CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Boards of directors are at the apex of organisational decision-making and so are central in

ensuring effective corporate governance. But boards are under increasing scrutiny due to the

continuing prevalence of scandals and failures. Boards have been viewed as set up to fail

because the demands placed upon them cannot effectively be delivered. Through looking at

the board as a group, the dynamics of how boards, and the potential for effective and

ineffective operation, are highlighted. I conclude with outlining how the future of board

dynamics may evolve (Stiles, 2021). Board dynamics are the way individual company

directors interact with each other during board meetings i.e. how they speak to each other,

how they express their ideas and debates them, how they reach conclusions. Board dynamics

are healthy when: ideas are debated robustly, in a constructive way and respectfully; all board

members have an opportunity to speak and express themselves; relationships between board

members are strong. Healthy board dynamics increase board effectiveness, facilitate

collaborative decision-making and generate value for stakeholders (Perraud, 2019).

A Board of Directors should together provide constructive challenge and mutual respect so

that there is a strong sense of mutual accountability, impartial decision making and an overall

sense of having done their work well. It should be remembered that the Directors should act

in the best interests of the company and its various stakeholder groups. A “Rich board” is an

effective board and will consist of a group of individuals working with shared

accountabilities and decision-making responsibilities, allowing constructive challenge. As

stated in the Financial Reporting Council's Guidance on board effectiveness:

1
“An effective board should not necessarily be a comfortable place. Challenge, as well as

teamwork, is an essential feature. Diversity in board composition is an important driver of a

board's effectiveness, creating a breadth of perspective among directors, and breaking down

a tendency towards 'groupthink'” (Tewkesbury, 2020).

Sustainability connotes self-sufficiency and self-reliance of resources to maintain current

living standards without undermining the life chances and quality of life in the future. In

relation to livelihoods, sustainability entails the ability to maintain and improve livelihoods

while enhancing assets and capabilities on which livelihood depends in retirement (UNFPA

& HAI, 2012). Sustainable livelihood enables the retirees to cope with challenges associated

with work-role transition by being empowered to successfully adjust to shocks and stresses

without compromising their current living standards in the future. Sustainable retirement

livelihood also ensures that retirees have adequate resources (both material and non-material)

to cope with retirement challenges and maintain their quality of life without compromising

their future prospects and quality of life (Amaike, 2016).

1.2 Statement of the problem

Serving on a for-profit or not-for-profit board can be quite fulfilling. However, obtaining a

board position can be challenging, especially for women. Currently, more than 80% of seats

on corporate boards are occupied by men. Merely attaining a board seat is not the only

hurdle. Being a director can bring its own set of unique challenges including engaging in

conflict and being in a charged environment when one or more fellow board members

become aggressive, non-collaborative, unethical or otherwise problematic. While these types

of discordant behaviors are not typical, they can occur and board members need to be ready

to address them. Board members could be failing to meet the fiduciary, ethical, or work

2
expectations of the position. Or board members might be domineering, not listening, or acting

in self-interest. Sometimes a board member’s passion or beliefs may cause them to act in

ways that are detrimental to the effective functioning of the entire board. Laurie S. Pascal,

Co-Program Director of Women on Boards, says, “Ideally, a board should be composed of

people with diverse backgrounds and experiences to provide the greatest benefit to the

company. That diversity also brings to the boardroom a variety of individual expectations,

interaction styles and world views, which can sometimes create challenges for board

management.” She adds, “For example, based on previous experience a board member could

bring to discussions a total focus on regulatory issues, which may cause them to be convinced

that is the only way to view a particular situation. In reality, any board member unable to see

the perspective of others may cause a problematic shift in board dynamics. A board member

needs to make sure from a fiduciary standpoint that he or she is overseeing and governing,

but not trying to manage the day-to-day operations (Igoe, 2022).

The Covid crisis has posed significant challenges to companies, managers and

directors over the past year. The role played by the board of directors is particularly

relevant at this time, and directors are under pressure to add value through their

experience and ability to work as a team. Challenge is a foundation responsibility of a

Director and a driver of an effective Board behaviour. Due to the multiple people

element of challenge, it can easily go wrong. The empathy and mentoring role of the

Chairman is key in a Board being effectively challenging (Genius Board, 2020).

Hence, this study would consider the effect of CEO duality and board composition as

a proxy for board dynamism in relation to environmental sustainability of

manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

3
1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to examine the effect of board dynamism on

environmental sustainability of manufacturing companies in Nigeria. The specific

objectives are stated as followings:

i. to determine the effect of the CEO duality on environmental sustainability of

Nigerian manufacturing companies;

ii. to examine the effect of the board composition on environmental sustainability

of Nigerian manufacturing companies.

iii. To evaluate the effects of board size on environmental sustainability of

Nigerian manufacturing companies.

1.4 Research Questions

In line with the objectives of the study, the study seeks to provide answer to the

following questions:

i. To what extent does CEO duality has effect on environmental sustainability of

Nigerian manufacturing companies?

ii. In what does board composition has effect on environmental sustainability of

Nigerian manufacturing companies?

iii. To what extent does board size has effect on environmental sustainability of

Nigerian manufacturing companies?

1.5 Statement of Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between CEO duality and environmental

sustainability of Nigerian manufacturing companies.

4
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between board composition and environmental

sustainability of Nigerian manufacturing companies.

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between board size and environmental sustainability of

Nigerian manufacturing companies

1.6 Scope of the study

This study on board dynamism and environmental sustainability of Nigerian manufacturing

companies is limited to manufacturing companies. Primary data for the study would be

collected through questionnaires from the 2 selected manufacturing companies (May &

Bakers Plc., and Nigeria Breweries Plc.).

1.7 Significance of the study

This study on board dynamism and environmental sustainability of Nigerian manufacturing

companies would be beneficial to all stakeholders (private and public) especially to

manufacturing companies that have a combination of executives and Non-executive directors

as board members that have served for a reasonable number of years. The outcome of this

study will also serve as an eye opener to newly established organization on the importance of

board diversity and the best way to select board members that would be enhance

environmental sustainability.

1.8 Operationalization of variables

Table 1.1
Variable Definition Formula

CEO Duality occurs when the same person CD

holds both the CEO. and board

chairperson positions in a

corporation

5
 Board Composition include the ratio of BC

independent non-executive

directors and board size

Board Size BS

Environmental is concerned with whether ES

sustainability (Planet) environmental resources will

be protected and maintained

for future generations.

1.9 Definition of key terms

The following are the terms used in the study;
Sustainability: consists of fulfilling the needs of current generations without compromising

the needs of future generations

Board dynamism: are the way individual company directors interact with each other during

board meetings

CEO Duality: is the situation when a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), besides running the

corporation at the highest level, also holds the position of the Chairman of the Board.

Board Composition: is the beating heart of good governance and high performance.

Board Size: refers to the total number of directors on the board of each sample firm which is
inclusive of the CEO and Chairman for each accounting year. This will include outside
directors, executive directors and non-executive directors.
Environmental Sustainability: is the responsibility to conserve natural resources and protect
global ecosystems to support health and wellbeing, now and in the future.

CHAPTER TWO

6
 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptual Review

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework for board dynamism and environmental

sustainability

Board Dynamism Environmental Sustainability

H1
BOARD COMPOSITION

ENVIRONMENTAL
H2 SUSTAINABILITY

CEO DUALITY H3

BOARD SIZE

Source: Authors’ Conceptualization, 2022

2.1.1 Concepts of Board Dynamism

7
The board is the “heart” of corporate governance where the outcome of a firm is often

determined (Guerra et al., 2009; Yawson, 2006; Donaldson, 2003; Clarke, 2007; Fama and

Jensen, 1983; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Adjaoud et al., 2007; Gillan, 2006). The

central objective of corporate governance resides on the ability of board to monitor the

management (Connelly and Limpaphayom, 2004). The corporate board is an internal

governance mechanism designed to control self-interested management from unscrupulous

behaviours (Heracleous, 2001; Guan et al., 2007). In the face of separation of ownership and

control, board is the only intermediate arm of the firm that interfaces and administers the

relationship between the shareholders and the managers (Stiles and Taylor, 2001; John and

Senbet, 1998).

Recent inexorable corporate scandals around the world and the reforms that follows

thereafter all focus on board as the antidote that would help address issues surrounding

management un-bearing attitudes and promote best practices (Van den Berghe and Levrau,

2004). The fundamental task of board according to literature is to ensure that management in

absence of owners discharges their obligation faithfully in the best interest of shareholders.

As final corporate authority body when comes to decision-making, the role of board is

therefore diverse taking into account the fact that it also bridge gaps that exists between these

two extreme continuums. However, the effectiveness of the board of directors as

shareholders’ monitoring mechanism can only be efficient if bounded with appropriate size,

composition and leadership configuration. To this end, most code for best practices and

corporate governance guidelines tend to focus critically on these board dynamics as the

cornerstone to achieving the much needed board effectiveness.

2.1.2 Board Dynamics

8
There have being a strong presumption that the effective use of board as internal governance

mechanism is crucial to improved firm performance and profitability. While talk they said is

cheap, more than two decades of empirical investigation, is yet to justify the above

assumption as ambiguous findings continue to dominate empirical studies on the relationship

between corporate governance and firm performance. Some of the board dynamics includes

composition, size, CEO Duality and diversity.

Board Composition: Board composition denotes the fraction of non-executive directors on

the board as compared to their executive counterparts. This is the proportion of inside

directors who participate directly in the day to day management of the firm to outside

directors who provide check and balances in ensuring that the shareholders interest are

protected (O’ Sullivan and Wong, 1998; Donaldson and Muth, 1998; Petrovic, 2008; Wan

and Ong, 2005; Klien 2002). The board the extent to which board members are reliant on the

CEO/Management is determined by its composition. From the empirical point, a board is said

to be independent if made up of more non-executive directors that share no material

connection such as family ties, financial relationship, employment, professional services, and

interlocked directorship amongst others with the management (Ayuso and Argandoña, 2007;

Shivdasani and Zenner, 2002). In the face of ownership and control dispersion, outside non-

executive directors are more reliable and also effective in representing shareholders interest

(Byrd and Hickman, 1992; Kaplan and Reishus, 1990; John and Senbet, 1998). Laing and

Weir (1999) argued that non-executive directors are much more likely to oppose to corporate

strategy they believe are not in the best interest of shareholders. The board monitoring and

control function becomes difficult with insider dominated board since they cannot provide

appropriate monitoring against itself (Fama, 1980).

The independent outside director brings to bear the much needed neutrality and objectivity in

the board discuss. While most of codes for best practices have emphasised the need for mix

9
directorship with greater non-executive representation, empirical evidences remained

conflicting with respect to whether such inclusion significantly induce firm performance.

Some researchers found positive relationship (Shleifer and Vishny, 1997; Perry and

Shivdasani, 2005; Rhoades et al., 2000; Rosenstein and Wyatt, 1990; Jackling and Johl,

2009), others report either negative or no relationship between the board configuration and

firm performance (Yermack, 1996; Dulewicz and Herbert, 2004; Dalton et al., 1998;

Erickson et al., 2005; Bhagat and Black,2000; Weir and Laing, 2001; Shivdasani and

Zenner, 2002; Heracleous, 2001; Hsu, 2010; Daily and Dalton, 1992).

Bhagat and Black (2000) conducted a financial performance study on 934 largest US firms

covering 10 year period and questioned the empirical validity of the need for board

independence. They reported that while firm suffering from decline financial performance,

increase proportion of outside directors on the board, no clear evidence that such addition

were compensated by improved performance. However, contrary to the above findings,

Jackling and Johl (2009), examined a sample drawn from 180 top Indian firms and reported

that greater outside directors representation on corporate board is positively associated with

improved firm performance. Furthermore, outsiders dominated board are said to be more

effective when it comes to carrying out specific tasks such as replacing poor performing CEO

(Weisbach, 1988), external linkage (Bazerman and Schoorman, 1983; Baysinger and

Zardkoohi, 1986; Mizruchi and Stearns, 1994); and strategy initiatives (Baysinger and

Hoskisson, 1990; Johnson et al., 1993).

Board Size: The board size represents the total head counts of directors seating on the

corporate board. Size of the board is recognised as one of the unique features of board

10
dynamics with considerable but strategic impact on the board independence as well as the

overall quality of corporate governance (Jensen 1993; Donaldson and Muth 1998; Shivdasani

and Zenner, 2002). The size of board is vital to achieving the board effectiveness and

improved firm performance especially from resource dependency perspective which place

more emphasis on the board ability to co-opt limited and scares resource from various

external links (Kiel and Nicholson, 2003). Board size affects the quality of deliberation

among members and ability of board to arrive at an optimal corporate decisions. However,

determining an ideal size of the board has being an ongoing and controversial debate in

corporate governance literature. Lipton and Lorch (1992) one of the early pioneers of board

size proxy recommended a minimum of seven and maximum of nine board memberships.

While, Jensen (1993) recommended an optimal size of eight, Shaw (1981) suggested board

size of five which was supported by some subsequent empirical findings (e.g. Mak and

Yuanto, 2003).

Identifying the appropriate board size is of high significance because size can be detrimental

to board effectiveness beyond certain limit (John and Senbet, 1998; Yermack, 1996).

Bennedsen et al., (2008) argued that optimal board size is a function of many variables such

as firm age, size, industrial classification as well as the degree of monitoring and value

addition required amongst others (Connelly and Limpaphayom, 2004). Most researchers had

adopted the organisational behaviour approach to studying the impact of board size on

corporate performance (Smith et al., 1994; Jensen 1993). Therefore, small board size was

favoured to promote critical, genuine and intellectual deliberation and involvement among

members which presumably might led to effective corporate decision making, monitoring and

improved performance (Firstenberg and Malkiel, 1994; Donaldson and Muth, 1998; Lipton

11
and Lorsch, 1992; Jensen, 1993; Hermalin and Weisbach, 2003; Vafeas, 2000; Yermack,

1996).

Other advocates of board dynamics offer support for a larger board size. Their views were

anchored on the premise that large board size promotes diversity which gives the firm a

competitive edge in different fronts ranging from more expertise, experience, skills, resource

co-optation, corporate strategy, innovation, creativity and provision of broad services (Dalton

et al., 1999; Klein, 2002; Forbes and Milliken, 1999; Jackling and Johl, 2009; Provan, 1980;

Dalton and Dalton, 2005). The larger the board size the more expansive are the experiences

that can be tapped which helps in the corporate decision making especially with presence of

more independent outside directors seating on the board. From the empirical perspective,

studies on board size are to some extent lopsided as most findings showed clear negative or

mix relationship (Eklund et al., 2009), which reflects the ambiguous nature of the proxy in

explaining firm performance.

The prominent among the studies is that of Yermack (1996) who investigated a sample 452

US industrial firms covering eight year period (1984 to 1991) and found recurring negative

relationship between board size and firm performance. Negative relationships were also

reported in most other similar studies (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Lopez et al., 2005; Barnhart

and Rosentein, 1998; Daily et al., 1999). However, positive nexus were reported in some few

quarters with respect to board size driving improved firm performance (Adam and Mehran,

2003; Wangner et al., 1998; Kiel and Nicholson, 2003 Jackling and Johl, 2009; Pearce and

Zahra, 1992; Dalton et al., 1998). Wangner et al., (1998) conducted a meta-analysis on 29

previous empirical studies and reported that board size is vital in determining firm

12
performance irrespective of board configuration. Majority of documented evidences have

demonstrated that small board are more efficient and effective and are thus more likely to

provoke improved corporate performance. However, taking into account the above equivocal

findings, one would realised that the size of board in terms of quantity is materially

insignificant compared to the quality which determine effectiveness of corporate

deliberations and decision making.

CEO Duality:

CEO Duality is defined in respect of one person heading both the Management and the Board

(Chien, 2008; Finkelstein and D’Aveni, 1994; Weir and Laing, 2000). According to the

Agency theorists, CEO Duality creates imbalance in corporate power distribution as heavy

concentration of management and control resides with one person which tend to jeopardised

board effectiveness (Eisenhardt, 1989). This imbalance makes it inevitably difficult for the

corporate board to provide appropriate monitoring or even institute punitive measure against

erring CEO due to absence of independence (Jensen and Fama, 1983; Brickley et al., 1997;

Keller et al., 2006; Dalton and Kesner, 1987; Shivdasani and Yermack, 1999; Goyal and

Park, 2002; Wan and Ong, 2005; Morck et al., 1987; Dayton, 1984).

The integrity of information available to board is compromised with CEO duality due to

asymmetric as CEO determines what kinds of information are brought to board attention.

Agency theorists thus, argued that the separation of the two positions will reduce the agency

cost and promote corporate transparency and accountability (Weir and Laing, 2001).

Empirical evidences have been divergence in respect of CEO Duality and how it affects firm

performance. The reported evidences ranges from positive (Peel and O’Donnell, 1995; Pi,

13
and Timme, 1993; Coles et al., 2001; Brickley et al., 1997; Boyd, 1995; Rechner and Dalton,

1991) to negative and mix findings (Adams et al., 2005; Heracleous, 2001). However, despite

the inconsistencies in previous findings, support for agency theory still remained vibrant as

the call for the separation of the position of CEO and that of Board Chair by far dominated

recommendations in most corporate governance guidelines around the world (e.g. Cadbury

Report, 1992; & Nigeria SEC Codes, 2003 etc.).

Board Diversity:

Board diversity is anchored on both the stakeholders and resource dependency theories.

Diversity of board involves having a well-balanced board membership that is made of

individuals not necessarily from different cultural background but those from different

professional fields which create synergy that helps board in carrying out its statutory

responsibilities (Carpenter and Westphal, 2001). Thus, corporate board diversity represents

both demographic (e.g. gender, age, and ethnicity) and cognitive elements such as the

industry experience, professional and educational qualifications (Kang et al., 2007; Erhardt et

al., 2003). Although cognitive elements had in recent times taken precedence over

demographic variables, the existing literature on board diversity are somewhat uneven

towards demographic issues (Erhardt et al., 2003;) rather than competencies that often

determined the degree to which directors add value to board processes and discuss (Carter et

al., 2003). Keeping a well-diversified cognitive board create an in-house self-reliance

whereby everything firm requires ranging from effective monitoring, resource co-optation, to

quality decisions and sound corporate initiatives are all within reach (Watson et al., 1993).

14
Further to the above, Carter et al., (2007), posited that a well diverse independent board is

more vigorous in promoting corporate fair play. At the empirical level, different attributes of

board diversity were subject of investigation but the result of findings as documented in

literature remained mix and equivocal. Some reported that board diversity is positively

associated with improved firm performance (Lawal, 2012).

2.1.3. Corporate gender diversity

This is one of the most emphasized forms of diversity in the employment debate in recent

time. Klarsfeld, Booysen, Eddy, Roper, and Tatli (2012) affirms that societies and

organization globally are becoming increasingly diverse over the past decades. Employment

equity and workforce diversity have featured steadily on the business agenda. Historically,

corporate gender has largely been a male consortium. In recent years, this practice has been

challenged as many companies, have recognized the value of having a gender-balanced

workforce. Corporate gender diversity is defined for this study as the ratio of women to total

employee size on the employment row of sampled companies across the strata. In diversity

management parlance, many contemporary debates about the value of diversity in the

workforce view this concept in an instrumental way. The view suggests that diversity is a

means to another end, such as improved employee productivity and morale, higher customer

satisfaction, or higher shareholder value (Shin and Gulati, 2011).

The Board of the director is portrayed and conceptualized differently in writing including the

number of independent directors, the tenure of boards, the size of the board and board gender

diversity. Gender diversity as a part of board organization/assorted variety is in this manner a

marker of corporate administration. Dutta and Bose (2006) present board gender diversity as

the nearness of females on the governing body and term it a significant part of board

15
diversity. Corporate governance has not understood gender diversity, yet this situation is

imitated around the world (Dutta and Bose, 2006). Incorporate administration circles, board

gender diversity allude to the consideration or nearness of female chiefs in the sheets (Ekadah

and Mboya, 2012).

Contemporary organizations are progressively moving toward board gender diversity as a

worth driver in the authoritative system and corporate administration (Marinova, Plantenga,

and Remery, 2010). The subject additionally stays a new territory of worry for open

discussion, scholastic research, government contemplations and corporate technique over the

social scene just as in the boardroom and top executive positions. Board diversity in

percentage is computed as the female directors to total board size (Obiora, 2021).

2.1.4 Sustainability reporting of firm

Sustainability is the goal of many sectors and fields in countries around the world, each

country relies on economic and social characteristics to plan the most suitable strategy for

sustainable development. For an ideal microfinance institution, this means the ability to

continuously operate. A microfinance institution will have financial sustainability if the

revenue it generates from operations over its operating expenses, financing costs, loan loss

provisions and cost of capital (Ledgerwood, 1999). Therefore, financial sustainability in

PCFs refers to the ability of institutions to cover their operating expenses, financing costs,

loan loss provisions and cost of capital from their operating revenues. The financial

sustainability is a tangible parameter that is measured continuously to monitor the level of

income to cover all costs to guarantee the long-term development of PCFs. The financial

sustainability is associated with all PCFs activities and is influenced by many factors,

including:

16
 i. Productivity: Ganka (2010) found that when the number of active borrowers grows

causing unsustainability. Because the staff fail to manage borrowers in the rural

microfinance

institutions. This showed there was a negative relationship between the productivity

and financial sustainability of rural microfinance institutions. According to Usman,

Ahmed, Mehmood and Haq (2016), increasing in the productivity contributed to

advance the financial performance of microfinance institutions. Thereby, the

productivity had increased the financial performance and mpact on financial

sustainability in positive trend.

ii. Capital adequacy ratio: Capital adequacy ratio reflected the structure and

sufficiency

of the capital of PCFs. This ratio was one of the important factors affected the

operations and sustainability of microfinance institutions since capital adequacy ratio

ensured lenders and depositors to have confidence in the microfinance institutions

relative (Ledgerwood, 1999). Ha (2019b) found that there was a positive relationship

between the capital adequacy ratio and operational self-sustainability of PCFs.

Thereby, the capital adequacy ratio had a positive impact on the financial

sustainability of PCFs.

iii. Credit growth: According to MkNelly and Stack (1998), there was a significant

relationship between sustainability and the growth in the loan size, and the research

result of Painter and MkNelly (1999), the loan growth was important and had positive

impacts on financial sustainability. Another study showed that financial sustainability

of microfinance institutions as ositively and significantly driven by lending intensity

and size (Tehulu, 2013).

17
 iv. Income: According to Yaron (1992), microfinance institutions achieved the financial

sustainability when their income exceeded the costs. Amit and Kedar (2014) revealed

that profitmotivated microfinance institutions had a higher rate of sustainability

compared to non-profit microfinance institutions. People's credit fund is one of the

institutions that provide microfinance services that are profit-motivated; thus, the

income will affect the financial sustainability of PCFs.

v. Non-performing loan ratio: The study result of Khandker, Khalily and Khan (1995)

pointed that loan repayment could be another indicator for financial sustainability.

Beside, according to Meyer (2002), financial sustainability required financial

institutions to maintain good financial status, the financial un-sustainability in

financial institutions raised due to low repayment rate (Van, 2021).

2.2 Theoretical Review

This study is supported by Agency theory, Stewardship, resource dependency, social identity

and stakeholder Theory

2.2.1 Agency Theory:

The theory was propounded by Jensen and Meckling, 1976, it has undoubtedly dominated

other theories as the most preferred approach to corporate governance studies. Agency

relationship is defined as “a contract under which one or more persons (the principal) engage

another person (the agent) to perform some services on their behalf which involves

delegating some decision-making authority to the agent” (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).

According to agency model, the separation of ownership and control creates an inherent

conflict of interest between the shareholders (Principal) and the management (Agent)

(Aguilera et al., 2008).

18
Although managers are said to be rational, but cannot be trusted to remain faithful by always

acting in the best interest of the principal since they are also presumed to be self-interested

(Williamson, 1975; Padilla, 2002). Therefore, managers must be controlled to avoid “moral

hazard” using some risk-bearing and monitoring mechanisms that checkmate their deviant

behaviors (Jensen, 1983; Filatachev et al. 2007). In order to effectively address the agency

problem, the theorists acknowledged the crucial role of board as an instrument of owners in

subduing the opportunistic behavior of managers (Stiles and Taylor 2001). Agency theory

advocated for a clear separation between decision management and control (Fama and

Jensen, 1983). The need for greater representation of outside independent non-executive

directors as well as dual leadership structure and larger board size that makes management

manipulation difficult are all some of the internal mechanisms recommended to address the

presumed conflict of interest (Lawal, 2012)

2.1. 2 Stakeholder Theory

The theory was propounded by Freeman, 1984; Gay, 2002; Boatright 1994; Turnbull, 2000;

Asher et al., 2005. Recognising the fact that firms does not operate in an isolation but within

an environment made of different interest groups aside the immediate owners, stakeholder

theory expanded interested parties spectrum as it argued the need to take into consideration

the interests of other constituents in corporate decision making since they are likely to affect

or be affected by firms’ strategic choices (Freeman, 1984; Gay, 2002; Boatright 1994;

Turnbull, 2000; Asher et al., 2005). Under this theory, the purpose of firm shifts from

pursuing shareholder value maximisation to that which encompasses other stakeholders’

expectations (Kirkbride et al., 2004). Therefore, maintaining harmonious corporate

relationship with each group is of high strategic importance to the firm and its ability to add

value as well as the delivery of success in the marketplace (Kreitner, 2002).

19
The interests of these stakeholders according to Donaldson and Preston (1995) are

intrinsically bond. Firms through its administrators (i.e. board and management) thus have

the sole responsibility of aligning these diverse interest groups by effectively analysing the

nature of their perceived interest disparities and the adoption of appropriate corporate

strategies that help balance the act and improve performance (Freeman, 1984). In order to

actualised board effectiveness and performance derive, the stakeholder theory advocated for

large and well diversified corporate board size that accommodate and facilitate the alignment

of the interest of each constituent especially those that create value to the firm (Lawal, 2012)

2.1.3 Resource Dependency Theory:

This theory was propounded by Daily et al., 2003; Tricker, 2009; Hillman et al., 2000. The

resource dependency theory appreciates the strategic importance of other stakeholders beside

the immediate shareholders in guaranteeing firms’ access to resource through affiliation with

various constituencies. The role of board of directors under resource dependency model is

that of “Boundary –Spanners” who use their individual external network of contacts to attract

all kinds of indispensable resource the firm needs to operate competitively and advance

superior performance (Daily et al., 2003; Tricker, 2009; Hillman et al., 2000; Zahra and

Pearce, 1989). In line with the above, the resource dependency theorists presumed that an

ideal board should consist of individuals with varieties of external linkages such as business

experts, support specialists and community influential that brings within the firm’s reach

access to requisite resources (Johnson et al., 1996; Hillman et al., 2000).

Williamson (1984) posited that apart from gaining access to the required resource, firms with

appropriate network connection are also able to reduce the transaction cost associated with

20
interaction in the external environment. Resources dependency hypothesis was based on the

fact that board members serve not only as director in a single firm but may likely be board

member in other complimentary firms and can influence decision in the favour of firm for

which they are affiliated. Thus, resource dependency theorists assumed that a well-diversified

board with appropriate representation of outside independent members is likely to lead to

improved corporate performance especially in the face of environmental volatility when the

degree firm dependency escalates (Lawal, 2012).

2.1.4 Social identity theory:

This theory was propounded by Obiora, 2021. It is another explanation of why diversity may

have a negative outcome. Social identity theory suggests that when we first come into contact

with others, we categorize them as belonging to an in-group (i.e., the same group as us) or an

out-group (not belonging to our group).We tend to see members of our in-group as

heterogeneous but out-group members as homogeneous. That is, we perceive out-group

members as having similar attitudes, behaviours, and characteristics (i.e., fitting stereotypes).

Researchers posit that this perspective may occur because of the breadth of interactions we

have with people from our in-group as opposed to out-groups. There is often strong in-group

favouritism and, sometimes, derogation of out-group members. In some cases, however,

minority group members do not favour members of their own group (Obiora, 2021).

2.2.5. Stewardship Theory:

The stewardship theory took an opposite view of management (Donaldson, 1991; Davis et al.,

1997; Donaldson and Muth, 1998). While agency theory hypothesised that managers are self-

interested, the stewardship theory advanced that indeed managers can be trustworthy and thus

21
not enticed by the extrinsic value but rather intrinsically motivated by desire for

accomplishment, acknowledgment, self-actualization, self-fulfillment, power, and affiliation.

The theory recommends unification of the position of CEO and board chair to reduce agency

costs and promote unity of command doctrine. One of the most viable paths to achieving

board effectiveness and performance variation is conditioned on degree of board dependency

with greater executive directors’ involvement. By privilege the executive directors are

presumed to have perfect information about the workings of the firm and therefore more

suitable to play monitoring and control role as against the outsiders who might not possess

the requisite knowledge and expertise required to perform the task (Donaldson and Muth,

1998; Nicholson and Kiel 2007; Stiles, 2001; Helmer, 1996). The stewardship theory also

stresses the need for smaller board size in line with organisational

behaviourists/psychologists argument that small teams promote group cohesiveness and

bonding that propel high performance (Donaldson and Muth, 1998). It should be noted here

that, the board responsibility under the stewardship theory is more of strategic formulation

rather than that of monitoring and control (Lawal, 2012).

2.3. Empirical Review

Simbarashe, Hlanganipai, Wiseman and Sam(2018) opined that gender and ethnicity issues

such as discrimination, prejudice and sexual harassment prevail within organizations in

South. Africa. Although there has been an improvement in workforce diversity in South

Africa. This is because organisational leaders view diversity as a matter of legal compliance

instead of as a value addition to organisational growth and profitability. Based on this, it is

important for organisations to understand the economic side of diversity and not just be

content with having such a workforce. International finance cooperation (2019) suggested

22
that in an increasingly fast-paced and ever-changing global market, companies need to

sustain a competitive advantage, and having a diverse corporate board definitely supports the

achievement of that objective. It cannot be overemphasized that board diversity is critical for

sustainability. The survey identified strong financial performance and improved board

effectiveness as key benefits of women in the boardroom. Having women on the board sends

a strong message that a company is progressive. Boards that mirror society can better

understand the needs and preferences of their clients, and this can lead to improved product

development, more effective product marketing, and better customer relations. Despite these

benefits, the survey showed that women are still underrepresented on corporate boards in

Nigeria. Survey respondents and interviewees identified a number of reasons for this,

including cultural, sociopolitical, and organizational factors. One argument against actively

seeking gender parity on the board stems from a concern that too much diversity and

independence of thought can hurt board cohesion. This is clearly a fallacy.

Temile, Jatmiko and Hidayat (2018) empirically examined the impact of gender diversity,

earnings management practices and corporate performance of quoted firms in Nigerian. The

study was motivated by the nature of the Nigerian business environment and the need for

effective corporate performance by firms in different sectors of the economy; hence

providing an empirical argument for future researchers who may want to build on its

findings. To achieve the set objective of this study, we obtained data from the annual reports

of fifty firms quoted on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE). The study is empirical in nature

and adopted the survey research design to implement simple random sampling. Furthermore,

the Panel Data Regression estimation technique was employed to estimate the specified

model of the study. The results revealed that female chief executive officers have a negative

but insignificant impact on the financial performance of firms in Nigeria, while the female

23
chief financial officer has a positive and significant relationship with financial performance.

The result also shows that variables such as female membership and audit committees have a

negative and insignificant relationship with corporate performance. However, the higher the

proportion of females on the board, the better the performance of firms in Nigeria. The study

recommended that the management of various companies should formulate and implement

policies that will include gender diversity on the board in order to stimulate earnings

management and other performance measures in the right direction. This invariably would

positively influence the market value per share of their companies.

Ursil and Fayaz (2018) hold that Workforce diversity can be defined as a broad mix of people

from different backgrounds, cultures etc working together in the same organisation. Diversity

provides both challenges and opportunities for organisations. The different dimensions of

diversity may have different effects and outcomes within the organisation, and thus the effect

of one dimension cannot be generalized for all the others. The purpose of this paper is to

review the various studies pertaining to the relationship between workforce diversity and

organizational/employee performance. Different empirical papers were reviewed which were

selected keeping in view the different criteria laid down by the researcher. The study adopted

a review methodology by conducting a literature search concerning workforce diversity and

organizational/ employee performance for the period 1990-2014. The results presented in this

paper show evidence of empirical relationship among organizational performance and have

been found to be contradictory, giving mixed results.

Akpakip and Christiana (2017) examined the effects of workforce diversity on employee

performance. The survey research design method was adopted for the paper. The instrument

24
used to gather relevant data for the study was the questionnaire. The study centred on the

Nigerian Banking Sector to examine the level of diversity practised in terms of gender, age,

ethnicity and educational in Nigerian Organizations. First Bank of Nigeria Plc, Ota, Ogun

State was the focal organization. A total of 81 copies of the questionnaire were disseminated

to the respondents of the study and they were all filled and returned and also relevant for the

study. In order to attain the research objectives, four hypotheses were created. The data were

collated and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) percentages

and frequencies tables were used for the descriptive aspects. To test the hypotheses,

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient Analysis was adopted, Regression Model, Anova

was adopted to examine the relationship between variables and identify the influence of the

independent variables on the dependent variable. The limitation to the study is that the study

made use of only a few aspects of workforce diversity and as such, findings cannot be

generalized to cover other dimensions of diversity not covered in the study.

The research findings showed all aspects of workforce diversity used in the study has a

significant relationship with employee performance except for ethnic diversity. It was also

discovered that gender, age and educational diversity have a strong influence on employee

performance. Based on findings, a recommendation that management continues to uphold its

diversity policies and practices in order to increase the benefits of diversity was made.

Management should ensure that all employees are properly trained on diversity issues as this

training will also help employees to change those unconscious behaviours that hinder

diversity and inclusion practices. Similarity-Attraction Paradigm, social identity theory,

Social Categorization Theory, Human Capital Theory Explaining Age Diversity, Information

and Decision Making Theory was the basis for the study. The study found statistically

25
significant positive relationships between managerial gender diversity and one measure of

firm performance, Tobin’s q, without a long time lag required for it to be realized.

Doris, Mary and George (2016), examined the way various elements of workforce diversity

namely; age, gender, work experience and culture can significantly influence the performance

of organizations with specific reference to telecommunication firms in Kenya. Workforce

diversity was opined to have evolved to be a moral, social, and economic factor as well as a

legal responsibility of employers. The value of diversity in the workplace is also becoming a

key business consideration of most organizations. Close and continuous attention to the

issues of workforce diversity is important because it can be a major source of competitive

advantage. It can also be a source of organizational conflict leading to poor employee

relations and low employee engagement. Workforce diversity issues may also adversely

affect an organization’s public reputation, competitiveness and can significantly threaten the

bottom line. The study went further to examine whether employee engagement moderates the

relationship between workforce diversity and organizational performance. Based on the

review of literature, the article developed a conceptual model that explains how the

integration of various workforce diversity elements may influence the performance of

organizations. Blau’s Theory of Heterogeneity, Social Categorization Theory, Similarity/

Attraction Theory, Resource-Based View Theory and Strategic Choice Theory was a guide

for this study.

Yukiko (2015) presented empirical evidence testing whether increasing gender diversity is

associated with improved firm performance for Japanese listed companies, which have

different cultural backgrounds from Western companies, after controlling for size and firm

26
age. As Worthley MacNab, Brislin, Ito and Rose(2009) pointed out, the growing importance

of the Japanese female workforce under global competition requires a better understanding of

gender-related issues in organizational management which is undergoing a transformation

from their rooted traditional managerial habits, such as seniority-based promotion, lifetime

employment, paternalism, or prioritizing corporate harmony, which favour men.

Rozmina and Mwangi (2015) examined the impact of board gender diversity on the

profitability of the agricultural listed companies in the Nairobi Securities Exchange over the

period 2008 to 2015. Profitability was measured using Tobin’s Q as a market-based measure,

and Return on assets (ROA) as an accounting-based measure. Panel data was analyzed using

Fixed Effect model and Random Effect model. The results for FEMDIR are mixed and

different depending on the measure of profitability. They are negative and significant when

using Tobin’s Q and positive and statistically insignificant when ROA is used as the measure

of profitability. The moderating variables also give different results depending on the

profitability measure. BRDSIZE is negative and statistically significant when using Tobin’s

Q and is positive and insignificant when using ROA as the profitability measure. FIRM SIZE

is negative and statistically significant when using Tobin’s Q and positive and insignificant

when using ROA. Irrespective of the profitability measure used, PWDIR was found to be

positive and statistically significant. This means that the presence of women on boards of

agricultural listed firms will lead to increased profitability. The study recommends that

agricultural firms listed at the NSE should ensure that they include women on their boards

since the presence of women on boards is found to impact profitability positively.

27
Miebi (2014) empirically examined the nature of the relationship between Workforce

Diversity Management and Corporate Performance of manufacturing firms in Nigeria.

Despite efforts aimed at optimizing the performance of firms in Nigeria, a nation of many

diverse people, not much appears to have been achieved. To address this lacuna, primary data

was collected from Forty-two registered firms in South-South Nigeria using a five-point

Likert-type scale questionnaire and personal interviews. The Spearman Rank Order

Correlation Coefficient at 95% confidence level and the Hierarchical Multiple Regression

model were used to analyse the data. The findings revealed that the apparent low

performance rate of the Study firms may be traceable to poor management of surface and

deep-level diversity. To optimize Corporate Performance, therefore, it was recommended that

managers should ensure that employees are “not at all” disturbed by issues bothering on

diversity as raised in this Paper.

The duo of Lincoln and Adedoyin, (2012) maintain that in recent times, corporations are

increasingly under pressure to ensure diversity within their boardrooms and a large number of

academic research have reported findings consistent with the view that boards perform better

when they include a diverse range of people. They maintain that women have unique

characteristics needed to positively influence the strategic direction of a corporation and

contribute to the growth of firms. In spite of such revelations, evidence suggests that women

are under-represented in senior executive and board positions. In many parts of Africa,

sociocultural traditions inhibit women from attaining these roles. Given the emphasis placed

on board diversity and the inclusion of women as an essential part of good corporate

governance, the relationship between gender diversity and board effectiveness deserves both

theoretical and empirical investigation. This research is important because it represents the

28
first theoretical review on gender diversity in corporate boards in Nigeria.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design

The study adopted a descriptive and survey research design method to explain various

characteristics of the variables being investigated.

3.2 Population of the Study

This study was limited to 43 Nigerian manufacturing companies. (nigerianfinder.com/the-top-

10-manufacturing-companies-in-nigeria/)

3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique

Two listed manufacturing companies were selected from the 43 listed manufacturing in

Nigeria. The sample of this study was selected using simple random sampling and purposive

sampling technique due to availability of current information on the relationship between the

variables of the study.

3.4 Sources of Data

Questionnaire (primary data) from the two (2) selected listed manufacturing companies

would be distributed to gather relevant information.

3.5 Data Collection Method

This study is on board dynamism and environmental sustainability of Nigerian manufacturing

companies. The data collection was from primary source. The linear regression analysis was

used.

29
3.6 Research Instrument

The instruments used to gather the needed literatures for this study were gotten from library,

internet, and textbook.

3.7. Method of Data Analysis

Descriptive analytical procedure and inferential statistics were employed. Inferential statistics

involved the use of linear regression for analysis.

3.8 Model Specification

The study employed a regression model and applied multiple regression estimation technique.

In an attempt to find the relationship between board dynamism and environmental

sustainability of Nigerian manufacturing companies, the variables of the study are

mathematically expressed as follows:

Yt = f(X)

Y = Environmental Sustainability (Dependent variable)

X = Board Dynamism (Independent variable)

ESi = β0 + β1CD i + β2BC i + e i ....................................................(i)

Esi = β0 + β2 βC + ei ……………………………………………..(ii)

Es2 β0 + β1 βS +e …………………………………………………(iii)

Where:

ES= Environmental Sustainability (Dependent variable)

30
CD = CEO Duality

BC = Board Composition

e = error term

β0 = Constant

β1- β2 = Coefficient of independent variable

3.9 A Priori Expectation

The parameters β0, β1, β2 and β3 should be positive. This means that board dynamism is

expected to have a positive effect on environmental sustainability.

31
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

4.1 Regression Analysis

H01– There is no significant relationship between CEO duality and environmental

sustainability of manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Table 4.1.1

Model Summary

R Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R Square Square the Estimate

1 .802a .643 .641 1.68029

a. Predictors: (Constant), CEO duality

ANOVAa

Sum of Mean

Model Squares df Square F Sig.

1 Regressio
1710.365 1 1710.365 605.785 .000b
n

Residual 951.481 337 2.823

Total 2661.847 338

a. Dependent Variable: Environmental sustainability

b. Predictors: (Constant), CEO duality

32
 Coefficientsa

Standardize

Unstandardized d

Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) -7.548 1.334 -5.657 .000

CEO duality 1.454 .059 .802 24.613 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Environmental sustainability

Source: Authors Computation, 2022

The R was actually the correlation coefficient between the variables and it indicates

predictive power the variables have. Adjusted R-squared captures whether the explanatory

variable is significant in explaining the outcome variable. The Prob (F-statistic) indicates the

statistical significance of the F statistic while F-statistic captures whether the explanatory

variable was significant in explaining the outcome variable. From table 4.1.1, the value of R 2

0.643 and adjusted R2 0.641 gives the variation in environmental sustainability that was

explained by CEO duality. It indicates that CEO duality has high and strong predictive power

on environmental sustainability manufacturing companies in Nigeria. From the Prob (F-

statistic) of 0.000 was less than 0.05, therefore the variables are statistically significant.

Based on the analysis and result obtained, the researcher failed to accept the null hypothesis

that CEO duality has no relationship with environmental sustainability.

From the equation:

Environmental sustainability = -7.548 + 1.454 (CEO duality) +e

33
H02– There is no significant relationship between board composition and environmental

sustainability of manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Table 4.1.2

Model Summary

R Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R Square Square the Estimate

1 .728a .530 .529 1.92690

a. Predictors: (Constant), Board composition

ANOVAa

Sum of Mean

Model Squares df Square F Sig.

1 Regressio
1410.580 1 1410.580 379.907 .000b
n

Residual 1251.267 337 3.713

Total 2661.847 338

a. Dependent Variable: Environmental sustainability

b. Predictors: (Constant), Board composition

34
 Coefficientsa

Standardize

Unstandardized d

Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 10.251 .775 13.228 .000

Board
.782 .040 .728 19.491 .000
composition

a. Dependent Variable: Environmental sustainability

Source: Authors Computation, 2022

The R was actually the correlation coefficient between the variables and it indicates

predictive power the variables have. Adjusted R-squared captures whether the explanatory

variable is significant in explaining the outcome variable. The Prob (F-statistic) indicates the

statistical significance of the F statistic while F-statistic captures whether the explanatory

variable was significant in explaining the outcome variable. From table 4.1.2, the value of R 2

0.530 and adjusted R2 0.529 gives the variation in environmental sustainability that was

explained by board composition. It indicates that board composition has high and strong

predictive power on environmental sustainability of manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

From the Prob (F-statistic) of 0.000 was less than 0.05, therefore the variables are statistically

significant. Based on the analysis and result obtained, the researcher failed to accept the null

hypothesis that board composition has no relationship with environmental sustainability.

From the equation:

35
Environmental sustainability = 10.251 + .782 (board composition) +e

H03– There is no significant relationship between board size and environmental sustainability

of manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Table 4.1.3

Model Summary

R Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R Square Square the Estimate

1 .812a .660 .659 1.63919

a. Predictors: (Constant), board size

ANOVAa

Sum of Mean

Model Squares df Square F Sig.

1 Regressio
1756.351 1 1756.351 653.664 .000b
n

Residual 905.496 337 2.687

Total 2661.847 338

a. Dependent Variable: environmental sustainability

b. Predictors: (Constant), board size

36
 Coefficientsa

Standardize

Unstandardized d

Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 4.777 .804 5.939 .000

board size .991 .039 .812 25.567 .000

a. Dependent Variable: environmental sustainability

Source: Authors Computation, 2022

The R was actually the correlation coefficient between the variables and it indicates

predictive power the variables have. Adjusted R-squared captures whether the explanatory

variable is significant in explaining the outcome variable. The Prob (F-statistic) indicates the

statistical significance of the F statistic while F-statistic captures whether the explanatory

variable was significant in explaining the outcome variable. From table 4.1.3, the value of R 2

0.660 and adjusted R2 0.659 gives the variation in environmental sustainability that was

explained by board size. It indicates that board size has high and strong predictive power on

environmental sustainability of manufacturing companies in Nigeria. From the Prob (F-

statistic) of 0.000 was less than 0.05, therefore the variables are statistically significant.

Based on the analysis and result obtained, the researcher failed to accept the null hypothesis

that board size has no relationship with environmental sustainability.

From the equation:

Environmental sustainability = -991 + 4.777 (board size) +e

37
4.2 Discussion of findings

From Table 4.1.1 to Table 4.1.3, the results showed that CEO duality, board composition and

board size have a strong predictive power on economic sustainability. Based these facts, it

can be concluded that board dynamism is statistically significant on environmental

sustainability. This shows that dynamism of the board is a strong indication on the

responsibility of manufacturing companies on the sustainability of the environment where

these firms are located.

38
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

This study started with a brief introduction, statement of the problem, research questions,

research objectives, research hypotheses, significance and the scope of the study. It reviews

literature of past research works of other peoples and theories that are applicable and relevant

to the study. The study adopted non-experimental research design. An examination of the

board dynamism and sustainability of manufacturing companies was conducted by

aggregating responses from the employees of selected companies in Nigeria. The data

collected were analyzed, using regression from SPSS. All the hypotheses were tested to

determine the acceptance or the rejection of the null hypotheses. The results of the findings

were fully discussed.

5.2 Summary of Findings

In the course of this research project work the following findings were made in line with the

objectives of the study that examined board dynamism and sustainability of manufacturing

companies. The study found positive significant effect of board dynamism on environmental

sustainability with p-values of 0.000 for each of the objectives respectively.

5.3 Conclusion

The study concludes that board dynamism has a significant joint effect on sustainability of

manufacturing companies. This implies that board dynamism has a serious influence on

environmental sustainability of manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

39
5.4 Recommendations

Arising from the findings, it was recommended that company’s management should improve

more on the amount earmarked as corporate social responsibility to improve on

environmental sustainability to the public and the less privilege in order to increase their

trading, performance and invariably contribute to the growth and survival of the Nigerian

economy at large.

5.5 Contribution to Knowledge

The study contributed to the understanding of board dynamism and sustainability of

manufacturing companies in Nigeria which has not formed the basis of some past empirical

investigations in Nigeria. In addition, the study contributes to the phenomena under

investigation by using questionnaire from respondents.

5.6 Limitation of the study.

Future research should address the limitations of this study. Several extensions of this study

are possible. First, the study focused on only Nigeria, further studies should extend the scope

by focusing on Sub-Saharan African Countries. Other variables that are likely to influence

sustainability such as government grant, economic and social sustainability and so on that are

outside the scope of this investigation should be introduced.

40
References

Amaike, B. (2016). "Sustainability, livelihoods, and quality of life of older retirees in Lagos

State, Nigeria," Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective. 10(2),

143-164.

Genius board (2020). Board dynamics-challenge. https://www.geniusboards.co.uk/board-

dynamics-challenge/ Retrieved on 17 July, 2022.

Igoe, K.J. (2022). Friction on the board: how to deal with challenging power dynamics as a

female board member. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/dealing-with-power-

dynamics-as-female-board-member/. Retrieved on 17 July, 2022.

Lawal B (2012). Dynamics and Corporate Performance: Review of Literature, and

Empirical

Challenges. International Journal of Economics and Finance; 4(1)); pp. 22-35, 2012

Obiora P.E 2021. Corporate gender diversity and firm performance in Nigeria. International

Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review 04 (2)

Perraud, E. (2019). Board dynamics. https://www.nedonboard.com/board-dynamics/ retrieved

on 15 July, 2022.

Stiles, P. (2021). Board dynamics. Cambridge University Press.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abs/board-dynamics/09EF220A5EDD0BC

BF791B456AF107906

Tewkesbury, M. (2020). Understanding board dynamics.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-board-dynamics-mark-tewkesbury-

acca-acii retrieved on 15 July, 2022.

41
Van, 2021. The Interactive and Causal Relationship between Productivity and Financial

Sustainability of People's Credit Funds in Vietnam Academic Journal of

Interdisciplinary Studies 9(1) pp. 115-125

UNFPA & Help Age International. (2012). Ageing in the twenty-first century: A celebration

and a challenge. New York, NY: UNFPA & HAI.

42