
in accordance with Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Standards, improve their
sustainable growth rate as well as
keep a high position in the
corporate social responsibility
ranking.
Plumlee, Brown, Studied voluntary
Hayes and environmental disclosure
Marshall (2015) quality and firm value of US
firms.
Oti, Effiong & The aim was to find out the
Tapang (2012), implication of environmental
costs on return on investment
among listed companies in
Nigeria.
Nwokeji and Aimed to explore the effect
Okeke, (2019) of corporate environmental
disclosures on the financial
performance of listed
nonfinancial firms on the
Nigerian Stock Exchange
US Regression analysis Findings showed that there
was both a negative and
positive association between
some aspects of voluntary
environmental disclosure
quality and a firm’s cost of
equity capital.
Nigeria Ordinary least Their study revealed that,
square regression there was a significant
analysis techniques. relationship among employee
health and safely, waste
management, community
development and return on
investment of
environmentally responsible
firms.
Nigeria Ordinary least The data set which was
square regression analysed with ordinary least
square regression revealed
that aggregate environmental
disclosures had significant
positive effects on firm
performance.
74
The study recommended that
Environmental Regulatory
Authority (ERA) should compel
manufacturing companies to
disclose environmental cost in
their financial statements and
environmental management
accounting should be
incorporated into the traditional
accounting systems of
manufacturing companies in
Nigeria.
The study recommended among
other things, that corporate firms
in Nigeria should adopt and
disclose environmentally friendly
policies such as making
donations to environmental
protection, avoiding pollution
and hazardous wastes on the
environment as those would
assist firms in gaining social
legitimacy which would enable
them to enjoy increased
patronage and revenue.
However, the authors concluded
that environmental sustainability
activities, when implemented,

Behram (2015) A Cross-sectoral analysis of
environmental disclosures in
a legitimacy theory context
Makori and Aimed at evaluating
Jagongo (2013) environmental accounting
and firm profitability of firms
listed on the Bombay Stock
Exchange in India for year
2007.
Nyirenda, Environmental management
Ngwakwe and practices and firm
Ambe (2013) performance in South Africa
aimed at demystifying the
effect of environmental
management practices on
firm performance.
Turkey Content analysis The results of the study
failed to confirm legitimacy
theory as an explicator of
environmental disclosure in
the Turkey case and
concluded that
environmental regulation in
developing countries
generally was inadequate
due to lack of funds, trained
personnel and social
infrastructure and, in some
cases, political will.
India Regression analysis Findings showed that
environmental cost had a
positive relationship with net
profit margin and dividend
per share but a negative
relationship with return on
capital employed and
earnings per share.
South Africa Ordinary least The results showed that
square regression there was no significant
technique relationship among carbon
emission reduction, energy
usage, water usage and
return on equity. There was
a significant relationship
among the control variables
of shareholders’ equity, net
income and return on equity.
75
allow of managers to achieve
both social and firm purposes.
The authors concluded that
different firms could convert
different elements into
environmental costs but it was
important that all significant and
relevant costs were incorporated
for a sound decision making
purpose.
The authors concluded that it
could not be in all cases that
firms’ environmental
management practices were
driven by financial motive and
that firms could still possess the
moral and ethical obligation to
curb negative climate impact and
respect environmental
regulations. The study
recommended that further studies

Bassey, Effiok, Examined the impact of
and Eton (2013 environmental accounting
and reporting on
organizational performance
of selected oil and gas
companies in the Niger Delta
Region of Nigeria
Latridis (2013) Environmental disclosure
quality of Malaysian firms
with the objective of finding
out the quality of
environmental disclosure.
Asuquo (2012) Examined environmentally
friendly policies and their
financial effects on corporate
performance of selected oil
and gas companies in the
Niger Delta region of Nigeria
Oba, Fodio, and Value relevance of
Soje, (2012) environmental responsibility
should focus on the impact of
regulations and ethics on
corporate environmental
management practices in
developing economies.
Nigeria Pearson Correlation The results from the Pearson From the results of the study, the
analyses correlation analyses revealed authors concluded that
that environmental cost environmentally friendly firms
significantly influenced would significantly disclose
firms’ profitability; and environmental related
disclosure of environmental information in financial
information in the annual statements and reports. The study
report was positively related recommended that firms should
to firm size. adopt a uniform method of
reporting and disclosing
environmental issues for the
purpose of control and the
measurement of performance.
Malaysia Ordinary least The results showed that The author conclude that high
squares (OLS) environmental disclosure quality environmental disclosure
regression. was positively associated displayed effective corporate
with environmental governance and would tend to
performance. face less difficulties in accessing
capital markets.
Nigeria Ordinary least The results showed that firm The author concluded that the
square regression performance had a related cost of environmental
significant positive protection and management
relationship with positively influenced firm
environmentally friendly profitability and environmentally
policies and firms’ friendly organization enjoyed
competitiveness. high level of corporate
competitiveness resulting in high
performance.
Nigeria Ordinary least The study revealed that there The authors recommended an
square and logistic is a positive and significant embrace of sound environmental
76
 information disclosure in
Nigeria for the period 2005 to
2009 with a key objective of
determining the relevance of
environmental information
disclosure on firm
performance in Nigeria.
Hasan, Kobeissi, Aimed at decoupling the USA
Liu and Wang effects of corporate social
(2016) responsibility and firm
financial performance for US
firms for the period 1992 to
2009.
Adeneye and Corporate social UK
Ahmed (2015) responsibility and company
performance of firms in UK
was to determine the
relationship between social
responsibility and firm
performance.
Xie (2015) Aimed at examining the China
effect of corporate social
responsibility on the firm
performance of Chinese
firms.
regression. relationship among the
explanatory variables:
quality of environmental
responsibility disclosures,
foreign directors on the
board; and financial
performance
Regression analysis The result also showed a
and mediation significant positive
analysis moderating effect of
discretionary cash on the
relationship between
corporate social performance
and total factor productivity.
Bivariate and The results showed that
multivariate analysis there was a significant
positive relationship
between market to book
value and corporate social
responsibility. It also
revealed that there was a
positive insignificant
relationship between size
and corporate social
responsibility.
Ordinary Least The findings showed that all
Square (OLS) and the independent variables
Granger causality were statistically significant.
analysis
77
policies and disclosure practices
for listed Nigerian firms.
The authors concluded that CSR
investment possessed
instrumental value because it
helped firms build productive
intangibles that ultimately
created value for shareholders.
The study recommended that for
increased financial performance,
UK firms should intensify more
efforts in carrying out their
corporate social responsibilities
in order to serve as a source of
competitive advantage.
The study concluded that
industries whose focus was on
the community and external
environment (manufacturing,
service and retail) had more
intention to put positive impacts
on the environment and
stakeholders which, in the end,
produced higher level of
corporate social responsibility.
Vujicic (2015) Undertook a study with the
objective of investigating the
effect of corporate social
responsibility on stock
returns of US stock listed
companies from year 2002 to
2004
Marfo, Chen, Evaluated corporate social
Xuhua, Antwi responsibility with the
and Yiranbon objective of revealing its
(2015) driving dynamics on firms’
profitability between the
period 2005 and 2014.
Manchiraju and Tended to answer the
Rajgopal (2015) question ‘Does corporate
social responsibility (CSR)
create shareholder value
Chen and Lee Examined the quantile
(2015) causality between corporate
social responsibility and
corporate performance of
firms in Taiwan with a scope,
2010 to 2011
Nguyen (2015) Broad objective of finding
the association between
corporate social
responsibility disclosures and
USA Cross-sectional However, the study revealed From the findings of the study,
regressions that KLD CSR score had an the author concluded that
extremely statistically expenditure on corporate social
significant negative impact responsibility in business
on firm performance. With strategies was in fact destructive
the control variables, the to the profits of the firm and
overall CSR rating still had a shareholders value
negative and statistically
significant relationship with
returns.
Ghana Ordinary Least Results indicated a negative
Square Regression relationship among
companies’ performance
standards and corporate
social responsibility
investments (CSRI)
Regression Results showed that an The authors concluded that firms
discontinuity average three-day with greater agency costs and
cumulative abnormal return political connections benefited
(CAR) around key events from mandatory CSR.
leading to the passage of the
mandatory CSR regulation
was negative for firms
affected by the regulation.
Taiwan Non-parametric The study revealed that a In conclusion, the authors
Granger Causality higher involvement in CSR asserted that corporate social
Test was correlated with a higher responsibility affected firms in
firm value, and a higher firm very different ways since only
value then gave rise to a low valued firms got a
better involvement in CSR significant boost in firm value
from performing CSR.
Vietnam Content analysis and The results showed a
panel least squares positive sign for Vietnamese
regression Analysis. firms that took on
environmental
78
 firm value of Vietnam
companies for the period
2010 to 2013.
Simionescu and Aimed at analysing the effect
Gherghina of corporate social
(2014) responsibility on corporate
performance of firms listed
on the Bucharest Stock
Exchange for the period 2008
to 2011.
Aditya and Aimed to examine the affect
Juniarti (2016) of corporate social
responsibility on accrual
quality in Indonesia
Authors Compilation 2021
responsibilities and
concluded that the disclosure
of corporate social
responsibility was an
essential requirement for
international economic
integration due to its
benefits for society.
Bucharest Regression analysis Findings suggested that The authors concluded that the
Stock there was a significant findings of the study were
Exchanges positive relationship important for both managers and
between CSR and EPS. By investors since CSR
estimating fixed‐effects undertakings improved corporate
panel data regression performance.
models, the positive
relationship between CSR
and EPS was reinforced.
Indonesia Ordinary least Found that corporate social Hence, the study concluded that
square regression responsibility performance miscellaneous industry in
did not explain the changes Indonesia would carry out
in accrual quality. corporate social responsibility
only to comply with
government’s regulation as a
formality but there was no moral
justification for such action.
79
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
Research methodology indicates the specification of the procedure employed by a researcher in

putting together the raw facts and data for processing and the estimation techniques to be utilized.

This chapter contains information on research design, sources of data, population of study, sample

and sampling procedures, methods of data analysis, method of data collection, model specification

and operationalization of variables. Accordingly, David (1993) noted that the success of a research

work was dependent on the method applied in the collection of research materials.

3.1 Research Design

This study adopted ex-post facto and analytical research designs based on the secondary data

collated from annual financial reports of selected listed non-financial companies in Nigeria.

Specifically, this study employed ex-post facto research design since the event had already taken

place therefore, the information already existed. Furthermore, the study used analytical research

designs such as Pooled Ordinary Least Square (POLS) regression analysis, robust least square

regression analysis, spearman rank correlation matrix result and the descriptive statistics to analyze

the data.

3.2 Sources of Data

This study employed the secondary source of data. Annual reports and accounts of the sampled

firms were used to obtain information on the variables of sustainability reporting: environmental,

social, economic and employee health and safety reporting. Also, measures of firm performance

which included return on capital employed, gross profit after tax margin and earnings before

interest and tax margin were collated from related companies’ annual financial reports and

accounts. The data instrument was by means of documentation where data from annual reports and

accounts of the selected companies were extracted. The compilation of the data set was done by

80
Machame Ratios, a registered corporate body saddled with the responsibility of collecting empirical

data for related studies.

3.3 Population of Study

This research work covered a population of listed non-financial companies in Nigeria. The non-

financial companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange Group as at December 31st, 2019, were one

hundred and six (106) (Stock Exchange Factbook 2019). Therefore, the population of the study

consist of all 106 non-financial listed companies in Nigeria as at December 31st, 2019. We

employed non-financial listed companies’ due to similarities in operations and activities and also

noting their immense contributions towards the growth of the Nigerian economy. Also, it is

observed that there is less concentration of similar prior studies in the sub-sectors of reviewed

literature.

3.4 Sampling Size

A sample size is typically one that bears some proportional relationship to the size of the population

from which it is drawn. Ligthelm and Van Wyk (2005) described sample size as a smaller set of the

larger population. Deriving the sample size from the total population, the study adopted Krejcie and

Morgan (1970) sample size computation. The sample size calculation was based on p = 0.05 where

the probability of committing type I error was less than 5 % or p <0.05.

S = X2 NP (1- P) / d2 (N - 1) + X2 P (1 - P)

Where,
S = required sample size.
X2 = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence level (0.05 =
3.841).
N = the population size.
P = the population proportion (assumed to be 0.50) since it would provide the maximum sample
size.
d = the degree of accuracy expressed as proportion (0.05).
The expected sample size was:
81
 S = 3.841 x 106 x 0.5 x 0.5 / (0.05)2 x 106 + 3.481 x 0.5 x 0.5
S = 101.7865 / 0.265 + 0.87025
S = 101.7865 / 1.13525
S = 89.66
S = 90
3.5 Sampling Technique
In this study, the sample is obtained from the population based on the nature of the research work

where the need to employ cross sections (non-financial listed companies) that possess similar

characteristics and attributes is important. Particularly, we drew the sample size through a

procedure of purposive non-probability sampling technique with concern for availability and

accessibility of relevant data needed for the study. First, we deselected all the firms that got listed

into the exchange group after year 2010 to ensure a balanced panel data structure and a

homogenous periodic scope necessary for the estimation process. We also deselected firms without

complete required data needed for the estimation. Therefore, the sample size resulted to seventy-

five (75) non-financial companies. Further, we noted that the selected non-financial listed

companies showed strong similarities in reporting structure, completeness and availability of data

for the study.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis

The data set was first subjected to pre-regression analyses which included descriptive statistics

analyses, correlation analyses and the test for normality of residua. The descriptive statistics was

employed to examine the characteristics of the data: mean maximum, minimum, and standard

deviation. The correlation analysis was adopted to evaluate the association among the variables,

and check for possible collinearity among the variables of interest. The regression analyses

technique as a method of data analyses was employed to establish the effect of sustainability

reporting and firm performance, and identify the direction of the effect, if any. However, the

regression analysis was subjected to diagnostic checks involving the tests for multicollinearity,

82
heteroscedasticity and fixed and random effect. Specifically, the need to control for

heteroscedasticity and company fixed effect which were seen to be present in the fixed effect model

as suggested by the Hausman specification test prompted the use of robust least square regression

estimator and least square dummy variable regression estimator.

3.7 Method of Data Collection

The method of data collection involves the process taken to extract the information from its

source/s. This study made use of content analyses procedure in extracting the data from related

companies’ annual reports and accounts for the period 2010 and 2019.

3.7.1 Content Analysis

This study employed content analysis method for collecting data particularly, for the proxies for

sustainability reporting of environmental sustainability, social responsibility and employee health

and safety reporting. Content analysis is defined as a method in which qualitative data are

converted to quantitative data systematically to aid analysis (Clarke & Gibson‐Sweet, 1999). This

method is defined as a research technique that helps in making replicable and valid inferences from

data and assumes that the extent of disclosure signifies the importance of the disclosed topic to the

reporting entity (Campbell, Craven & Shrives, 2003). In content analysis, word counts, sentence

counts, average lines and proportion of pages can be employed, and a researcher is free to choose

the method considered most convenient (Hassan, 2012; Roca & Searcy, 2012; Hackston & Milne,

1996; Alonso‐Almeida, Llach & Marimon, 2014; and Bollen, Skully & Wei, 2010). In this study,

environmental sustainability, social responsibility and employee health and safety reporting

information was collected from annual reports of the selected firms in the period under review by

employing sentence count based on the argument that a researcher was free to choose any of the

methods. Specifically, the final measurements of the independent variables were achieved by

employing a scoring index based on performance indicators selected from Global Reporting

Initiative (2018) guidelines as applied in previous studies (Caritte, Acha, & Shah 2015).

Environmental, social and health/safety disclosure indexes were calculated based on the number of
83
occurrences and the level of disclosure. If there is an occurrence of an indicator in the company’s

financial statement, the researcher will assign the value of ‘1’ but if there is no occurrence of such

indicator, the researcher will assign ‘0’. The index score is arrived at by dividing the sum of

occurrences by the total number of possible scores.

3.8 Model Specification

The study specified three econometric models to determine the effects of sustainability reporting

on the financial performance of companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. This study

modified Hongming, Ahmed, Hussan, Rehman,Ullah and Khan (2020) whose model is

Financial Performance = (Environmental Sustainability Reporting, Social Sustainability

Reporting, Employee Health & Safety Sustainability Reporting
Firm Size Firm Leverage)

and Nwokeji and Osisioma’s (2019) whose model is

Financial Performance = (Environmental Sustainability Reporting, Social Sustainability

Reporting, Governance Sustainability Reporting, Firm Size, Firm
Age & Firm Leverage)

However, the functional form of the models for this study are specified as:

Financial Performance = F (Environmental Sustainability Reporting, Social Sustainability

Reporting, Economic Sustainability Reporting, Employee Health & Safety
Sustainability Reporting) ……………………………. (1)

Where financial performance measures are; Return on Capital Employed, Gross Profit after Tax
Margin and Earnings before Interest & Tax. Hence, we re-wrote the functional form of the
equation as.
Return on Capital Employed Model

ROCE = F (Environmental Sustainability Reporting, Social Sustainability Reporting, Economic

Sustainability Reporting, Employee Health & Safety Sustainability Reporting, and
Earnings Yield) ………………………………………………... (2)

Gross Profit after Tax Margin Model

GPTM = F (Environmental Sustainability Reporting, Social Sustainability Reporting, Economic

Sustainability Reporting, Employee Health & Safety Sustainability Reporting, and
Earnings Yield) …………………………………………………. (3)

Earnings before Interest & Tax Model

84
EBIT = F (Environmental Sustainability Reporting, Social Sustainability Reporting, Economic
Sustainability Reporting, Employee Health & Safety Sustainability Reporting, and
Earnings Yield) …………. (4)

Furthermore, we specified three econometric models to test our stated hypotheses shown below as:

Model 1 Return on Capital Employed

roceit = ∂0 + ∂1envdit + ∂2csrdit + ∂3hsedit + ∂4eapsit + ∂5eaydit + £it ……………………. (5)

Model 2 Gross Profit after Tax Margin

gptmit = ∂0 + ∂1envdit + ∂2csrdit + ∂3hsedit + ∂4eapsit + ∂5eaydit + £it ……………………… (6)

Model 3 Earnings before Interest & Tax

ebitit = ∂0 + ∂1envdit + ∂2csrdit + ∂3hsedit + ∂4eapsit + ∂5eaydit + £it ………………………. (7)
Where:

ROCE = Return on Capital Employed

GPTM = Gross Profit after Tax Margin
EBIT = Earnings before Interest & Tax Margin
ENVD = Environmental Sustainability Reporting
CSRD = Social Responsibility Reporting
HSED = Employee Health & Safety Reporting
EAPS = Economic Sustainability Reporting
EAYD = Earnings Yield
∂0 = Model intercept
∂1…....∂5 = Coefficient to be estimated, where ∂1…....∂5 > 0
it = Cross Section of listed companies with time variant
£ = stochastic error term

3.9 Operationalization of Variables

Definition and measurements of dependent, independent and control variable employed in the study
is presented

Table 3.1 Presentation of Variables, measurement, and sources

Variable Measurement Sources Apriori
Expectation
Return on Capital earnings before interest & Ioannou and Serafeim
Employed tax divided total asset (2015)
minus current liabilities.

Gross Profit after Tax gross profit divided by Ioannou and Serafeim
Margin revenue. (2015)
Earnings before earnings before interest Daniel, Mogaka,
Interest and Tax and taxes divided by Makori, Ambrose and
revenue. Jagongo (2013)
Environmental Content Analysis based Daniel, Mogaka, +
Sustainability on the Global Reporting Makori, Ambrose and
Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2018) Jagongo (2013)
85
 Checklist.
Social Sustainability Content analysis based on Lo & Sheu (2007) +
Reporting the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI, 2018)
Checklist.
Employee Health and Content analysis based on Dobbs and Standa +
Safety Sustainability Global Reporting (2016)
Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2018)
Checklist.
Economic Earnings per share based Dobbs and Standa +
Sustainability on the Global Reporting (2016)
Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2018)
Earnings Yield cash dividend paid Hussain (2015) +
divided by market
capitalization
Source: Researcher’s Compilation, 2021

3.10 Decision Rule

The decision rule is a statement that tells under what circumstances to reject the null hypothesis.

The decision rule is based on the specific values of the test statistic (e.g., reject H0 if Z > 1.645).

However, this study tested the statistical significance level at 95% confident level to determine

whether the data were true representation of the entire population. Suppose the test falls within the

95% confidence level, then the chosen sample is a true representation of the entire population.

Hence, in this study, we rejected HO if the probability beta was less than 5%, that is, 0.05

confidence level.

86
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 Introduction

This chapter seeks to a present detailed empirical analysis of the data gathered specifically for this

study.

4.1 Data Presentation

The study investigated the effect of sustainability reporting on financial performance considering;

economic sustainability reporting, environmental sustainability reporting, social responsibility

reporting as well as employee health and safety reporting as measures of sustainability reporting for

samples obtained from non-financial firms listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange market during

the period 2010 – 2019. In line with the related extant literature, we employed the variable of

earnings yield as a control variable for the model. In this study, we engaged three different

measures of firm performance which included return on capital employed, gross profit after tax

margin and earnings before interest and tax. Furthermore, in identifying the possible

environmental, social, economic as well as health and safety sustainability reporting that would

affect firm performance, we conducted a pre regression analysis which included descriptive

statistics, correlation matrix and data normality analysis. Table 4.1 showed the mean (average),

maximum, minimum standard deviation and sum for each of the variables of interest by providing

some insight into the nature of the selected Nigerian listed non-financial companies that were

employed in this study.

87
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics by Sector
. tabstat roce gptm eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, statistics (mean sd min max sum) by(exchangesector)
Summary statistics: mean, sd, min, max, sum by categories of: exchangesector (Exchange Sector)
exchangesector | roce gptm eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture | 5.443242 20.48937 2.979056 .015625 .585 1 2.210263 -3.84867
| 11.83303 68.78711 105.1466 .0418665 .1942111 0 4.567887 33.55668
| -16.0562 -306.7095 -538.4056 0 .4 1 -.39 -130.3173
| 29.1591 78.2017 203.046 .125 1 1 25.36 54.2032
| 206.8432 778.596 113.2041 .625 23.4 40 83.99 -150.0981
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conglomerate | .446594 29.69023 13.15581 .02 .74 .98 .2992 -5.44996
| 6.885304 17.83213 19.16595 .0989743 .1726149 .1414214 2.051247 71.11984
| -21.8134 4.687 -41.4723 0 .2 0 -4.37 -373.3333
| 12.5444 76.3534 61.4282 .5 1 1 7.74 154.6311
| 22.3297 1484.512 657.7906 1 37 49 14.96 -272.498
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & R | -2.196305 22.10862 -19.4499 0 .86 1 1.9855 -36.26056
| 13.73432 24.49348 152.7409 0 .1142481 0 3.576001 144.3317
| -54.3955 -40.6991 -629.2969 0 .6 1 -6.06 -605.7547
| 5.2713 68.1443 62.7453 0 1 1 6.83 27.789
| -43.9261 442.1723 -388.998 0 17.2 20 39.71 -725.2113
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer | 6.596031 27.70969 10.71263 .0820313 .71125 .9375 3.275157 5.694964
| 8.986245 15.8633 13.38109 .1952899 .2454588 .2428215 8.527295 17.0403
| -44.1613 -26.1228 -69.875 0 0 0 -3.23 -61.644
| 26.5165 92.9729 37.3408 .75 1 1 57.63 148.7767
| 1048.769 4405.841 1703.307 13.125 113.8 150 520.75 905.4992
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare | -.883175 42.58702 -.5043051 .025 .7533333 1 .3501667 -.6625935
| 12.17221 10.91794 31.64695 .1098921 .1443473 0 1.440122 72.19888
| -35.2087 13.1654 -121.1086 0 .6 1 -4.66 -227.1019
| 26.6258 62.3326 73.7746 .5 1 1 7 292.9857
| -52.9905 2555.221 -30.2583 1.5 45.2 60 21.01 -39.75561
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICT | 1.359487 29.79058 11.5254 .01875 .665 .975 -.1437838 36.34475
| 11.69177 18.00865 16.1006 .0827705 .2142967 .1581139 2.520458 223.9205
| -52.5591 -14.7981 -21.8157 0 .2 0 -9.86 -195.4037
| 31.774 71.4444 54.6786 .375 1 1 6.7 1341.316
| 53.02 1161.833 449.4906 .75 26.6 39 -5.32 1344.756
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial | 5.237585 32.76294 10.6912 .14375 .726 1 2.339394 2.540735
| 25.70372 26.95076 40.57215 .2521217 .1812527 0 4.32484 32.94681
| -179.9173 -197.5784 -344.1751 0 .4 1 -7.32 -125.8742
| 53.9594 63.472 55.5785 .625 1 1 22.83 186.0029
| 518.5209 3243.531 1058.428 14.375 72.6 100 231.6 251.5328
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil & Gas | 3.110727 2.087353 57.59151 .015625 .6775 .9367089 5.312532 19.31525
| 24.42581 63.81335 645.0393 .0416007 .1841676 .2450417 8.830644 387.5592
| -58.196 -516.8097 -624.4804 0 0 0 -20.23 -684.7388
| 187.1324 46.083 5655.464 .125 1 1 43.58 3266.745
| 245.7474 164.9009 4549.729 1.25 54.2 74 419.69 1525.905
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources | .5495576 14.06469 83.80933 0 .64 1 .20675 -9.881552
| 8.389463 51.05041 1168.621 0 .1706699 0 .3599671 35.94792
| -22.7876 -186.0624 -1466.617 0 .4 1 -.45 -194.7213
| 16.1601 64.2116 7029.232 0 .8 1 .88 20.4067
| 21.9823 562.5877 3352.373 0 25.6 40 8.27 -395.2621
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services | -.9693801 33.73806 -1.347432 .0016667 .7013333 .9933333 .0105517 -12.10586
| 20.24016 27.09062 68.02554 .0204124 .1514966 .0816497 .7163049 94.09458
| -118.6015 -166.2416 -511.5227 0 .4 0 -3.89 -710.95
| 89.5447 100 194.4973 .25 1 1 1.07 103.75
| -140.5601 4892.018 -195.3776 .25 105.2 149 1.53 -1731.138
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total | 2.578513 27.01127 15.45911 .0444257 .7037838 .9756428 1.83795 .9830981
| 17.29881 35.93923 347.54 .1465325 .1941966 .1542601 5.671869 149.0725
| -179.9173 -516.8097 -1466.617 0 0 0 -20.23 -710.95
| 187.1324 100 7029.232 .75 1 1 57.63 3266.745
| 1879.736 19691.21 11269.69 32.875 520.8 721 1336.19 713.7292
Authors Computation 2021

88
4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics Discussion

The Table 4.1 described the statistics of the study. Specifically, it is observed that firms in the oil

and gas sector (ROCE = 187.1324) were more profitable in terms of return on capital employed

closely followed by firms in the services sector (ROCE = 89.5447), industrial (ROCE = 53.9594)

and ICT (ROCE = 31.774). However, surprisingly the descriptive statistics showed that firms in the

industrial sector were least (ROCE = -179.9173) profitable in terms of return on capital employed

during the period under review. Particularly, we also observed that firms in the services sector

(GPTM = 100.00) were also more profitable in terms of gross profit after tax margin closely

followed by firms in the consumer goods sector (GPTM = 92.9729), agricultural sector (GPTM =

78.2017) and conglomerate (GPTM = 76.3534), while the least profitable sector in terms of gross

profit after tax margin was seen to be the oil and gas sector with a value of (GPTM = -516.8097)

during the period under review. Furthermore, we observed for the dependent variable of earnings

before interest and tax margin firms in the resources sector (EBIT = 7029.232) was more profitable

closely followed by firms in the oil and gas sector (EBTM = 5655.464), agriculture (EBTM =

203.046) and services (EBTM = 194.4973).

However, surprisingly, the descriptive statistics showed that firms in the resources sector were least

(EBTM = -1466.617) profitable in terms of earnings before interest and tax margin during the

period under review. For the independent variables, we noted first, that the statistics for

environmental sustainability revealed, that on average, there was a low level of compliance to

environmental disclosure policy among listed non-financial companies in Nigeria. That was shown

from the average value of the environmental disclosure variable (ENVD = 4%) which could be

related to the fact that government policies on environmental sustainability were not mandatory,

hence strict adherence was not in force. That was a strong indication that environmental sensitive

products were not well captured in the annual reports of the sampled listed firms. Furthermore, the

mean value of the variable of environmental sustainability disclosure could also indicate a very low

level of environmental conservation disclosure in Nigeria which could be aligned with the fact that
89
there were no formal guidelines that required listed companies in Nigeria to disclose environmental

issues. The result showed a complete deviation from the work by Hook and Thompson (2013)

which revealed that 81% of the sampled companies in the UK showed consistency in reporting

environmental related issues.

For the variable of social sustainability disclosure, the statistics revealed that, on average, and

among the companies under review, companies in the construction and real estate sector in Nigeria

disclosed more on issues (CSRD = 86%) relating to social responsibility during the period under

review. The value was highest in terms of sectoral comparison, closely followed by firms in the

healthcare sector (CSRD = 75%). It reflected the fact that some firms did not make any

contributions to social responsibility. Hence, such business entities did not follow global best

practice which could be seen as a failure on the path of corporate managers. We could also

conclude that the practice of social sustainability and its associated reporting were not encouraged

by all the companies under review. Furthermore, we could carefully say that the findings were fair

and would be profitable in the long run since some studies revealed that most organizations employ

that strategy as a medium of advertising a good public image (Damtom, 2014). From the

descriptive statistics, information on health and safety of employee was revealed to be disclosed by

over 90% of the firms in the sample considered in the period under study. It was obtained from the

variable of health & safety (HSED = 98%) which noted that listed companies in Nigeria had shown

awareness of the benefits of such a disclosure in its annual reports. Economic sustainability which

we proxied for earnings per share revealed that, on average, earnings per share was (EAPS = 2.21)

for firms in the agriculture sector, (EAPS = 0.30) for firms in the conglomerate, (EAPS = 1.99) for

firms in the construction and real estate, (EAPS = 3.28) for firms in the consumer goods firms,

(EAPS = 0.35) for firms in the healthcare sectors, (EAPS = -0.14) for firms in the ICT sectors,

(EAPS = 2.34) for firms in the industrial sectors, (EAPS = 5.31) for firms in the oil and gas sector

and (EAPS = 0.21) for firms in the natural resources sector. On average, during the period under

analysis, we found that the sampled companies exhibited a positive earnings yield value (EAYD =
90
0.98) being the control variable for the study. It indicated that the market value of the firms during

the period under review was encouraging.

4.1.2 Test for Normality of Residua

In all branches of knowledge, it is necessary to apply statistical methods in a sensible way, but it

has been observed that in the literature, statistical misconceptions are conventional. The most used

statistical methods are correlation, regression and experimental design. But all of them are based on

one basic assumption, that the observation follows a normal (Gaussian) distribution. So, it is

assumed that the populations from where the samples are collected are normally distributed. For

this reason, the inferential methods require checking the normality assumption (Bera & Jarque,

1982). However, the null hypothesis is that “sample distribution is normal” therefore, if the test

(Probability > Z) is significant, the distribution is non-normal. Hence, we followed the results by

Mendes and Pala (2003), Farrel and Stewart (2006) and Keskin (2006) who concluded that

Shapiro-Wilk test was the most powerful technique to check the normality of residua of a data set.

Consequently, we conducted the test for normality of residua as shown in the Table below.

Table 4.2 Test for Normality of Residua

Authors Computation (2021)

From the results obtained above, we found that the independent variables of environmental

sustainability (ENVD = 0.00000), social sustainability (CSRD = 0.00000), health and safety

sustainability (HSED = 0.00000), economic sustainability (EAPS = 0.00000) as well as the control

variable of earnings yield (EAYD = 0.00000) were not normally distributed. Furthermore, we
91
found that the dependent variables of return on capital employed (ROCE = 0.00000), gross profit

after tax margin (GPTM = 0.0000) and earnings before interest and tax margin (EBIT = 0.00000)

were also not normally distributed. They were obtained from the probabilities of the z-statistics as

shown in the table above.

4.1.3 Correlation Analysis

Correlation is a bivariate analysis that measures the strength of association between two variables

and the direction of the association. In terms of the strength of association, the value of the

correlation coefficient varies between +1 and -1. A value of ± 1 indicates a perfect degree of

association between the two variables such that as the correlation coefficient value goes towards 0,

the association between the two variables will be weaker. The direction of the association is

indicated by the sign of the coefficient; a plus sign indicates a positive association and a minus sign

indicates a negative association. Most notably, we employed the Spearman Rank Correlation matrix

technique because of non-normality of residua. In this study, we noted that non-normality could

grow more common as data gathering techniques became more complex. Disciplines such as

Behavioural Genetics, Computational Modeling, Cognitive Neuroscience and Managerial Sciences

often produce notably non-normal data (Bray, 2010; Allison et al., 1999; Bishara et al., 2009;

Bullmore et al., 1999). Such non-normality may handicap the performance of traditional parametric

statistics such as the Pearson product-moment correlation (Dunlap, Burke & Greer, 1995)

Nonlinear transformations away from normality usually reduce the absolute magnitude of the

Pearson Correlation (Calkins, 1974; Dunlap, Burke & Greer, 1995; Lancaster, 1957). Hence, with

non-normal data, the traditional t test for a significant Pearson correlation can be underpowered.

Perhaps of even greater concern is that some types of non-normal distributions Pearson’s

correlation also inflate Type I error rates (Blair & Lawson, 1982; Hayes, 1996; Bishara & Hittner,

2012). Specifically, we noted that non-normal distribution produced outlier which was an

observation with an abnormally large residual. With non-normal data, the traditional Pearson

92
product–moment correlation may mischaracterize relationships in more noticeable ways. Hence, to

cushion these problems, a researcher can choose from a variety of alternatives to the Pearson

correlation technique. Consequently, we followed Anscombe’s (1960) insurance policy analogy

which noted that Spearman Rank coefficient (rs) yielded a slight loss of efficiency when bivariate

normality assumptions were met, but it seemed a small premium given the impressive protection it

provided against outliers. Hence, Spearman’s rank-order correlation following nonlinear

transformation of the data was shown in the table below:

Table 4.3 Spearman Rank Correlation Matrix Result

Author’s Computation (2021)

Specifically, it was observed that all the independent variables had a positive association with the

independent variables. However, a cursory look at the Table above suggested that there was no

need to worry about the consequences of a perfect correlation since no rho coefficient (correlation

coefficient) was greater than 80% at that point the problem of collinearity occurred. However,

multicollinearity among the independent variables was further tested with an advanced econometric

technique which was the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) technique. It suggested that high

multicollinearity among predictors indicated that one could predict one variable using a second

93
predictor variable known as the problem of multicollinearity. That outcome produced unstable

parameter estimates of regression which made it very difficult to assess the unique effect of the

independent variables on the dependent variable. The standard error of such parameters became

very high.

4.1.4 Regression Analysis

McManus (2011) observed that General Linear Model is the foundation of linear panel model

estimation. When the regressors are exogenous, the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimator is

consistent with the best in the class of linear unbiased estimators when the errors are homoscedastic

and serially uncorrelated. When the errors have finite variances, the least squares technique

provides minimum-variance mean-unbiased estimate under these conditions. Following the above,

we first conducted a Panel Ordinary Least Square regression analysis to check for regression errors.

4.1.5 Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Test

Multicollinearity occurs in multiple regression models, and it applies to a situation where two or

more independent variables are found to collinear. Multicollinearity occurs in a multiple regression

analysis if some of the independent variables are highly inter-correlated. In a nutshell, if

multicollinearity is found among the independent variables of interest, it means that they are

perfectly correlated. When this happens, the parameter coefficients will be indeterminate, and the

standard error of the estimated coefficients becomes bloated. According to Gujarati (2003), there is

no consequence if the mean VIF is less than 10 or 1/VIF is less than 0.10.

4.1.6 Test for Heteroscedasticity

Heteroscedasticity means the absence of homoscedasticity, the constant variance assumption of the

panel least square estimator. Heteroscedasticity implies the absence of constant variance leading to

the breakdown of the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE) properties where the efficiency and

consistency properties are lost. Using the Breusch Pagan-Godfrey test, the decision rule is to

conclude that there is no heteroscedasticity if the probability value of the F statistics is not

94
statistically significant at 5%. Otherwise, the assumption of homoscedasticity will be violated if the

probability value of the F statistics is statistically significant at 5%

4.1.7 Test for Fixed Effect (FE)

When using FE estimator, we assume that something within the cross sections may impact or bias

the predictor or outcome variables hence, we need to control for this. This is the rationale behind

the assumption of the correlation between an entity’s error term and predictor variables. FE

removes the effect of those time-invariant characteristics from the predictor variables so we can

assess the predictors’ net effect. Another important assumption of the FE model is that those time-

invariant characteristics are unique to the cross sections and should not correlate with other

individual characteristics. Each entity is different, therefore, the entity’s error term and the constant

(which captures individual characteristics) should not correlate with the others (Stock &Watson,

2003). Following the rule of the thumb, the null hypotheses (H0) of this test suggested that there

was no presence of fixed effects (no fixed effects) in the model hence adopting the ordinary least

square regression estimator would yield best linear unbiased estimates for such a model

specification (Greene, 2008)

4.1.8 Test for Random Effect

The rationale behind random effects model is that unlike the fixed effect model, the variation across

entities is assumed to be random and uncorrelated with the predictor or independent variables

included in the model: “…the crucial distinction between fixed and random effects is whether the

unobserved individual effect embodies elements that are correlated with the regressors in the

model, not whether these effects are stochastic or not” (Greene, 2008). Following the rule of the

thumb, the null hypotheses (H0) of this test suggested that there was no presence of random effects

(no random effects) in the model hence, adopting the ordinary least square regression estimator

would yield best linear unbiased estimates for such model specification (Greene, 2008). However,

in the Table 4.4, we provided a summary of a panel regression diagnostic test for all three models

95
to determine which regression estimator best fit each model for efficient, consistent, and unbiased

coefficients which were good enough for policy recommendation.

Table 4.4 Panel Least Square Regression Diagnostic Result

Author’s Computation (2021)

A careful examination of the results depicts the absence of multicollinearity since the mean VIF

(1.16) for all the three models return on capital employed gross profit after tax margin and earnings

before interest and tax within the region of 10 against which the presence of multicollinearity could

be suspected. Also, we found the absence of heteroscedasticity (0.0866) in return on capital

employed model while there existed a strong presence of heteroscedasticity in both gross profit

after tax (0.0000) and earnings before interest and tax (0.0000) models. Furthermore, a diagnostic

test revealed the presence of fixed and random effects in both models of return on capital employed

96
(0.0000) and gross profit after tax margin (0.0000) during the period under investigation. We

explored the Hausman model selection criteria which revealed that fixed effect models should be

adopted for both return on capital employed (0.0000) and gross profit after tax (0.0000) models.

However, due to the damaging effects which the presence of fixed effects could have on the

standard errors, we resorted to the use of Least Square Dummy Variable (LSDV) regression

estimator in obtaining the most efficient and consistent estimates as applied in previous studies by

(Orazalin & Mahmood, 2019). Specifically, in examining the model of earnings before interest and

tax, the result revealed a strong presence of heteroscedasticity (0.0000) but was void of both fixed

(1.0000) and random (1.0000) effects. In that model, the need for Hausman selection criteria was

not required but we employed robust least square regression in order to cushion the effect of

heteroscedasticity. Hence, the resulting coefficients were employed for interpretation and policy

recommendation.

4.1.9 Least Square Dummy Variable Estimator

In panel data models, dummy variables may be introduced to the least squares to explain the effect

of each individual unit of a cross section which is unobserved but correctly specifies the model of

relation. Just like the Ordinary Least Square (OLS), the Least Square Dummy Variable (LSDV)

estimator is also applied to the equations in a level form and all the cross sections are applied in the

actual estimation (Islam, 1994; Greene, 2003). It can give estimates of variances of αit and εit

separately. In the Least Square Dummy Variable estimation, the individual effect is assumed to be

fixed over time in each cross section. The fixed effects model is a useful specification for

explaining cross section heterogeneity in panel data. The LSDV is generally implemented by the

insertion of relevant dummies but is mindful of the dummy variable trap and the application of

OLS on the enlarged model. From the foregoing, this study adopted the LSDV to control for the

fixed effect that was present in the ROCE & GPTM models as presented in the table 4.4 The Table

provided a summary of regression estimates employed for the study’s hypotheses testing and

consequent interpretation of result and policy recommendation.

97
Table 4.5 Least Square Dummy Variable and Robust Least Square Regression Estimates

STATA 16 Output
Author’s Computation (2021)
Specifically, the study provided interpretation and made policy recommendation with LSDV & the

Robust Panel Least Square models. The ROCE model goodness of fit as captured by the Fisher

statistics (12.85) and the corresponding probability value (0.0000) showed a 1% statistically

significant level suggesting that the entire model was fit and could be employed for interpretation

and policy implication. An R2 value of 0.6084 indicated that about 61% of the variation in the

dependent variable was explained by all the independent variables plus the control variables and

company dummies in the model. It also proved that about 39% of the variation in the dependent

variable was left unexplained but had been captured by the error term. Also, the GPTM model

goodness of fit as captured by the Fisher statistics (4.94) and the corresponding probability value

(0.0000) showed a 1% statistically significant level suggesting that the entire model was fit and

could be employed for interpretation and policy implication. An R2 value of 0.3742 indicated that

about 37% of the variation in the dependent variable was explained by all the independent variables
98
plus the control variables and company dummies in the model. It also proved that about 63% of the

variation in the dependent variable was left unexplained but had been captured in the error term.

For EBIT model, the goodness of fit as captured by the Fisher statistics (609.30) and the

corresponding probability value (0.0000) showed a 1% statistically significant level suggesting that

the entire model was fit and could be employed for interpretation and policy implication. An R2

value of 0.809 indicates that about 81% of the variation in the dependent variable was explained by

all the independent variables plus the control variable in the model. It also proved that about 19%

of the variation in the dependent variable was left unexplained but have been captured in the error

term.

4.2 Test of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Environmental Sustainability Reporting has no significant effect on

financial performance of listed non-financial companies in Nigeria

The least square dummy variable model of return on capital employed and gross profit after tax

margin presented above showed the results of the variable of environmental sustainability reporting

as follows: ROCE (ENVD, Coef. = -7.633, t = -1.02 and P value = 0.307). GPTM (ENVD, Coef. =

8.433, t = 0.43 and P value = 0.6667). On the other hand, the panel robust least square model of

earnings before interest and tax presented above showed the results of the variable of

environmental sustainability reporting as follows; EBIT (ENVD, Coef. = 10.545, t = 4.05 and P

value = 0.0001). Following the results presented above, it was revealed that the effect of

environmental sustainability reporting on a company’s performance was significant for only the

model of earnings before interest and tax. Further, the findings implied that, on average, the value

of earnings before interest and tax for the firms in the sample significantly increased when

management disclosure policy supported more efforts in increasing the volume of disclosure

relating to environmental sustainability. Clearly, the findings contradicted the null hypotheses

which suggested that disclosure on environmental sustainability issues of the sampled companies

would not significantly affect performance. Hence, we noted that environmental sustainability

99
reporting had a significant effect on firm performance of non-finance firms in Nigeria but for

certain performance measures such earnings before interest and tax as evidenced in this study.

Hypothesis 2: Social sustainability reporting has no significant effect on the financial

performance of listed non-financial companies in Nigeria

The least square dummy variable model of return on capital employed and gross profit after tax

margin presented above showed the results of the variable of social responsibility disclosure as

follows: ROCE (CSRD, Coef. = -13.998, t = -3.39 and P value = 0.007). GPTM (CSRD, Coef. = -

39.485, t = -3.65 and P value = 0.003). Furthermore, in the panel robust least square model of

earnings before interest and tax presented above, the results obtained from the variable of social

responsibility sustainability reporting read as follows; EBIT (CSRD, Coef. = 7.541, t = 3.37 and P

value = 0.0008). Therefore, the results presented above revealed that the effect of social

responsibility sustainability disclosure on firm performance was significant across all three

measures of firm performance employed in this study. The findings were consistent with those of

Caritte, Acha and Shah (2015) which showed that social sustainability activities were a crucial

strategy for enhancing corporate performance. However, we documented differences in the

direction of effects as we observed that the effect lowered the performance measures of return on

capital employed, and gross profit after tax measure but it was favourable to EBIT during the

period under review. Furthermore, the findings implied that, on average, the value of earnings

before interest and tax for the firms in the sample would significantly increase when management

social disclosure policies provided support for an increased volume of activities and associated

disclosure relating to social responsibility. Obviously, the findings contradicts the null hypotheses

which suggested that disclosure on social responsibility activities of the sampled companies would

not significantly affect performance. Hence, in this study, we noted that social responsibility

reporting had a significant effect on all the three measures of firm performance of non-finance

companies in Nigeria. But caution should be taken as empirical evidence showed that the direction

of effect differed across measures of firm performance during the period under investigation.

100
Hypothesis 3: Economic sustainability reporting has no significant effect on the
performance of listed non-financial companies in Nigeria

The least square dummy variable model of return on capital employed and gross profit after tax

margin presented above showed the results of the variable of economic sustainability disclosure as

follows: ROCE (EAPS, Coef. = 0.953, t = 6.44 and P value = 0.0000). GPTM (EAPS, Coef. =

0.407, t = 1.05 and P value = 0.2942). Furthermore, in the panel robust least square model of

earnings before interest and tax presented above, the results obtained from the variable of economic

sustainability reporting read as follows; EBIT (EAPS, Coef. = 0.351, t = 5.30 and P value =

0.0000). Therefore, the results presented above revealed that the effect of economic sustainability

disclosure on firm performance was significant across two measures of firm performance employed

in this study. Again, the outcome was consistent with the position held by Bauman & Skitka (2012)

who noted that firm managers should not only consider the social and environmental health of the

organization but also ensure that the economic purpose of the establishing the organization was

actualized. However, we observed no differences in the direction of effects as they were seen to be

positive across all the three measures of performance during the period under investigation.

Furthermore, the findings implied that, on average, and all things being equal (ceteris paribus), the

value of return on capital employed and earnings before interest and tax margin for the firms in the

sample would significantly increase when policies regarding economic sustainability provided

support for earnings per share to grow. Obviously, the findings contradicted the null hypotheses

which suggested that the disclosure on economic sustainability of the sampled companies would

not significantly affect performance. Hence, in this study, we noted that economic sustainability

disclosure had a significant effect on two measures of firm performance (ROCE & EBIT) of non-

finance listed companies in Nigeria during the period under consideration.

101
Hypothesis 4: Employee health & safety sustainability reporting has no significant
effect on the financial performance of listed non-financial companies in
Nigeria

The least square dummy variable model of return on capital employed and gross profit after tax

margin presented above showed the results of the variable of employee health and safety disclosure

as follows: ROCE (HSED, Coef. = 13.805, t = 2.93 and P value = 0.0035). GPTM (ENVD, Coef. =

16.306, t = 1.32 and P value = 0.1871). On the other hand, the panel robust least square model of

earnings before interest and tax presented above showed the results of the variable of employee

health and safety as follows; EBIT (HSED, Coef. = -2.618, t = -0.98 and P value = 0.3262).

Following the results presented above, it was revealed that the effect of employee health and safety

disclosure on firm performance was significant for only the model of return on capital employed.

The findings agreed with the arguments by Mishra & Suar (2010) that the effect of employee health

and safety disclosure differed across different measures of firm performance. Furthermore, the

findings implied that, on average, the value of performance proxied by return on capital employed

for the firms in the sample would significantly increase when the disclosure policy of the firm

supported full participation and increased reporting of activities relating to employee health and

safety. However, the result was inconsistent with the null hypotheses which stated that information

disclosure on employee health and safety sustainability of the sampled companies would not

significantly affect performance. Hence, we noted in this study that employee health and safety

sustainability disclosure had a significant effect on the firm performance of non-financial listed

companies in Nigeria but not for certain performance measures such return on capital employed as

evidenced in this study.

102
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter concludes this dissertation that sought to examine sustainability reporting and

financial performance of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. It chronologically examines the

subject matter chapter by chapter. The immediate last chapter presented vivid analyses of the data

used. This chapter however, seeks to provide possible explanations for the results obtained from the

regression analyses. Thus, in this chapter, we will provide a detailed discussion of the results which

were obtained from the regression analyses.

5.1 Environmental Sustainability Reporting

Notably, the result obtained from this study on the effect of environmental sustainability reporting

on firm performance was mixed. While the effect was significant for earnings before interest and

tax, it showed an insignificant effect on both performance measures of return on capital employed

and gross profit after tax margin. The result suggested that reporting environmental sustainability

activities did significantly improve firm performance during the period under consideration. The

result contradicted the findings of Ali (2015) whose study revealed a negative significant effect

which he linked to high costs associated with environmental sustainability reporting activities that

would invariably lower the performance of the firm. Furthermore, we found that the outcome of

this study was inconsistent with the findings of Plumlee, Brown Hayes and Marshall (2015) which

revealed that companies which provided environmental sustainability performance incurred more

expenses hence, would financially perform below expectation in the long run. The findings

supported those of Malik, Al Mamun & Amin (2018) which revealed that the effect of

environmental sustainability disclosure differed across different measures of firm performance.

However, our result was in support of the argument that firms which did not carry out

environmental sustainability responsibilities were likely to be surrounded with demonstrations and

protests (like those prevalent in the Niger Delta Area of Nigeria) and that would go a long way in
103
hindering a free work environment which could consequently affect performance. In our view, we

considered that the motives for reporting on environmental information by managers were to

respond to stakeholders expectations, contribute to the welfare of society, manage their own

legitimacy, aim long run profitability and reduce information asymmetry within the system. That

was supported by the Morsing and Schultz, (2006) Merkl-Davies and Brennan, (2007) and Du, et

al., (2010) and specifically, our results which supported those obtained by Markori and Jagongo

(2013), Bassey Effiok and Efon (2013) , Latridis (2013), Oti, Effiong and Tafang (2012) and

Asuquo (2012).

5.2 Social Sustainability Reporting

Similarly, the analysis revealed that the effect of social sustainability disclosure of quoted non-

financial companies in Nigeria was statistically negative and significant on performance measures

of return on capital employed and gross profit after tax margin. The result was inconsistent with the

one by Asuquo (2012) which showeds that although social sustainability practices appeared to be

in their its formation stage in Nigeria, some firms had been recognized as being pro-active in the

endeavor while others were not. Asuquo (2012) argued for a negative outcome on performance

which was preempted when managers engaged in social responsibility activities such as financial

donations or charitable or hospitable provisions of public facilities. Furthermore, that particular

outcome also supported the studies by Ndukwe Dibia and Nwakanma Nwaigwe (2018) which

documented a negative outcome suggesting that additional expenses in the form of employee

welfare and training, occupational health and safety, pollution prevention, energy saving practices,

and community support programmes incurred by companies in pursuance of sustainable business

practices eroded profit and place them in an economic disadvantage position relative to less

sustainability friendly firms, at least in the short term. According to Yoon et al. (2006), social

sustainability activities may hurt the company’s image when motives behind such engagements are

perceived to be insincere, i.e., the consumers suspect that the company’s engagement is only to

improve their corporate image. The authors noted that a single mistake leading to bad publicity
104
would affect such a company’s reputation more negatively than those companies which did not

engage in social sustainability practices at all, thus producing costs that were social sustainability

risk-related (Yoon etal., 2006, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).

On the other hand, we found that the result obtained for the model of earnings before interest and

tax was consistent with that by Odetayo Adeyemi and Sajujigbe (2014) which affirmed that

corporate social activities would increase long-term profits or the survival of a firm through

positive public relations and high ethical standards. It ensured a reduced business and legal risk

which also built shareholders trust. Odetayo et al. (2014) noted that to ensure sustainable growth, it

was necessary for a company to make a positive impact on the surrounding environment as well as

on its stakeholders such as the consumers, employees, investors, communities and others. The

findings was also consistent with those of Margolis et al. (2007) which revealed that social

sustainability engagement helped firms to gain a competitive advantage while ensuring the

protection of their stakeholders. They also noted that socially responsible firms were more likely to

survive in the long term. Specifically, our findings strongly agreed with those of Nik Ahmad and

Abdul Rahim, 2003; Rashid and Ibrahim, 2002 which saw that a proactive approach to social

sustainability could help a firm get access to pools of capital.

5.3 Employee Health and Safety Sustainability Reporting

In the context of employee health and safety sustainability disclosure, we documented a positive

significant effect on firm performance although it was evident just for the performance measure of

return on capital employed. The outcome is consistent with that of Cooper and Cooper (2008) who

posited that such policies played a significant role in supporting firms’ going concern hence, work

environment should be safe and workable. Also the result is seen to be consistent with that of Owen

(2007) who asserted that workplace environmental issues included health and safety, working

conditions, training, bursaries and workers satisfaction contributes to increased performance.

Further, the outcome is in line with those of Micah, Ofurum and Ihendinihu (2012), who posited that

the relationship between firms’ profitability and employee health and safety information disclosure
105
is positive which implied that there was a high demand for human capital information from

stakeholders. Consequently, Micah, Ofurum and Ihendinihu (2012) noted that a good association

with employees could result in better productivity, thereby reducing lawsuits expenses which would

ultimately increase profitability. Our findings in this regard gave credence to similar outcomes by Callan

and Thomas (2009).

5.4 Economic Sustainability Reporting

Furthermore, we documented a statistically significant positive effect of economic sustainability on

performance measures of return on capital employed and earnings before interest and tax margin

which agrees with the position of Azhagaiah & Priya (2008), who noted that managements' primary

goal was shareholders' wealth maximization which translates to maximizing the value of the

company as measured by the price of its common stocks. Shareholders’ wealth is represented in the

market price of the company’s common stock which, in turn, is the function of the company’s

investment, financing and dividend decisions. The outcome of this study was in line with the views

maintained by Arif and Akbar (2013) and Barthet et., al. (2010) who posited that shareholders

preferred cash dividends but would also enjoy growth in earnings per share which was obtained

from earnings that had been ploughed back into business. However, the result was inconsistent with

the studies by Daske et al (2010) and Mwangi et., al (2014) which documented that securing higher

earnings per share did not significantly translate to a higher firm performance. But in this study, we

provided evidence which suggested that improving earnings per share would attract the investor to

invest in the firm as it indicated that the firm had more ability to earn the investor more profits or

earnings.

106
 CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.0 Introduction
This chapter gives an overview of the outcome of the study by presenting its findings and

conclusion and making recommendations for policy action.

6.1 Summary of Findings

This study investigated the effect of sustainability reporting on the financial performance of listed

companies in Nigeria. The scope of this study was a ten-year period ranging from 2010 to 2019.

The independent variables of interest which we employed to test the effect of sustainability

reporting on the firms’ financial performance were environmental sustainability reporting, social

sustainability reporting, employee health and safety sustainability reporting, economic

sustainability reporting, and a control variable of earnings yield. We employed firm performance

measures of return on capital employed, gross profit after tax margin and earnings before interest

and tax as in carrying out the analyses. Through some rigorous regression analyses, we obtained the

following results:

1. Environmental sustainability reporting had a positive significant effect on the performance

measure of earnings before interest and tax but it was found to have negative and positive

insignificant effects on return on capital employed and gross profit after tax margin

respectively during the period under investigation.

2. Social sustainability reporting was seen to have a significant effect across all the measures of

firm performance. However, the effect was seen to be negative on return on capital employed,

negative on gross profit after tax margin but positive (5%) on earnings before interest and tax

during the period under consideration.

3. Employee health and safety sustainability reporting was revealed to positively impact return

on capital employed but was seen to be insignificant on gross profit after tax and earnings

before interest and tax during the period under investigation.

107
4. Economic sustainability reporting was revealed to positively affect return on capital employed

and earnings before interest and tax margin but it showed an insignificant effect on gross

profit after tax margin during the period under assessment.

5. Earnings yield was seen to be statistically significant across all measures of performance

which were employed in this study.

6.2 Conclusion
This study evaluated the effect of sustainability reporting on the performance of non-financial

companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange Group for the period 2010 and 2019. In this study, we

employed three accounting performance measures (Return on Capital Employed, Gross Profit after

Tax and Earnings before Interest and Tax) as dependent variables. Specifically, we observed from

the results that social sustainability reporting negatively affected return on capital employed and

gross profit after tax margin. It implied that the cost of carrying out social sustainability outweighed

its benefits. However, the result obtained from the effect of environmental sustainability reporting

on earnings before interest and tax was seen to be positive and significant. The findings indicated a

boost of investors’ confidence and stakeholders’ benefits. By extension, we noted that the results

obtained from the effect of environmental reporting on earnings before interest and tax supported

the agency theory which posited that the problem of information asymmetry would significantly

reduce when appropriate policies on environmental sustainability were put in place. The feud

between managers and owners will reduce. Furthermore, economic sustainability is seen to

positively impact on two performance measures (Return on Capital Employed & Earnings before

Interest and Tax) which indicated that the main objective of a businesses which is to maximize and

increase their market value on a long-term basis was achieved. We could fairly say that due to such

outcomes obtained in this study, investors and customers/stakeholders of this selected firms

employed in this study would appreciate and trust the goods and services rendered by the

management which ultimately resulted in larger incomes.

108
6.3 Recommendations
The recommendations in this study were drawn specifically from the issues where corporate

sustainability measures met with prior expectations. In this study, the researchers found that the

proxy for environmental reporting had a positive significant effect on the dependent variable of

earnings before interest and tax. The result was commendable as it provided shareholders with the

opportunity to benefit from their investment. Furthermore, we found out that reporting policies on

social responsibility had negative feedback on firm performance during the period under

consideration. Due to the need to tackle that negative outcome, we made some few basic

recommendations.

1. Policies that would sustain reporting on environmental issues (such as mandatory disclosure

on environmental matters) should be encouraged because they had been shown to be

beneficial to the health and survival of the firms.

2. Managers should be genuine and open in their motives and purposes, together with pursuing

social sustainability objectives since that would minimize the risk of incurring losses.

Moreover, managers should try to satisfy the specific needs of customers since that would go

a long way in increasing the likelihood that policies on social sustainability engagement

would get approval and accordingly minimize corporate losses. Furthermore, constantly

trying to align the company goals with the stakeholders’ goals would also increase the

chances of CSR activities creating profit (in terms of earnings before interest and tax) for all

parties involved.

3. We found that economic sustainability reporting was profitable for business corporations

therefore, managers should focus on policies that increased economic reporting if they aimed

to improve both performance indicators of return on capital employed and earnings before

interest and tax.

109
4. For the variable of employee health and safety reporting, we recommended that managers

might need to focus on providing the needs of their employees since it gave positive returns

on capital which was profitable for stakeholders and all investors.

6.4 Contribution to Knowledge

Other performance measures such as gross profit after tax margin and earnings before interest and

tax was explored as against accounting performance measures commonly used. The performance

measures used in this study provides a broader and clearer view of shareholders’ worth.

Furthermore, the researchers employed samples from all industries within the non-financial listed

companies in Nigeria which had been rarely considered in similar studies. However, another

noticeable contribution which this study made to existing literature was in the application of robust

statistical and econometric analysis which, no doubt, provided efficient and reliable coefficient

estimates with a strong impression that the quality of our recommendations which we made in this

study would be less questioned.

Therefore, we develop a new model that represent the empirical outcome for this research work

following the results obtained from the regression analysis.

Model 1
ROCE = -8.051 – 7.633evrd – 13.998csrd + 13.805hsed + 0.953eaps + 0.057eayd

Model 2
GPTM = -33.660 – 8.433evrd – 39.485csrd + 16.306hsed + 0.407eaps - 0.018eayd

Model 3
EBIT = 4.566 + 10.545evrd + 7.541csrd - -2.618hsed + 0.351eaps + 0.226eayd

6.5 Suggestions for Further Studies

This study had certain limitations just like any other research. First, the study was made up of only

non-financial companies for the period 2010 to 2019 which were considered as the sample size and

period scope. That limited the generalization of our results to non-financial companies in general.

The researcher believed that as the size of the sample increased, some of the insignificant results in

the regression analysis could become significant. Second, the study concentrated on only
110
accounting performance ratios. Future research should consider the above limitations and apply

different research approaches to address them.

111
 REFERENCES

Abdullah, M.I., Ashraf, S. & Sarfraz, M. (2017), “The organizational identification perspective of
CSR on creative performance: the moderating role of creative self-efficacy”,
Sustainability, 9 (11) 2125.
Hongming, X., Ahmed, B., Hussain, A., Rehman, A., Ullah, I., & Khan, F. U. (2020).
Sustainability Reporting and Firm Performance: The Demonstration of Pakistani Firms.
SAGE Open, 10(3), 2158244020953180.
Adams, C. & Narayana, V. (2007). The standardization of sustainability reporting, in Unerman, J.,
Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability
London: Routledge. 70-85.
Adegboyegun A.E, Alade, M.E. Ben-Caleb, e. Ademola, A.O Eluyela, D.F & Oladipo, O.A (2020).
Intergrated reporting and corporate performance in Nigeria. Evidence From the Banking
Industry. Cogent Business & Management 7 (1)
Aggarwal, P. (2013). Impact of sustainability performance of company on its financial
performance. A study of listed Indian companies, Global Journal of Management and
Business Research Finance,13 (11), 61- 69.
Antheaume, N. (2007). Full Cost Accounting: Adam Smith meets Rachel Carson? in Unerman, J.,
Bebbington, J., and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability
London: Routledge. 221-225,
Aras, G. & Crowther, D. (2008). Corporate sustainability reporting: A study in disingenuity Journal
of Business Ethics, 87, 279 –288.
Argyrous, G. (2005). Statistics for research with a guide to SPSS (2nded.), London: SAG5
publication limited.
Arndt, H., Isenmann, R., Brosowski, J., Triessen, I., & Marx-Gomez, J. (2006). Sustainability
Reporting using the Extensive Business Reporting Language (XBRL)
Averkamp, H. (2020) Is a loan’s principal payment included on the income statement? Accounting
Coach.
Baboukardos D., & Rimmel, G. (2016). Value relevance of accounting information under an
intergrated reporting approach: A Research Note. Economic Journal of Accounting and
Public Policy, 35(4)
Barton, J., Hansen, T.B. & Pownall, G. (2010) Which performance measures do investors around
the world value the most—and why? The Accounting Review, 85, 753-789.
Bauman, C.W.; Skitka, L.J. (2012) Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee
satisfaction. Res. Organ. Behav. 32, 63–86.
Bebbington, J. (2007). Accounting for Sustainable Development Performance UK: Elsevier.
Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.) Sustainability accounting and accountability London:
Routledge. .57-69
Bell, S. & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability Indicators: measuring the immeasurable? (2nd ed.), UK.
Earthscan.

112
Berenson, I. & Levine, M (1999). Basic business statistics: Concepts and applications, New Delhi,
Prentice-Hall of India Pvt Ltd.

Berger, A.N. & Patti, B. (2002). Capital Structure and Firm Performance. A New Approach
to Testing Agency Theory and an Application to the Banking Industry. SSRN
Electronic Journal 30(4) 1065-1102.
British American Tobacco Nigeria (2011). Nigerian sustainability report 2010: Approach to
engagement and reporting,
Buhr, N. (2007). Histories of and rationales for sustainability Reporting in Unerman, J.,
Constructing Excellence (2004). Sustainability Accounting
Burhan, A. H., & Rahmanti, A (2012). The impact of sustainability reporting on company
performance, Journal of Economics, Business, and Accountancy Ventra 15 (2), 257 – 272.
Caritte, V., Acha, S., & Shah, N., (2015). Enhancing corporate environmental performance through
reporting and roadmaps. Business Strategy and the Environment 24, 289–308.
Chiu, P.C. & Haight, T. (2014) Gross profit surprises and future stock returns.
Choi, S. & Lee, S. (2018), “Revisiting the financial performance–corporate social performance
link”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(7) 2586-2602.

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1999). Validity and reliability in social science research.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74,271-280
Dalal Kk. , & thaker, (2019). Analysis of corporate sustainability, performance, and corporate
financial performance casual linkage in the India context. Asian Journal of Sustainability
and Social Responsibility 5,(1)
Deegan, C. (2007). Organizational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting, in Unerman,
J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability
(127-149), London: Routledge.
Dermawan, E.S. & Indrajathi, M.D. (2017) The quality of operating profit and other comprehensive
income; Evidence from Indonesia stock exchange. International Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 11, 1545-1557.
Dillard, J. F. (2007). Legitimating the Social Accounting Project: An ethic of accountability, in
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.) Sustainability Accounting and
Accountability (37-53), London: Routledge.
Dipiazza Jr.,S.A. & Eccles, R. C. (2002). Building public trust: The future of corporate reporting,
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Duke II, J. & Kankpang, K. (2013). Implications of corporate social responsibility for the
performance of Nigerian firms. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 3 (5).73-
87.
Edwards, J.B. (2016) Modern gross profit analysis. The Journal of Corporate Accounting and
Finance, 27, 45-55.
Edwards, R.A. (2005). The Sustainability revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift, Canada: New
Society Publishers.

113
Ekwueme, C. (2011). Social responsibility accounting: An overview, in M.A. Mainoma (Ed.)
Contemporary issues in accounting development (45-63), A publication of the Association
of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN) MCPD 2011.
Emeka-Nwokeji, N.A, Osisioma BC, & Benjamin C. (2019) Sustainability disclosures and market
value of firms in emerging economy. European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and
Finance Research.
Encyclopedia of Business (2011). Performance measurement,
Enugu: Acena Publishers. Pandey, I. M. (1995). Essentials of management accounting, New Delhi;
Vikas publishing House PVT Ltd.
Environmental Law Research Institute (2009). A synopsis of laws and regulations on the
environment in Nigeria,
Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring
corporate Social, environmental, and economic impacts, UK: Greenleaf Publishing
Limited.
Ezeabasili, N. (2009). Legal mechanism for achieving environmental sustainability in Nigeria.
African Research Review, 3(2), 369 – 380.
Fasu, K. O. (2011). Environmental Accounting: concepts and Practices, in M.A.
Fontraine, C., Harman, A., & Schmid, S. (2006). The Stakeholder Theory,
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective
revisited, Organization Science 15(3), 364-369.
Frink, D. D. & Klimosk, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction
to the human resource management review, special edition, Human Resource
Management Review,14,1–17.
Glautier, M. W. E. & Underdoon, B. (2009). Accounting Theory and Practice (7thed.), England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Gray, R, Owen, D & Adams g. (1996) Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in
Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting , Prentice- Hall London
Gray, R, Owen, D. & Adams, C.A (1996). Theories of corporate social responsibility- Kaplan
Financial knowledge bank. Kaplan.co.uk.
Gray, R. & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting for the Environment (2nd ed.), London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
GRI (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines, Retrieved from Hard Business School Publishing
Corporation health, New York: Business Expert Press LLC.
GRI (2011). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: G3.1 version,
Gujarati, D. N. & Sangetha, D. N. (2007). Basic econometrics, (4th edition), New Delhi, Tata
McGraw Hill Education Pvt Ltd.
Guthri, J.& Parker, L.D (1990). Corporate social disclosure practices: a comprehensive
international analysis . Advances in public interest accounting, 3, 159-175.

114
Hagel, J, Brown, J. S. & Davison, L. (2010). The best way to measure company performance,
Hakovirta, M., & Denuwara, N. (2020). How COVID-19 (2020) redefines the concept of
sustainability. Sustainability, 12(9), 3727
Hart, S. L. (2007). Beyond Greening: Strategies for Sustainable World, in Harvard Business
Review on Green Business Strategy. Massachusetts:
Hill, C. W. L.& Jones, G. R. (2009). Theory of strategic management with case (8thed.), Australia:
South-Western Cengage Learning. House PVT Ltd. 129.
Hjalmarsson, E. (2010) Predicting global stock returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 45, 49-80

Hjalmarsson, E. (2010). Predicting Global Stock Returns. The Journal of Financial and
Qualitative Analysis. 45(1) 49-80
Hubbard, G. (2008). Beyond accounting: Assessing the impact of sustainability reporting on
tomorrow’s business,

Hunger, J.D. & Wheelan, T. (1997). Strategic Management and Business Policy (8th ed)
Amazon.com ISBN-13:928-0130651211
Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. (2017) The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability
Reporting. In Harvard Business School Research Working Paper No. 11-100; Harvard
Business School: Boston, MA, USA,
Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. (2019). Yes, Sustainability Can Be a Strategy. Harvard Business Review.
Israel, G. D. (2012). Determining Sample Size; IFAS, University of Florida. PEOD-6. June.
Ivan, O.R. (2009). Sustainability in accounting basis: A conceptual Framework, Annales
Universittatis Apulensis Oeconomica11 (1), 106-116.
Jackson, L. (2016) US oil production plunges: 3 companies that should be profitable this year, 24/7
Wall St., 1.
Jasch, C. & Stasiskiene, Z. (2005). From environmental management accounting to sustainability
management accounting, Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 4(34).
77-88.
Jat, R. B. (2006). The impact of market structure on corporate performance in Nigeria: A study of
the banking industry Journal of Business Management 1(1). 127.
Jensen, M.C.; & Meckling, W.H. (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure. Journal of Finance and. Economics 3, 305–360.
Kent, P. & Stewart, J. (2008). Corporate governance and Disclosure on the transition to
international financial Reporting standards
Khan, M. Y. & Jain, P. K. (2004). Financial management: Text, problems, and cases (4th ed.), New
Delhi: Text McGrow-Hill Publishing Company Limited.
Khaveh, A., Nikhashemi, S. R., Yousefi, A. & Haque, A. (2012). Voluntary sustainability
disclosure, revenue, and shareholders wealth – A perspective from Singaporean
companies, Business Management Dynamics 1(9), 06-12.
115
King, A. (2002). Does it really pay to be green? An Empirical Study of Firm Environment and
Financial Performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1): 105-116

Kish, L. (1959). Some statistical problems in research design. American Sociological

Review 24, 3
Kolk, A. (2004). A decade of sustainability reporting: Development and significance, International
Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 3(1), 51-64.
Kotsoyannis; A. (2003). Theory of Econometrics (2nd ed), New York: Palgrame
KPMG (2008). Sustainability reporting: A Guide,
Krechold, D. & Fernando, H. (2009). Undisclosed risk: Corporate environmental and social
reporting in emerging Asia,

Kuruez, E.C., Colbert, B.A. & Wheeler, D. (2008). The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility. Oxford University Press
Lamberton, G. (2005). Sustainability Accounting: A brief history and conceptual framework,
Accounting Forum 29, 7 – 26.
Larson, K. D. Wild, J. J. & Chiappetta, B. (2005). Fundamental accounting principles, Volume 1.
(17th ed.), New York: MC Graw Hill/Irwin.
Larson, K. D., Wild, J. J. & Chiappetta, B. (2002). Fundamental accounting principles, Volume
1(16th ed.), New York: MC Graw Hill/Irwin.
LiDestri, A.M., Picone, P.M. & Mina, A. (2012) Bringing strategy back into financial systems of
performance measurement: Integrating EVA and PBC. Business Systems Review, 1, 85-
102
Lin, W. & Liu, C. (2005). Performance efficiency evaluation of the Taiwan’s shipping industry: An
application of data envelopment analysis, Proceeding of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation studies, 5
Mainoma (Ed.). Contemporary issues in accounting development (85 - 123). A publication of the
Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN) MCPD 2011.

Makhamreh, M. (2008). Corporate Performance on Jordan: A Study of the Banking Sector.

The College of Information Science and Technology. The Pennsylvania University
Makori, D. M & Jagongo, A. (2013). Environmental Accounting and firm profitability: An
empirical analysis of selected firms listed in Bombay Stock Exchange, India,
International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3 (8), 41-56.
Marshall, D. H., Mc Manus, W, W. & Viele, D. F. (2004). Accounting: What the numbers mean
(6th ed.), New York: Irwin.
Mathews, M. R. & Perera, M. H. B. (1996). Accounting theory and Development, Melbourne:
Thomas Nelson Australia. 128.
Mishra, S.& Suar, D. (2010) Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of
Indian companies? Journal Business Ethics 95, 571–601.

116
Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S. & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and
sustainability reports using GRI 2000, Iso14031 and other criteria, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 215 – 233.
Munasinghe, M. A. T. K & Kumara, D.C. U. (2013). Impact of disclosure of corporate social
responsibility on corporate financial performances of plantations companies in Sri-Lanka,
Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 4(3), 371-376.
Naser, K., Al-Hussaini, A., Al-Kwari, B., & Nuseibeh, R. (2006). Determinants of corporate social
disclosure in developing countries: The case of Qatar, Advances in International
Accounting, 1.
Ndukwe, A. G. A. (2009). Corporate risk reporting practices and their determinants: A study of
selected quoted firms in Nigeria, Nigeria Research Journal of Accountancy 1 (1),
Ngwakwe, C. C. (2008). Environmental responsibility and firm performance: Evidence from
Nigeria, International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business
Engineering, 2 (10), 187-194.
O’Dwyer, B. O., Unerman, J, & Hession, A. (2005). User needs in sustainability reporting:
Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland, European Accounting Review 14(4), 759-787.
Ofoegbu, G. N. (2003). Advanced financial accounting, Enugu: Precision publishers Limited
Ogbodo, S. G. (2010). Environmental protection in Nigeria: Two decade after the Koko incident,
Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law 15 (1),
Olawale, A. S. (2010). The Impact of corporate social responsibility on the profitability of the
Nigerian banking sector, A case study of First bank of Nigeria Plc,
Onwumere, J. U. J. (2009). Business and economic research methods, Enugu; Vougasen Limited.
Oprean-Stan, C., Oncioiu, I., Iuga, I. C., & Stan, S. (2020). Impact of sustainability reporting and
inadequate management of ESG Factors on corporate performance and sustainable
growth. Sustainability, 12(20), 8536. MDPI AG.
Orazalin, N., & Mahmood, M. (2019). Determinants of GRI-based sustainability reporting:
evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies,
10(1), 140-164.
Osisioma, B. C. (1996). Analysis of financial statements, in Osisioma, B. C. (Ed.) Studies in
accounting: Text and reading, revised, and enlarged, (338-359),
Pandey, I. M. (2004). Financial management (9thed.), New Delhi: Vikas Publishing
Parliament of Australia (2010). Sustainability reporting,

Pedhazur, E.J. & Schmekin, L.R. (1991). Practices regarding reporting of reliability
coefficients. A review of three journals, The Journal of Experimental Education
67(4), 335-341.
Peiyuan, G., Xubiao, Z. & Ningdi, W. (2007). Study of sustainability reporting in China: A journey
to discover values.

117
Perrin, F. & Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and Stakeholder management: the need for new
corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems, Business Strategy, and the
Environment, 15, 296-308.
Popa, A., Blidisel, R. & Bogdan, V. (2009). Transparency and disclosure between theory and
practice, A case study of Romania, Proceedings of Fikusz ’09 Symposium for Young
researchers,

Priston, T. (2013). Corporate social responsibility determinants. The Relation with CSR
Disclosure Bingley Emerald. ISBN 1-78052-766-7, 3-22
Robbins, R. (2011). Does Corporate Responsibility increase profit?

Rogosic, A. & Caljkusic, A. (2015) Disclosure of the socially responsible activities of the
banks in Croatia and Slovenia. 3rd International Conference on governance,
Management and Entrepreneurship.
Said, R.M. & Tumin, M.H. (2011) Performance and financial ratios of commercial banks in
Malaysia and China. International Review of Business Research Papers, 7, 157-169

Schaltegger, S. & Burritt, R.L. (2010). Sustainability accounting reporting. Fad or trend?
Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal. emerald.com
Sinclair, M. (2007). Editorial: A guide to understanding theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
Evidence Based Midwifery 5(2).
The SERA (2010). About the Social Enterprise Reports and Awards,
The SIGMA Project (2003). The SIGMA Guidelines Tool kit: SIGMA guide to the global reporting
initiative on sustainability reporting,
Tsoutsoura, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial Performance,
Ulterlerchner, J. & Malan, D. (2008). The corporate response to sustainability reporting,
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007), (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and
Accountability (104-126), London: Routledge.
Viek, C. & Steg, L. (2009). Human behaviour and environmental sustainability: problems, driving
forces, and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), 1 – 19.
Welford, R. (1997). Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development,
Uk: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
White, G. B. (2009). Sustainability reporting: Managing for wealth and corporate
Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey Business
Journal, March/April,
Zuriekat, M., Salameh, R., & Alrawashdeh, S. (2011). Participation in performance measurement
system and level of satisfaction, International Journal of Business and Social Science,
2(8), 12-52.

118
 APPENDIX I

___ ____ ____ ____ ____ (R)

/__ / ____/ / ____/
___/ / /___/ / /___/ 14.0 Copyright 1985-2015 StataCorp LP
Statistics/Data Analysis StataCorp
4905 Lakeway Drive
MP - Parallel Edition College Station, Texas 77845 USA
800-STATA-PC http://www.stata.com
979-696-4600 stata@stata.com
979-696-4601 (fax)

Single-user 8-core Stata perpetual license:

Serial number: 10699393
Licensed to: Certified Professional Data Analyst
edata Value Associates

Notes:
1. Unicode is supported; see help unicode_advice.
2. More than 2 billion observations are allowed; see help obs_advice.
3. Maximum number of variables is set to 5000; see help set_maxvar.

. tabstat roce gptm eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, statistics (mean sd min max sum) by(exchangesector)

Summary statistics: mean, sd, min, max, sum by categories of: exchangesector (Exchange Sector)
exchangesector | roce gptm eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture | 5.443242 20.48937 2.979056 .015625 .585 1 2.210263 -3.84867
| 11.83303 68.78711 105.1466 .0418665 .1942111 0 4.567887 33.55668
| -16.0562 -306.7095 -538.4056 0 .4 1 -.39 -130.3173
| 29.1591 78.2017 203.046 .125 1 1 25.36 54.2032
| 206.8432 778.596 113.2041 .625 23.4 40 83.99 -150.0981
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conglomerate | .446594 29.69023 13.15581 .02 .74 .98 .2992 -5.44996
| 6.885304 17.83213 19.16595 .0989743 .1726149 .1414214 2.051247 71.11984
| -21.8134 4.687 -41.4723 0 .2 0 -4.37 -373.3333
| 12.5444 76.3534 61.4282 .5 1 1 7.74 154.6311
| 22.3297 1484.512 657.7906 1 37 49 14.96 -272.498
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & R | -2.196305 22.10862 -19.4499 0 .86 1 1.9855 -36.26056
| 13.73432 24.49348 152.7409 0 .1142481 0 3.576001 144.3317
| -54.3955 -40.6991 -629.2969 0 .6 1 -6.06 -605.7547
| 5.2713 68.1443 62.7453 0 1 1 6.83 27.789
| -43.9261 442.1723 -388.998 0 17.2 20 39.71 -725.2113
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer | 6.596031 27.70969 10.71263 .0820313 .71125 .9375 3.275157 5.694964
| 8.986245 15.8633 13.38109 .1952899 .2454588 .2428215 8.527295 17.0403
| -44.1613 -26.1228 -69.875 0 0 0 -3.23 -61.644
| 26.5165 92.9729 37.3408 .75 1 1 57.63 148.7767
| 1048.769 4405.841 1703.307 13.125 113.8 150 520.75 905.4992
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare | -.883175 42.58702 -.5043051 .025 .7533333 1 .3501667 -.6625935
| 12.17221 10.91794 31.64695 .1098921 .1443473 0 1.440122 72.19888
| -35.2087 13.1654 -121.1086 0 .6 1 -4.66 -227.1019
| 26.6258 62.3326 73.7746 .5 1 1 7 292.9857
| -52.9905 2555.221 -30.2583 1.5 45.2 60 21.01 -39.75561
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICT | 1.359487 29.79058 11.5254 .01875 .665 .975 -.1437838 36.34475
| 11.69177 18.00865 16.1006 .0827705 .2142967 .1581139 2.520458 223.9205
| -52.5591 -14.7981 -21.8157 0 .2 0 -9.86 -195.4037
| 31.774 71.4444 54.6786 .375 1 1 6.7 1341.316
| 53.02 1161.833 449.4906 .75 26.6 39 -5.32 1344.756
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial | 5.237585 32.76294 10.6912 .14375 .726 1 2.339394 2.540735
| 25.70372 26.95076 40.57215 .2521217 .1812527 0 4.32484 32.94681
| -179.9173 -197.5784 -344.1751 0 .4 1 -7.32 -125.8742
| 53.9594 63.472 55.5785 .625 1 1 22.83 186.0029
| 518.5209 3243.531 1058.428 14.375 72.6 100 231.6 251.5328
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil & Gas | 3.110727 2.087353 57.59151 .015625 .6775 .9367089 5.312532 19.31525
| 24.42581 63.81335 645.0393 .0416007 .1841676 .2450417 8.830644 387.5592
| -58.196 -516.8097 -624.4804 0 0 0 -20.23 -684.7388
| 187.1324 46.083 5655.464 .125 1 1 43.58 3266.745
| 245.7474 164.9009 4549.729 1.25 54.2 74 419.69 1525.905

119
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources | .5495576 14.06469 83.80933 0 .64 1 .20675 -9.881552
| 8.389463 51.05041 1168.621 0 .1706699 0 .3599671 35.94792
| -22.7876 -186.0624 -1466.617 0 .4 1 -.45 -194.7213
| 16.1601 64.2116 7029.232 0 .8 1 .88 20.4067
| 21.9823 562.5877 3352.373 0 25.6 40 8.27 -395.2621
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services | -.9693801 33.73806 -1.347432 .0016667 .7013333 .9933333 .0105517 -12.10586
| 20.24016 27.09062 68.02554 .0204124 .1514966 .0816497 .7163049 94.09458
| -118.6015 -166.2416 -511.5227 0 .4 0 -3.89 -710.95
| 89.5447 100 194.4973 .25 1 1 1.07 103.75
| -140.5601 4892.018 -195.3776 .25 105.2 149 1.53 -1731.138
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total | 2.578513 27.01127 15.45911 .0444257 .7037838 .9756428 1.83795 .9830981
| 17.29881 35.93923 347.54 .1465325 .1941966 .1542601 5.671869 149.0725
| -179.9173 -516.8097 -1466.617 0 0 0 -20.23 -710.95
| 187.1324 100 7029.232 .75 1 1 57.63 3266.745
| 1879.736 19691.21 11269.69 32.875 520.8 721 1336.19 713.7292
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. swilk roce reta gptm eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd

Shapiro-Wilk W test for normal data

Variable | Obs W V z Prob>z

-------------+------------------------------------------------------
roce | 729 0.65619 162.664 12.444 0.00000
gptm | 729 0.55301 211.480 13.085 0.00000
eitm | 729 0.08861 431.202 14.826 0.00000
envd | 740 0.83374 79.736 10.708 0.00000
csrd | 740 0.97586 11.578 5.989 0.00000
hsed | 739 0.89647 49.592 9.546 0.00000
eaps | 727 0.50717 232.587 13.316 0.00000
eayd | 726 0.19508 379.403 14.511 0.00000

. spearman roce gptm eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, stats(rho obs p)

+-----------------+
| Key |
|-----------------|
| rho |
| Number of obs |
| Sig. level |
+-----------------+
| roce gptm eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd
-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------
roce | 1.0000
| 724
|
|
gptm | 0.3163 1.0000
| 724 724
| 0.0000
|
eitm | 0.7371 0.4923 1.0000
| 724 724 724
| 0.0000 0.0000
|
envd | 0.1931 0.1468 0.1571 1.0000
| 724 724 724 724
| 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000
|
csrd | 0.2043 0.1920 0.2549 0.3040 1.0000
| 724 724 724 724 724
| 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
|
hsed | 0.0209 0.1103 0.0878 0.0577 0.2703 1.0000
| 724 724 724 724 724 724
| 0.5748 0.0030 0.0181 0.1208 0.0000
|
eaps | 0.7461 0.1268 0.5826 0.2494 0.2613 0.0765 1.0000
| 724 724 724 724 724 724 724
| 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0397
|
eayd | 0.6951 0.1554 0.5746 0.0204 0.2076 0.0184 0.5949 1.0000

120
 | 724 724 724 724 724 724 724 724
| 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5832 0.0000 0.6211 0.0000
|
. egen croid = group( companies)

. xtset croid year

panel variable: croid (strongly balanced)
time variable: year, 2010 to 2019
delta: 1 unit

. reg roce envd csrd hsed eaps eayd

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 724

-------------+---------------------------------- F(5, 718) = 90.83
Model | 84311.5712 5 16862.3142 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 133296.814 718 185.650159 R-squared = 0.3874
-------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.3832
Total | 217608.385 723 300.979786 Root MSE = 13.625

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roce | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 4.004511 3.603663 1.11 0.267 -3.070464 11.07949
csrd | 7.434132 3.094209 2.40 0.017 1.359354 13.50891
hsed | -2.528272 3.676431 -0.69 0.492 -9.746111 4.689567
eaps | .7693916 .0912161 8.43 0.000 .5903095 .9484738
eayd | .0615104 .0034251 17.96 0.000 .0547861 .0682348
_cons | -1.858759 3.253954 -0.57 0.568 -8.247161 4.529644
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. vif

Variable | VIF 1/VIF

-------------+----------------------
csrd | 1.38 0.727009
hsed | 1.28 0.782535
envd | 1.10 0.908902
eaps | 1.05 0.955742
eayd | 1.02 0.983309
-------------+----------------------
Mean VIF | 1.16

. hettest

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: fitted values of roce

chi2(1) = 2.94
Prob > chi2 = 0.0866

. xtreg roce envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, fe

Fixed-effects (within) regression Number of obs = 724

Group variable: croid Number of groups = 74

R-sq: Obs per group:

within = 0.4343 min = 8
between = 0.1189 avg = 9.8
overall = 0.3249 max = 10

F(5,645) = 99.03
corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.1083 Prob > F = 0.0000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roce | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | -7.63268 7.462721 -1.02 0.307 -22.28684 7.021482
csrd | -13.99754 4.12434 -3.39 0.001 -22.0963 -5.898786
hsed | 13.80498 4.707552 2.93 0.003 4.561006 23.04896
eaps | .9533053 .147914 6.44 0.000 .6628542 1.243756
eayd | .0574073 .0030387 18.89 0.000 .0514404 .0633741
_cons | -2.524991 4.590417 -0.55 0.582 -11.53896 6.488975
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sigma_u | 9.2813147
sigma_e | 11.493562

121
 rho | .39470732 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F test that all u_i=0: F(73, 645) = 4.99 Prob > F = 0.0000

. estimate store fe

. xtreg roce envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, re

Random-effects GLS regression Number of obs = 724

Group variable: croid Number of groups = 74

R-sq: Obs per group:

within = 0.4274 min = 8
between = 0.2441 avg = 9.8
overall = 0.3688 max = 10

Wald chi2(5) = 498.79

corr(u_i, X) = 0 (assumed) Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roce | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | .9173865 5.128244 0.18 0.858 -9.133788 10.96856
csrd | -5.130098 3.591318 -1.43 0.153 -12.16895 1.908756
hsed | 7.925076 4.181467 1.90 0.058 -.2704497 16.1206
eaps | .8755643 .117781 7.43 0.000 .6447178 1.106411
eayd | .0588305 .0030397 19.35 0.000 .0528727 .0647882
_cons | -3.268876 3.981987 -0.82 0.412 -11.07343 4.535676
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sigma_u | 6.6274052
sigma_e | 11.493562
rho | .24952499 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. estimate store re

. xttest0

Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects

roce[croid,t] = Xb + u[croid] + e[croid,t]

Estimated results:
| Var sd = sqrt(Var)
---------+-----------------------------
roce | 300.9798 17.34877
e | 132.102 11.49356
u | 43.9225 6.627405

Test: Var(u) = 0
chibar2(01) = 199.62
Prob > chibar2 = 0.0000
. hausman fe re

---- Coefficients ----

| (b) (B) (b-B) sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B))
| fe re Difference S.E.
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | -7.63268 .9173865 -8.550066 5.42156
csrd | -13.99754 -5.130098 -8.867443 2.027959
hsed | 13.80498 7.925076 5.879908 2.162492
eaps | .9533053 .8755643 .077741 .0894773
eayd | .0574073 .0588305 -.0014232 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg
B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg

Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic

chi2(5) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
= 31.77
Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
(V_b-V_B is not positive definite)
. reg roce envd csrd hsed eaps eayd i.croid

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 724

122
-------------+---------------------------------- F(78, 645) = 12.85
Model | 132402.624 78 1697.46953 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 85205.7619 645 132.101956 R-squared = 0.6084
-------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.5611
Total | 217608.385 723 300.979786 Root MSE = 11.494

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roce | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | -7.63268 7.462721 -1.02 0.307 -22.28684 7.021482
csrd | -13.99754 4.12434 -3.39 0.001 -22.0963 -5.898786
hsed | 13.80498 4.707552 2.93 0.003 4.561006 23.04896
eaps | .9533053 .147914 6.44 0.000 .6628542 1.243756
eayd | .0574073 .0030387 18.89 0.000 .0514404 .0633741
|
croid |
2 | 5.176745 5.737013 0.90 0.367 -6.088733 16.44222
3 | -21.15735 5.744493 -3.68 0.000 -32.43752 -9.877185
4 | 9.541036 5.728775 1.67 0.096 -1.708266 20.79034
5 | 3.307541 5.59505 0.59 0.555 -7.679171 14.29425
6 | 5.817569 5.752126 1.01 0.312 -5.477585 17.11272
7 | 12.44381 5.723983 2.17 0.030 1.203915 23.6837
8 | 16.48188 6.757622 2.44 0.015 3.212282 29.75147
9 | 7.840021 5.440039 1.44 0.150 -2.842304 18.52235
10 | 11.70198 5.768965 2.03 0.043 .3737593 23.0302
11 | 18.61679 5.741853 3.24 0.001 7.341809 29.89177
12 | -3.308991 5.772236 -0.57 0.567 -14.64364 8.025654
13 | 4.934002 5.745923 0.86 0.391 -6.348973 16.21698
14 | 42.3637 5.669028 7.47 0.000 31.23172 53.49568
15 | 3.914181 5.557621 0.70 0.482 -6.999034 14.8274
16 | 9.208925 5.991109 1.54 0.125 -2.555507 20.97336
17 | 16.372 5.75595 2.84 0.005 5.069331 27.67466
18 | 15.43932 5.707507 2.71 0.007 4.231783 26.64686
19 | 16.16745 5.670503 2.85 0.004 5.032569 27.30232
20 | 8.417263 5.787569 1.45 0.146 -2.947489 19.78202
21 | -7.102113 5.794594 -1.23 0.221 -18.48066 4.276435
22 | 6.253501 5.724023 1.09 0.275 -4.986469 17.49347
23 | 4.519307 5.54445 0.82 0.415 -6.368046 15.40666
24 | -6.430931 6.123449 -1.05 0.294 -18.45523 5.593372
25 | 12.75592 5.709875 2.23 0.026 1.54373 23.96811
26 | -14.66109 5.776392 -2.54 0.011 -26.0039 -3.318289
27 | 10.56733 5.856845 1.80 0.072 -.9334531 22.06812
28 | 6.201119 5.73182 1.08 0.280 -5.054162 17.4564
29 | 5.635962 5.709987 0.99 0.324 -5.576446 16.84837
30 | -3.501065 5.863286 -0.60 0.551 -15.0145 8.012368
31 | 8.649023 5.769521 1.50 0.134 -2.680289 19.97834
32 | -.5146758 5.774839 -0.09 0.929 -11.85443 10.82508
33 | 3.262068 5.749342 0.57 0.571 -8.02762 14.55176
34 | 3.500627 5.531385 0.63 0.527 -7.361069 14.36232
35 | 11.96103 7.196734 1.66 0.097 -2.170823 26.09289
36 | 6.268287 5.871682 1.07 0.286 -5.261634 17.79821
37 | .7810018 5.82304 0.13 0.893 -10.6534 12.21541
38 | 5.301925 5.726608 0.93 0.355 -5.943122 16.54697
39 | 13.38952 7.035978 1.90 0.057 -.4266716 27.20571
40 | .3513303 5.775924 0.06 0.952 -10.99056 11.69322
41 | -10.71579 5.751679 -1.86 0.063 -22.01007 .5784862
42 | 1.323866 5.579722 0.24 0.813 -9.632748 12.28048
43 | -2.896836 5.838154 -0.50 0.620 -14.36092 8.567248
44 | 18.40616 5.673272 3.24 0.001 7.265847 29.54647
45 | 11.18975 5.705963 1.96 0.050 -.0147546 22.39426
46 | 4.605317 5.946106 0.77 0.439 -7.070747 16.28138
47 | 7.567899 5.888226 1.29 0.199 -3.994509 19.13031
48 | -3.897227 5.654154 -0.69 0.491 -15 7.205546
49 | 20.63927 7.772146 2.66 0.008 5.37751 35.90104
50 | 1.42754 5.79774 0.25 0.806 -9.957185 12.81227
51 | 5.11791 5.823781 0.88 0.380 -6.31795 16.55377
52 | 6.138356 5.979812 1.03 0.305 -5.603894 17.88061
53 | 15.74043 5.516329 2.85 0.004 4.908299 26.57256
54 | 1.651214 5.730208 0.29 0.773 -9.600903 12.90333
55 | 4.350918 5.860019 0.74 0.458 -7.1561 15.85794
56 | -16.9471 5.820113 -2.91 0.004 -28.37575 -5.518439
57 | 11.65977 5.503277 2.12 0.034 .8532697 22.46627
58 | 8.618391 5.68032 1.52 0.130 -2.535761 19.77254
59 | 3.611334 6.107538 0.59 0.555 -8.381725 15.60439
60 | 12.91783 5.843397 2.21 0.027 1.44345 24.39221
61 | 1.604084 5.776915 0.28 0.781 -9.739747 12.94791

123
 62
| 3.776055 5.726057 0.66 0.510 -7.46791 15.02002
63
| 1.085988 5.888378 0.18 0.854 -10.47672 12.64869
64
| -2.5923 5.752002 -0.45 0.652 -13.88721 8.702611
65
| -7.902227 5.166926 -1.53 0.127 -18.04826 2.2438
66
| -9.552209 5.786622 -1.65 0.099 -20.9151 1.810684
67
| 7.740418 5.852591 1.32 0.186 -3.752015 19.23285
68
| 7.564506 5.673737 1.33 0.183 -3.57672 18.70573
69
| 5.599895 5.902679 0.95 0.343 -5.990894 17.19068
70
| 10.17 5.773049 1.76 0.079 -1.16624 21.50624
71
| 12.58378 5.73866 2.19 0.029 1.315063 23.85249
72
| 11.81473 5.868594 2.01 0.045 .2908734 23.33859
73
| 5.051729 5.811007 0.87 0.385 -6.359047 16.46251
74
| 9.987355 5.757406 1.73 0.083 -1.318168 21.29288
|
_cons | -8.050749 6.032183 -1.33 0.182 -19.89584 3.794339
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROA
. reg reta envd csrd hsed eaps eayd

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 724

-------------+---------------------------------- F(5, 718) = 87.03
Model | 81255.6304 5 16251.1261 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 134079.676 718 186.740496 R-squared = 0.3773
-------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.3730
Total | 215335.307 723 297.835832 Root MSE = 13.665

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reta | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 3.927359 3.614229 1.09 0.278 -3.168362 11.02308
csrd | 7.20994 3.103282 2.32 0.020 1.117349 13.30253
hsed | -1.782993 3.687211 -0.48 0.629 -9.021996 5.456011
eaps | .7788697 .0914836 8.51 0.000 .5992625 .9584769
eayd | .0597956 .0034351 17.41 0.000 .0530515 .0665397
_cons | -2.432284 3.263496 -0.75 0.456 -8.839418 3.974851
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. vif
Variable | VIF 1/VIF
-------------+----------------------
csrd | 1.38 0.727009
hsed | 1.28 0.782535
envd | 1.10 0.908902
eaps | 1.05 0.955742
eayd | 1.02 0.983309
-------------+----------------------
Mean VIF | 1.16
. hettest

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: fitted values of reta

chi2(1) = 3.66
Prob > chi2 = 0.0556

. xtreg reta envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, fe

Fixed-effects (within) regression Number of obs = 724

Group variable: croid Number of groups = 74

R-sq: Obs per group:

within = 0.4239 min = 8
between = 0.1126 avg = 9.8
overall = 0.3137 max = 10

F(5,645) = 94.93
corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.1138 Prob > F = 0.0000

124
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reta | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | -7.869879 7.471016 -1.05 0.293 -22.54033 6.800572
csrd | -14.14787 4.128924 -3.43 0.001 -22.25562 -6.040111
hsed | 15.62792 4.712784 3.32 0.001 6.37367 24.88218
eaps | .9540427 .1480784 6.44 0.000 .6632688 1.244817
eayd | .0556651 .003042 18.30 0.000 .0496916 .0616386
_cons | -4.177988 4.595519 -0.91 0.364 -13.20197 4.845997
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sigma_u | 9.3382533
sigma_e | 11.506337
rho | .3971014 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F test that all u_i=0: F(73, 645) = 5.04 Prob > F = 0.0000

. estimate store fe

. xtreg reta envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, re

Random-effects GLS regression Number of obs = 724

Group variable: croid Number of groups = 74

R-sq: Obs per group:

within = 0.4169 min = 8
between = 0.2353 avg = 9.8
overall = 0.3580 max = 10

Wald chi2(5) = 477.45

corr(u_i, X) = 0 (assumed) Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reta | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | .7647038 5.145236 0.15 0.882 -9.319774 10.84918
csrd | -5.402537 3.599616 -1.50 0.133 -12.45766 1.652582
hsed | 9.323896 4.190718 2.22 0.026 1.11024 17.53755
eaps | .8816229 .1181058 7.46 0.000 .6501397 1.113106
eayd | .0571045 .0030442 18.76 0.000 .0511381 .063071
_cons | -4.436614 3.992268 -1.11 0.266 -12.26132 3.388089
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sigma_u | 6.6662165
sigma_e | 11.506337
rho | .2513 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. estimate store re

. xttest0
Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects

reta[croid,t] = Xb + u[croid] + e[croid,t]

Estimated results:
| Var sd = sqrt(Var)
---------+-----------------------------
reta | 297.8358 17.25792
e | 132.3958 11.50634
u | 44.43844 6.666216

Test: Var(u) = 0
chibar2(01) = 202.79
Prob > chibar2 = 0.0000
. hausman fe re

---- Coefficients ----

| (b) (B) (b-B) sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B))
| fe re Difference S.E.
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | -7.869879 .7647038 -8.634582 5.416883
csrd | -14.14787 -5.402537 -8.745331 2.022567
hsed | 15.62792 9.323896 6.304027 2.155973
eaps | .9540427 .8816229 .0724198 .0893209
eayd | .0556651 .0571045 -.0014394 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg
B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg

125
 Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic

chi2(5) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
= 32.50
Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
(V_b-V_B is not positive definite)

. reg reta envd csrd hsed eaps eayd i.croid

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 724

-------------+---------------------------------- F(78, 645) = 12.58
Model | 129940.025 78 1665.89776 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 85395.2815 645 132.395785 R-squared = 0.6034
-------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.5555
Total | 215335.307 723 297.835832 Root MSE = 11.506

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reta | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | -7.869879 7.471016 -1.05 0.293 -22.54033 6.800572
csrd | -14.14787 4.128924 -3.43 0.001 -22.25562 -6.040111
hsed | 15.62792 4.712784 3.32 0.001 6.37367 24.88218
eaps | .9540427 .1480784 6.44 0.000 .6632688 1.244817
eayd | .0556651 .003042 18.30 0.000 .0496916 .0616386
|
croid |
2 | 3.899234 5.74339 0.68 0.497 -7.378766 15.17723
3 | -22.94487 5.750878 -3.99 0.000 -34.23757 -11.65216
4 | 8.144676 5.735143 1.42 0.156 -3.11713 19.40648
5 | 2.380222 5.601269 0.42 0.671 -8.618702 13.37915
6 | 4.577449 5.758519 0.79 0.427 -6.73026 15.88516
7 | 11.23451 5.730346 1.96 0.050 -.0178722 22.4869
8 | 15.38742 6.765133 2.27 0.023 2.103077 28.67177
9 | 6.62229 5.446086 1.22 0.224 -4.071908 17.31649
10 | 10.4867 5.775377 1.82 0.070 -.8541113 21.82751
11 | 17.61586 5.748235 3.06 0.002 6.328348 28.90338
12 | -4.588462 5.778652 -0.79 0.427 -15.93571 6.758781
13 | 3.825679 5.75231 0.67 0.506 -7.469837 15.12119
14 | 41.14331 5.675329 7.25 0.000 29.99896 52.28767
15 | 2.666721 5.563798 0.48 0.632 -8.258624 13.59207
16 | 8.18678 5.997768 1.36 0.173 -3.590729 19.96429
17 | 15.15505 5.762348 2.63 0.009 3.83982 26.47028
18 | 14.26953 5.713851 2.50 0.013 3.049537 25.48953
19 | 14.93961 5.676806 2.63 0.009 3.792354 26.08686
20 | 7.462923 5.794002 1.29 0.198 -3.914461 18.84031
21 | -8.155755 5.801035 -1.41 0.160 -19.54695 3.23544
22 | 5.01185 5.730385 0.87 0.382 -6.240613 16.26431
23 | 3.29375 5.550613 0.59 0.553 -7.605704 14.1932
24 | -7.802612 6.130255 -1.27 0.204 -19.84028 4.235056
25 | 11.53457 5.716222 2.02 0.044 .309918 22.75922
26 | -15.94461 5.782812 -2.76 0.006 -27.30002 -4.5892
27 | 9.118368 5.863355 1.56 0.120 -2.3952 20.63194
28 | 4.992011 5.738191 0.87 0.385 -6.27578 16.2598
29 | 4.432366 5.716333 0.78 0.438 -6.792505 15.65724
30 | -4.811304 5.869803 -0.82 0.413 -16.33753 6.714927
31 | 7.39563 5.775934 1.28 0.201 -3.946275 18.73754
32 | -3.634728 5.781258 -0.63 0.530 -14.98709 7.717631
33 | 1.982236 5.755733 0.34 0.731 -9.320001 13.28447
34 | 2.278194 5.537533 0.41 0.681 -8.595576 13.15196
35 | 10.86533 7.204733 1.51 0.132 -3.282233 25.0129
36 | 5.02107 5.878209 0.85 0.393 -6.521667 16.56381
37 | -.5280401 5.829513 -0.09 0.928 -11.97516 10.91908
38 | 4.046465 5.732973 0.71 0.481 -7.21108 15.30401
39 | 14.29009 7.043799 2.03 0.043 .458539 28.12163
40 | -.9412336 5.782344 -0.16 0.871 -12.29573 10.41326
41 | -12.09543 5.758072 -2.10 0.036 -23.40226 -.7886009
42 | .0528721 5.585924 0.01 0.992 -10.91592 11.02167
43 | -4.77363 5.844643 -0.82 0.414 -16.25046 6.703197
44 | 17.153 5.679578 3.02 0.003 6.000305 28.3057
45 | 10.13592 5.712306 1.77 0.076 -1.081037 21.35289
46 | 3.282409 5.952715 0.55 0.582 -8.406633 14.97145
47 | 6.371894 5.894771 1.08 0.280 -5.203365 17.94715
48 | -5.138392 5.660439 -0.91 0.364 -16.25351 5.976722
49 | 19.58801 7.780784 2.52 0.012 4.309287 34.86674
50 | .1228086 5.804185 0.02 0.983 -11.27457 11.52019
51 | 3.926156 5.830254 0.67 0.501 -7.522415 15.37473

126
 52
| 4.882141 5.986459 0.82 0.415 -6.873161 16.63744
53
| 14.50175 5.52246 2.63 0.009 3.65758 25.34592
54
| .4462629 5.736578 0.08 0.938 -10.81836 11.71089
55
| 3.438183 5.866532 0.59 0.558 -8.081626 14.95799
56
| -16.85134 5.826582 -2.89 0.004 -28.2927 -5.409977
57
| 10.45288 5.509394 1.90 0.058 -.3656361 21.27139
58
| 7.280594 5.686634 1.28 0.201 -3.885956 18.44715
59
| 1.911281 6.114327 0.31 0.755 -10.09511 13.91767
60
| 11.65344 5.849892 1.99 0.047 .1663022 23.14057
61
| .3005937 5.783336 0.05 0.959 -11.05585 11.65703
62
| 2.518135 5.732422 0.44 0.661 -8.738328 13.7746
63
| -.1921377 5.894923 -0.03 0.974 -11.7677 11.38342
64
| -3.873722 5.758395 -0.67 0.501 -15.18119 7.433744
65
| -9.167909 5.172669 -1.77 0.077 -19.32521 .9893963
66
| -10.86325 5.793054 -1.88 0.061 -22.23877 .5122712
67
| 6.549398 5.859096 1.12 0.264 -4.955809 18.05461
68
| 6.272803 5.680043 1.10 0.270 -4.880807 17.42641
69
| 4.705513 5.90924 0.80 0.426 -6.898159 16.30918
70
| 8.975355 5.779466 1.55 0.121 -2.373485 20.3242
71
| 11.69597 5.745039 2.04 0.042 .4147276 22.9772
72
| 10.59133 5.875117 1.80 0.072 -.9453373 22.128
73
| 3.668242 5.817466 0.63 0.529 -7.755218 15.0917
74
| 8.76942 5.763805 1.52 0.129 -2.548669 20.08751
|
_cons | -8.506082 6.038888 -1.41 0.159 -20.36434 3.352172
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GPTM

reg gptm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 724

-------------+---------------------------------- F(5, 718) = 3.14
Model | 20034.8742 5 4006.97484 Prob > F = 0.0082
Residual | 916552.3 718 1276.53524 R-squared = 0.0214
-------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.0146
Total | 936587.174 723 1295.41795 Root MSE = 35.729

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gptm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 21.27246 9.449588 2.25 0.025 2.720334 39.82458
csrd | 16.37702 8.11369 2.02 0.044 .447628 32.30641
hsed | 2.192699 9.640402 0.23 0.820 -16.73405 21.11944
eaps | -.1128313 .2391884 -0.47 0.637 -.5824236 .356761
eayd | -.0102903 .0089813 -1.15 0.252 -.027923 .0073424
_cons | 12.48848 8.532577 1.46 0.144 -4.263305 29.24026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. vif

Variable | VIF 1/VIF

-------------+----------------------
csrd | 1.38 0.727009
hsed | 1.28 0.782535
envd | 1.10 0.908902
eaps | 1.05 0.955742
eayd | 1.02 0.983309
-------------+----------------------
Mean VIF | 1.16
. hettest

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: fitted values of gptm

chi2(1) = 17.61
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
. xtreg gptm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, fe

Fixed-effects (within) regression Number of obs = 724

Group variable: croid Number of groups = 74

R-sq: Obs per group:

within = 0.0272 min = 8
between = 0.1287 avg = 9.8
overall = 0.0043 max = 10
127
 F(5,645) = 3.60
corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.3978 Prob > F = 0.0032
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gptm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 8.43302 19.57322 0.43 0.667 -30.00191 46.86795
csrd | -39.48489 10.81732 -3.65 0.000 -60.7263 -18.24348
hsed | 16.30631 12.34696 1.32 0.187 -7.938786 40.55141
eaps | .4072452 .3879487 1.05 0.294 -.3545498 1.16904
eayd | -.0180376 .0079698 -2.26 0.024 -.0336874 -.0023877
_cons | 37.63984 12.03974 3.13 0.002 13.99801 61.28166
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sigma_u | 24.510754
sigma_e | 30.145306
rho | .39799303 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F test that all u_i=0: F(73, 645) = 4.98 Prob > F = 0.0000

. estimate store fe

. xtreg gptm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd, re

Random-effects GLS regression Number of obs = 724

Group variable: croid Number of groups = 74

R-sq: Obs per group:

within = 0.0197 min = 8
between = 0.0116 avg = 9.8
overall = 0.0015 max = 10

Wald chi2(5) = 7.77

corr(u_i, X) = 0 (assumed) Prob > chi2 = 0.1695

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gptm | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 18.82136 13.72659 1.37 0.170 -8.082267 45.72498
csrd | -15.92862 9.489556 -1.68 0.093 -34.52781 2.670566
hsed | 12.78145 11.03503 1.16 0.247 -8.846821 34.40972
eaps | .1831377 .3130011 0.59 0.558 -.4303332 .7966086
eayd | -.0156413 .0079467 -1.97 0.049 -.0312166 -.000066
_cons | 24.35438 10.55927 2.31 0.021 3.658601 45.05016
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sigma_u | 18.472094
sigma_e | 30.145306
rho | .27298383 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. estimate store re

. xttest0

Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects

gptm[croid,t] = Xb + u[croid] + e[croid,t]

Estimated results:
| Var sd = sqrt(Var)
---------+-----------------------------
gptm | 1295.418 35.99191
e | 908.7395 30.14531
u | 341.2182 18.47209

Test: Var(u) = 0
chibar2(01) = 184.65
Prob > chibar2 = 0.0000

. hausman fe re

Note: the rank of the differenced variance matrix (4) does not equal the number of coefficients being tested
(5); be sure this is what
you expect, or there may be problems computing the test. Examine the output of your estimators for
anything unexpected and
possibly consider scaling your variables so that the coefficients are on a similar scale.

128
 ---- Coefficients ----
| (b) (B) (b-B) sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B))
| fe re Difference S.E.
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 8.43302 18.82136 -10.38834 13.95319
csrd | -39.48489 -15.92862 -23.55627 5.192559
hsed | 16.30631 12.78145 3.524865 5.53855
eaps | .4072452 .1831377 .2241075 .229204
eayd | -.0180376 -.0156413 -.0023963 .0006057
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg
B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg

Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic

chi2(4) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
= 24.25
Prob>chi2 = 0.0001
(V_b-V_B is not positive definite)

. reg gptm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd i.croid

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 724

-------------+---------------------------------- F(78, 645) = 4.94
Model | 350450.21 78 4492.95141 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 586136.964 645 908.739479 R-squared = 0.3742
-------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.2985
Total | 936587.174 723 1295.41795 Root MSE = 30.145

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gptm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 8.43302 19.57322 0.43 0.667 -30.00191 46.86795
csrd | -39.48489 10.81732 -3.65 0.000 -60.7263 -18.24348
hsed | 16.30631 12.34696 1.32 0.187 -7.938786 40.55141
eaps | .4072452 .3879487 1.05 0.294 -.3545498 1.16904
eayd | -.0180376 .0079698 -2.26 0.024 -.0336874 -.0023877
|
croid |
2 | 68.53675 15.04703 4.55 0.000 38.98966 98.08384
3 | 36.77688 15.06665 2.44 0.015 7.191266 66.3625
4 | 61.2608 15.02543 4.08 0.000 31.75614 90.76547
5 | 55.89707 14.67469 3.81 0.000 27.08113 84.71301
6 | 71.92194 15.08667 4.77 0.000 42.29702 101.5469
7 | 97.11463 15.01286 6.47 0.000 67.63465 126.5946
8 | 90.06767 17.72389 5.08 0.000 55.26418 124.8712
9 | 71.38604 14.26813 5.00 0.000 43.36845 99.40364
10 | 80.31915 15.13084 5.31 0.000 50.6075 110.0308
11 | 76.50823 15.05973 5.08 0.000 46.93621 106.0802
12 | 65.66315 15.13942 4.34 0.000 35.93466 95.39165
13 | 61.97289 15.0704 4.11 0.000 32.37992 91.56587
14 | 98.80401 14.86872 6.65 0.000 69.60706 128.001
15 | 55.63893 14.57652 3.82 0.000 27.01576 84.2621
16 | 93.35367 15.71348 5.94 0.000 62.49793 124.2094
17 | 79.05837 15.0967 5.24 0.000 49.41375 108.703
18 | 100.0423 14.96965 6.68 0.000 70.64721 129.4375
19 | 68.56207 14.87259 4.61 0.000 39.35753 97.76662
20 | 52.47842 15.17963 3.46 0.001 22.67095 82.28588
21 | 64.69636 15.19806 4.26 0.000 34.85271 94.54001
22 | 97.64323 15.01296 6.50 0.000 68.16305 127.1234
23 | 62.89896 14.54198 4.33 0.000 34.34361 91.4543
24 | -32.21341 16.06058 -2.01 0.045 -63.75075 -.6760806
25 | 91.42967 14.97586 6.11 0.000 62.02235 120.837
26 | 36.07201 15.15032 2.38 0.018 6.322108 65.82191
27 | 86.12233 15.36133 5.61 0.000 55.95808 116.2866
28 | 65.20031 15.03341 4.34 0.000 35.67997 94.72066
29 | 81.9126 14.97615 5.47 0.000 52.5047 111.3205
30 | 63.49875 15.37822 4.13 0.000 33.30133 93.69618
31 | 86.90406 15.1323 5.74 0.000 57.18955 116.6186
32 | 39.01854 15.14624 2.58 0.010 9.276636 68.76044
33 | 68.77151 15.07937 4.56 0.000 39.16092 98.38209
34 | 75.05342 14.50771 5.17 0.000 46.56537 103.5415
35 | 70.57829 18.87559 3.74 0.000 33.51326 107.6433
36 | 95.61551 15.40024 6.21 0.000 65.37484 125.8562
37 | 42.84428 15.27267 2.81 0.005 12.85412 72.83443

129
 38 | 79.52647 15.01974 5.29 0.000 50.03297 109.02
39 | 54.00707 18.45396 2.93 0.004 17.76998 90.24417
40 | 75.19877 15.14909 4.96 0.000 45.45128 104.9463
41 | 72.11662 15.0855 4.78 0.000 42.49399 101.7392
42 | 48.07433 14.63449 3.29 0.001 19.33732 76.81133
43 | 16.28603 15.31231 1.06 0.288 -13.78196 46.35402
44 | 75.69561 14.87985 5.09 0.000 46.47681 104.9144
45 | 87.47536 14.9656 5.85 0.000 58.08819 116.8625
46 | 58.16833 15.59544 3.73 0.000 27.54435 88.7923
47 | 104.6535 15.44364 6.78 0.000 74.3276 134.9794
48 | 77.22411 14.82971 5.21 0.000 48.10376 106.3445
49 | 91.68871 20.38478 4.50 0.000 51.66016 131.7173
50 | 46.7402 15.20631 3.07 0.002 16.88035 76.60005
51 | 48.66844 15.27461 3.19 0.002 18.67448 78.66241
52 | 67.26542 15.68385 4.29 0.000 36.46785 98.06299
53 | 105.1971 14.46822 7.27 0.000 76.78656 133.6076
54 | 90.55442 15.02919 6.03 0.000 61.04238 120.0665
55 | 83.45697 15.36965 5.43 0.000 53.27637 113.6376
56 | 63.02688 15.26499 4.13 0.000 33.05181 93.00196
57 | 106.7858 14.43399 7.40 0.000 78.44251 135.1291
58 | 72.72807 14.89834 4.88 0.000 43.47297 101.9832
59 | 50.52888 16.01885 3.15 0.002 19.07349 81.98427
60 | 77.46148 15.32606 5.05 0.000 47.36648 107.5565
61 | 66.20815 15.15169 4.37 0.000 36.45555 95.96074
62 | 63.81324 15.0183 4.25 0.000 34.32258 93.30391
63 | 90.18067 15.44403 5.84 0.000 59.85401 120.5073
64 | 51.04379 15.08635 3.38 0.001 21.4195 80.66807
65 | 48.7062 13.55181 3.59 0.000 22.0952 75.31719
66 | 107.9935 15.17715 7.12 0.000 78.19091 137.7961
67 | 98.97458 15.35017 6.45 0.000 68.83223 129.1169
68 | 107.7674 14.88107 7.24 0.000 78.54621 136.9886
69 | 76.27516 15.48154 4.93 0.000 45.87484 106.6755
70 | 76.2805 15.14155 5.04 0.000 46.54782 106.0132
71 | 79.86788 15.05135 5.31 0.000 50.31231 109.4235
72 | 104.4489 15.39215 6.79 0.000 74.22416 134.6737
73 | 68.86 15.24111 4.52 0.000 38.93182 98.78817
74 | 90.13857 15.10052 5.97 0.000 60.48645 119.7907
|
_cons | -33.66004 15.82121 -2.13 0.034 -64.72733 -2.592751
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EITM

. reg eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 724

-------------+---------------------------------- F(5, 718) = 57.57
Model | 25164865.8 5 5032973.17 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 62765711.5 718 87417.4255 R-squared = 0.2862
-------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.2812
Total | 87930577.4 723 121619.056 Root MSE = 295.66

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eitm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 24.59979 78.19797 0.31 0.753 -128.9242 178.1238
csrd | -56.59113 67.14304 -0.84 0.400 -188.4113 75.22902
hsed | 19.86852 79.777 0.25 0.803 -136.7556 176.4926
eaps | -.690771 1.979351 -0.35 0.727 -4.576778 3.195236
eayd | 1.250969 .0743227 16.83 0.000 1.105053 1.396885
_cons | 34.61871 70.60944 0.49 0.624 -104.0069 173.2444
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. vif

Variable | VIF 1/VIF

-------------+----------------------
csrd | 1.38 0.727009
hsed | 1.28 0.782535
envd | 1.10 0.908902
eaps | 1.05 0.955742
eayd | 1.02 0.983309
-------------+----------------------
Mean VIF | 1.16

130
. hettest

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: fitted values of eitm

chi2(1) = 381.25
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
. testparm i.croid

( 1) 2.croid = 0
( 2) 3.croid = 0
( 3) 4.croid = 0
( 4) 5.croid = 0
( 5) 6.croid = 0
( 6) 7.croid = 0
( 7) 8.croid = 0
( 8) 9.croid = 0
( 9) 10.croid = 0
(10) 11.croid = 0
(11) 12.croid = 0
(12) 13.croid = 0
(13) 14.croid = 0
(14) 15.croid = 0
(15) 16.croid = 0
(16) 17.croid = 0
(17) 18.croid = 0
(18) 19.croid = 0
(19) 20.croid = 0
(20) 21.croid = 0
(21) 22.croid = 0
(22) 23.croid = 0
(23) 24.croid = 0
(24) 25.croid = 0
(25) 26.croid = 0
(26) 27.croid = 0
(27) 28.croid = 0
(28) 29.croid = 0
(29) 30.croid = 0
(30) 31.croid = 0
(31) 32.croid = 0
(32) 33.croid = 0
(33) 34.croid = 0
(34) 35.croid = 0
(35) 36.croid = 0
(36) 37.croid = 0
(37) 38.croid = 0
(38) 39.croid = 0
(39) 40.croid = 0
(40) 41.croid = 0
(41) 42.croid = 0
(42) 43.croid = 0
(43) 44.croid = 0
(44) 45.croid = 0
(45) 46.croid = 0
(46) 47.croid = 0
(47) 48.croid = 0
(48) 49.croid = 0
(49) 50.croid = 0
(50) 51.croid = 0
(51) 52.croid = 0
(52) 53.croid = 0
(53) 54.croid = 0
(54) 55.croid = 0
(55) 56.croid = 0
(56) 57.croid = 0
(57) 58.croid = 0
(58) 59.croid = 0
(59) 60.croid = 0
(60) 61.croid = 0
(61) 62.croid = 0
(62) 63.croid = 0
(63) 64.croid = 0
(64) 65.croid = 0
(65) 66.croid = 0

131
 (66) 67.croid = 0
(67) 68.croid = 0
(68) 69.croid = 0
(69) 70.croid = 0
(70) 71.croid = 0
(71) 72.croid = 0
(72) 73.croid = 0
(73) 74.croid = 0

F( 73, 645) = 0.47

Prob > F = 1.0000

. xttest0

Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects

eitm[croid,t] = Xb + u[croid] + e[croid,t]

Estimated results:
| Var sd = sqrt(Var)
---------+-----------------------------
eitm | 121619.1 348.7392
e | 92443.16 304.0447
u | 0 0

Test: Var(u) = 0
chibar2(01) = 0.00
Prob > chibar2 = 1.0000

rreg eitm envd csrd hsed eaps eayd

Huber iteration 1: maximum difference in weights = .99695915

Huber iteration 2: maximum difference in weights = .69192139
Huber iteration 3: maximum difference in weights = .202333
Huber iteration 4: maximum difference in weights = .11855873
Huber iteration 5: maximum difference in weights = .05715782
Huber iteration 6: maximum difference in weights = .03448823
Biweight iteration 7: maximum difference in weights = .29588595
Biweight iteration 8: maximum difference in weights = .09016823
Biweight iteration 9: maximum difference in weights = .03494886
Biweight iteration 10: maximum difference in weights = .0219317
Biweight iteration 11: maximum difference in weights = .01693988
Biweight iteration 12: maximum difference in weights = .01207243
Biweight iteration 13: maximum difference in weights = .00698529

Robust regression Number of obs = 723

F( 5, 717) = 609.30
Prob > F = 0.0000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eitm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
envd | 10.54523 2.604509 4.05 0.000 5.43185 15.6586
csrd | 7.54188 2.236364 3.37 0.001 3.151276 11.93248
hsed | -2.617537 2.664036 -0.98 0.326 -7.84778 2.612706
eaps | .3507161 .0662084 5.30 0.000 .2207305 .4807016
eayd | .2264347 .0042996 52.66 0.000 .2179934 .234876
_cons | 4.566284 2.363007 1.93 0.054 -.0729563 9.205523
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. estimates table roce reta gptm eitm, stats(chi2 df N r2) se t p

------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable | roce reta gptm eitm
-------------+----------------------------------------------------
envd | -7.6326799 -7.8698786 8.4330197 10.545225
| 7.4627209 7.4710158 19.57322 2.604509
| -1.02 -1.05 0.43 4.05
| 0.3068 0.2926 0.6667 0.0001
csrd | -13.997541 -14.147868 -39.484888 7.5418804
| 4.12434 4.1289243 10.817316 2.2363641
| -3.39 -3.43 -3.65 3.37
| 0.0007 0.0007 0.0003 0.0008
hsed | 13.804984 15.627923 16.306313 -2.6175369
| 4.7075517 4.7127841 12.346964 2.6640356

132
 | 2.93 3.32 1.32 -0.98
| 0.0035 0.0010 0.1871 0.3262

eaps | .95330534 .95404274 .40724516 .35071606

| .14791398 .14807838 .38794868 .06620844
| 6.44 6.44 1.05 5.30
| 0.0000 0.0000 0.2942 0.0000
eayd | .05740725 .05566511 -.01803757 .22643471
| .00303865 .00304203 .00796977 .00429958
| 18.89 18.30 -2.26 52.66
| 0.0000 0.0000 0.0240 0.0000
|
croid |
2 | 5.1767452 3.8992338 68.536747
| 5.737013 5.7433898 15.047034
| 0.90 0.68 4.55
| 0.3672 0.4974 0.0000
3 | -21.157352 -22.944866 36.776881
| 5.7444932 5.7508783 15.066653
| -3.68 -3.99 2.44
| 0.0002 0.0001 0.0149
4 | 9.5410362 8.1446765 61.260802
| 5.7287754 5.7351429 15.025428
| 1.67 1.42 4.08
| 0.0963 0.1561 0.0001
5 | 3.3075413 2.380222 55.897071
| 5.5950498 5.6012688 14.674693
| 0.59 0.42 3.81
| 0.5546 0.6710 0.0002
6 | 5.817569 4.5774486 71.921944
| 5.7521257 5.7585193 15.086672
| 1.01 0.79 4.77
| 0.3122 0.4270 0.0000
7 | 12.443807 11.234513 97.11463
| 5.7239832 5.7303455 15.01286
| 2.17 1.96 6.47
| 0.0301 0.0504 0.0000
8 | 16.481877 15.387422 90.067665
| 6.7576216 6.7651328 17.723886
| 2.44 2.27 5.08
| 0.0150 0.0233 0.0000
9 | 7.840021 6.6222905 71.386043
| 5.4400388 5.4460855 14.268131
| 1.44 1.22 5.00
| 0.1500 0.2244 0.0000
10 | 11.70198 10.486701 80.319146
| 5.768965 5.7753773 15.130838
| 2.03 1.82 5.31
| 0.0429 0.0699 0.0000
11 | 18.616791 17.615862 76.508229
| 5.7418529 5.748235 15.059728
| 3.24 3.06 5.08
| 0.0012 0.0023 0.0000
12 | -3.3089907 -4.588462 65.663154
| 5.7722363 5.7786522 15.139418
| -0.57 -0.79 4.34
| 0.5667 0.4275 0.0000
13 | 4.9340017 3.8256787 61.972894
| 5.745923 5.7523097 15.070403
| 0.86 0.67 4.11
| 0.3908 0.5062 0.0000
14 | 42.363697 41.143314 98.804013
| 5.6690283 5.6753295 14.868724
| 7.47 7.25 6.65
| 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
15 | 3.9141814 2.6667209 55.63893
| 5.5576209 5.5637983 14.576525
| 0.70 0.48 3.82
| 0.4815 0.6319 0.0001
16 | 9.2089253 8.1867801 93.353672
| 5.9911085 5.9977677 15.713476
| 1.54 1.36 5.94
| 0.1248 0.1727 0.0000
17 | 16.371995 15.155048 79.058373

133
 | 5.7559503 5.7623482 15.096703
| 2.84 2.63 5.24
| 0.0046 0.0087 0.0000

18 | 15.439323 14.269533 100.04234

| 5.7075074 5.7138513 14.969647
| 2.71 2.50 6.68
| 0.0070 0.0128 0.0000
19 | 16.167445 14.939606 68.562071
| 5.6705028 5.6768057 14.872591
| 2.85 2.63 4.61
| 0.0045 0.0087 0.0000
20 | 8.4172634 7.4629234 52.478419
| 5.787569 5.7940019 15.179632
| 1.45 1.29 3.46
| 0.1463 0.1982 0.0006
21 | -7.1021127 -8.155755 64.69636
| 5.7945943 5.801035 15.198058
| -1.23 -1.41 4.26
| 0.2208 0.1602 0.0000
22 | 6.2535011 5.0118501 97.643235
| 5.7240226 5.7303849 15.012963
| 1.09 0.87 6.50
| 0.2750 0.3821 0.0000
23 | 4.5193065 3.2937504 62.898957
| 5.5444504 5.5506131 14.541981
| 0.82 0.59 4.33
| 0.4153 0.5531 0.0000
24 | -6.4309306 -7.8026116 -32.213413
| 6.1234488 6.130255 16.060578
| -1.05 -1.27 -2.01
| 0.2940 0.2035 0.0453
25 | 12.755919 11.534569 91.429669
| 5.7098751 5.7162217 14.975857
| 2.23 2.02 6.11
| 0.0258 0.0440 0.0000
26 | -14.661093 -15.944611 36.072007
| 5.7763916 5.7828122 15.150316
| -2.54 -2.76 2.38
| 0.0114 0.0060 0.0176
27 | 10.567332 9.1183684 86.12233
| 5.8568447 5.8633547 15.361329
| 1.80 1.56 5.61
| 0.0717 0.1204 0.0000
28 | 6.2011187 4.9920113 65.200314
| 5.7318199 5.7381909 15.033414
| 1.08 0.87 4.34
| 0.2797 0.3846 0.0000
29 | 5.6359624 4.4323659 81.912597
| 5.7099867 5.7163334 14.97615
| 0.99 0.78 5.47
| 0.3240 0.4384 0.0000
30 | -3.5010654 -4.8113037 63.498751
| 5.8632856 5.8698027 15.378222
| -0.60 -0.82 4.13
| 0.5506 0.4127 0.0000
31 | 8.6490231 7.3956302 86.904061
| 5.7695209 5.7759337 15.132296
| 1.50 1.28 5.74
| 0.1343 0.2009 0.0000
32 | -.51467575 -3.6347281 39.018539
| 5.774839 5.7812578 15.146244
| -0.09 -0.63 2.58
| 0.9290 0.5298 0.0102
33 | 3.262068 1.9822356 68.771506
| 5.7493422 5.7557327 15.079371
| 0.57 0.34 4.56
| 0.5707 0.7307 0.0000
34 | 3.5006272 2.2781937 75.053424
| 5.5313847 5.5375329 14.507712
| 0.63 0.41 5.17
| 0.5270 0.6809 0.0000

35 | 11.961035 10.865333 70.578293

| 7.1967342 7.2047335 18.87559

134
 | 1.66 1.51 3.74
| 0.0970 0.1320 0.0002
36 | 6.2682872 5.0210703 95.615509
| 5.8716824 5.8782088 15.400245
| 1.07 0.85 6.21
| 0.2861 0.3933 0.0000

37 | .78100184 -.52804013 42.844276

| 5.8230404 5.8295127 15.272667
| 0.13 -0.09 2.81
| 0.8933 0.9279 0.0052
38 | 5.3019247 4.0464655 79.526469
| 5.7266079 5.7329731 15.019744
| 0.93 0.71 5.29
| 0.3549 0.4806 0.0000
39 | 13.389518 14.290086 54.007073
| 7.0359784 7.043799 18.45396
| 1.90 2.03 2.93
| 0.0575 0.0429 0.0035
40 | .35133035 -.9412336 75.198774
| 5.775924 5.782344 15.14909
| 0.06 -0.16 4.96
| 0.9515 0.8707 0.0000
41 | -10.715791 -12.095432 72.116618
| 5.7516791 5.7580722 15.0855
| -1.86 -2.10 4.78
| 0.0629 0.0361 0.0000
42 | 1.3238664 .05287209 48.074327
| 5.5797224 5.5859243 14.634492
| 0.24 0.01 3.29
| 0.8125 0.9925 0.0011
43 | -2.8968361 -4.7736296 16.28603
| 5.838154 5.8446432 15.312307
| -0.50 -0.82 1.06
| 0.6199 0.4144 0.2879
44 | 18.40616 17.153001 75.695613
| 5.6732718 5.6795777 14.879854
| 3.24 3.02 5.09
| 0.0012 0.0026 0.0000
45 | 11.189753 10.135924 87.475364
| 5.7059634 5.7123057 14.965597
| 1.96 1.77 5.85
| 0.0503 0.0765 0.0000
46 | 4.6053169 3.2824087 58.168326
| 5.9461061 5.9527153 15.595443
| 0.77 0.55 3.73
| 0.4389 0.5815 0.0002
47 | 7.5678991 6.3718944 104.65348
| 5.8882263 5.8947711 15.443636
| 1.29 1.08 6.78
| 0.1992 0.2801 0.0000
48 | -3.8972273 -5.138392 77.224111
| 5.6541545 5.6604391 14.829713
| -0.69 -0.91 5.21
| 0.4909 0.3643 0.0000
49 | 20.639274 19.588014 91.688708
| 7.7721456 7.7807845 20.384779
| 2.66 2.52 4.50
| 0.0081 0.0121 0.0000
50 | 1.4275401 .12280862 46.740203
| 5.7977403 5.8041846 15.20631
| 0.25 0.02 3.07
| 0.8056 0.9831 0.0022
51 | 5.1179102 3.9261561 48.668445
| 5.823781 5.8302542 15.274609
| 0.88 0.67 3.19
| 0.3798 0.5009 0.0015
52 | 6.1383562 4.8821411 67.265418
| 5.9798122 5.9864589 15.683848
| 1.03 0.82 4.29
| 0.3050 0.4151 0.0000
53 | 15.740431 14.501752 105.19707
| 5.516329 5.5224604 14.468224
| 2.85 2.63 7.27
| 0.0045 0.0088 0.0000

135
54 | 1.6512139 .44626285 90.554422
| 5.7302084 5.7365776 15.029187
| 0.29 0.08 6.03
| 0.7733 0.9380 0.0000

55 | 4.3509183 3.4381827 83.456974

| 5.8600187 5.8665321 15.369653
| 0.74 0.59 5.43
| 0.4581 0.5580 0.0000
56 | -16.947096 -16.851338 63.026881
| 5.8201131 5.8265822 15.264989
| -2.91 -2.89 4.13
| 0.0037 0.0040 0.0000
57 | 11.659772 10.452878 106.7858
| 5.5032768 5.5093938 14.433991
| 2.12 1.90 7.40
| 0.0345 0.0582 0.0000
58 | 8.6183914 7.2805945 72.728071
| 5.6803198 5.6866335 14.898339
| 1.52 1.28 4.88
| 0.1297 0.2009 0.0000
59 | 3.6113343 1.9112808 50.52888
| 6.1075382 6.1143268 16.018847
| 0.59 0.31 3.15
| 0.5545 0.7547 0.0017
60 | 12.917829 11.653435 77.461477
| 5.8433971 5.8498921 15.326058
| 2.21 1.99 5.05
| 0.0274 0.0468 0.0000
61 | 1.6040837 .30059371 66.208147
| 5.7769146 5.7833357 15.151688
| 0.28 0.05 4.37
| 0.7814 0.9586 0.0000
62 | 3.7760553 2.518135 63.813243
| 5.7260574 5.732422 15.0183
| 0.66 0.44 4.25
| 0.5098 0.6606 0.0000
63 | 1.085988 -.19213772 90.180671
| 5.888378 5.894923 15.444034
| 0.18 -0.03 5.84
| 0.8537 0.9740 0.0000
64 | -2.5923002 -3.8737217 51.043789
| 5.7520018 5.7583952 15.086347
| -0.45 -0.67 3.38
| 0.6524 0.5014 0.0008
65 | -7.9022274 -9.1679089 48.706199
| 5.1669261 5.1726691 13.55181
| -1.53 -1.77 3.59
| 0.1267 0.0768 0.0004
66 | -9.5522089 -10.863251 107.9935
| 5.7866217 5.7930536 15.177148
| -1.65 -1.88 7.12
| 0.0993 0.0612 0.0000
67 | 7.7404183 6.5493982 98.974582
| 5.8525913 5.8590965 15.350173
| 1.32 1.12 6.45
| 0.1864 0.2641 0.0000
68 | 7.5645063 6.2728025 107.76741
| 5.673737 5.6800434 14.881074
| 1.33 1.10 7.24
| 0.1829 0.2698 0.0000
69 | 5.5998951 4.7055128 76.275157
| 5.9026794 5.9092403 15.481544
| 0.95 0.80 4.93
| 0.3431 0.4262 0.0000
70 | 10.170001 8.9753554 76.2805
| 5.7730491 5.7794659 15.14155
| 1.76 1.55 5.04
| 0.0786 0.1209 0.0000
71 | 12.583776 11.695966 79.867883
| 5.7386603 5.7450389 15.051355
| 2.19 2.04 5.31
| 0.0287 0.0422 0.0000

136
 72 | 11.814731 10.591329 104.44893
| 5.8685943 5.8751173 15.392145
| 2.01 1.80 6.79
| 0.0445 0.0719 0.0000
73 | 5.0517289 3.6682418 68.859996
| 5.8110068 5.8174658 15.241105
| 0.87 0.63 4.52
| 0.3850 0.5286 0.0000
74 | 9.9873552 8.7694202 90.138571
| 5.7574059 5.7638054 15.100521
| 1.73 1.52 5.97
| 0.0833 0.1286 0.0000
|
_cons | -8.0507493 -8.5060822 -33.660042 4.5662835
| 6.0321829 6.0388878 15.821206 2.363007
| -1.33 -1.41 -2.13 1.93
| 0.1825 0.1594 0.0338 0.0537
-------------+----------------------------------------------------
chi2 |
df |
N | 724 724 724 723
r2 | .60844449 .60343112 .37417789 .80948612
------------------------------------------------------------------
legend: b/se/t/p

137
 APPENDIX II
Exchange
Year Companies
Sector ROCE GPTM EITM ENVD CSRD HSED EAPS EAYD
2010 11 Plc Oil & Gas 15.4362 16.6434 10.1678 0 0.6 1 12.93 9.1707
2011 11 Plc Oil & Gas 15.1334 16.323 9.661 0 0.6 1 12.14 10.1444
2012 11 Plc Oil & Gas 8.5756 10.1619 5.415 0 0.6 1 8.56 8.7675
2013 11 Plc Oil & Gas 8.5463 12.6234 6.6988 0 0.6 1 10.35 9.7668
2014 11 Plc Oil & Gas 12.9865 13.4918 10.8455 0 0.6 1 17.73 13.4646
2015 11 Plc Oil & Gas 9.0119 17.1145 10.9457 0 0.4 0 13.51 8.446
2016 11 Plc Oil & Gas 13.2157 16.6876 12.7728 0 0.6 1 22.61 8.1052
2017 11 Plc Oil & Gas 10.0721 12.1936 10.741 0 0.8 1 20.65 10.7148
2018 11 Plc Oil & Gas 13.2024 10.0806 8.3447 0 1 1 25.87 13.9466
2019 11 Plc Oil & Gas 9.741 -516.8097 47.2837 0 1 1 24.64 16.6574
2010 Academy Services 6.6603 26.0966 11.1677 0 0.6 1 0.42 12.1339
2011 Academy Services 3.7409 23.5212 8.365 0 0.6 1 0.23 9.9718
2012 Academy Services 3.2702 21.5425 8.2596 0 0.6 1 0.18 11.3022
2013 Academy Services 1.5516 23.5794 6.4888 0 0.6 1 0.13 4.2835
2014 Academy Services 2.3807 25.1253 9.5674 0 0.6 1 0.2 15.1791
2015 Academy Services -0.6836 25.7519 13.3223 0 0.6 1 -0.05 -7.672
2016 Academy Services -4.3128 25.1311 6.0594 0 0.6 1 -0.25 -50.2212
2017 Academy Services -17.2313 17.9417 -7.5939 0.25 1 1 -0.8 -169.5519
2018 Academy Services 2.3288 23.6111 7.9802 0 1 1 0.17 21.0443
2019 Academy Services 1.3054 19.9705 2.3584 0 1 1 0.1 15.5039
2010 Afromedia Services 4.8289 54.4585 21.3486 0 0.6 1 0.11 19.4758
2011 Afromedia Services -3.4259 44.1389 -5.4183 0 0.8 1 -0.07 -14.9266
2012 Afromedia Services -101.4167 31.4258 -245.4661 0 0.6 1 -0.99 -198.9441
2013 Afromedia Services -20.2708 40.12 -64.0248 0 0.8 1 -0.19 -38.3562
2014 Afromedia Services -39.6149 -28.4041 -332.1751 0 0.8 1 -0.32 -64.4127
2015 Afromedia Services -118.6015 -98.0604 -511.5227 0 0.8 1 -0.62 -123.9546
2016 Afromedia Services -82.757 -166.2416 -306.902 0 0.8 1 -0.4 -80.3074
2017 Afromedia Services 34.253 -28.4712 194.4973 0 0.6 1 0.14 28.3353
2018 Afromedia Services 21.2017 38.0021 97.279 0 0.6 1 0.08 17.1695
2019 Afromedia Services 27.8048 37.5212 160.24 0 0.6 1 0.12 38.8245
Aluminium
2010 Extrusion Indus Resources 7.0723 14.0598 7.5469 0 0.6 1 0.27 2.223
Aluminium
2011 Extrusion Indus Resources 4.1195 13.0774 6.6055 0 0.8 1 0.23 2.0697
Aluminium
2012 Extrusion Indus Resources 2.81 12.5413 7.4369 0 0.8 1 0.21 1.9525
Aluminium
2013 Extrusion Indus Resources 8.0387 13.9032 8.9663 0 0.8 1 0.62 5.8908
Aluminium
2014 Extrusion Indus Resources 9.7013 16.2179 8.7068 0 0.8 1 0.77 7.446
Aluminium
2015 Extrusion Indus Resources 4.4064 13.3414 6.3676 0 0.8 1 0.38 4.0336
Aluminium
2016 Extrusion Indus Resources 3.9316 11.4582 5.4123 0 0.8 1 0.38 4.3184
Aluminium
2017 Extrusion Indus Resources 3.6932 13.2413 6.6297 0 0.8 1 0.38 4.1303
Aluminium
2018 Extrusion Indus Resources 3.4766 12.3409 6.26 0 0.8 1 0.39 4.8181
Aluminium
2019 Extrusion Indus Resources 2.5826 11.7736 5.6909 0 0.8 1 0.29 3.5892
Ardova Plc (Forte
2010 Oil) Oil & Gas -3.98 9.1589 -0.9042 0 0.4 0 -0.03 -11.6129
Ardova Plc (Forte
2011 Oil) Oil & Gas -43.1975 7.4584 -15.7786 0 0.2 0 -0.2 -155.8999
Ardova Plc (Forte
2012 Oil) Oil & Gas 2.3699 11.1504 3.2956 0 0.6 1 0.93 12.031
Ardova Plc (Forte
2013 Oil) Oil & Gas 4.7808 9.8632 6.5633 0 0.6 1 4.32 3.9889
Ardova Plc (Forte
2014 Oil) Oil & Gas 3.2007 10.8536 6.0038 0 0.6 1 2.2 0.9653
Ardova Plc (Forte
2015 Oil) Oil & Gas 4.7587 14.7343 9.7565 0 0.8 1 4.11 0.8667
Ardova Plc (Forte
2016 Oil) Oil & Gas 2.0535 13.8514 7.7453 0 0.8 1 1.99 1.69
Ardova Plc (Forte
2017 Oil) Oil & Gas 8.3039 18.6304 12.634 0 0.8 1 2.89 21.4551

138
 Ardova Plc (Forte
2018 Oil) Oil & Gas 0.2554 8.4103 2.8205 0 0.8 1 1.46 0.961
Ardova Plc (Forte
2019 Oil) Oil & Gas 8.3267 6.3901 5.3693 0 0.8 1 3 16.5748
Associated Bus
2010 Company Services 1.5313 32.7507 9.0181 0 0.6 1 0.04 7.2727
Associated Bus
2011 Company Services 1.4002 22.5798 6.3761 0 0.8 1 0.05 10
Associated Bus
2012 Company Services 6.5176 26.7706 12.0015 0 0.6 1 0.22 44
Associated Bus
2013 Company Services 5.4166 24.3006 11.4842 0 0.8 1 0.2 24.3902
Associated Bus
2014 Company Services -5.7991 20.1476 2.5105 0 0.6 1 -0.25 -45.0291
Associated Bus
2015 Company Services 2.1956 24.0325 10.0404 0 0.8 1 0.09 15.8428
Associated Bus
2016 Company Services -13.866 18.0547 -0.0158 0 0.8 1 -0.36 -72.3954
Associated Bus
2017 Company Services 11.4807 22.5133 13.456 0 0.8 1 0.31 61.9241
Associated Bus
2018 Company Services -2.484 20.0177 3.4991 0 1 1 -0.07 -13.6844
Associated Bus
2019 Company Services 3.8578 25.6131 9.3217 0 1 1 0.12 26.5538
2010 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 16.1601 47.4307 22.3941 0 0.8 1 0.88 9.5652
2011 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 14.8451 47.8685 20.6423 0 0.8 1 0.8 11.6788
2012 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 11.5025 49.9886 21.4579 0 0.8 1 0.73 11.68
2013 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 9.1005 56.0408 18.1831 0 0.8 1 0.63 9.4595
2014 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 6.5993 53.6302 14.0723 0 0.8 1 0.54 9.8904
2015 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 3.7701 45.2089 7.9337 0 0.8 1 0.29 7.6821
2016 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 2.1011 42.8479 10.253 0 0.8 1 0.18 5.1921
2017 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 5.5065 43.1467 18.7709 0 0.8 1 0.56 11.7336
2018 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 7.9622 50.3204 19.546 0 0.8 1 0.86 20.4067
2019 B.O.C Gases Nig Resources 4.2896 45.7616 11.815 0 0.8 1 0.52 9.4336
2010 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 16.9822 44.4225 16.0662 0.5 0.8 1 2.03 24.2823
2011 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 8.5164 37.6484 14.3575 0.5 0.8 1 1.05 12.3739
2012 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 6.606 38.8696 11.3287 0.5 1 1 0.88 9.8367
2013 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 7.1069 39.4529 14.3567 0.5 0.8 1 0.87 10.875
2014 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 4.088 43.688 10.6389 0.5 0.8 1 0.51 5.7049
2015 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 8.4786 45.6138 20.3399 0.5 0.8 1 1.14 11.3972
2016 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 5.4606 42.7087 11.7827 0.5 0.8 1 0.77 12.0767
2017 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 5.7122 41.1673 11.9456 0.5 1 1 0.85 10.0088
2018 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 7.067 43.8337 14.02 0.5 1 1 1.11 12.8591
2019 Berger Paints Nig Industrial 8.857 46.4272 15.373 0.5 1 1 1.55 22.9378
Beta Glass
2010 Company Industrial 9.105 25.5429 18.2045 0 0.8 1 2.95 18.9345
Beta Glass
2011 Company Industrial 9.8474 26.8805 18.3616 0 0.8 1 3.55 27.9308
Beta Glass
2012 Company Industrial 5.9162 24.1306 17.1997 0 0.8 1 2.66 25.3333
Beta Glass
2013 Company Industrial 5.4013 22.8851 15.7825 0 0.8 1 2.93 20.3049
Beta Glass
2014 Company Industrial 8.8762 26.7461 22.5035 0 0.8 1 4.78 17.2066
Beta Glass
2015 Company Industrial 7.3281 23.2296 19.9569 0 0.8 1 3.98 7.4508
Beta Glass
2016 Company Industrial 11.4494 20.6682 27.4213 0 0.8 1 7.6 25.0634
Beta Glass
2017 Company Industrial 10.7693 23.6537 26.9581 0 0.8 1 8.23 16.7496
Beta Glass
2018 Company Industrial 10.9654 24.2416 28.2338 0 0.8 1 10.11 14.7967
Beta Glass
2019 Company Industrial 10.7146 26.557 28.2336 0 0.8 1 11.16 20.7455
2010 Cadbury Nig Consumer 4.1234 31.7082 6.7087 0 0.8 1 0.38 1.4832
2011 Cadbury Nig Consumer 10.906 32.7148 14.9674 0 0.8 1 1.17 10.2632
2012 Cadbury Nig Consumer 8.6038 33.0764 16.8542 0 0.8 1 1.1 3.7931
2013 Cadbury Nig Consumer 13.9515 36.6326 20.947 0 0.8 1 1.92 3.2537
2014 Cadbury Nig Consumer 5.2487 25.9857 4.8079 0 0.8 1 0.75 1.8669
2015 Cadbury Nig Consumer 4.0585 32.094 5.5971 0 1 1 0.61 3.5804
2016 Cadbury Nig Consumer -1.0439 22.8837 -1.8182 0.125 1 1 0.16 -1.5336
2017 Cadbury Nig Consumer 1.0555 22.4766 2.7155 0.125 1 1 0.16 1.0193
139
2018 Cadbury Nig Consumer 2.99 22.1165 5.0456 0.125 1 1 0.44 4.3823
2019 Cadbury Nig Consumer 3.7193 21.1703 3.9115 0.125 1 1 0.57 5.4042
2010 Capital Hotel Services 89.5447 34.1033 21.2363 0 0.8 1 0.39 98.4525
2011 Capital Hotel Services 6.2738 28.8942 11.397 0 0.8 1 0.28 4.1298
2012 Capital Hotel Services 5.5546 32.1196 11.0586 0 0.8 1 0.23 3.6816
2013 Capital Hotel Services 2.6172 25.9586 7.0215 0 0.8 1 0.11 2.3744
2014 Capital Hotel Services 3.4825 28.956 14.6691 0 0.8 1 0.16 3.6967
2015 Capital Hotel Services 6.5078 28.5092 14.2792 0 0.8 1 0.32 8.2128
2016 Capital Hotel Services 14.0932 29.6186 32.8118 0 0.8 1 0.82 23.5107
2017 Capital Hotel Services 9.5101 26.7372 13.8831 0 0.8 1 0.6 20.1429
2018 Capital Hotel Services 3.7705 18.5314 8.495 0 0.8 1 0.25 7.9135
2019 Capital Hotel Services 4.058 20.3559 12.4588 0 0.8 1 0.26 9.4332
Champion
2010 Breweries Consumer -44.1613 15.0619 -16.162 0 0.6 1 -1.37 -61.644
Champion
2011 Breweries Consumer -17.1559 -21.1046 -69.875 0 0.6 1 -1.33 -32.9137
Champion
2012 Breweries Consumer -19.6595 -26.1228 -68.4469 0 0.8 1 -1.49 -35.7882
Champion
2013 Breweries Consumer -12.8919 1.1613 -24.3546 0 0.8 1 -1.31 -7.7405
Champion
2014 Breweries Consumer -7.8659 19.3779 6.5371 0 0.8 1 -0.24 -3.4685
Champion
2015 Breweries Consumer 0.7468 28.5478 7.0946 0 0.6 1 0.1 0.2968
Champion
2016 Breweries Consumer 5.3245 27.6085 17.6273 0 0.8 1 0.7 2.807
Champion
2017 Breweries Consumer 5.13 29.0251 12.6258 0 0.8 1 0.07 3.1781
Champion
2018 Breweries Consumer -2.5156 25.0032 -5.362 0 0.8 1 -0.03 -1.6932
Champion
2019 Breweries Consumer 1.5345 92.7901 0.2982 0 0.8 1 0.02 2.2655
2010 Chellarams Conglomerate 4.7358 13.8308 4.3649 0 0.6 1 0.61 8.0263
2011 Chellarams Conglomerate 2.0252 10.8106 2.4593 0 0.2 0 0.3 4.6656
2012 Chellarams Conglomerate 1.7017 12.0678 3.3538 0 0.8 1 0.35 6.0631
2013 Chellarams Conglomerate 0.5865 12.9967 3.0573 0 0.8 1 0.16 3.7976
2014 Chellarams Conglomerate -0.4443 9.6369 1.5321 0 0.8 1 -0.1 -2.6127
2015 Chellarams Conglomerate -17.1751 8.2566 -6.8035 0 0.8 1 -4.37 -110.6987
2016 Chellarams Conglomerate 1.1338 19.1734 8.4278 0 0.8 1 0.22 5.4987
2017 Chellarams Conglomerate 2.5732 27.6251 12.2427 0 0.8 1 0.4 15.4518
2018 Chellarams Conglomerate 1.5223 20.784 9.956 0 0.8 1 2.45 9.0142
2019 Chellarams Conglomerate -21.8134 4.687 -19.7784 0 1 1 -3.46 -137.2732
Chemical & Allied
2010 Product Industrial 37.2466 39.1243 31.2492 0 0.8 1 3.15 9.2655
Chemical & Allied
2011 Product Industrial 34.1813 35.7366 30.1505 0 0.8 1 1.87 12.8965
Chemical & Allied
2012 Product Industrial 38.7911 49.691 31.7545 0 0.8 1 1.99 7.1071
Chemical & Allied
2013 Product Industrial 46.6817 50.9231 33.6839 0 0.8 1 2.02 4.1692
Chemical & Allied
2014 Product Industrial 53.9594 51.4867 34.9496 0 0.8 1 2.37 6.32
Chemical & Allied
2015 Product Industrial 51.0239 50.8435 36.4187 0 1 1 2.49 6.6093
Chemical & Allied
2016 Product Industrial 32.6151 48.613 34.0479 0 1 1 2.29 7.1578
Chemical & Allied
2017 Product Industrial 29.891 45.6844 30.9586 0 1 1 2.14 6.2972
Chemical & Allied
2018 Product Industrial 32.1544 48.0386 33.6459 0 1 1 2.9 8.3187
Chemical & Allied
2019 Product Industrial 25.7669 47.2373 30.2783 0 1 1 2.49 10.3696
2010 Conoil Oil & Gas 6.7245 13.3033 5.6237 0 0.6 1 4.02 11.0318
2011 Conoil Oil & Gas 4.825 9.5341 3.7921 0 0.6 1 4.32 13.7143
2012 Conoil Oil & Gas 0.8604 10.7763 3.5439 0 0.6 1 1.03 5.0244
2013 Conoil Oil & Gas 3.7271 10.68 4.2797 0 0.6 1 4.42 6.5067
2014 Conoil Oil & Gas 0.9636 10.7434 2.9917 0 0.6 1 1.2 3.1488
2015 Conoil Oil & Gas 3.3256 13.9145 8.6903 0 0.6 1 3.33 13.4137
2016 Conoil Oil & Gas 4.0638 16.6313 7.1103 0 1 1 4.09 10.911
2017 Conoil Oil & Gas 2.5113 11.2969 3.8453 0 0.8 1 2.27 8.1238

140
2018 Conoil Oil & Gas 2.9493 10.4497 3.3342 0 0.8 1 2.59 11.1318
2019 Conoil Oil & Gas 3.1019 9.6161 2.8233 0 0.8 1 2.84 15.363
Courtville
2010 Investment ICT 6.1657 38.0257 38.2887 0 0.6 1 0.06 12.12
Courtville
2011 Investment ICT 7.9429 42.5496 36.7927 0 0.6 1 0.08 16.58
Courtville
2012 Investment ICT 7.139 44.651 38.2673 0 0.8 1 0.08 16.12
Courtville
2013 Investment ICT 7.055 46.7251 34.5222 0 0.6 1 0.09 12.9403
Courtville
2014 Investment ICT 6.7269 61.0418 37.9943 0 0.6 1 0.09 17.895
Courtville
2015 Investment ICT 1.4926 59.5682 22.8488 0 0.2 0 0.02 3.6965
Courtville
2016 Investment ICT 0.9145 52.3208 12.5314 0 0.8 1 0.02 2.0737
Courtville
2017 Investment ICT 0.8994 40.1666 8.7537 0 1 1 0.01 2.082
Courtville
2018 Investment ICT 1.8717 46.0621 19.0462 0 1 1 11.0417
Courtville
2019 Investment ICT 16.5794 71.4444 18.2303 0 1 1
2010 Cutix Industrial 13.014 36.7361 18.5329 0 0.6 1 0.26 11.8235
2011 Cutix Industrial 9.0146 31.5366 11.3531 0 0.6 1 0.16 10.2968
2012 Cutix Industrial 8.3729 24.8273 9.7381 0 0.6 1 0.15 9.7712
2013 Cutix Industrial 14.1007 28.6946 14.0741 0 0.6 1 0.17 9.6573
2014 Cutix Industrial 11.8714 29.152 14.1726 0 0.8 1 0.24 18.4615
2015 Cutix Industrial 7.5786 27.0948 13.3063 0 1 1 0.17 10.2065
2016 Cutix Industrial 10.0729 25.8599 14.6376 0 1 1 0.22 12.0207
2017 Cutix Industrial 11.0524 27.3592 13.3778 0 1 1 0.29 14.5468
2018 Cutix Industrial 15.5238 30.0687 15.8001 0 1 1 0.5 30.4853
2019 Cutix Industrial 16.673 30.2678 14.4737 0 1 1 0.27 20.3653
2010 Dangote Cement Industrial 26.5162 58.0793 51.4827 0 0.8 1 7 5.8333
2011 Dangote Cement Industrial 23.0616 59.5255 49.3866 0 0.6 1 7.13 6.462
2012 Dangote Cement Industrial 22.5532 60.361 49.8926 0 0.6 1 8.92 6.96
2013 Dangote Cement Industrial 23.8612 63.0954 52.9495 0 0.6 1 11.85 5.3914
2014 Dangote Cement Industrial 16.1976 63.472 55.5785 0 0.6 1 9.46 4.6799
2015 Dangote Cement Industrial 16.3215 58.9592 49.3449 0.625 0.8 1 10.86 6.2591
2016 Dangote Cement Industrial 12.2143 47.3558 36.7922 0.625 1 1 11.34 6.2943
2017 Dangote Cement Industrial 12.2606 56.393 42.4911 0.625 1 1 11.65 5.2112
2018 Dangote Cement Industrial 23.0353 57.4672 38.9013 0.625 1 1 22.83 12.0744
2019 Dangote Cement Industrial 11.5153 57.3846 34.5589 0.625 1 1 11.79 8.2866
2010 Dangote Sugar Consumer 18.1113 20.1136 17.9471 0 0.6 1 0.94 5.875
2011 Dangote Sugar Consumer 10.1677 12.6822 10.1859 0 0.6 1 0.62 13.1915
2012 Dangote Sugar Consumer 13.0145 21.7357 15.2821 0 0.6 1 0.9 15
2013 Dangote Sugar Consumer 13.0423 23.8464 15.833 0 0.6 1 0.9 7.6923
2014 Dangote Sugar Consumer 12.5384 19.6384 16.2138 0 0.6 1 0.97 15.2701
2015 Dangote Sugar Consumer 11.24 20.5115 17.033 0 0.8 1 0.96 15.7325
2016 Dangote Sugar Consumer 8.0703 13.5446 11.7328 0 1 1 1.2 19.8949
2017 Dangote Sugar Consumer 20.3934 24.9425 28.2435 0 1 1 3.31 16.5765
2018 Dangote Sugar Consumer 12.5496 26.3913 23.1818 0 1 1 1.85 12.009
2019 Dangote Sugar Consumer 11.5439 23.767 18.7943 0 1 1 1.87 13.7018
2010 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 7.7894 10.9873 12.4549 0.125 0.8 1 0.55 10.974
2011 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 8.2325 5.9417 5.236 0.125 0.8 1 0.93 31.3749
2012 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 2.8494 3.3973 2.1478 0.125 0.6 1 0.73 26.3874
2013 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 3.8525 2.9344 1.8449 0.125 0.6 1 0.54 19.6073
2014 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 5.2479 9.2384 8.3632 0.125 0.6 1 0.75 27.1684
2015 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 4.4742 3.3455 1.9971 0.125 0.6 1 0.98 47.8053
2016 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 4.6625 8.0162 5.5499 0.125 0.8 1 1.13 36.5475
2017 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 4.1667 3.6625 1.9354 0.125 1 1 0.01 37.8086
2018 Eternaoil Oil & Gas 1.8989 1.8431 1.1351 0.125 1 1 0.01 16.4614
2019 Eternaoil Oil & Gas -0.5057 2.1591 0.7847 0.125 1 1 -0.11 -3.0733
Etranzact
2010 Interntional ICT -5.4011 39.8384 -21.8157 0 0.4 1 -0.03 -0.662
141
 Etranzact
2011 Interntional ICT 3.0304 33.6983 5.6161 0 0.4 1 0.02 0.3918
Etranzact
2012 Interntional ICT 4.1762 30.6512 5.834 0 0.4 1 0.03 0.7922
Etranzact
2013 Interntional ICT 5.3586 22.1872 5.235 0 0.4 1 0.05 1.7921
Etranzact
2014 Interntional ICT 8.7451 21.7625 8.5201 0 0.4 1 0.1 2.8625
Etranzact
2015 Interntional ICT 12.0791 28.5098 12.2689 0 0.8 1 0.17 5.5193
Etranzact
2016 Interntional ICT 6.5037 27.9102 8.315 0 0.6 1 0.11 2.1404
Etranzact
2017 Interntional ICT 3.3382 14.6977 2.5013 0 0.8 1 0.05 0.9924
Etranzact
2018 Interntional ICT -52.5591 8.7244 -17.6013 0 0.6 1 -0.75 -18.9054
Etranzact
2019 Interntional ICT 2.173 8.0402 1.2211 0 0.6 1 0.04 1341.3155
2010 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 5.8956 55.2639 16.6633 0 0.6 1 0.31 10.1502
2011 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 0.5904 56.8676 7.9686 0 0.6 1 0.04 4.6911
2012 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 1.919 56.8284 11.962 0 0.6 1 0.14 13.0119
2013 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 1.2659 55.3034 7.1081 0 0.6 1 0.1 3.7032
2014 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 4.0059 55.933 14.6558 0 0.8 1 0.42 10.8004
2015 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 4.4653 53.002 18.9385 0 0.8 1 0.5 19.8501
2016 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 1.9005 52.9765 14.8211 0 0.8 1 0.21 16.498
2017 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 6.0802 50.8997 18.3547 0 0.8 1 0.71 19.1133
2018 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare -0.4757 38.9385 12.852 0 0.8 1 -0.06 -1.3124
2019 Fidson Healthcare Healthcare 1.9995 41.7832 16.4327 0 0.8 1 0.2 6.2957
Flour Mills Of
2010 Nigeria Consumer 2.7116 22.2965 9.9341 0 0.6 1 9.67 2.6977
Flour Mills Of
2011 Nigeria Consumer 5.7884 16.8282 9.4989 0 0.6 1 4.52 6.906
Flour Mills Of
2012 Nigeria Consumer 3.5973 15.3197 7.8214 0 0.8 1 3.08 5.0179
Flour Mills Of
2013 Nigeria Consumer 2.7571 12.5886 7.4759 0 0.8 1 2.91 3.3843
Flour Mills Of
2014 Nigeria Consumer 1.8058 13.144 7.325 0 0.8 1 1.93 5.2181
Flour Mills Of
2015 Nigeria Consumer 2.4684 11.4546 8.5596 0 0.8 1 3.43 15.5045
Flour Mills Of
2016 Nigeria Consumer 4.1756 10.9825 9.8915 0 1 1 5.57 29.7188
Flour Mills Of
2017 Nigeria Consumer 1.831 12.7157 8.1993 0 1 1 3.03 11.6111
Flour Mills Of
2018 Nigeria Consumer 3.3344 12.6734 9.0469 0 1 1 4.83 22.4608
Flour Mills Of
2019 Nigeria Consumer 0.9597 10.1151 6.2267 0 1 1 1 4.952
Ftn Cocoa
2010 Processors Agriculture 1.4719 15.2537 8.6582 0 0.4 1 0.03 4.7377
Ftn Cocoa
2011 Processors Agriculture -5.3281 0.5352 -21.0023 0 0.4 1 -0.11 -22.16
Ftn Cocoa
2012 Processors Agriculture -9.2491 -91.0961 -118.479 0 0.4 1 -0.18 -36.9
Ftn Cocoa
2013 Processors Agriculture -6.2829 -19.3501 -24.9818 0 0.4 1 -0.13 -26
Ftn Cocoa
2014 Processors Agriculture -13.0547 -105.6548 -166.9709 0 0.4 1 -0.26 -52
Ftn Cocoa
2015 Processors Agriculture -4.246 -4.3357 7.2426 0 0.4 1 -0.09 -18.1256
Ftn Cocoa
2016 Processors Agriculture -16.0562 -6.8048 -49.7567 0 0.4 1 -0.39 -76.327
Ftn Cocoa
2017 Processors Agriculture -15.8331 -306.7095 -538.4056 0 0.4 1 -0.35 -68.6861
Ftn Cocoa
2018 Processors Agriculture 0 0.4 1 -130.3173
Ftn Cocoa
2019 Processors Agriculture 0 0.4 1
Glaxosmithkline
2010 Nig Healthcare 13.4171 44.1381 17.4102 0 0.8 1 2.07 7.9615
Glaxosmithkline
2011 Nig Healthcare 12.8315 41.7539 16.2336 0 0.8 1 2.4 10.4348
Glaxosmithkline
2012 Nig Healthcare 12.9563 40.4127 16.4841 0 0.8 1 2.95 6.541
Glaxosmithkline
2013 Nig Healthcare 11.1361 39.7553 14.7868 0 0.8 1 3.05 4.4853
Glaxosmithkline
2014 Nig Healthcare 6.6047 35.1724 9.0342 0 0.8 1 1.93 3.86
Glaxosmithkline
2015 Nig Healthcare 3.0803 33.7077 3.7905 0 1 1 0.96 2.9495
Glaxosmithkline
2016 Nig Healthcare 8.4364 62.3326 1.293 0 1 1 1.99 15.7827
142
 Glaxosmithkline
2017 Nig Healthcare 1.8359 27.8412 6.9875 0 1 1 0.14 1.8823
Glaxosmithkline
2018 Nig Healthcare 3.9339 36.6987 6.3013 0 1 1 0.52 3.5618
Glaxosmithkline
2019 Nig Healthcare 4.9082 29.1532 5.6325 0 1 1 0.77 12.572
2010 Greif Nig Industrial 6.4633 20.2373 10.013 0 0.6 1 1.02 6.7865
2011 Greif Nig Industrial 6.166 18.2435 8.4958 0 0.6 1 0.9 6.7771
2012 Greif Nig Industrial 5.0974 17.3046 7.4891 0 0.6 1 0.85 6.5485
2013 Greif Nig Industrial 4.4879 17.9061 6.5982 0 0.6 1 0.72 5.6782
2014 Greif Nig Industrial 6.5449 17.5094 7.368 0 0.6 1 1.02 8.4437
2015 Greif Nig Industrial 3.4405 18.5434 4.9852 0 0.6 1 0.58 5.0362
2016 Greif Nig Industrial 3.7517 16.6293 2.762 0 0.6 1 0.64 6.5679
2017 Greif Nig Industrial 6.2827 18.1706 3.5172 0 0.8 1 1.16 12.7514
2018 Greif Nig Industrial -55.1969 -21.4504 -45.8705 0 0.8 1 -6.16 -67.7478
2019 Greif Nig Industrial -179.9173 -197.5784 -344.1751 0 0.8 1 -7.32 -80.4672
2010 Guinness Nig Consumer 17.5216 43.61 19.2382 0 0.8 1 9.31 4.8856
2011 Guinness Nig Consumer 19.4387 44.5109 21.6247 0 0.8 1 12.16 4.862
2012 Guinness Nig Consumer 13.4088 47.3831 19.2996 0.375 0.8 1 9.64 3.5045
2013 Guinness Nig Consumer 9.7998 45.7919 17.258 0.375 0.8 1 7.93 3.3382
2014 Guinness Nig Consumer 7.2346 47.0075 15.0575 0.375 0.8 1 6.36 3.7808
2015 Guinness Nig Consumer 6.3764 47.1675 13.4901 0.375 0.8 1 5.18 4.2992
2016 Guinness Nig Consumer -1.4715 41.0014 5.4924 0.375 0.8 1 -1.34 -1.6119
2017 Guinness Nig Consumer 1.3173 38.3699 9.8791 0.375 0.8 1 1.28 1.359
2018 Guinness Nig Consumer 7.1346 34.0095 10.9024 0.375 0.8 1 3.3 4.5854
2019 Guinness Nig Consumer 3.4104 30.5169 7.3894 0.375 0.8 1 2.5 8.3313
Honywell Flour
2010 Mill Consumer 3.9187 22.1999 11.5654 0 0.6 1 0.15 2.9078
Honywell Flour
2011 Mill Consumer 8.5539 20.9181 13.5955 0 0.6 1 0.31 13.6061
Honywell Flour
2012 Mill Consumer 6.0134 17.2557 11.0903 0 0.6 1 0.34 16.3051
Honywell Flour
2013 Mill Consumer 5.1292 17.3292 9.5012 0 0.8 1 0.36 9.7703
Honywell Flour
2014 Mill Consumer 5.2507 18.9848 11.1184 0 0.8 1 0.42 12.2148
Honywell Flour
2015 Mill Consumer 1.6488 15.2954 5.4345 0 0.8 1 0.14 6.891
Honywell Flour
2016 Mill Consumer -3.9763 8.5713 -3.2069 0 0.8 1 -0.38 -29.3314
Honywell Flour
2017 Mill Consumer 3.8046 23.8834 17.2788 0 0.8 1 0.54 88.1834
Honywell Flour
2018 Mill Consumer 3.5463 22.4587 13.2592 0 0.8 1 0.56 148.7767
Honywell Flour
2019 Mill Consumer 0.0497 15.4674 5.2632 0 0.8 1 0.01 2.9707
2010 Ikeja Hotel Services 11.2922 49.0085 32.3192 0 0.6 1 1.07 59.4444
2011 Ikeja Hotel Services 9.9755 54.3874 35.7399 0 0.6 1 0.7 41.1765
2012 Ikeja Hotel Services 10.9563 62.1782 37.134 0 0.6 1 0.83 103.75
2013 Ikeja Hotel Services 5.6958 39.3778 18.3391 0 0.6 1 0.48 61.3462
2014 Ikeja Hotel Services 0.0149 30.4659 10.5052 0 0.6 1 0.14 0.0381
2015 Ikeja Hotel Services 2.6454 34.3613 14.2 0 0.6 1 0.27 8.6178
2016 Ikeja Hotel Services 4.4842 30.9361 20.998 0 0.6 1 0.53 29.902
2017 Ikeja Hotel Services 1.6554 30.567 11.7909 0 0.6 1 0.3 16.6832
2018 Ikeja Hotel Services 2.9229 28.0923 14.668 0 0.8 1 0.53 34.7536
2019 Ikeja Hotel Services 2.1591 28.5859 15.1891 0 0.8 1 0.4 35.8615
Interlinked
2010 Technologies Services -3.4907 26.6183 -7.4468 0 0.4 1 0.08 -1.5456
Interlinked
2011 Technologies Services 0.6678 31.2996 1.2207 0 0.4 1 0.01 0.2755
Interlinked
2012 Technologies Services -3.4543 36.9231 -5.8358 0 0.4 1 -0.06 -1.2959
Interlinked
2013 Technologies Services 0.825 39.8142 5.5848 0 0.4 1 0.02 0.3184
Interlinked
2014 Technologies Services 1.2363 27.9255 3.7045 0 0.4 1 0.03 0.5643
Interlinked
2015 Technologies Services 1.4417 24.9444 3.6626 0 0.4 1 0.03 0.6192
Interlinked
2016 Technologies Services 0.2275 23.0955 1.5537 0 0.4 1 0.44 0.117

143
 Interlinked
2017 Technologies Services -1.8403 20.799 -4.3078 0 0.4 1 -3.89 -1.0782
Interlinked
2018 Technologies Services 0.3697 26.8708 2.0578 0 0.4 1 0.01 0.2069
Interlinked
2019 Technologies Services -34.0567 43.9918 -186.6484 0 0.4 1 -0.46 -15.6445
International
2010 Breweries Consumer 2.0091 36.8007 5.8095 0 0.6 1 0.09 1.4019
International
2011 Breweries Consumer 1.0195 31.5211 1.921 0 0.6 1 -1.03 1.1683
International
2012 Breweries Consumer 1.0195 31.5211 1.921 0 0.6 1 -1.03 0.4111
International
2013 Breweries Consumer 10.8804 44.2889 22.6143 0 0.8 1 0.71 2.6458
International
2014 Breweries Consumer 8.6395 48.1382 27.3217 0 0.8 1 0.71 2.7294
International
2015 Breweries Consumer 6.4514 43.8827 22.454 0 0.8 1 0.59 3.6953
International
2016 Breweries Consumer 7.9229 46.0216 23.0613 0 0.8 1 0.81 4.3528
International
2017 Breweries Consumer 2.3005 46.3586 24.7237 0 0.8 1 0.31 0.5761
International
2018 Breweries Consumer -1.2461 39.2504 6.6166 0 1 1 -0.45 -1.4747
International
2019 Breweries Consumer -7.6108 19.0458 -15.8542 0 1 1 -3.23 -34.0319
Japaul Oil &
2010 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas 3.1686 44.9595 15.8678 0 0.6 1 0.13 9.0429
Japaul Oil &
2011 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas 3.5947 46.083 1.4115 0 0.6 1 0.16 17.4
Japaul Oil &
2012 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas -20.8565 40.7041 -29.5269 0 0.6 1 -1.08 -196.3636
Japaul Oil &
2013 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas 0.6183 45.3323 15.8991 0 0.6 1 0.04 7.4074
Japaul Oil &
2014 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas -6.8202 39.7109 8.4876 0 0.6 1 -0.42 -84.2606
Japaul Oil &
2015 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas -23.715 27.3739 -49.6099 0 0.6 1 -1.22 -256.6599
Japaul Oil &
2016 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas -58.196 -25.807 -624.4804 0 0.4 0 -3.51 -684.7388
Japaul Oil &
2017 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas -47.1715 -37.578 -445.6944 0 0.4 0 -2.1 -421.8226
Japaul Oil &
2018 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas -27.4296 -109.6866 -364.4605 0 0.6 1 -1.05 -501.3531
Japaul Oil &
2019 Maritime Serv Oil & Gas 187.1324 -130.0388 5655.4645 0 0.6 1 6.53 3266.7448
2010 John Holt Conglomerate -0.0692 17.7044 6.0411 0 0.6 1 -0.03 -0.2915
2011 John Holt Conglomerate -14.48 17.9167 -25.2149 0 0.6 1 -4.02 -68.3038
2012 John Holt Conglomerate 3.8309 24.4935 53.22 0 0.6 1 1.09 32.0457
2013 John Holt Conglomerate 1.5388 26.761 26.5635 0 0.6 1 0.32 28.9092
2014 John Holt Conglomerate 5.7356 34.3517 24.0497 0 0.6 1 1.52 154.6311
2015 John Holt Conglomerate -2.2474 27.0103 2.4742 0 0.6 1 -0.65 -74.0093
2016 John Holt Conglomerate 0.8026 33.5084 13.1332 0 0.6 1 0.25 37.6845
2017 John Holt Conglomerate -7.1059 27.4158 -4.7661 0 0.8 1 -1.87 -373.3333
2018 John Holt Conglomerate 1.5967 19.4839 8.0404 0 0.8 1 0.42 96.1538
2019 John Holt Conglomerate 2.0508 25.1534 16.6202 0 0.8 1 0.56 99.8168
Construction
2010 Julius Berger & Real Estate 1.8633 17.1359 5.1237 0 0.8 1 2.33 4.6563
Construction
2011 Julius Berger & Real Estate 2.5614 19.8473 7.0128 0 0.8 1 3.68 11.6456
Construction
2012 Julius Berger & Real Estate 4.4755 22.2454 7.4673 0 0.8 1 6.83 19.7114
Construction
2013 Julius Berger & Real Estate 3.4556 24.2565 9.017 0 0.8 1 6.72 9.2959
Construction
2014 Julius Berger & Real Estate 3.2182 25.6569 9.0079 0 0.8 1 6.13 10.1055
Construction
2015 Julius Berger & Real Estate 0.9956 24.9122 9.4529 0 0.6 1 1.33 4.4014
Construction
2016 Julius Berger & Real Estate -1.4726 39.0136 3.0837 0 1 1 2.88 -7.4948
Construction
2017 Julius Berger & Real Estate 0.9339 31.2202 7.4982 0 1 1 3.61 6.959
Construction
2018 Julius Berger & Real Estate 2.1155 26.7234 7.5847 0 1 1 5.3 22.9979
Construction
2019 Julius Berger & Real Estate 2.7927 22.5648 7.8516 0 1 1 5.72 27.789
Lafarge Cement
2010 Wapco Nig Industrial 4.12 27.3294 19.3068 0.625 0.8 1 1.63 3.9957
Lafarge Cement
2011 Wapco Nig Industrial 5.6649 30.9088 21.4002 0.625 0.8 1 2.88 6.6549
Lafarge Cement
2012 Wapco Nig Industrial 9.682 36.8323 30.3045 0.625 0.8 1 4.9 8.374
144
 Lafarge Cement
2013 Wapco Nig Industrial 17.5484 39.3015 31.9484 0.625 0.8 1 9.42 8.189
Lafarge Cement
2014 Wapco Nig Industrial 11.3315 33.2681 21.7607 0.625 0.8 1 7.38 9.1677
Lafarge Cement
2015 Wapco Nig Industrial 5.9597 30.8834 14.9595 0.625 0.8 1 6.29 6.1101
Lafarge Cement
2016 Wapco Nig Industrial 3.363 18.5066 -3.3292 0.625 0.8 1 3.15 7.8309
Lafarge Cement
2017 Wapco Nig Industrial -5.9892 16.9678 2.9739 0.625 0.8 1 -6.37 -14.015
Lafarge Cement
2018 Wapco Nig Industrial -1.6277 22.5931 8.5806 0.625 0.8 1 -1.05 -8.1509
Lafarge Cement
2019 Wapco Nig Industrial 3.1213 26.2688 17.5548 0.625 0.8 1 7.15 6.2965
Learn Africa
2010 (Longman) Services 4.3025 40.7109 9.2722 0 0.6 1 0.29 3.9726
Learn Africa
2011 (Longman) Services 4.4052 53.6028 13.0898 0 0.6 1 0.29 9.8305
Learn Africa
2012 (Longman) Services 3.7989 49.1075 7.3096 0 0.8 1 0.23 11.9792
Learn Africa
2013 (Longman) Services 2.1612 49.6121 5.5186 0 0.6 1 0.13 6.599
Learn Africa
2014 (Longman) Services 1.4491 48.0486 0.1338 0 0.8 1 0.08 5.6344
Learn Africa
2015 (Longman) Services -17.9442 46.7874 -32.7518 0 0.8 1 -0.83 -117.4653
Learn Africa
2016 (Longman) Services 5.1115 49.5925 6.6828 0 0.8 1 0.31 39.9246
Learn Africa
2017 (Longman) Services 6.0811 53.9979 13.3103 0 1 1 0.35 39.3129
Learn Africa
2018 (Longman) Services 0 1 1
Learn Africa
2019 (Longman) Services 2.9195 36.6025 11.5176 0 1 1 0.21 18.579
2010 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 2.6289 13.3357 5.9734 0 0.4 1 0.02 2.1772
2011 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 6.3029 10.564 6.3057 0 0.4 1 0.08 6.7961
2012 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 6.9537 10.7663 6.6415 0 0.4 1 0.12 5.0035
2013 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 5.7415 11.1355 7.8336 0 0.4 1 0.18 2.4505
2014 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 4.4182 12.5062 7.8358 0 0.4 1 0.13 5.5739
2015 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 4.1124 9.9478 9.1715 0 0.6 1 0.09 7.0646
2016 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 2.0697 8.7915 6.1467 0 0.4 1 0.08 9.0643
2017 Livestock Feeds Agriculture -13.7982 4.6107 -0.0269 0 0.4 1 -0.24 -29.1487
2018 Livestock Feeds Agriculture -15.7263 -0.296 -4.2952 0 0.4 1 -0.21 -42.198
2019 Livestock Feeds Agriculture 2.6365 8.2966 2.169 0 0.4 1 0.04 7.0902
2010 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 2.8309 40.2865 10.5967 0 0.6 1 0.2 4.7619
2011 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 3.6303 40.7939 12.0384 0 0.6 1 0.23 13.0998
2012 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 0.9411 36.5125 9.0704 0 0.6 1 0.08 4.9995
2013 May & Baker Nig Healthcare -1.2633 35.5004 9.7264 0 0.6 1 -0.11 -4.2936
2014 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 0.7824 36.4688 10.0448 0 0.8 1 0.06 4.0907
2015 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 0.826 32.8883 9.653 0 0.8 1 -0.07 6.311
2016 May & Baker Nig Healthcare -0.4767 29.9408 10.2162 0 0.8 1 0.04 -4.4609
2017 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 4.8391 35.0438 13.2657 0 0.6 1 0.38 14.5552
2018 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 4.2296 36.987 13.5361 0 0.6 1 0.25 14.2726
2019 May & Baker Nig Healthcare 7.5464 35.9577 12.6237 0 0.6 1 0.42 21.5166
Mcnichols
2010 Consolidated Consumer -3.6364 23.1321 -1.238 0 0 0 -0.03 -2.3341
Mcnichols
2011 Consolidated Consumer 2.6805 18.1029 3.075 0 0 0 0.02 2.1863
Mcnichols
2012 Consolidated Consumer 3.5097 22.1829 4.3514 0 0 0 0.03 4.1975
Mcnichols
2013 Consolidated Consumer 7.2904 25.5468 8.188 0 0 0 0.87 4.2056
Mcnichols
2014 Consolidated Consumer 10.7166 27.6257 10.4098 0 0 0 0.15 9.2224
Mcnichols
2015 Consolidated Consumer 14.3609 19.6814 7.0008 0 0 0 0.17 16.9296
Mcnichols
2016 Consolidated Consumer 12.1724 17.4218 5.4891 0 0 0 0.17 15.0988
Mcnichols
2017 Consolidated Consumer 7.0891 15.1215 5.2454 0 0 0 0.1 14.4456
Mcnichols
2018 Consolidated Consumer 4.7524 17.833 9.4265 0 0 0 0.13 25.5554
Mcnichols
2019 Consolidated Consumer 2.3706 15.9103 8.103 0 0 0 0.62 11.3972
2010 Meyer Plc Industrial -8.7031 36.7065 -1.3373 0 0.4 1 -0.73 -20.7209

145
2011 Meyer Plc Industrial -2.0455 39.4837 2.1288 0 0.6 1 -0.17 -17.3428
2012 Meyer Plc Industrial -1.0439 38.0234 5.8303 0 0.6 1 -0.08 -5.9643
2013 Meyer Plc Industrial 1.7913 35.8775 10.6432 0 0.6 1 0.14 11.4521
2014 Meyer Plc Industrial -1.4852 44.1938 6.2815 0 0.6 1 -0.12 -14.4226
2015 Meyer Plc Industrial 2.2703 42.568 12.8753 0 0.6 1 0.18 27.0664
2016 Meyer Plc Industrial -9.9385 30.5956 -16.8143 0 0.4 1 -0.75 -86.4353
2017 Meyer Plc Industrial -13.9664 30.3354 -19.3387 0 0.6 1 -0.01 -125.8742
2018 Meyer Plc Industrial 17.1434 39.7414 22.689 0 0.4 1 0.01 186.0029
2019 Meyer Plc Industrial -0.3629 35.9705 0.9824 0 0.4 1 0 -8.6389
Morison
2010 Industries Healthcare -6.0971 39.1919 -12.259 0 0.6 1 -0.22 -2.0873
Morison
2011 Industries Healthcare -4.9175 45.0459 -10.0826 0 0.6 1 -0.17 -1.8784
Morison
2012 Industries Healthcare 0.3436 39.266 2.56 0 0.6 1 0.01 0.3804
Morison
2013 Industries Healthcare -4.1932 30.4692 -1.916 0 0.6 1 -0.15 -7.5916
Morison
2014 Industries Healthcare -18.3346 35.3439 -39.6506 0 0.6 1 -0.54 -29.7253
Morison
2015 Industries Healthcare -25.6658 37.6317 -24.6962 0 0.6 1 -0.71 -41.2128
Morison
2016 Industries Healthcare -19.0326 38.7186 -52.4871 0 0.6 1 -0.52 -32.8918
Morison
2017 Industries Healthcare -33.3449 22.391 -73.8513 0 0.6 1 -0.01 -224.6322
Morison
2018 Industries Healthcare -35.2087 19.0376 -118.9949 0 0.6 1 -0.19 -227.1019
Morison
2019 Industries Healthcare -23.3887 13.1654 -121.1086 0 0.6 1 -0.11 -21.1735
Mrs(Texaco
2010 Chevron) Oil & Gas 7.0294 9.8843 2.5917 0 0.6 1 7.27 17.0814
Mrs(Texaco
2011 Chevron) Oil & Gas 1.9439 9.5435 1.5844 0 0.6 1 2.42 9.4309
Mrs(Texaco
2012 Chevron) Oil & Gas 0.6813 7.1642 1.9608 0 0.6 1 0.81 6.2762
Mrs(Texaco
2013 Chevron) Oil & Gas 0.9657 5.4408 4.4505 0 0.6 1 2.5 4.5882
Mrs(Texaco
2014 Chevron) Oil & Gas 1.2903 7.537 2.6341 0 0.6 1 2.94 5.5239
Mrs(Texaco
2015 Chevron) Oil & Gas 1.3987 7.3737 3.8359 0 0.6 1 3.68 7.8078
Mrs(Texaco
2016 Chevron) Oil & Gas 1.8016 7.9857 3.5783 0 0.8 1 5.77 13.3477
Mrs(Texaco
2017 Chevron) Oil & Gas 2.2271 7.1854 10.4714 0 0.8 1 5.45 19.4758
Mrs(Texaco
2018 Chevron) Oil & Gas -2.3303 4.7978 -1.3504 0 0.6 1 -4.15 -16.1489
Mrs(Texaco
2019 Chevron) Oil & Gas -3.8544 5.7759 0.6461 0 0.4 1 -0.06 -36.5414
2010 Multiverse Resources 5.0068 47.818 29.2984 0 0.4 1 0.01 2.02
2011 Multiverse Resources 0.5091 44.8428 37.417 0 0.4 1 0.6 1.1983
2012 Multiverse Resources 0.5584 49.5322 28.0743 0 0.4 1 0.01 1.4382
2013 Multiverse Resources -5.6309 64.2116 -69.1906 0 0.4 1 -0.07 -13.794
2014 Multiverse Resources -11.6528 -186.0624 -684.0916 0 0.4 1 -0.13 -25.9228
2015 Multiverse Resources -6.7438 20.5184 -109.3698 0 0.4 1 -0.09 -18.1477
2016 Multiverse Resources -12.7071 -134.1139 -164.6828 0 0.4 1 -0.14 -27.4109
2017 Multiverse Resources 9.5701 -105.4041 -1194.853 0 0.4 1 -0.1 20.3281
2018 Multiverse Resources -7.0618 21.8546 -1466.617 0 0.4 1 -0.01 -36.6112
2019 Multiverse Resources -6.7411 10.585 7029.2322 0 0.4 1 -0.01 -34.5038
2010 Nascon Allied Consumer 21.9485 31.8064 23.2632 0 0.6 1 0.62 9.7343
2011 Nascon Allied Consumer 21.934 39.4926 30.5791 0 0.6 1 0.83 20.7421
2012 Nascon Allied Consumer 25.8786 37.9523 30.1493 0 0.6 1 1.04 13.0514
2013 Nascon Allied Consumer 23.6156 42.3825 37.3408 0 0.8 1 1.02 6.7973
2014 Nascon Allied Consumer 14.8698 33.6496 25.5243 0 0.6 1 0.7 11.3295
2015 Nascon Allied Consumer 12.9222 26.9444 18.7761 0 0.8 1 0.79 11.1154
2016 Nascon Allied Consumer 9.8165 32.3466 21.1789 0 0.6 1 0.91 10.7245
2017 Nascon Allied Consumer 17.7391 36.9269 29.4912 0 0.6 1 2.02 10.902
2018 Nascon Allied Consumer 14.6024 30.1936 25.0273 0 0.6 1 1.67 9.2687
2019 Nascon Allied Consumer 4.7719 21.2484 10.8844 0 0.6 1 0.7 5.3781
National Aviation
2010 Handling Services 15.9377 48.4717 27.867 0 0.6 1 0.96 9.4118

146
 National Aviation
2011 Handling Services 7.6647 47.9112 17.5613 0 0.6 1 0.68 13.2296
National Aviation
2012 Handling Services 5.416 41.0172 12.7269 0 0.6 1 0.41 7.6067
National Aviation
2013 Handling Services 5.5857 42.4257 14.9673 0 0.6 1 0.56 9.0323
National Aviation
2014 Handling Services 3.9676 42.2323 12.9009 0 0.8 1 0.39 7.8629
National Aviation
2015 Handling Services 3.6023 37.9819 12.3252 0 0.6 0 0.34 8.7595
National Aviation
2016 Handling Services 4.5963 29.0388 18.2849 0 0.8 1 0.36 11.3145
National Aviation
2017 Handling Services 6.3266 29.2636 10.2582 0 1 1 0.48 12.0006
National Aviation
2018 Handling Services 1.594 32.2562 6.8498 0 1 1 0.12 3.3195
National Aviation
2019 Handling Services 4.8758 34.336 16.4145 0 1 1 0.44 18.3986
2010 Ncr Nigeria ICT 31.774 56.8761 54.6786 0 0.4 1 6.7 96.5421
2011 Ncr Nigeria ICT 6.0285 21.8301 12.5758 0 0.4 1 2.12 22.7713
2012 Ncr Nigeria ICT -19.8789 -14.7981 -17.7743 0 0.4 1 -9.86 -65.3846
2013 Ncr Nigeria ICT -0.3495 2.8576 1.717 0 0.4 1 -0.18 -1.0695
2014 Ncr Nigeria ICT 2.3492 3.8168 3.237 0 0.4 1 1.46 11.3585
2015 Ncr Nigeria ICT 0.235 11.5371 3.5868 0 0.6 1 0.17 1.6458
2016 Ncr Nigeria ICT 0.5661 43.9241 4.2691 0 0.6 1 0.62 7.2174
2017 Ncr Nigeria ICT 1.9182 39.6115 27.2796 0 0.8 1 1.4 22.144
2018 Ncr Nigeria ICT 0.2655 12.8937 23.6743 0.375 0.8 1 0.24
2019 Ncr Nigeria ICT -11.2711 14.528 -0.9311 0.375 0.8 1 -8.79 -195.4037
2010 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare -3.0698 45.8665 0.6224 0 0.8 1 -0.15 -14.1509
2011 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare 3.6939 58.2991 12.7014 0 0.8 1 0.14 12.963
2012 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare -2.3969 55.8715 9.5786 0 0.8 1 -0.05 -4.5056
2013 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare 4.5166 52.4317 11.7907 0 0.8 1 0.1 6.6027
2014 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare 8.2133 47.4777 17.3552 0 0.8 1 0.15 18.6674
2015 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare -15.2564 46.8718 -15.3097 0 1 1 -0.21 -24.0302
2016 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare 2.421 61.1973 9.2394 0 1 1 0.04 5.3169
2017 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare -18.0447 60.5822 -20.9031 0.5 1 1 -0.24 -31.7777
2018 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare 7.9727 51.1891 12.2921 0.5 1 1 0.11 16.399
2019 Neimeth Int Pharm Healthcare 7.9943 50.4248 17.4326 0.5 1 1 0.12 18.6965
2010 Nestle Nig Consumer 20.8827 43.7961 22.9646 0 0.6 1 19.08 5.177
2011 Nestle Nig Consumer 21.2232 41.4379 22.3331 0.125 0.8 1 20.81 4.6695
2012 Nestle Nig Consumer 23.7596 42.9867 23.0479 0.125 0.6 1 26.67 3.81
2013 Nestle Nig Consumer 20.57 42.6692 21.1853 0.125 0.6 1 28.1 2.3404
2014 Nestle Nig Consumer 20.9647 42.7199 20.7577 0.125 0.6 1 28.05 2.7726
2015 Nestle Nig Consumer 19.9109 44.5197 22.6024 0.125 0.8 1 29.95 3.4821
2016 Nestle Nig Consumer 4.6731 41.409 23.3151 0.125 0.8 1 10 1.2343
2017 Nestle Nig Consumer 22.9719 41.315 25.3686 0.125 1 1 42.55 2.7343
2018 Nestle Nig Consumer 26.4935 42.783 23.4185 0.125 1 1 54.3 3.6537
2019 Nestle Nig Consumer 23.6242 45.1165 25.8387 0.125 1 1 57.63 3.9209
2010 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 26.5165 46.8988 24.2923 0.75 0.8 1 4.01 5.201
2011 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 16.1436 52.0022 27.4798 0.75 0.8 1 5.03 5.3273
2012 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 14.9991 49.6497 25.5237 0.75 0.8 1 5.03 3.4218
2013 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 17.044 50.808 25.9565 0.75 0.8 1 5.7 3.3949
2014 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 12.1755 50.9002 25.1005 0.75 0.8 1 5.62 3.3999
2015 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 10.6834 48.472 21.1732 0.75 1 1 4.82 3.5291
2016 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 7.74 43.196 16.9947 0.75 1 1 3.58 2.4217
2017 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 8.6463 41.6613 16.6278 0.75 1 1 4.13 3.0759
2018 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 5.0064 43.6123 10.6541 0.75 1 1 2.43 2.8429
2019 Nigeria Breweries Consumer 4.2076 40.634 10.98 0.75 1 1 2.01 3.4136
Nigerian
2010 Enamelware Consumer 5.2511 10.0275 11.0095 0 0.4 1 1.18 2.766
Nigerian
2011 Enamelware Consumer 8.6457 11.0921 6.6427 0 0.4 1 1.39 3.8409
Nigerian
2012 Enamelware Consumer 4.0579 13.6706 8.4199 0 0.4 1 1.39 4.087

147
 Nigerian
2013 Enamelware Consumer 3.3571 12.7677 10.0493 0 0.4 1 1.01 3.6178
Nigerian
2014 Enamelware Consumer 2.7936 15.1761 9.5195 0 0.4 1 1.36 4.2733
Nigerian
2015 Enamelware Consumer 1.4805 15.6144 10.122 0 0.4 1 1.17 4.147
Nigerian
2016 Enamelware Consumer 2.9402 15.0337 13.4202 0 0.4 1 2.11 7.5587
Nigerian
2017 Enamelware Consumer 0.7733 22.5832 24.9937 0 0.4 1 0.71 3.0613
Nigerian
2018 Enamelware Consumer -0.0728 26.4068 23.882 0 0.4 1 0 -0.1984
Nigerian
2019 Enamelware Consumer -5.5147 -3.8778 -6.666 0 0.4 1 -3.18 -14.3803
Nigerian Northen
2010 Flour Mill Consumer 5.813 9.0804 6.186 0 0.6 1 2.76 2.5182
Nigerian Northen
2011 Flour Mill Consumer 11.0206 8.3995 6.2009 0 0.6 1 2.56 11.9181
Nigerian Northen
2012 Flour Mill Consumer 0.1502 4.8425 0.8571 0 0.6 1 0.03 0.1632
Nigerian Northen
2013 Flour Mill Consumer 6.2136 6.6948 3.0543 0 0.6 1 1.42 6.1313
Nigerian Northen
2014 Flour Mill Consumer 7.1494 4.1896 3.1237 0 0.6 1 1.31 7.2576
Nigerian Northen
2015 Flour Mill Consumer -4.8522 2.4322 -2.046 0 0.6 1 -1.12 -13.0919
Nigerian Northen
2016 Flour Mill Consumer -5.7176 -10.2873 -23.8061 0 0.6 1 -1.11 -17.6452
Nigerian Northen
2017 Flour Mill Consumer -0.3743 -2.8987 3.4393 0 0.8 1 -0.09 -1.5982
Nigerian Northen
2018 Flour Mill Consumer -1.0306 24.8844 12.8045 0 1 1 -0.34 -7.1301
Nigerian Northen
2019 Flour Mill Consumer 0 1 1
2010 Oando Oil & Gas 4.4097 14.2846 7.9346 0 0.8 1 8.29 12.5553
2011 Oando Oil & Gas 0.0855 11.5221 4.6652 0 0.8 1 1.62 0.6946
2012 Oando Oil & Gas 2.0942 12.1248 5.5924 0 0.6 1 4.58 38.4055
2013 Oando Oil & Gas -0.79 13.179 4.9683 0 0.8 1 -0.75 -2.8265
2014 Oando Oil & Gas -20.1583 16.2904 -31.2082 0 0.8 1 -20.23 -125.5742
2015 Oando Oil & Gas -3.2967 33.8952 13.1747 0 1 1 -2.68 -43.9378
2016 Oando Oil & Gas -2.6027 6.3221 7.1326 0 1 1 -2.15 -45.6246
2017 Oando Oil & Gas 1.2949 17.7076 12.9685 0 1 1 0.62 18.6846
2018 Oando Oil & Gas 2.6786 14.1691 7.9319 0 1 1 1.97 46.3304
2019 Oando Oil & Gas 0 0
2010 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 18.7983 62.9122 33.8715 0 0.6 1 3.42 22.5
2011 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 16.7929 41.0217 43.0262 0 0.6 1 0.22 17.7802
2012 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 11.5627 42.9368 44.7895 0 0.8 1 0.18 8.8439
2013 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 6.9622 56.2826 30.7785 0 0.8 1 2.19 4.9773
2014 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 5.0119 55.0498 26.2205 0 0.8 1 1.63 6.43
2015 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 13.1206 51.8724 34.1718 0 0.6 1 2.26 9.1115
2016 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 20.0357 58.4777 50.4868 0 0.6 1 5.15 12.8143
2017 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 29.1591 76.1071 57.3713 0 0.8 1 9.59 14.1673
2018 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 22.1299 78.2017 52.4729 0 0.8 1 8.91 11.6964
2019 Okomu Oil Palm Agriculture 11.5829 77.0751 40.8781 0 1 1 5.29 9.5209
2010 Pharma-Deko Healthcare -28.514 22.5401 -29.7207 0 0.6 1 -4.66 -108.8785
2011 Pharma-Deko Healthcare 0.6271 48.6981 14.1624 0 0.6 1 0.76 4.6229
2012 Pharma-Deko Healthcare 26.6258 47.303 73.7746 0 0.6 1 7 286.1492
2013 Pharma-Deko Healthcare -4.8509 41.8137 -4.8211 0 0.8 1 -1.21 -65.4057
2014 Pharma-Deko Healthcare 3.5576 58.9917 15.2033 0 0.8 1 1.01 47.1962
2015 Pharma-Deko Healthcare 25.6515 48.0587 47.3476 0 0.8 1 3.34 292.9857
2016 Pharma-Deko Healthcare -9.4104 45.6166 -19.0411 0 0.8 1 -1.01 -56.6358
2017 Pharma-Deko Healthcare 0.5552 47.895 2.4675 0 0.8 1 0.06 2.5829
2018 Pharma-Deko Healthcare -11.4182 39.2034 -24.9115 0 0.8 1 -1.22 -54.6448
2019 Pharma-Deko Healthcare -12.6915 35.4862 -55.5145 0 0.8 1 -1.29 -51.6796
Portland Paint
2010 Nig Industrial 5.2512 45.2034 12.7178 0 0.6 1 0.33 6.25
Portland Paint
2011 Nig Industrial 6.8627 42.8652 12.4402 0 0.6 1 0.48 9.3933
Portland Paint
2012 Nig Industrial -9.5708 41.2162 -4.506 0 0.6 1 -0.56 -12.844

148
 Portland Paint
2013 Nig Industrial 4.927 47.2151 8.2307 0 0.6 1 0.27 4.9091
Portland Paint
2014 Nig Industrial 6.5264 46.6671 11.0557 0 0.8 1 0.37 10.9296
Portland Paint
2015 Nig Industrial -12.267 41.3957 -6.1716 0 0.6 1 -0.58 -15.491
Portland Paint
2016 Nig Industrial 0.49 41.1357 5.7253 0 0.6 1 0.02 1.194
Portland Paint
2017 Nig Industrial 2.86 30.0489 6.9584 0 0.6 1 0.08 3.8041
Portland Paint
2018 Nig Industrial 9.1804 38.006 11.255 0 0.6 1 0.26 10.3377
Portland Paint
2019 Nig Industrial 0 0.6 1
2010 Premier Paints Industrial -70.3448 19.6089 -29.3228 0 0.4 1 -1.16 -124.7307
2011 Premier Paints Industrial -22.3254 21.7166 -30.5117 0 0.4 1 -0.82 -85.4169
2012 Premier Paints Industrial -10.3606 27.2981 -12.5559 0 0.4 1 -0.25 -29.4118
2013 Premier Paints Industrial -8.3908 33.0956 8.9865 0 0.4 1 -0.17 -22.0779
2014 Premier Paints Industrial 2.7998 41.1724 7.9039 0 0.6 1 0.07 0.6018
2015 Premier Paints Industrial -8.6428 30.8249 -12.8232 0 0.6 1 -0.24 -2.1941
2016 Premier Paints Industrial -12.0939 32.1643 -5.5397 0 0.4 1 -0.31 -2.8655
2017 Premier Paints Industrial -33.497 25.849 -23.2187 0 0.6 1 -0.44 -4.4356
2018 Premier Paints Industrial -26.2703 24.602 -21.6571 0 0.4 1 -0.56 -5.4046
2019 Premier Paints Industrial -6.9371 22.1392 -22.1681 0 0.4 1 -0.13 -1.431
2010 Presco Agriculture 14.842 42.6431 27.8087 0 0.8 1 1.1 15.8892
2011 Presco Agriculture 7.1957 47.4592 35.9297 0 0.8 1 1.78 20.5994
2012 Presco Agriculture 12.4545 46.5305 37.217 0 0.8 1 3.55 20.3946
2013 Presco Agriculture 4.0939 54.3989 32.1081 0 0.6 1 1.29 3.3506
2014 Presco Agriculture 7.4554 64.9866 41.3985 0 0.8 1 2.68 10.6339
2015 Presco Agriculture 4.1833 63.5049 47.1131 0.125 0.8 1 2.32 7.0327
2016 Presco Agriculture 26.1363 71.973 203.046 0.125 0.8 1 0.22 54.2032
2017 Presco Agriculture 25.8366 73.4352 53.3193 0.125 0.8 1 25.36 37.0856
2018 Presco Agriculture 7.3011 77.7309 35.596 0.125 0.8 1 4.3 6.694
2019 Presco Agriculture 5.4271 64.5004 41.541 0.125 0.8 1 3.74 8.0816
2010 Pz Cussons Consumer 9.4706 27.5846 12.9156 0 0.6 1 1.67 5.3016
2011 Pz Cussons Consumer 8.2654 28.0101 12.3727 0 0.8 1 1.64 5.8571
2012 Pz Cussons Consumer 4.0642 22.4258 6.8978 0 0.6 1 0.61 2.2837
2013 Pz Cussons Consumer 7.6043 26.7678 11.0284 0 0.6 1 1.23 3.6221
2014 Pz Cussons Consumer 7.6508 26.3281 9.7263 0 0.6 1 1.16 5.3787
2015 Pz Cussons Consumer 6.7828 27.9708 9.5748 0 0.8 1 1.02 4.6921
2016 Pz Cussons Consumer 2.8613 24.9079 5.3876 0 0.8 1 0.47 3.6992
2017 Pz Cussons Consumer 4.0922 35.0972 6.4067 0 0.8 1 0.84 4.5073
2018 Pz Cussons Consumer 2.1747 30.3597 3.6811 0 0.8 1 0.46 4.0113
2019 Pz Cussons Consumer 1.446 23.0052 3.022 0 0.8 1 0.25 5.1524
2010 R.T Briscoe Nig Services 1.6117 10.1068 4.8836 0 0.6 1 0.19 6.5517
2011 R.T Briscoe Nig Services 0.9962 11.1257 5.5447 0 0.6 1 0.15 12.2951
2012 R.T Briscoe Nig Services -1.9888 12.2102 4.7054 0 0.6 1 -0.24 -15.7895
2013 R.T Briscoe Nig Services -0.6006 11.7448 6.0381 0 0.6 1 -0.08 -5.4422
2014 R.T Briscoe Nig Services -9.6157 14.09 2.0942 0 0.6 1 -1.55 -201.2987
2015 R.T Briscoe Nig Services -29.9986 9.4134 -16.3634 0 0.6 1 -3.55 -710.95
2016 R.T Briscoe Nig Services -32.5765 15.9027 -7.7669 0 0.6 1 -2.47 -493.1528
2017 R.T Briscoe Nig Services -41.5179 22.1954 -8.794 0 0.6 1 -2.69 -537.3458
2018 R.T Briscoe Nig Services 0 0.6 1
2019 R.T Briscoe Nig Services 0 0.6 1
2010 Redstar Express Services 7.1419 33.1302 11.8483 0 0.8 1 0.31 10.7639
2011 Redstar Express Services 12.041 33.6 9.7745 0 0.8 1 0.57 23.8494
2012 Redstar Express Services 10.7524 31.9372 12.7651 0 0.8 1 0.52 17.2345
2013 Redstar Express Services 10.0254 30.9122 10.8621 0 0.8 1 0.52 11.6874
2014 Redstar Express Services 11.7099 28.1772 9.7353 0 0.6 1 0.68 17.3783
2015 Redstar Express Services 10.0439 29.1083 9.4376 0 0.6 1 0.65 15.3127
2016 Redstar Express Services 8.9034 29.527 8.7878 0 0.6 1 0.57 12.8933

149
2017 Redstar Express Services 9.6299 29.9714 9.2388 0 0.8 1 0.01 14.1393
2018 Redstar Express Services 6.9595 33.0933 7.5914 0 0.8 1 0.01 14.0377
2019 Redstar Express Services 0 0.8 1
2010 Scoa Nig Conglomerate 4.4764 34.6726 11.7537 0 0.6 1 0.33 3.9855
2011 Scoa Nig Conglomerate 1.6678 24.9028 8.7355 0 0.6 1 0.16 2.8985
2012 Scoa Nig Conglomerate 1.0376 24.3805 8.1624 0 0.6 1 0.11 2.0295
2013 Scoa Nig Conglomerate 1.3739 26.5026 10.7398 0 0.6 1 0.22 4.1353
2014 Scoa Nig Conglomerate 1.8173 22.0893 9.2308 0 0.6 1 0.28 5.9957
2015 Scoa Nig Conglomerate -12.0471 19.1207 -5.5306 0 0.6 1 -1.95 -47.4949
2016 Scoa Nig Conglomerate -11.542 29.4218 -14.482 0 0.6 1 -2.51 -67.5255
2017 Scoa Nig Conglomerate -14.8127 23.9379 -41.4723 0 0.6 1 -2.94 -95.1342
2018 Scoa Nig Conglomerate -0.2838 34.0262 36.3995 0 0.6 1 -0.07 -2.4097
2019 Scoa Nig Conglomerate 2.158 13.3741 4.2247 0 0.6 1 0.49 16.7635
2010 Studio Press Nig Services 0.3135 10.3378 12.7066 0 0.6 1 0.24 1.4497
2011 Studio Press Nig Services 0.0482 18.6663 10.3622 0 0.6 1 0.23 0.2548
2012 Studio Press Nig Services 0.0335 20.4065 14.4507 0 0.6 1 0 0.1585
2013 Studio Press Nig Services -0.5097 20.8328 14.606 0 0.6 1 -0.08 -3.1675
2014 Studio Press Nig Services -3.4452 17.4617 11.6262 0 0.6 1 -0.59 -25.8274
2015 Studio Press Nig Services -0.8818 20.1403 13.918 0 0.6 1 -0.16 -6.8544
2016 Studio Press Nig Services 2.5224 24.8819 18.6594 0 0.6 1 0.43 18.7555
2017 Studio Press Nig Services 3.2454 29.1041 21.6862 0 0.8 1 0.52 26.0662
2018 Studio Press Nig Services 2.8498 23.0763 16.9934 0 0.8 1 0.45 22.7609
2019 Studio Press Nig Services 3.5045 18.6654 10.6033 0 0.8 1 0.48 24.1047
2010 Tantalizer Services 1.0449 45.623 3.4751 0 0.8 1 0.02 3.8462
2011 Tantalizer Services 1.5511 46.6091 2.1637 0 0.8 1 0.03 6
2012 Tantalizer Services -5.0308 45.2579 -5.4205 0 0.8 1 0.09 -18
2013 Tantalizer Services -9.8601 44.8397 -11.2733 0 0.8 1 -0.18 -36
2014 Tantalizer Services -15.6453 43.4379 -19.7461 0 0.8 1 -0.24 -48.8411
2015 Tantalizer Services -13.8966 39.5242 -25.2256 0 0.8 1 -0.22 -44.0324
2016 Tantalizer Services -20.4992 34.7527 -38.0122 0 0.8 1 -0.32 -63.3026
2017 Tantalizer Services 10.9719 32.4441 41.1363 0 0.8 1 0.14 27.6103
2018 Tantalizer Services 2.3797 41.2712 17.2401 0 0.8 1 0.03 13.4287
2019 Tantalizer Services 0.6358 42.2982 10.1075 0 0.8 1 0.01
2010 Thomas Wyatt Resources -0.8682 46.7477 4.2508 0 0.6 1 -0.03 -1.8127
2011 Thomas Wyatt Resources -4.8535 30.001 -11.3963 0 0.6 1 -0.14 -10.2128
2012 Thomas Wyatt Resources -4.13 12.5285 -14.5286 0 0.6 1 -0.13 -9.564
2013 Thomas Wyatt Resources -1.078 39.16 17.2684 0 0.6 1 -0.03 -3.5998
2014 Thomas Wyatt Resources -3.4875 -7.7223 30.3095 0 0.6 1 -0.1 -14.0006
2015 Thomas Wyatt Resources -2.8549 33.5378 -14.5641 0 0.4 1 -0.08 -12.9627
2016 Thomas Wyatt Resources -12.7309 -52.3336 -150.7986 0 0.6 1 -0.3 -58.0997
2017 Thomas Wyatt Resources -8.5586 4.2001 -59.8672 0 0.6 1 -0.19 -38.1564
2018 Thomas Wyatt Resources -22.7876 1.3432 -52.9881 0 0.6 1 -0.45 -194.7213
2019 Thomas Wyatt Resources -13.4446 7.1438 -65.2213 0 0.6 1 -0.26 -67.9199
2010 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 7.2744 13.0926 3.8902 0 0.6 1 16.01 4.9994
2011 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 6.4939 12.8885 3.871 0 0.6 1 11.23 5.9708
2012 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 6.1405 12.0322 3.9802 0 0.6 1 13.76 11.4103
2013 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 6.7177 12.0512 4.2414 0 0.6 1 15.71 9.2416
2014 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 4.6316 11.5969 3.3994 0 0.6 1 13.03 9.1434
2015 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 4.8379 12.1837 3.9831 0 0.6 1 11.92 8.1082
2016 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 10.8065 16.8762 7.2881 0 0.6 1 43.58 14.576
2017 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 7.4265 10.17 5.1583 0 0.8 1 23.62 10.2716
2018 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 6.0073 11.2943 5.3766 0 0.8 1 23.45 11.5505
2019 Total Nigeria Oil & Gas 1.7034 11.9966 3.7551 0 0.8 1 6.71 6.0526
Tourist Company
2010 Of Nigeria Services -5.1446 60.8374 -36.6439 0 0.6 1 -0.6 -12.605
Tourist Company
2011 Of Nigeria Services -12.026 58.0812 -16.6927 0 0.6 1 -0.67 -15.5093

150
 Tourist Company
2012 Of Nigeria Services -4.6789 55.776 -9.1781 0 0.6 1 -0.23 -5.0773
Tourist Company
2013 Of Nigeria Services 1.1278 32.137 4.0178 0 0.8 1 0.06 1.4706
Tourist Company
2014 Of Nigeria Services -5.6855 22.7928 -5.6926 0 0.6 1 -0.27 -7.6923
Tourist Company
2015 Of Nigeria Services -25.4407 83.5877 -1.5523 0 0.6 1 -1.18 -33.5108
Tourist Company
2016 Of Nigeria Services -52.5973 81.1535 -15.3347 0 0.6 1 -2.47 -68.7823
Tourist Company
2017 Of Nigeria Services -32.4815 84.0016 -12.4888 0 0.6 1 -1.43 -39.0353
Tourist Company
2018 Of Nigeria Services -4.0462 83.8447 -8.3688 0 0.6 1 -0.61 -17.5438
Tourist Company
2019 Of Nigeria Services -3.627 100 -11.8046 0 0.6 1 -0.54 -15.3835
Trans-Nationwide
2010 Express Services 9.1546 61.1954 11.7189 0 0.6 1 0.38 5.9375
Trans-Nationwide
2011 Express Services 8.3952 60.517 11.5756 0 0.6 1 0.24 6.9565
Trans-Nationwide
2012 Express Services -5.6838 59.6998 10.1892 0 0.6 1 -0.17 -6.1151
Trans-Nationwide
2013 Express Services 11.6451 58.8789 10.9356 0 0.6 1 0.39 33.3333
Trans-Nationwide
2014 Express Services 10.6415 58.8442 7.7216 0 0.6 1 0.34 27.6423
Trans-Nationwide
2015 Express Services 7.767 61.0883 10.1685 0 0.6 1 0.26 22.688
Trans-Nationwide
2016 Express Services 3.5754 55.1727 4.1584 0 0.6 1 0.1 10.153
Trans-Nationwide
2017 Express Services 0.4755 54.1203 1.1052 0 0.8 1 0.08 0.9874
Trans-Nationwide
2018 Express Services -3.6679 57.5931 5.0239 0 0.8 1 -0.06
Trans-Nationwide
2019 Express Services 1.8987 34.836 2.8482 0 0.8 1 0.03 3.4581
2010 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 12.5444 66.2958 50.5851 0 0.8 1 0.12 24
2011 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 9.5354 75.0912 35.0125 0 0.6 1 7.74 17.9869
2012 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 3.3434 73.7516 36.3044 0 0.6 1 4.38 4.2107
2013 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 5.2031 76.3534 61.4282 0 0.6 1 0.12 2.7977
2014 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 1.9351 66.85 37.551 0 0.6 1 0.19 2.6257
2015 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 1.0013 59.7013 39.7503 0 0.8 1 0.96 3.4517
2016 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate -0.4854 50.7631 3.9969 0 1 1 -2.29 -3.3455
2017 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 3.715 45.3688 27.3725 0 0.8 1 0.12 17.8736
2018 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 6.9417 46.3241 30.7029 0 0.8 1 0.23 38.4429
2019 Transcorp Nig Conglomerate 1.2142 46.3122 29.8162 0 1 1 0.4 9.2071
Tripple Gee &
2010 Company ICT -3.95 29.3861 -1.5725 0 0.8 1 -0.1 -2.8607
Tripple Gee &
2011 Company ICT -3.409 27.4235 -2.3495 0 0.8 1 -0.1 -3.3673
Tripple Gee &
2012 Company ICT -0.3639 25.1305 6.8679 0 0.8 1 0.01 -0.5502
Tripple Gee &
2013 Company ICT 0.6848 15.9918 6.2468 0 0.8 1 0.04 1.8357
Tripple Gee &
2014 Company ICT 0.5439 17.4266 6.686 0 0.8 1 0.03 1.7151
Tripple Gee &
2015 Company ICT 1.3901 28.4309 15.0029 0 1 1 0.08 4.8698
Tripple Gee &
2016 Company ICT 0.9032 30.9707 13.7021 0 1 1 0.56 4.2967
Tripple Gee &
2017 Company ICT 0.5452 28.8191 8.2453 0 0.8 1 0.03 2.0497
Tripple Gee &
2018 Company ICT 0.8075 26.6014 6.9787 0 0.8 1 0.01 6.1575
Tripple Gee &
2019 Company ICT 0 0.8 1
2010 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 5.3245 31.4453 17.1222 0 0.8 1 1.99 5.3053
2011 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 2.8025 26.5951 14.5568 0 0.8 1 0.37 1.1867
2012 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 5.7759 27.3576 19.0685 0 0.8 1 2.57 6.119
2013 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 8.0499 23.9297 21.6043 0 1 1 2.96 4.4179
2014 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 8.2285 22.3953 17.9474 0 1 1 3.4 16.4245
2015 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 4.0006 22.6465 14.9857 0 1 1 1.54 12.9132
2016 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 4.0994 20.5135 12.6749 0 1 1 1.95 17.549
2017 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 1.0139 17.8929 10.5761 0 1 1 0.69 4.0797
2018 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate -7.2257 17.8347 -0.6658 0.5 1 1 -2.07 -37.7955
2019 Uac Of Nig Conglomerate 4.968 20.993 10.6657 0.5 1 1 1.32 21.5718

151
2010 Unilever Nig Consumer 16.1191 37.2726 13.8898 0 0.8 1 1.11 4.1264
2011 Unilever Nig Consumer 15.3315 36.5495 15.4335 0 0.8 1 1.46 5.0345
2012 Unilever Nig Consumer 13.7807 38.9676 16.4218 0 0.8 1 1.48 3.1828
2013 Unilever Nig Consumer 10.9862 37.4141 13.4058 0 0.8 1 1.27 2.3606
2014 Unilever Nig Consumer 5.2745 36.1771 8.5791 0.25 0.8 1 0.64 1.7877
2015 Unilever Nig Consumer 2.3765 35.5402 8.3442 0.25 0.8 1 0.32 0.7314
2016 Unilever Nig Consumer 4.2376 29.087 9.7921 0.125 0.8 1 0.81 2.3285
2017 Unilever Nig Consumer 6.1528 31.8859 16.1036 0.125 0.8 1 1.78 4.3484
2018 Unilever Nig Consumer 6.9265 30.3823 14.2354 0.125 0.8 1 1.84 4.2962
2019 Unilever Nig Consumer -7.1565 7.8527 -16.4268 0.125 0.8 1 -1.29 -5.8705
2010 University Press Services 13.6892 55.8992 21.8196 0 0.8 1 0.77 11.3235
2011 University Press Services 8.7807 54.7308 17.7597 0 0.8 1 0.49 14.4107
2012 University Press Services 8.4787 52.0724 16.9388 0 0.8 1 0.53 11.7935
2013 University Press Services 9.3494 50.8044 17.5187 0 0.8 1 0.6 14.457
2014 University Press Services 7.8672 47.8253 14.7001 0 0.8 1 0.54 12.8491
2015 University Press Services 4.7932 55.9328 11.527 0 0.8 1 0.32 5.2693
2016 University Press Services 2.3342 53.7861 4.7697 0 0.6 1 0.17 4.006
2017 University Press Services 3.3656 58.4801 10.2552 0 1 1 0.28 12.0392
2018 University Press Services 6.0771 61.8881 19.687 0 1 1 0.48 22.0541
2019 University Press Services 0 1 1
Construction
2010 Updc Property & Real Estate 3.2763 68.1443 46.2809 0 0.8 1 1.69 10.2362
Construction
2011 Updc Property & Real Estate 2.4199 49.8261 49.6953 0 0.8 1 1.24 10.3333
Construction
2012 Updc Property & Real Estate 3.0554 41.5284 33.0626 0 0.8 1 1.61 13.6441
Construction
2013 Updc Property & Real Estate 4.8136 28.3158 50.6394 0 0.8 1 2.32 12.2253
Construction
2014 Updc Property & Real Estate 5.2713 15.6376 46.8016 0 0.8 1 2.1 22.0579
Construction
2015 Updc Property & Real Estate 0.5291 29.6692 53.2418 0 0.8 1 0.25 3.6378
Construction
2016 Updc Property & Real Estate -2.1861 18.2253 16.4314 0 0.8 1 -0.88 -34.4218
Construction
2017 Updc Property & Real Estate -4.1098 15.3897 62.7453 0 1 1 -1.3 -46.8428
Construction
2018 Updc Property & Real Estate -23.5394 -37.4412 -191.6992 0 1 1 -5.79 -220.3938
Construction
2019 Updc Property & Real Estate -54.3955 -40.6991 -629.2969 0 1 1 -6.06 -605.7547
2010 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 8.6407 92.9729 10.2499 0 0.6 1 0.63 9.4265
2011 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 5.5834 29.9866 8.1324 0 0.6 1 0.69 12.5201
2012 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 4.8171 35.5227 9.3609 0 0.8 1 0.68 16.7509
2013 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 4.1192 33.4705 7.8979 0 0.8 1 0.5 10.2243
2014 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 3.6357 32.2863 9.0622 0 0.8 1 0.63 13.1976
2015 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 1.7182 31.612 9.016 0 1 1 0.29 4.6841
2016 Vitafoam Nig Consumer -0.24 34.3547 7.0469 0 1 1 -0.39 -1.358
2017 Vitafoam Nig Consumer -0.9522 28.7627 7.8829 0 1 1 -0.15 -4.0845
2018 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 3.7536 29.9796 11.1154 0 1 1 0.57 13.1278
2019 Vitafoam Nig Consumer 17.8323 39.3252 20.3991 0 1 1 1.82 44.7826

152