The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2041-2568.htm

Board role
Board role performance and performance
sustainability reporting practices: and
sustainability
managerial perception-based
evidence from Uganda 317
Zainabu Tumwebaze, Juma Bananuka, Laura A. Orobia and Received 24 August 2021
Revised 21 November 2021
Moses Munyami Kinatta Accepted 28 February 2022
Department of Accounting, Makerere University Business School,
Kampala, Uganda

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is threefold: first, to examine among the board role performance
attributes, which ones are critical for sustainability reporting practices; second, to establish the relationship
between the overall board role performance and sustainability reporting practices; and third, to establish the
relationship between board role performance and the three dimensions of sustainability reporting practices.
Design/methodology/approach – This study is correlational as it aims to establish relationships. Data were
collected within a period of one year. Usable questionnaires were received from 48 financial services firms in Uganda.
Findings – On average, financial services firms in Uganda follow the Global Reporting Initiative
sustainability reporting standards to the extent of 64%. The study results also indicate that board role
performance is significantly associated with sustainability reporting practices. Board role performance is
more associated with social sustainability reporting than environmental and economic sustainability
reporting. In terms of board roles, service role is more associated with the sustainability reporting practices
than the control and strategic role of the board.
Practical implications – The board has to provide the necessary support to management by passing
decisions aimed at improving sustainability reporting practices and providing the necessary resources such
as budgets for training of staff in sustainability reporting standards. Policymakers may require companies to
prepare sustainability reports annually.
Originality/value – This study provides insights on the initial understanding of the link between board role
performance and sustainability reporting practices. This study sheds more light on the relationship between board
role performance and the dimensions of sustainability reporting. The study further enlightens the academic
community and practice on which board roles are critical for enhanced sustainability reporting. This study
therefore posts that it is no longer a matter of having board members but, rather, the role these board members play.
Keywords Sustainability reporting practices, Board role performance, Strategic role, Control role,
Service role, Stakeholder theory
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The increased cases of climate change, environmental degradation, natural resource depletion
and social inequalities may be attributable to the failure of those charged with governance and
management to monitor and control the adverse effects of their company activities on the
Journal of Global Responsibility
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2022
pp. 317-337
The authors are grateful to the Editor and the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive © Emerald Publishing Limited
2041-2568
comments and timely feedback. DOI 10.1108/JGR-08-2021-0072
JGR environment. The international bodies such as the United Nations and the Global Reporting
13,3 Initiative emphasize the preservation of the natural environment and improvement in society
well-being. The academic community has embarked on knowledge creation regarding the
aspects of improved disclosure practices. However, the search for wealth by the board
members and investors continues to dominate practice and as such simple financial reports are
prepared by firms. This trend needs to be reversed to save the indigenous communities and the
318 natural environment. This may be possible if the board can focus on advanced disclosure
practices such as sustainability reporting practices. Sustainability reporting practices in
organizations are known to promote their accountability to various stakeholders, improve their
financial performance, improve their legitimacy, enhance their reputation and motivate
employees (Uyar et al., 2021; Journeault et al., 2021). The ethical branch of the stakeholder
theory (Freeman et al., 2010) requires firms to be fair to all the stakeholders. In being fair, firms
need to disclosure all information regardless of the power of the specific stakeholders. The
board through performing their strategic, service and control roles may then encourage
management to have adequate disclosures of all company activities.
Sustainability reporting practices have been embraced in several jurisdictions on a
voluntary basis. For example, it is reported that 75% of the largest 250 companies in the world
prepare their sustainability reports following Global Reporting Initiative Standards (GRI) while
63% of the largest 100 companies in 49 countries reference GRI sustainability reporting
standards (Global Reporting Initiative, 2021). In developing countries such as Uganda,
Tauringana (2021) reported that 80% of the member companies of Uganda Manufacturers
Association prepare sustainability reports. This sounds to be good news for such a developing
country. In another study, Tumwebaze et al. (2021) found that financial services firms prepared
sustainability reports that are biased toward the GRI standards to the extent of 64%. However,
Tumwebaze et al. (2021) report that only 40% of the sustainability reports prepared by the
financial services firms are uploaded on the GRI database. All this is steady progress for a
country like Uganda. What is not clear is whether such progress in the uptake of sustainability
reporting is because of internal mechanisms or rather external pressures.
Extant literature identifies the importance of corporate governance mechanisms in
influencing sustainability reporting practices. For example, Injeni et al. (2021) found that
board gender diversity and audit committee independence are positively and significantly
associated with disclosures of sustainability information using evidence from the Nairobi
stock exchange. Mudiyanselage (2018), using evidence from Sri Lanka, found a positive and
significant impact of board size, independence and female directors on sustainability
reporting. Using evidence from 126 firms in Malaysia, Jamil et al. (2020) found that boards
that undertake sustainability related trainings and have sustainability-related experience
have improved sustainability information disclosures. Using a sample of 120 listed
manufacturing firms in Malaysia, Ganesan et al. (2017) indicate that independent and large
boards strongly enhance sustainability reporting while CEO duality has a negative impact.
Bueno et al. (2018), while using a sample of 575 reports from 2011 to 2014 for 285 companies
listed companies in Brazil found that the disclosure of economic, social and environmental
activities of the company, is positive and significantly associated with having female
members on board. Bueno et al. (2018) also found that voluntary disclosure is negatively
related to CEO duality and no significant association was found with board independence
and board age. While these studies indicate the importance of board of directors in
sustainability reporting practices, their focus is largely on board characteristics and
composition. There is need to understand whether the effective performance of board roles
could be behind the improvements in sustainability reporting practices in the financial
services firms in a developing country like Uganda.
 Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) document that board role performance explains variances Board role
in environmental performance reporting among manufacturing firms in Uganda. Board role performance
performance has also been found to be associated with financial reporting quality in
Uganda’s financial institutions (Kaawaase et al., 2021). Nalukenge et al. (2018) found board
and
role performance to positively influence compliance with international financial reporting sustainability
standards (IFRS) in Uganda. In a similar context, Bananuka et al. (2019) found board role
performance to be important for internet financial reporting in financial institutions in
Uganda. Further, Bananuka et al. (2019) found that the control and strategic roles of the 319
board are significantly correlated with internet financial reporting adoption while the
service role was not. However, Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) found all the three attributes of
board role performance to be positively correlated with environmental performance
reporting. The above findings on the association between board role performance and
corporate reporting provide highlights of the likelihood of an improvement in sustainability
reporting if indeed the board can perform their roles through invoking the ethical branch of
the stakeholder theory.
We notice that majority of the studies on the association between corporate governance-
related variables and sustainability reporting practices use content analysis (Injeni et al.,
2021; Jamil et al., 2020; Mudiyanselage, 2018). Content analysis methods contribute largely
to theory and ignore the practice (Tauringana, 2021). With content analysis where
secondary data is used, it is not clear for which reason such secondary data was developed.
Most of the studies on sustainability reporting practices involving the use of secondary data
use annual reports but their accuracy cannot be guaranteed. While perception based studies
may also not be free from inaccurate information, de Villiers (1999) emphasizes that the best
way to understand practice is by way of asking those in practice what transpires. Further, in
the presence of a larger sample than case studies of few organizations, it is likely that such
respondent bias could be minimized, especially through aggregating the data at firm level if
the number of respondents in each firm exceeds one respondent. Therefore, perception-
based studies provide direct managerial motivations for sustainability reporting practices
(Belal and Owen, 2007; Belal and Momin, 2009).
The purpose of this study is threefold: first, to examine among the board role
performance attributes, which ones are critical for sustainability reporting practices; second,
to establish the relationship between the overall board role performance and sustainability
reporting practices; and, third, to establish the relationship between the board role
performance and the three dimensions of sustainability reporting practices. This was
achieved through a questionnaire survey of Chief Finance Officers and heads of internal
audit in financial services firms. Our focus on financial service firms is motivated by the fact
that they are providers of capital to firms in other sectors. Therefore, if financial service
firms appreciate sustainability reporting practices, they can easily promote the practice by
making it a requirement for extending loans to firms. The present study results suggest that
board role performance is positively and significantly associated with sustainability
reporting practices. We also report that sustainability reporting practices are explained by
the service role followed by the control role and then the strategic role dimension of board
role performance. Results further indicate that board role performance explains more of
social sustainability reporting than environmental and economic sustainability reporting.
This study offers several contributions to research on corporate governance and
sustainability reporting practices. First, our study results contribute to the already existing
literature on the importance of corporate governance mechanisms in promoting
sustainability reporting practices, which is still a voluntary exercise (Tumwebaze et al.,
2021; Injeni et al., 2021; Jamil et al., 2020; Mudiyanselage, 2018) by providing first time
JGR evidence on the association between board role performance and sustainability reporting
13,3 practices. This study also contributes to perception-based studies on sustainability
reporting practices in developing countries (Tauringana, 2021; Tumwebaze et al., 2021).
Regulators of financial services firms and the regulators of accountancy profession in
Uganda [Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda (ICPAU)] need to require firms
in Uganda to adopt sustainability reporting practices. This could be better if the regulators
320 adopted the GRI sustainability reporting standards as we wait for the harmonization
between the sustainability accounting standards board of the IFRS foundation and the GRI.
To practitioners, our results suggest that to improve sustainability reporting practices,
board of directors should perform their service roles such as acquiring resources necessary
for improving reporting of the firm, promoting innovations and development of skills of
staff.
The rest of the contents of the paper are organized as follows: Section 2 presents the
theoretical foundation, a review of empirical literature and development of the research
hypotheses. In Section 3, we present the methodology describing the sample and research
design. The results are presented in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the study results.
Section 6 is study implications while Section 7 is the conclusion.

2. Literature review
2.1 Theoretical foundation
This study uses the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2010) in explaining
the relationship between board role performance and sustainability reporting practices.
Stakeholder theory has largely two branches, which are the managerial branch and the
ethical/normative branch. The managerial branch emphasizes on the primary stakeholders
of an organization such as financiers, suppliers, employees, customers and communities
(Freeman et al., 2010) and views government, media, special interest groups, consumer
advocate groups and competitors as secondary stakeholders. The ethical branch considers
all stakeholders as important to the organization (Freeman et al., 2010) and as such require
sufficient information disclosures. According to Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021), it is
important that there is adequate information disclosures to various stakeholders regardless
of whether such stakeholders will use the information or not. However, to be able to provide
such information disclosures on economic, environmental and social performance in a single
report, the board needs to perform their roles especially those found in literature. There
seems to be consensus on what board roles are. For example, Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021)
indicate that board roles are categorized as strategic roles, service roles and control/
monitoring roles. This is consistent with prior recent studies such as Bananuka et al. (2019)
and Nalukenge et al. (2018). It is, therefore, expected that if the board is effective through
performing their roles, then it is likely that there will be improved sustainability information
disclosures.

2.2 Board strategic role and sustainability reporting practices

Board strategic role involves the board participating in developing mission, selecting and
supporting the implementation of selected strategies of the firm (Nkundabanyanga et al.,
2014; Nalukenge et al., 2018; Bananuka et al., 2019). To the best of the author’s knowledge,
there are hardly studies directly examining relationships between board strategic role and
sustainability reporting practices. However, there are existing studies relating board
strategic role to internet financial reporting (Bananuka et al., 2019) and organizational
performance (Zhu et al., 2016). In their study exploring the adoption of internet financial
reporting among financial institutions in Uganda, Bananuka et al. (2019) found board
strategic role to be positively and significantly associated with internet financial reporting. Board role
Zhu et al. (2016) revealed that through strategic board meetings, boards ensure that performance
corporate strategy is well thought and executed which enhances organizational
performance. In addition, Zhu et al. (2016) found that board strategic role positively impacts
and
innovation abilities in both for-profit and non-profit organizations. In this case, on sustainability
sustainability reporting is an innovation in corporate reporting and so may be influenced by
the board strategic role performance. We thus hypothesize that:
321
H1. Board strategic role and sustainability reporting practices are related.

2.3 Board service role and sustainability reporting practices

Board service role involves advising and counseling to management, acquiring key
resources, networking and enhancing the reputation of the firm (Jansen, 2021; Pearce and
Zahra, 1991). Studies establishing relationships with board service roles are uncommon. A
few available studies such as Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) document a positive and
significant association between board service role and environmental performance reporting
among large manufacturing firms in Uganda. Using a content analysis and survey
questionnaires, Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) further reveal a positive influence of board
service role on environmental management accounting. However, Bananuka et al. (2019)
found board service role not significant for the adoption of internet financial reporting.
Because board service role involves legitimization of the firm in the external environment,
providing advice on new ways of operations within the firm and helps in acquiring scarce
resources such as finances to acquire equipment necessary for improved reporting, we
believe that it can influence sustainability reporting practices. We then hypothesize that:

H2. Board service role and sustainability reporting practices are related.

2.4 Board control role and sustainability reporting practices

Board control role requires the board to monitor management activities by ensuring that
shareholders wealth is protected (Nkundabanyanga et al., 2014). The board control role
enhances the board to exercise full control of the affairs of business operations, including
information disclosure practices such as sustainability reporting (Biondi and Rebérioux,
2012). Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) noted that board control role performance is positive
and significantly associated with environmental performance reporting. Additionally,
control role performance of the board enhances environmental management accounting
(Nkundabanyanga et al., 2021). Also, Bananuka et al. (2019) found board control role
performance to be positive and significantly associated with internet financial reporting.
Aliyu (2019) reported that frequent board meetings through which board performs its
control and monitoring function increase the likelihood of preparing environmental reports.
Given the findings in the above studies, we therefore hypothesize that:

H3. Board control role and sustainability reporting practices are related.

2.5 Board role performance and sustainability reporting practices

Corporate governance literature identifies the board of directors being an important organ of
the firm responsible for safeguarding the interests of different stakeholders (Frias-Aceituno
et al., 2013). The board monitors management decisions to reduce the conflicting interests
JGR between management and shareholders (Jamil et al., 2020). The monitoring role of the board
13,3 is mainly discharged through provision of conclusive information about the corporate
activities through sustainability reporting (Frias-Aceituno et al., 2013; Jamil et al., 2020).
Studies that directly link board role performance to sustainability reporting practices are
uncommon. However, there are studies that link the board to sustainability reporting
practices (Injeni et al., 2021; Jamil et al., 2020; Mudiyanselage, 2018). Using evidence from
322 Malaysia, Jamil et al. (2020) found that board of directors’ sustainability-related experience
significantly impacts on sustainability reporting quality. Mudiyanselage (2018) documented
a positive impact of board size, board independence and female directors on sustainability
reporting using evidence from content analysis of 100 listed companies in Sri Lanka. While
Bueno et al. (2018) found voluntary disclosure is significantly influenced by the number of
women on board, they found no significant association with the proportion of independent
directors. Board role performance has also been linked to environmental performance
disclosures (Nkundabanyanga et al., 2021), internet financial reporting (Bananuka et al.,
2019), compliance with mandatory disclosure requirements (Nalukenge et al., 2018;
Nalukenge, 2020) and financial reporting quality (Kaawaase et al., 2021). All the above
studies document significant associations. In terms of sustainability reporting, we believe
that in organizations where the board of directors execute their roles, there will be improved
disclosures of information on economic, social and environmental activities. The board role
performance enables the board to have control of all activities, provide an oversight that all
organizational activities are carried out in compliance with relevant laws such as labour and
environmental laws and management of the organizational information systems. The board
in that case will ensure availability of resources and personnel skills to have sustainability
reports prepared. We therefore hypothesize that:

H4. Board role performance and sustainability reporting practices are related.

2.6 Board role performance and economic sustainability reporting practices

There are hardly any studies that directly link board role performance to economic
sustainability disclosures. However, Bananuka et al. (2019) found board role performance to
be a significant predictor of internet financial reporting. Further, Kaawaase et al.. (2021)
found board role performance to be positively and significantly associated with financial
reporting quality. Nalukenge et al. (2018) found board role performance to enhance
compliance with IFRS disclosure requirements. Also, Nalukenge (2020) found board role
performance to be positively and significantly associated with IFRS disclosure requirements
in Uganda. Elsewhere, in Canada, using evidence from interviews with directors in the
Directors’ college, Zhu et al. (2016) found board role performance to be significantly
associated with profitability as a proxy of organizational performance among profit-oriented
firms. If board role performance is positively related to all those aspects of financial
reporting, then it could have the same impact on economic sustainability reporting:

H5. Board role performance and economic sustainability reporting practices are related.

2.7 Board role performance and social sustainability reporting practices

Powerful boards influence the creation and maintenance of organizational values that are set
to contribute effectively to the social mission of the company (Pearce and Zahra, 1991).
Frias-Aceituno et al. (2013) argue that board role improves good corporate social
responsibility practices and implements processes and policies toward achieving corporate
transparency. Frias-Aceituno et al. (2013) investigated the role of the board in terms of board Board role
size, independence, board level of activity and board diversity in the dissemination of performance
integrated corporate social reporting using evidence of 568 companies from 15 countries.
Their results indicate that board diversity and board size positively influence integrated
and
corporate social reporting, whereas no relationship was reported with board independence sustainability
and board activity levels. Amorelli and García-S
anchez (2020) indicate that board of
directors’ human capital in terms of their back ground, skills and experience greatly
influence board commitment toward corporate social responsibility concerns. Based on the 323
foregoing discussion, we hypothesize that:

H6. Board role performance and social sustainability reporting practices are related.

2.8 Board role performance and environmental sustainability reporting practices

Although empirical studies that establish a direct association between board role
performance and environmental sustainability reporting are scarce, Nkundabanyanga et al.
(2021) recently studied the effect of board role performance on environmental performance
disclosure. Using a cross-sectional research design, Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) found a
positive and significant association between board role performance and environmental
performance disclosure but this is better observed through environmental management
accounting. Following from Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) study, we reason that, boards in
performance of their strategic role, they evaluate present and future opportunities, threats
and risks in the external environment. They may view environmental reporting practices as
an opportunity to improve firm image, while failure to adopt such reporting practices could
be perceived as a threat to the firm’s image. We also reason that the board monitors
managers’ activities to ensure that they are acting in the interest of firm stakeholders,
including the regulatory authorities such as national environmental management authority
(NEMA). This means that the board may check whether management is complying with
environmental laws through the various disclosures on environmental performance.
Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H7. Board role performance and environmental sustainability reporting practices are
related.

3. Methodology
3.1 Design and sample
This study is cross-sectional and correlational. The study population comprised 62 financial
services firms in Uganda. Usable questionnaires were received from 48 financial services
firms. The unit of inquiry includes the Chief Finance Officers and the Heads of internal
audit. The unit of analysis is the financial service firm. The summary of sample
characteristics is presented in Table 1. For the unit of inquiry, the male respondents were 41
(or about 66.1%) and the female respondents were 21 (or about 33.9%). About 79% were in
the age bracket of 30 years and above. In regards to highest education level attained, about
66% had completed university education (bachelor’s degree) and 25.8% had master’s
degree. Furthermore, 56.6% were members to the Institute of Certified Public Accountants
of Uganda, 33.9% were members to Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)
and 9.6% were members of other professional bodies. This means that the respondents were
able to comprehend the questions asked in the questionnaire and it also implies that they
were professional accountants. In total, 63% of the respondents had a work experience in the
JGR Background information Frequency (%)
13,3
Gender
Male 41 66.1
Female 21 33.9
Total 62 100
Age
324 Less than 30 years 13 21.0
30 years and above 49 79.0
Total 62 100
Education
Diploma 1 1.6
Bachelor’s degree 41 66.1
Master’s degree 16 25.8
PhD 1 1.6
Others 3 4.8
Total 62 100
Professional qualification
CPA 35 56.5
ACCA 21 33.9
Others 6 9.6
Total 62 100
Length of service
Less than 5 years 23 37.1
5–10 years 26 41.9
10–15 years 10 16.1
15 years and above 3 4.8
Total 62 100
Table 1.
Respondent profile Source: Primary data

same firm for a period of more than five years and this means that they had the necessary
experience for this study. The respondent’s profile is found in Table 1.

3.2 Questionnaire and measures

Data for this study was collected using a six-point scale questionnaire ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). The questionnaire was designed based on a
review of theoretical underpinnings and empirical literature of board role performance and
sustainability reporting practices. Board role performance is the independent variable and it
was measured in terms of control, strategic and service roles. This is in line with previous
scholars such as Nalukenge et al. (2017), Nkundabanyanga et al. (2014), Maassen (1999) and
Pearce and Zahra (1991). Specifically, for control role, the issues examined included activities
of the board in ensuring protection of the shareholder’s wealth; for strategic role, the issues
examined included aspects of defining business, developing the mission, scanning the
environment and selecting and implementing a choice of strategies; while for service role, the
issues examined included aspects of coopting external influences, realizing contacts between
board members and relevant individuals to ensure availability of resources, enhancement of
the company’s reputation and also advising management in decision-making.
Sustainability reporting practices is the dependent variable and it was measured using
GRI 2016 standards indicators (economic, social and environmental indicators). Specifically,
a disclosure index was computed. A score of 1 was awarded if the items in the checklist
appeared in the annual reports and a score of 0 otherwise. After scoring, a percentage level Board role
of disclosure on any the performance indicator was computed, where number of items performance
disclosed was divided by the total number of required disclosures. After obtaining the
percentage level of disclosures on a given indicator, the percentage was put on a Likert scale
and
of 1–6 to match the scale of the predictor variables. The objective was not to confuse sustainability
respondents because they were already used to a four-point Likert scale on the independent
variables. In this case, 0%–16.7% = 1; 16.8%–33.4% = 2; 33.5%–50.1% = 3; 50.2%–66.8% =
4; 66.9%–83.5% = 5 and 83.4%–100% = 6. This approach has been successfully used by 325
previous scholars (Tumwebaze et al., 2021; Nkundabanyanga et al., 2021; Kılıç and Kuzey, 2018;
Nalukenge et al., 2018).
The control variables in this study are firm age (AGE), firm size (SIZE, auditor type
(AUD) and board gender (GEN). These are measured as dummy variables. We provide
details on measurement of variables in Table 2.

Variable Acronym Variable description

Dependent variable
Sustainability reporting practices SRP Measured based on the disclosure index developed from
the GRI standards 2016 on environmental, social and
economic indicators
Independent variables
Board role performance BOARD Measured by average score of questions on a six-point
Likert scale on service role, control role and strategic role
Strategic role SRO Measured by average score of questions on a six-point
Likert scale
Service role SR Measured by average score of questions on a six-point
Likert scale
Control role CR Measured by average score of questions on a six-point
Likert scale
Control variables
Firm age AGE A dummy variable coded as 0 if the firm has been in
operation for at least 5 years, 1 if the firm has been in
operation for above 5 years but not more than 10 years, 2
if the firm has been in operation for more than 10 years
but not more than 15 years and, 3 if the firm has been in
operation for more than 15 years
Firm size SIZE A dummy variable coded as 0 if the firm employs 50 and
below employees and, 1 if the firm employs more than 50
employees
Auditor type AUD A dummy variable coded as 0 if the firm is audited by the
Big 4 audit firms, 1 if the firm is audited by the small and
medium audit practices and 2 if the firm is always
audited by both the Big 4 audit firms and the small and
medium audit practices
Board gender A dummy variable coded as 0 if the firm’s board of
directors are largely female, 1 if the firm’s board of
directors are largely male and 2 if the firm board of
directors is balanced in terms of gender Table 2.
b0 Constant Measurement of
Ej Error term variables
JGR 3.3 Validity and reliability
13,3 A principal component analysis using varimax rotation method was run on board role
performance variable to extract the underlying factors valid for the study setting. As a first
step, there are two main issues to take into consideration to determine whether the data is
suitable for factor analysis: number of samples (sample size) and the strength of the
relationship between indicators (variables) Pallant (2013). The sample size adequacy was
326 tested through the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO), whereas the strength of the relationship
among variables was assessed through Bartlett’s test of sphericity. KMO values between 0.5
and 0.7 are mediocre, values between 0.7 and 0.8 are good, values between 0.8 and 0.9 are
great and values above 0.9 are superb (Kaiser, 1974; Hutcheson and Sofroniou, 1999). For the
Bartlett’s test, the significant value less than 0.05 indicates that these data do not produce an
identity matrix and are thus approximately multivariate normal and acceptable for further
analysis. The results in Table 3 show that the KMO value for board role performance was
0.755, which was acceptable; and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical
significance (sig = 0.000). Thus, the data was found suitable for factor analysis. It is worth
noting that we found no need to run a factor analysis on the sustainability reporting
practices, simply because we opted for the comprehensive option to gauge the extent of
compliance on the aspects of the GRI 2016 standards by financial services firms in Uganda.
Having established the sample adequacy for factor analysis, we then assessed construct
validity of board role performance using parameters such as the factor loadings and Eigen
values. The recommended cut-off for factor loadings 0.5 and the Eigen values extracted
should be 1 and above (Field, 2009). Three factors meeting these criteria were extracted and
labeled strategic role, service role and control role, respectively (Table 3). We used the
Cronbach’s a test to assess reliability of the instrument. The Cronbach’s a coefficients were
all above 0.7, which suggests that the measures were reliable given that they were above the
recommended cut-off point of 0.7 by Nunnaly and Bernstein (1978).

3.4 Research model

To explore the associations proposed in the research hypotheses, we ran multiple regression
models in two panels – Panel A and Panel B.
In Panel A, we regressed board role performance and its sub-domains on sustainability
reporting practices in separate regressions. The models are specified as follows:

Model 1 : SRP ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ «

Model 2 : SRP ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ b 5 STRþ«

Model 3 : SRP ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ b 5 SVR þ «

Model 4 : SRP ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ b 5 CTR þ «

Model 5 : SRP ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ b 5 BRP þ «

 Board role
Component
Item scale Strategic role Service role Control role
performance
and
Our directors facilitate cross-generational collaboration 0.919 sustainability
The board sets resources aside to achieve the mission of the
financial institution 0.881
Our directors leverage cross-cultural perspectives 0.874
Our board of directors harnesses cross-sector partnerships 0.873 327
The board ensures that corporate strategy is well thought
and executed 0.836
Our directors encourage development of everyone in this
organization to think globally 0.823
The board requires management to have a unique corporate
strategy 0.816
The board reviews the corporate strategy quite often 0.810
The board contributes to strategy development through
careful refinement of strategic plans 0.782
Our directors break down glass ceilings (e.g. encourage and
promote women into senior management positions) 0.757
Our board of directors evaluate present and future
opportunities, threats and risks in the external environment,
and current and future strengths, weaknesses and risks of the
financial institution 0.730
Our board of directors act as a “sounding board” for why a
particular individual is being considered for an executive
position 0.922
Our board of directors extend the financial institution’s
network contacts 0.917
Our financial institution is reputed because of our board of
directors 0.900
The contacts of our board of directors always have the
requisite experience and expertise on particular issues
relevant to the challenges our financial institution faces 0.885
Our board of directors provide advice on new ways of
identifying and developing talent in this financial institution 0.865
Our board of directors act as a source of knowledge
supported by the number of contacts this board accesses 0.865
Our board of directors bring to this financial institution
beneficial ideas obtained elsewhere 0.814
Our board of directors help our financial institution acquire
scarce resources like finances to acquire equipment necessary
for improved reporting 0.582
Our board ensures that the business of the financial
institution is carried on in compliance with all applicable laws
and regulations 0.829
Our board ratifies (approves) major decisions of management 0.825
Our board delegates authority to management and monitors
its implementation 0.822
Our board of directors engages in activities that link our Table 3.
organization to others such as through sustainability Rotated component
information disclosures 0.766 matrix for board role
(continued) performance
JGR
Component
13,3 Item scale Strategic role Service role Control role

Our board members ensure that senior management’s

successes and failures are communicated 0.751
Our board of directors use mutually agreed management
328 performance criteria and business plans as the basis for
monitoring and evaluating management’s performance 0.739
The board monitors managers’ activities to ensure that they
are acting in the interest of owners of this institution 0.738
The board appoints the chief executive/managing director in
this financial institution and can also dismiss 0.724
Our board of directors adapt performance measures to
monitor the implementation of strategy, policies and plans
and the legal/fiduciary obligations affecting business and the
board 0.710
Our board of directors establish mutually agreed
management performance criteria and business plans 0.704
The board presides over important functions such as the
annual general meeting, press meetings, among others 0.618
Eigen values 14.202 5.231 3.512
Percentage variance 28.654 26.780 21.049
Cumulative variance 28.654 55.433 76.483
Notes: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.755; approx. Chi square = 2,130.164; df =
435; Sig = 0.000; Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser
normalization; rotation converged in five iterations
Table 3. Source: Primary data

where SRP is sustainability reporting practices, AGE is firm age, SIZE is firm size, AUD is
auditor type, GEN is board gender, STR is strategic role, SVR is service role, CTR is control
role, BRP is board role performance, b is the constant and « is the error term.
Panel B involved regressing board role performance on the individual sub-domains of
sustainability reporting practices. The models are specified as follows:

Model 6 : ECONSR ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ b 5 BRP þ «

Model 7 : SOCSR ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ b 5 BRP þ «

Model 8 : ENVSR ¼ b 0 þ b 1 AGE þ b 2 SIZE þ b 3 AUD þ b 4 GEN þ b 5 BRP þ «

where ENVSR is environment sustainability reporting, SOCSR is social sustainability

reporting and ECONSR is economic sustainability reporting.

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics for board role performance, sustainability reporting practices and
the variable constructs are presented in Table 4. The objective of this step was to the fit
of the observed data. The means represent the summary of the data while the standard
 n Minimum Maximum Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Variable Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

Sustainability reporting practices 48 1.56 5.51 3.850 0.910 0.523 0.343 1.030 0.674
Economic sustainability reporting 48 2.39 6.00 4.570 1.033 0.760 0.343 0.410 0.674
Social sustainability reporting 48 1.00 5.53 3.570 0.860 0.607 0.343 1.060 0.674
Environmental sustainability reporting 48 1.00 5.60 3.420 0.880 0.380 0.343 1.160 0.674
Board role performance 48 1.78 5.44 3.809 1.020 0.279 0.343 1.001 0.674
Service role 48 2.43 5.71 4.131 0.956 0.028 0.343 1.395 0.674
Control role 48 1.25 6.00 3.864 1.270 0.271 0.343 1.019 0.674
Strategic role 48 1.00 5.38 3.431 1.473 0.417 0.343 1.336 0.674
Board gender 48 1.00 6.00 2.688 1.812 0.646 0.343 0.976 0.674
Firm size 48 0.00 1.00 0.688 0.468 0.835 0.343 1.361 0.674
Firm age 48 0.00 3.00 1.844 1.208 0.531 0.343 1.333 0.674
Auditor type 48 0.00 2.00 0.375 0.606 1.404 0.343 0.999 0.674

Source: Primary data

Descriptive statistics
Table 4.
329
sustainability
and
performance
Board role
JGR deviations show the extent to which the means represent the data (Field, 2009). The mean for
13,3 the dependent variable (sustainability reporting practices) is 3.85 with a standard deviation
of 0.91. This means that, on average, financial services firms in Uganda disclose up to 64%
of the GRI 2016 standards (3.85/6). However, on a scale of 1–6, the minimum score (mean =
1.56) against the dependent variable means that some firms are not yet disclosing the GRI
2016 standards. The mean for board role performance is 3.8. This means that, on average,
330 financial services firms are in agreement with the aspects of board role performance.
Overall, when compared to the statistical means, the standard deviations of the variables are
smaller than their respective means. Thus, the statistical means are a good fit of the
observed data.
Tests of normality were also carried out to confirm the applicability of such parametric
analyses as correlation and regression. We used the skewness and kurtosis values to
confirm this. Results in Table 4 indicate that all the skewness and kurtosis values fall within
the acceptable range of 61, as recommended by Field (2009).

4.2 Correlation analysis

The correlation analysis results are presented in Table 5. The results show that board
role performance has a significant positive associations with sustainability reporting
practices (r = 0.574**, p < 0.01). This means that a positive unit change in the
performance of board roles will result into a 57% improvement in the disclosure of
sustainability information. In terms of the specific board roles, we found that service
role performance is positive and significantly associated with sustainability reporting
practices (r = 0.525**, p < 0.01). This means that a positive unit change in the
performance of board service roles will result into a 52.5% improvement in the
disclosure of sustainability information. For control role, positive and significant
association with sustainability reporting practices exist (r = 0.534**, p < 0.01). This
means that a positive unit change in the board control role will translate into a 53%
improvement in sustainability reporting practices. Positive and significant associations
between board strategic role and sustainability reporting practices exist (r = 0.392**,
p < 0.01). This means that a unit positive change in the strategic role performance by
the board will translate into a 39% improvement in sustainability information
disclosures. In terms of the association between board role performance and economic
sustainability reporting, significant associations were found (r = 0.462**, p < 0.01).
This means a unit positive increase in board role performance will lead to an
improvement in the disclosure of economic sustainability information to the extent of
46%. Also, positive and significant associations between board role performance and
social sustainability reporting exist (r = 0.583**, p < 0.01). So, a unit change in the
board role performance will translate into a 58% improvement in social sustainability
disclosures. Board role performance and environmental sustainability reporting are
positively and significantly associated (r = 0.512**, p < 0.01). Such result means that a
unit change in board role performance will lead to a 51% improvement in the
environmental sustainability disclosures. All the control variables (firm age, firm size,
auditor type and board gender) do not have a significant relationship with
sustainability reporting practices.

4.3 Regression analysis

The study hypotheses were tested using multi-regression analysis. The results for Panel A
regressions are presented in Table 6. In Model 1, we enter the control variables, which are
firm size, firm age, auditor type and board gender, to examine their linkage to sustainability
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sustainability reporting practices (1) 1

Economic sustainability reporting (2) 0.837** 1
Social sustainability reporting (3) 0.953** 0.726** 1
Environmental sustainability reporting (4) 0.932** 0.648** 0.844** 1
Board role performance (5) 0.574** 0.462** 0.583** 0.512** 1
Service role (6) 0.525** 0.385** 0.576** 0.451** 0.877** 1
Control role (7) 0.534** 0.583** 0.508** 0.406** 0.814** 0.714** 1
Strategic role (8) 0.392** 0.207 0.399** 0.421** 0.807** 0.558** 0.367* 1
Board gender (9) 0.261 0.338* 0.252 0.158 0.298* 0.190 0.298* 0.239 1
Firm size (10) 0.198 0.290* 0.130 0.158 0.070 0.077 0.177 0.043 0.133 1
Firm age (11) 0.107 0.058 0.104 0.198 0.194 0.236 0.112 0.153 0.123 0.476** 1
Auditor type (12) 0.204 0.092 0.194 0.245 0.009 0.008 0.090 0.091 0.162 0.103 0.209 1

Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

results
Table 5.
331

Correlation analysis
sustainability
and
performance
Board role
JGR Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Tolerance VIF
13,3
Constant 3.049 2.093 1.338 1.726 1.840 n/a n/a
Independent variables
Board strategic role 0.351** 0.913 1.096
Board service role 0.506** 0.917 1.090
Board control role 0.442** 0.850 1.177
332 Board role performance 0.523** 0.870 1.149
Control variables
Firm age 0.151 0.082 0.037 0.078 0.029 n/a n/a
Firm size 0.262 0.226 0.258 0.159 0.184 n/a n/a
Auditor size 0.240 0.272 0.254 0.186 0.241 n/a n/a
Board gender 0.246 0.181 0.167 0.128 0.116
Model summary
Model F 2.380 3.494 5.995 4.474
R-square 0.181 0.294 0.416 0.348
Adjusted R2 0.105 0.210 0.347 0.270
F vhange 2.380 3.494 5.995 4.474
R2 change 0.181 0.294 0.416 0.348
Durbin–Watson statistic 1.905
Table 6.
Panel A multiple Note: **p < 0.01
regression analysis Source: Primary data

reporting and the results indicate no significant linkage, which is consistent with the
correlation analysis results. This means that the control variables do not explain any
significant variance in sustainability reporting practices and therefore our models are
highly credible because they are not sensitive to the confounding variables. In Models
2, 3 and 4, the indicators of board role performance were regressed with sustainability
reporting practices. The objective was to establish which of the indicators of board
role performance is related strongly with sustainability reporting practices. Results
in Models 2, 3 and 4 revealed significant associations between the sub-domains of
board role performance (strategic role, service role and control role) and
sustainability reporting practices. Therefore, H1, H2 and H3 are supported.
Additionally, of the three indicators, board service role is a stronger predictor (beta =
0.503, p < 0.01), followed by board control role (beta = 0.442, p < 0.01) and board
strategic role (beta = 0.351, p < 0.01), respectively. In regards to the composite board
role performance, the results reveal a significant prediction effect on sustainability
reporting practices (beta = 0.523, p < 0.01). The results provide support for H4.
The results of Panel B are presented in Table 7, where we regressed board role
performance with the indicators of sustainability reporting practices. The objective was to
establish which of the indicators of sustainability reporting practices is more related with
board role performance. The results showed that board role performance is strongly related
with social sustainability reporting (beta = 0.548, p < 0.01), followed by environmental
sustainability reporting (beta = 0.464, p < 0.01) and economic sustainability reporting
(beta = 0.400, p < 0.01), respectively.
Tests for multicollinearity threats were also carried out (Table 6) and we found no
multicollinearity threats, as indicated by the tolerance values and variance inflation factors
(VIFs) that were within the acceptable ranges. Field (2009) recommended tolerance values to
be below 0.2 while VIF values not to exceed 10.
 Economic sustainability Social sustainability Environmental sustainability
Board role
Item reporting reporting reporting performance
and
Constant 2.153 1.128 1.494
Board role performance 0.400** 0.548** 0.464** sustainability
Control variables
Firm size 0.199 0.088 0.228
Firm age 0.107 0.024 0.166 333
Auditor type 0.176 0.232 0.239
Board gender 0.234 0.118 0.008
Model summary Table 7.
Model F 4.410 5.674 4.851 Panel B multiple
R square 0.344 0.403 0.366 regression analysis
Adjusted R square 0.266 0.332 0.291
results of board role
Durbin–Watson statistic 1.857 1.652 1.584
performance and
Note: **p < 0.01 sustainability
Source: Primary data reporting dimensions

5. Discussion of findings
Underpinned by the normative branch of the stakeholder theory, this study investigated the
relationship between the board strategic, control, service role performance and sustainability
reporting practices. This study further investigated the relationship between board role
performance and sustainability reporting practices. Finally, this study investigated the
relationship between board role performance and the three indicators of sustainability reporting
practices as defined by the GRI standards. We found that all the three attributes of board role
performance are positively and significantly associated with sustainability reporting practices.
We also found that board role performance is positively and significantly associated with
sustainability reporting practices. In terms of the individual sustainability reporting indicators as
defined by the GRI, it was found that board role performance is positively and significantly
associated with both indicators of sustainability reporting practices. These results mean that the
boards in performing their roles interact with various stakeholders and understand their needs.
Though the board cannot directly disclose sustainability performance information, it passes those
decisions regarding such disclosures as various stakeholders may require. The finding that board
role performance is significantly associated with sustainability reporting is in agreement with
previous studies on the role of board role performance in improving other reporting practices. For
example, Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) found that board role performance influences
environmental performance disclosures, though this is done through environmental management
accounting. In another study, Bananuka et al. (2019) found that board role performance is
positively and significantly associated with internet financial reporting.
The board in performing its strategic role, it ensures that it facilitates cross general
collaboration, sets aside resources to achieve the mission of the firm, leverages cross-cultural
relationships, harnesses cross-sector partnerships, ensures that the corporate strategy is
well thought and executed, encourages everyone in the firm to think globally, requires
management to have a unique strategy, reviews the corporate strategy quite often,
encourages women into senior management positions and evaluates whether present and
future opportunities, threats and risks in the external environment are able to improve its
corporate reporting practices. For example, encouraging everyone in the firm to think
globally may mean that the firm adopts globally acceptable reporting practices where
JGR disclosures on the planet, people and profits are on the increase because of the several
13,3 environmental hazards that are on the increase. The finding that the board strategic role
performance is positive and significantly associated with sustainability reporting practices
is consistent with previous studies whose focus was on other reporting practices other than
sustainability reporting. For example, Bananuka et al. (2019) found board strategic role to be
positively and significantly correlated with internet financial reporting. Similarly, the
334 strategic role of the board has previously been associated with organizational performance
(Zhu et al., 2016).
The board is known to be critical in evaluating the qualifications of anyone occupying a
managerial position, extends the firm’s network contacts, possess experience and expertise
on a number of issues affecting the firm such as sustainability information disclosures,
provides advice on new ways of identifying and developing talent in the firm, acts as a
source of knowledge and helps in acquisition of scarce resources such as finances to acquire
equipment for improved reporting. In doing that, the board is able to make appropriate
decisions, provide support and resources necessary for improvement in sustainability
reporting practices. This study finding on the positive and significant association between
board service role and sustainability reporting practices is consistent with prior study
findings. For example, Nkundabanyanga et al. (2021) correlation analysis results indicate
that the service role is positively and significantly associated with environmental
performance disclosures. However, this study results contradict with some prior studies
such as those of Bananuka et al. (2019) whose correlation analysis results indicate that the
board service role is not significantly associated with internet financial reporting.
The board while performing its control role ensures that the firm’s business is
undertaken following the applicable laws and regulations, ratifies management decisions,
engages in activities that link our organization to stakeholders, delegates authority to
management and monitors its implementation, ensures that senior management successes
and failures are communicated, ensures that there is an agreed performance criteria set by
the board to monitor management performance, monitors manager’s activities to ensure
they are in the best interest of the shareholders, appoints the executive/managing director
and has powers to dismiss him or her and presides over important functions such as annual
general meetings. In performing all the above monitoring roles, they are able to ensure that
any decisions passed are implemented. This study results are in agreement with previous
studies such as Bananuka et al. (2019), who found that the board control role is positively
and significantly correlated with internet financial reporting.

6. Study implications
This study provides an initial empirical evidence on the association between board role
performance and sustainability reporting practices using evidence from a developing
country. This means that the study contributes to the already existing literature on
sustainability reporting practices in developing countries (Injeni et al., 2021; Tumwebaze
et al., 2021; Tauringana et al., 2021). While Tauringana (2021) sights lack of training,
negative attitude toward sustainability reporting and lack of expertise, this may be as a
result of lack of support from the board. The study further contributes toward perception-
based studies because it uses a questionnaire survey (Tauringana, 2021; Tumwebaze et al.,
2021). This study extends the stakeholder theory by invoking the ethical/normative branch
in explaining the role of board role performance in sustainability reporting practices using
evidence from Uganda – a developing country.
This study results can be used by regulators in ensuring that sustainability reporting
practices are improved. This can done by requiring the board of directors to efficiently
perform their roles and specifically including in their corporate strategies, improved Board role
reporting practices. The regulator of accountancy in Uganda (ICPAU) has always organized performance
the Financial Reporting (FiRe) awards and it is mostly the financial services firms that win and
the awards. What is left for them is the mandating or adoption of the GRI standards for
sustainability reporting or any other legal framework that emphasizes reporting on the
sustainability
economic, social and environmental performances of companies.
Individual companies could voluntarily improve sustainability reporting practices 335
through full adoption of GRI standards. The board needs to pass such decisions because it is
expected that firms that prepare sustainability reports based on GRI minimize resources and
eventually improve their profitability. Companies may begin by preparing sustainability
reports based on the core option and later graduate into the comprehensive option. To be
able to improve sustainability reporting, the board, through their interactions with different
stakeholders, may opt for exchange programmes or send their employees for further
training in sustainability reporting practices.
Umbrella associations such as Uganda Bankers Association could also offer trainings to
their members on how to prepare sustainability reports. Such trainings may not be costly to
finance, though they may involve some minimal costs. Such trainings could be obtained
from University professors and experts at the ICPAU and other organizations such as
Transparency for Sustainable Development.
Investors and the general public may require that financial services firms provide the
necessary disclosures regarding the firm’s economic, social and environmental
performances. This is because, the planet/environment is the source of raw materials,
people/society are the customers of the firm’s products and source of the firm’s labor force
and all these lead to the accumulation of profits. Therefore, without the people and planet, no
profit or wealth can be accumulated.

7. Conclusion
This study aimed to examine among the board role performance attributes, which ones are
critical for sustainability reporting practices; second, to establish the relationship between
the overall board role performance and sustainability reporting practices; and, third, to
establish the relationship between the board role performance and the three dimensions of
sustainability reporting practices. The aim of this study is achieved through a questionnaire
survey of Chief Finance Officers and Heads of Internal Audit in the financial services firms
in Uganda. Results indicate that board role performance and its dimensions are significantly
associated with sustainability reporting practices among financial services in Uganda.
This study has limitations. This study focused on financial services firms in Uganda and
it is possible that such results may not be generalizable in other contexts. To mitigate such
limitations, we used adjusted R square to interpret our results because this is recommended
by Field (2009). Future studies may also focus on other sectors such as manufacturing firms,
which are known for polluting the environment and in other national settings. Given that
literature on sustainability reporting practices in developing countries is still low, more
studies with more independent variables and methodologies are welcome and these will
enable comparison of our findings with such study findings.

References
Aliyu, U.S. (2019), “Board characteristic and corporate environmental reporting in Nigeria”, Asian
Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 2-17, doi: 10.1108/AJAR-09-2018-0030.
JGR Amorelli, M.F. and García-S
anchez, I.M. (2020), “Critical mass of female directors, human capital, and
stakeholder engagement by corporate social reporting”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
13,3 Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 204-221.
Bananuka, J., Night, S., Ngoma, M. and Najjemba, G.M. (2019), “Internet financial reporting adoption:
exploring the influence of board role performance and isomorphic forces”, Journal of Economics,
Finance and Administrative Science, Vol. 24 No. 48, pp. 266-287, doi: 10.1108/JEFAS-11-2018-
0120.
336
Belal, A. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future
prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: an engagement-based study”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 472-494, doi: 10.1108/09513570710748599.
Belal, A.R. and Momin, M. (2009), “Corporate social reporting (CSR) in emerging economies: a
review and future direction”, Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 119-143.
Biondi, Y. and Rebérioux, A. (2012), “The governance of intangibles: rethinking financial reporting and
the board of directors”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 279-293.
Bueno, G., Marcon, R., Pruner-da-Silva, A.L. and Ribeirete, F. (2018), “The role of the board in voluntary
disclosure”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 18
No. 5, pp. 886-910, doi: 10.1108/CG-09-2017-0205.
Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Frias-Aceituno, J.V., Rodriguez-Ariza, L. and Garcia-Sanchez, I.M. (2013), “The role of the board in the
dissemination of integrated corporate social reporting”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 219-233.
Freeman, R. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Marshall, Pitman.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and De Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: The
State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ganesan, Y., Hwa, Y.W., Jaaffar, A.H. and Hashim, F. (2017), “Corporate governance and sustainability
reporting practices: the moderating role of internal audit function”, Global Business and
Management Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 159-179.
Global Reporting Initiative (2021), available at: www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2021/11/global-
reporting-initiative-updates-its-universal-standards-revisions-will-affect-esg-reporting/ (accessed on 10
December 2021).
Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. (1999), The Multivariate Social Scientist, Sage Publications, London.
Injeni, G., Mangena, M., Mathuva, D. and Mudida, R. (2021), “Agency and institutional-related factors
and the heterogeneity of sustainability and integrated report information disclosures in Kenya”,
Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting.
Jamil, A., Ghazali, N.A.M. and Nelson, S.P. (2020), “The influence of corporate governance structure on
sustainability reporting in Malaysia”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1251-1278,
doi: 10.1108/SRJ-08-2020-0310.
Jansen, P.A. (2021), “Board processes revisited: an exploration of the relationship between board
processes, board role performance and board effectiveness in comparable European listed
companies”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 21
No. 7, pp. 1337-1361, doi: 10.1108/CG-08-2020-0361.
Journeault, M., Levant, Y. and Picard, C.F. (2021), “Sustainability performance reporting: a technocratic
shadowing and silencing”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 74, p. 102145.
Kaawaase, T.K., Nairuba, C., Akankunda, B. and Bananuka, J. (2021), “Corporate governance, internal
audit quality and financial reporting quality of financial institutions”, Asian Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 348-366, doi: 10.1108/AJAR-11-2020-0117.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36.
Kılıç, K.M. and Kuzey, C. (2018), “Assessing current company reports according to the IIRC integrated Board role
reporting framework”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 305-333.
performance
Maassen, G.F. (1999), An International Comparison of Corporate Governance Models, Spencer Stuart,
Amsterdam. and
Mudiyanselage, N.C.S.R. (2018), “Board involvement in corporate sustainability reporting: evidence sustainability
from Sri Lanka”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 1042-1056.
Nalukenge, I. (2020), “Board role performance and compliance with IFRS disclosure requirements
337
among microfinance institutions in Uganda”, International Journal of Law and Management,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 47-66, doi: 10.1108/IJLMA-08-2017-0195.
Nalukenge, I., Nkundabanyanga, S.K. and Ntayi, J.M. (2018), “Corporate governance, ethics, internal
controls and compliance with IFRS”, Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 764-786.
Nalukenge, I., Tauringana, V. and Ntayi, J.M. (2017), “Corporate governance and internal controls over
financial reporting in Ugandan MFIs”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 294-317.
Nkundabanyanga, K.S., Balunywa, W., Tauringana, V. and Ntayi, J. (2014), “Board role performance in
service organisations: the importance of human capital in the context of a developing country”,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 646-673.
Nkundabanyanga, S.K., Muramuzi, B. and Alinda, K. (2021), “Environmental management accounting,
board role performance, company characteristics and environmental performance disclosure”,
Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 633-659.
Nunnaly, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1978), “PSychoneric theory”, Second Edition, McGraw-Hil.
Pallant, J. (2013), SPSS Survival Manual. A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, 4th ed.
Allen and Unwin, available at: www.allenandunwin.com/spss
Pearce, J.A. and Zahra, S.A. (1991), “The relative power of GEOs and boards of directors: associations
with corporate performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 135-153.
Tauringana, V. (2021), “Sustainability reporting adoption in developing countries: managerial
perception-based determinants evidence from Uganda”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 149-175.
Tumwebaze, Z., Bananuka, J., Kaawaase, T.K., Bonareri, C.T. and Mutesasira, F. (2021), “Audit
committee effectiveness, internal audit function and sustainability reporting practices”, Asian
Journal of Accounting Research, doi: 10.1108/AJAR-03-2021-0036.
Uyar, A., Karaman, A.S. and Kilic, M. (2021), “Institutional drivers of sustainability reporting in the
global tourism industry”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 105-128.
Zhu, H., Wang, P. and Bart, C. (2016), “Board processes, board strategic involvement, and
organizational performance in for-profit and non-profit organizations”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 136 No. 2, pp. 311-328.

Corresponding author
Zainabu Tumwebaze can be contacted at: ztumwebaze@mubs.ac.ug

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com