CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The importance of human resource (HR) in organizations cannot be overemphasized, as it is

one of the most valuable assets a firm possesses (Salvi, Raimo, Petruzzella & Vitolla, 2022;

Davydenko, Gulnara & Ovechkin, 2021). Human resource management (HRM) practices

play a critical role in determining the operational efficiency of organizations, especially in the

industrial goods sector. In Nigeria, the industrial goods sector is a critical component of the

economy and is responsible for providing essential goods and services that drive economic

growth and development. However, the cost of HR is a major challenge faced by many firms

in the industrial goods sector in Nigeria. This is because the cost of HR is often a significant

portion of a firm's operating budget, and it can have a significant impact on the overall

performance of the firm. As such, understanding the effect of HR cost on financial result is

crucial for firms in the industrial goods sector in Nigeria.

Financial performance refers to the degree to which an organization is able to effectively

utilize its resources to produce desired financial results. It measures how well an organization

is able to convert its inputs into outputs, and how efficiently it is able to perform its core

operations. Financial performance is a key factor in determining an organization's

competitiveness, profitability, and ability to achieve its goals. In general, financial

performance is concerned with maximizing the output from a given set of inputs, minimizing

waste and maximizing the use of resources. In the knowledge economy, efficiency of human

resource is widely recognized as a key factor in enhancing a firm's competitiveness and value

generation (Chelogoi, Tenai & Cheboi, 2019). The industrial goods manufacturing industry,

which plays a significant role in the Nigerian economy, is facing challenges due to changes in

1
the business environment such as shifting customer preferences, market demand, marketing

strategies, and production methods. To maintain their competitiveness and adapt to these

changes, industrial goods companies must focus on improving their human resource, which is

critical for creating competitive advantage and generating value (Abubakar, Ayuba, Ishaya &

Olanrewaju, 2020; Udeh & Okeke, 2020).

Cost of human resource can be used to evaluate the degree of human resource efficiency

which is the extent to which a company's workforce contributes to creating value. It is given a

lot of attention in business literature as it is thought to drive innovation and strategic renewal

in a firm (Davydenko, Gulnara & Ovechkin, 2021). Human resource accounting is used to

manage the employees so that they have a significant impact on the firm's productivity

(Olaoye & Afolalu, 2020). The efficiency and value of human resource are crucial in

achieving organizational goals. However, many industrial goods companies in Nigeria have

yet to establish a system that effectively values, measures, and utilizes their human resource

assets. Human resource is considered efficient when the knowledge, skills, and intellect of the

workforce are used optimally. The global economy has shifted from an industry-based to a

resource-based, and now to a knowledge-based economy (Abubakar, Ayuba, Ishaya &

Olanrewaju, 2020), where only firms that can optimize their human resource will be able to

thrive in the competitive business environment.

The goal of developing human resource, which involves enhancing employee skills and

increasing their knowledge, is to boost the workforce's creativity, innovation, efficiency, and

accuracy. This, in turn, leads to improved operational efficiency and growth. As stated by

Chelogoi, Tenai, and Cheboi (2019), a firm can enhance its performance by acquiring or

creating resources, or by combining resources to outperform its competitors. A high-

performing firm continuously evolves by focusing on the skills, knowledge, and expertise of

2
its workers, while also paying attention to other resources like equipment, land, and finance.

In the current knowledge-based economy, firms must create value and maximize wealth

through optimal use of human capital. Human resource development is crucial for

organizations to stay ahead in the market. The skills and knowledge of the workforce are a

critical resource that can drive innovation and increase efficiency in the workplace. By

investing in the development of their employees, organizations can create a more capable and

knowledgeable workforce that can contribute to the growth and success of the company. A

well-trained and knowledgeable workforce can also lead to improved customer satisfaction

and increased competitiveness. Finally, human resource development can also help

organizations retain their top talent, as employees are more likely to stay with a company that

invests in their professional growth (Chelogoi, Tenai, & Cheboi, 2019).

Furthermore, it is believed that improving human resource efficiency has the potential to

increase the firm's revenue, assets, and stock price, as a highly efficient human capital can

provide a strong competitive advantage for the company. Human resource costs play a critical

role in the financial performance of industrial goods firms. High human resource costs can

impact the bottom line of a company and affect its competitiveness. By improving the

efficiency of the human capital, firms can reduce the costs associated with human resources

and improve their overall financial performance. Additionally, a highly skilled and

knowledgeable workforce can increase productivity and help firms to respond more

effectively to changes in the market and customer demands. Thus, investing in human capital

development can not only reduce costs, but also improve financial performance and enhance

the competitiveness of industrial goods firms.

However, the ongoing economic challenges in the Nigerian manufacturing industry and the

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in layoffs at some firms struggling with

3
rising personnel costs. It can also be difficult for these firms to allocate resources for off-job

training due to demanding work schedules. Many employees in the industrial goods sector

lack opportunities for further education, as companies prioritize meeting financial targets.

Even when firms do invest in staff development, other factors such as health care and other

benefits for personnel can hinder these efforts. Sadly, some employees who receive training

and skill development may lack motivation to effectively use their newfound knowledge and

skills for the benefit of the firm, leading to a lack of efficiency in human capital and a

decrease in corporate growth. This study seeks to understand the impact of human resource

costs on the financial performance of publicly-traded industrial goods firms in Nigeria.

1.2 Statement of Problem

The productivity and performance of an industrial goods firm can be improved through the

development and improvement of its employees' knowledge and skills. However, some

industrial goods firms have been criticized for not having adequate training and development

programs to enhance human resource efficiency. These firms do not prioritize staff training,

and when they do, it is often done in an inconsistent manner. Moreover, the cost of staff

development is often treated as an expense instead of being recognized as an asset in

traditional corporate reporting. As a result, human resource inefficiencies occur when

employees' expertise, skills, knowledge, and competence are not optimally utilized to drive

the firm's productivity and growth.

Consequently, the inadequate development of human resources in Nigeria has led to a range

of difficulties that have hindered the growth potential of firms. These shortcomings have

caused a decline in customer loyalty, increased production costs, a loss of market

competitiveness, unsteady profitability, and a decrease in sales. Inefficient human capital is a

sign of subpar corporate productivity, indicating that the firm has not utilized its resources

4
effectively to create more value for shareholders. As a result, shareholder wealth is not

optimized and the share price drops, along with poor operational performance.

There have been numerous studies conducted to explore the relationship between human

resource costs and corporate performance. Examples include research conducted by Salvi,

Raimo, Petruzzella and Vitolla (2022); Davydenko, Gulnara, and Ovechkin (2021), Olaoye

and Afolalu (2020), Abubakar, Ayuba, Ishaya, and Olanrewaju (2020), Xu and Liu (2020),

Udeh and Okeke (2020), Muhammad (2020), Azlina, Atan, and Amrizah (2017), Omodero

and Worlu (2016), Ajike and Danjuma (2016), Omete (2016), Munjuri, Obonyo, and Ogutu

(2015), among others. However, there is a scarcity of research that has specifically examined

the effect of human resource costs on the financial performance of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria. This study is intended to fill this research gap.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to examine the extent to which human resource costs affect

financial performance of listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria. The following are the

specific objectives of the study.

1. To determine the extent to which total staff costs affect return on asset of listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria.

2. To determine the extent to which employee benefit costs affect return on assets of

listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria.

3. To determine the extent to which salaries and wages affect the return on assets of

listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria.

5
1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions were raised to address the objectives of the study.

1. To what extent do total staff costs affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria?

2. To what extent do employee benefit costs affect the return on asset of listed industrial

goods firms in Nigeria?

3. To what extent do salaries and wages affect the return on asset of listed industrial

goods firms in Nigeria?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses stated in the null (H 0) and alternate (H1) are going to be

tested in the study.

Hypothesis one:

H0; Total staff costs do not significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria.

HI; Total staff costs significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods firms in

Nigeria.

Hypothesis Two:

H0; Employee benefit costs do not significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial

goods firms in Nigeria.

HI; Employee benefit costs significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria.

6
 Hypothesis Three:

H0; Salaries and wages do not significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria.

HI; Salaries and wages significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods firms

in Nigeria.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The present study shall be found significant by various stakeholders in Nigeria and abroad.

For example, investors, mangers of firms, policy makers, academia and the general public

shall find the results of the present study significant.

1. Investors: Potential and current investors in Nigeria shall find this study significant

because when completed, investors would be made aware of the empirical nexus between

human resource costs and financial performance of industrial goods firms in which they want

to invest or they have already invested. This will assist them in their investment decision-

making.

2. Firm Managers: Firm managers stir the corporate affairs of the organisation they manage.

It is in their own interest to ensure they manage the firm human capital resources optimally

for a high return. One of the ways by which firm human resource is managed is through

human capital development and training. This study will provide managers with the

knowledge of the effect of human resource costs on financial performance so that managers

could make better informed managerial decisions in terms of resources that will be allocated

to human capital training and development.

7
3. Body of Academia: In the future, other researchers may want to carry out a similar study.

They shall then find this work a significant reference material for consultation and review.

4. The General Public: For the interest of the general public who may want to know the

extent of effect which human resource costs relate to financial performance, this study shall

serve as a material for consultation to them.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The present study determines the relationship between human resource costs and financial

performance. The study solely focuses on the listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria. The

study covers a ten year accounting year periods that spanned from 2013 to 2022. The variable

scope of the study is that human resource cost is measured by salaries and wages expense,

total staff costs and employee benefits costs, while financial performance is represented by

return on asset.

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms

Employee benefits costs: Employee Benefit Costs refer to the expenses incurred by an

organization for providing benefits to its employees, such as health insurance, retirement

plans, and paid time off.

Human resource cost: Human resource costs refer to the total expenses incurred by an

organization in managing its workforce, including salaries, benefits, training, and recruitment

costs.

Financial Performance: This refers to the ability of an organization to use its resources

effectively to achieve its financial objectives.

8
Return on Assets: This is the ratio of earnings after tax to total assets.

Salaries and wages expense: The official compensation that paid to employees for the work

that they perform.

Total staff costs: These refer to the total expenditure on employees.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Conceptual Framework

2.1.1 Human Resource Costs

Human resource costs refer to the total expenses incurred by an organization in managing its

workforce, including salaries, benefits, training, and recruitment costs (Bassey & Tapang,

2012). They are the financial investment made by an organization in acquiring, developing,

and retaining its employees (Salvi, Raimo, Petruzzella & Vitolla, 2022). Human resource cost

is the amount of money an organization spends on its workforce to ensure that it has the

necessary skills, knowledge, and abilities to perform its functions (Olaoye & Afolalu, 2020).

That is, human resource cost is the financial value of the human capital that an organization

possesses, including its employees' knowledge, skills, and experience (Pudlowski, 2009). It is

the expense that an organization incurs in managing its workforce, including the cost of

hiring, training, and compensating employees. Human resource cost involves the cost

associated with maintaining a productive and engaged workforce, including the cost of

employee engagement programs, benefits, and rewards (Apornak, Raissi, Keramati &

Khalili-Damghani, 2021). This is the investment an organization makes in its employees'

professional growth and development, including the cost of training, coaching, and mentoring

programs.

Human resource costs are one of the most significant expenses for any organization. These

costs can include salaries, benefits, training and development programs, and other expenses

associated with managing employees (Bassey & Tapang, 2012). Proper management of these

costs is essential for an organization to remain competitive in the market and achieve its

objectives (Olaoye & Afolalu, 2020). When human resource costs are effectively managed, it

10
can lead to a motivated and productive workforce (Omodero & Worlu, 2016). This means

that employees are engaged, enthusiastic, and committed to their work, which results in

increased efficiency and effectiveness in achieving organizational goals. When employees

feel valued, they are more likely to go the extra mile to provide high-quality work and

exceptional customer service.

In contrast, poorly managed human resource costs can have a negative impact on an

organization. Low employee morale, high turnover rates, and reduced productivity can result

from inadequate compensation, lack of opportunities for professional growth and

development, and poor work-life balance. These issues can cause employee dissatisfaction,

leading to disengagement and decreased motivation (Davydenko, Gulnara & Ovechkin,

2021). Ultimately, it can result in a decline in firm profitability for the organization.

Therefore, it is essential for organizations to have effective human resource management

practices in place to manage their costs efficiently (Zaid, Jaaron & Bon, 2018). This includes

offering competitive compensation packages, investing in employee training and

development, and providing a positive work environment with adequate support for work-life

balance. By doing so, organizations can create a motivated and productive workforce,

resulting in increased profitability.

2.1.2 Employee Benefit Costs

Employee Benefit Costs refer to the expenses incurred by an organization for providing

benefits to its employees, such as health insurance, retirement plans, and paid time off. They

are the costs associated with providing non-wage compensation to employees, such as

insurance premiums, retirement plan contributions, and vacation pay. Employee Benefit

Costs are the financial resources an organization invests in providing benefits to its

employees, such as wellness programs, employee discounts, and bonuses (Mathis, Jackson,

11
Valentine & Meglich, 2016). They encompass the financial obligations an organization has to

its employees in exchange for their services (Apornak, Raissi, Keramati & Khalili-Damghani,

2021), such as providing medical, dental, vision, and other types of insurance coverage,

retirement benefits, and paid time off.

Employee Benefit Costs refer to the expenses incurred by an organization in providing

various benefits to its employees beyond their regular salary or wages (Bassey & Tapang,

2012). These benefits can include health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, employee

assistance programs, and other benefits that an organization offers to its employees (Omodero

& Worlu, 2016). These benefits are essential for attracting and retaining top talent in a

competitive job market. Providing a comprehensive benefits package demonstrates an

organization's commitment to its employees' well-being and can help to build a positive

reputation as an employer of choice. This, in turn, can help to attract top talent and reduce

turnover rates.

Employee Benefit Costs also play a crucial role in maintaining a motivated and engaged

workforce. When employees have access to benefits such as health insurance and retirement

plans, they feel more secure about their future, which can lead to increased job satisfaction

and commitment to their work (Davydenko, Gulnara & Ovechkin, 2021). Additionally, paid

time off and other benefits can help employees maintain a healthy work-life balance, which

can improve their overall well-being and reduce burnout.

However, providing employee benefits can be expensive for organizations, and managing

these costs effectively is crucial (Calvin, 2017). It requires a balance between providing

competitive benefits packages that attract and retain top talent while keeping costs under

control. Effective management of employee benefit costs involves regularly evaluating the

benefits provided, negotiating with benefit providers to get the best deals, and educating

12
employees on how to use their benefits to maximize their value. Thus, Employee Benefit

Costs are a crucial component of an organization's compensation package and play a vital

role in attracting and retaining top talent while maintaining a motivated workforce ( Olaoye &

Afolalu, 2020). Managing these costs effectively is essential to ensure that an organization

can provide competitive benefits packages while keeping costs under control.

2.1.3 Salaries and Wages

Salaries and wages refer to the compensation that an organization pays to its employees for

the work that they perform (Calvin, 2017). These payments can be made on a regular basis,

such as weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly, and can vary based on factors such as job role,

experience, and performance. Salaries and wages are a major component of an organization's

human resource costs, which also includes expenses such as benefits, training, and

recruitment (Kamaruddin, Abdullah & Ayob, 2018). These costs can have a significant

impact on an organization's budget, particularly for businesses that employ a large number of

workers or have high-paying positions.

Managing salary and wage costs is important for organizations to ensure that they are able to

meet their financial goals and remain competitive in their industry (Mathis, Jackson,

Valentine & Meglich, 2016). This may involve developing compensation strategies that

balance the need to attract and retain talented employees with the need to manage costs

effectively (Calvin, 2017). Effective management of salaries and wages can also help to

create a positive workplace culture by fostering trust and engagement among employees. This

can lead to increased productivity, better employee retention, and a stronger overall

performance for the organization.

2.1.4 Staff Costs

13
Staff costs refer to all expenses that an organization incurs in relation to its staff, including

both direct and indirect costs (Mathis, Jackson, Valentine & Meglich, 2016). These costs

include salaries and wages, bonuses, benefits, training and development expenses, social

security contributions, and other employment-related expenses such as recruitment costs and

severance payments (Salvi, Raimo, Petruzzella & Vitolla, 2022). Effective management of

staff costs is critical to the success of an organization, as these expenses can have a

significant impact on an organization's financial performance. Excessive staff costs can lead

to reduced profitability, while insufficient investment in staff can result in reduced

productivity, low morale, and high staff turnover (AlBattat & Som, 2013).

To manage staff costs effectively, organizations need to carefully monitor and analyze their

spending on staff-related activities (Bassey & Tapang, 2012). This may involve developing a

comprehensive budget for staff costs, which includes all direct and indirect costs associated

with staff (Apornak, Raissi, Keramati & Khalili-Damghani, 2021). Organizations may also

need to conduct regular reviews of their staffing levels to ensure that they are optimized for

efficiency and productivity. Training and development expenses are another important

component of staff costs (Omodero & Worlu, 2016). Investing in employee training and

development can help to improve staff skills and knowledge, which can lead to increased

productivity, higher staff retention, and improved organizational performance (Davydenko,

Gulnara & Ovechkin, 2021).

Finally, it is important for organizations to consider the wider impact of staff costs on their

business operations. This includes ensuring compliance with employment laws and

regulations, managing employee relations effectively, and fostering a positive workplace

culture that promotes employee engagement and retention. By managing staff costs

14
effectively, organizations can create a productive, efficient, and engaged workforce that

drives their success.

2.1.5 Financial Performance

Financial performance refers to an organization's capacity to utilize its resources efficiently in

order to attain its financial goals and objectives (Madanhire & Mbohwa, 2016). It

encompasses the process of streamlining business operations and workflows to minimize

wastage, enhance productivity, and elevate overall financial outcomes (Lee & Johnson,

2014). Financial performance is the ability to manufacture goods or offer services at the

lowest feasible expense while upholding quality and meeting customer expectations. Often

presented as the ratio of input to output, with inputs constituting resources used and outputs

representing accomplished results (Jeong & Phillips, 2001), financial performance involves

swift adaptation to evolving market conditions, customer requirements, and competitive

forces (Bauer, 2018).

Predominantly, the determination of financial performance hinges on the capacity to make

well-informed decisions grounded in precise and timely data, which empowers organizations

to promptly and effectively respond to both opportunities and challenges (Baik, Chae, Choi &

Farber, 2013). This is underpinned by the skill to astutely manage resources, curtail waste,

and deliver consistent high-quality products or services. Encompassing the optimization of

varied resources such as human capital, financial reservoirs, technology, and processes, the

concept of financial performance aspires to attain intended outcomes with efficiency and

cost-effectiveness. Several elements impact an organization's financial performance,

including management methodologies, organizational configuration, cultural ethos, and

15
external dynamics like market forces and competitive landscapes (Baik, Chae, Choi &

Farber, 2013). Skillful management of these factors holds the potential to elevate firm

efficacy, augment productivity, diminish expenses, and elevate overall financial outcomes

(Abubakar, Ayuba, Ishaya, & Olanrewaju, 2020).

2.1.6 Return on Assets

Return on Assets (ROA) serves as a metric for assessing a company's profitability in relation

to its total asset base. This metric quantifies the net income achieved as a percentage of the

total assets invested by the firm. Notably, ROA is widely recognized as a vital gauge of a

company's profitability compared to its total assets. It offers analysts, investors, and managers

a clear insight into the efficiency with which a company employs its assets to generate

earnings. Within the realm of financial statement analysis, this ratio holds significant

importance as it elucidates a company's ability to generate profit through the utilization of its

assets. ROA can also be interpreted as a ratio that gauges the effectiveness of an industry in

yielding profits from its owned assets. Assets optimized for optimal utilization augment

income generation; hence, Return on Assets (ROA) encapsulates the net income – the

difference between total income and expenses – relative to the average total assets. This

metric effectively communicates how a company's assets are leveraged in the process of

income generation.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 System Theory

Hungarian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy was the pioneer propounder of Systems Theory.

Originally developed in the fields of biological and social engineering sciences, this theory

has been embraced by social scientists to explain social and organizational phenomena. The

16
theory fundamentally focuses on the interdependence and interaction of sub-systems that

comprise a super-system (Githinji, 2014). Organizations receive inputs such as people, raw

materials, money, and information from this interaction, which are then transformed into

outputs and exported back to the environment (Degraft-Otoo, 2012). Interacting with the

environment is necessary for organizational survival and growth

According to Systems Theory, an organization operates as a unified entity, with various sub-

systems working collaboratively to achieve its objectives (Yawson, 2013). The theory posits

that an organization is considered functional only when all its sub-systems are efficient and

effective (Swanson, 2022). The rationale behind this lies in the functional interconnectedness

of the parts, which prioritizes efficiency as crucial for the survival of the organization and the

attainment of its goals, as noted by Degraft-Otoo (2012). Therefore, in this approach, the

development of Human Resource Assessment (HRA) programs is linked to the development

of a weapon system, where the objectives that individuals must achieve on the job become

the behavior that the HRA system must produce (Iwu, Kapondoro, Twum-Darko & Lose,

2016). The role of the HRA program designer is to select a sequence of learning experiences

that will generate the desired behavior for the entire system to be effective.

In 1978, Wandell French defined personnel functions using the systems theory approach as

an operational process and a model that perceives Human Resource Assessment (HRA)

programs as a complex amalgamation of several sub-processes aimed at enhancing the

capability of individuals and groups to contribute to the attainment of organizational goals.

According Hogarh (2012), this model's theoretical assumption establishes that staff training

and development are integral aspects of the personnel process, and the contributions of sub-

systems must be aggregated to form the whole output and satisfaction. Githinji (2014) reveals

that an organization's system becomes ineffective when there is poor accounting for the

17
human resource, particularly when employees are not well-trained and developed towards

achieving the organization's goals and objectives. An untrained and poorly developed

workforce poses a significant liability to the system. Generally, the systems theory provides a

theoretical framework for studying how HRC influences firm’s operating performance.

2.3 Empirical Review

Salvi, Raimo, Petruzzella and Vitolla (2022) analyzed the effect of human capital disclosure

on the firm value of listed firms. A manual content analysis was used to measure the level of

Human capital information contained in integrated reports. A fixed-effects regression model

was used to analyze 375 observations (a balanced panel of 125 firms for the period 2017–

2019) and test the financial consequences of Human capital disclosure. The empirical

outcomes indicate that human capital disclosure has a significant and a positive impact on

firm value. The findings support the notion that increased levels of HC disclosure are linked

to firms' improved access to external financial resources, consequently enhancing firm value.

Davydenko, Gulnara, and Ovechkin (2021) analyzed the relationship between human capital

efficiency and financial profitability in the agribusiness industry in Russia, using a broad

sample of firms. They employed the system generalized method of moments and Ordinary

Least Square Regression to conduct the analysis. The study found that human capital

efficiency significantly affects the profitability of agricultural businesses in Russia.

Abubakar, Ayuba, Ishaya, and Olanrewaju (2020) investigated the effect of Intellectual

Capital (IC) on the financial performance (FP) of all listed deposit money banks in Nigeria

for the period of 2013-2017. The study used multiple regression analysis to test four

hypotheses at a 5% level of significance. The results indicated that human capital efficiency

has a positive and significant effect on return on assets (ROA).

18
Muhammad (2020) examined the relationship between human capital efficiency and financial

performance of non-financial publicly quoted firms in Pakistan. The study used an ex-post

facto research design and unbalanced panel data of 152 firms quoted on the Pakistan Stock

Exchange from 2012 to 2018. The study employed pooled Ordinary Least Square regression

to test the hypotheses. The results revealed a significant and positive association between

human capital efficiency and return on assets (ROA) of the quoted firms in Pakistan.

Olaoye and Afolalu (2020) conducted a study on the impact of human capital accounting on

Earnings per Share (EPS) of deposit money banks in Nigeria. The study collected secondary

data from annual reports of sixteen deposit money banks listed on the Nigerian Stock

Exchange between 2006 and 2017. The researchers utilized a static panel data of fixed and

random effects to investigate the relationship between human capital accounting and EPS.

They also conducted a post-estimation test (Hausman Test) to select the most consistent

estimator, and the random effect was chosen to achieve the stated objective. The results

indicated that training and development, as well as pension, have a significant positive

relationship with EPS. Other salaries and wages have insignificant positive relationships,

while director’s remuneration (RENMR) has an insignificant negative relationship with EPS.

This implies that training and development, and pension are crucial factors for human capital

accounting to enhance the performance of banks and increase their earnings per share.

Sedeaq (2020) examined the relationship between human capital efficiency and corporate

financial performance of firms in Palestine. The study covered 34 out of 48 companies listed

on Palestine Exchange (PEX) from 2012 to 2018. The findings of the panel data model

revealed that human capital efficiency (HCE) has a positive relationship with return on assets

(ROA).

19
Udeh and Okeke (2020) conducted a study on the impact of Human Capital Efficiency (HCE)

on the profitability of Nigerian deposit money banks. They utilized an ex post facto research

design and collected data from the annual reports and accounts of fifteen (15) Nigerian

deposit money banks listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2018. The study

employed regression analysis using E-view version 9.0 to test their hypotheses. The findings

indicated that HCE had an insignificant positive effect on the profitability of Nigerian deposit

money banks.

Xu and Liu (2020) investigated the influence of human capital efficiency on the performance

of Korean manufacturing firms. Their study spanned five years, from 2013 to 2018, and used

a modified and extended Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC) model to more

accurately measure human capital efficiency. The study systematically and comprehensively

measured firm performance in three distinct parameters: profitability, productivity, and

market value. The data collected were analyzed using regression analysis. The results

revealed that human capital had a positive effect on firm performance in Asian markets.

Hendra and Widya (2018) investigated the impact of human capital efficiency on the

financial performance of non-financial companies listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange

from 2013 to 2014. The study used a sample of 232 companies, and secondary data were

collected from their financial statements. The regression analysis revealed that human capital

efficiency had a negative effect on financial performance.

Vitalis (2018) examined the influence of human capital efficiency on the performance of

companies listed on the Nigeria Stock Exchange. The study selected a sample of 40

companies using multi-phase sampling from the 213 listed on the exchange. The study used

secondary data obtained from the annual reports and accounts of the sampled companies and

20
the Nigeria Stock Exchange Fact Book. The hypotheses were tested using ordinary least

squares, and the results showed that human capital efficiency did not affect asset turnover.

Azlina, Atan, and Amrizah (2017) focused on the relationship between human capital

efficiency and firm performance in the Malaysian technology industry. The study included a

sample of 19 companies from the Main market and 36 from the Ace market. Correlation

analysis showed a significant and positive relationship between human capital efficiency and

firm performance.

Ozkan, Cakan, and Kayacan (2017) examined the correlation between human capital

performance and financial performance of 44 banks in Turkey from 2005 to 2014. The study

used regression analysis and found that human capital efficiency had a positive impact on the

financial performance of the banks.

Similarly, Shafiu, Udin, and Saleh (2017) investigated the effect of intellectual capital on the

financial performance of Nigerian food products companies listed on the Nigerian Stock

Exchange from 2010 to 2014. The study collected data from the fiscal year financial

statements of the sampled firms and focused only on the Nigerian food products companies.

The regression analysis revealed a significant positive influence of intellectual capital on

financial performance.

Ajike and Danjuma (2016) investigated the impact of Human Capital Efficiency on Corporate

Performance of industrial goods companies listed in the Nigerian Stock Exchange Market

over a six-year period from 2009 to 2014. Data were obtained from the annual reports and

financial statements of the sample units, and multiple linear regression models were used to

analyze the relationship between the variables of interest. The results indicated a positive

significant relationship between Human Capital Efficiency and performance measures such

as ROA and EPS.

21
Similarly, Emerole, Ibeh, and Sampson (2016) studied the effect of human capital

development programs on optimizing employee performance in Abia State House of

Assembly. The study's population consisted of 357 employees, and a sample size of 189 was

derived using Taro Yemen formula and simple random sampling technique. Descriptive

statistics and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the data obtained from 165

well-filled and returned questionnaires. The findings revealed that the human capital

development programs employed in Abia State House of Assembly included Training,

Seminar, Workshop, and Skill Acquisition, and logistic regression analysis revealed that

training, seminars, workshops, and skill acquisition were significantly related to employee

performance.

Omete (2016) conducted a study to examine the impact of human capital efficiency on the

financial performance of listed commercial banks at the Nairobi Securities Exchange from

2010 to 2014. The research approach utilized was ex-post facto, and secondary data were

sourced from the annual financial statements of the firms. Regression analysis was used to

test the hypotheses. The findings showed that the Human Capital Efficiency coefficient

significantly affects the financial performance of commercial banks. This implies that the

more efficiently a bank manages its human resources, the better its financial performance.

Omodero and Worlu (2016) investigated the effect of human capital development on the

financial performance of banks in Nigeria. The specific objective of the study was to

determine the extent to which the banks' personnel development and welfare affect Profit

After Tax, Total Revenue, and Net Asset. The research design employed was a cross-

sectional survey design, and multiple linear regression and student t-test were used for the

analysis. It was found that human capital development has a negative effect on the net asset

22
of the firms. This suggests that banks need to pay attention to their personnel development

and welfare to improve their financial performance.

Geert and Shohreh (2015) conducted a study to investigate the effect of human capital on the

financial performance of Dutch production companies. The study used data from 33 Dutch

production companies for a period of six years (2007-2012), and multiple linear regression

models were used to analyze the relationship between the performance of human capital and

organizational performance. The study results revealed a positive relationship between

human capital efficiency and corporate performance. This suggests that efficient management

of human capital can have a significant impact on the financial performance of production

companies in the Netherlands.

A study conducted by Munjuri, Obonyo, and Ogutu (2015) aimed to establish the influence of

human capital on the performance of insurance firms and commercial banks in Kenya. The

study employed a descriptive cross-sectional survey design and conducted a census survey on

all 43 licensed commercial banks and 45 insurance firms in Kenya. The target respondents

were Human Resources Managers, and a questionnaire was used as the data collection

instrument. Out of the 88 firms targeted, 54 responded, resulting in a response rate of 61%.

The study tested hypotheses using simple linear regression analysis. The findings revealed

that the influence of human capital on non-financial measures of firm performance was

statistically significant.

Another study by Ben (2014) ascertained the effects of human capital efficiency on the value

creation of insurance companies in Nigeria. The research design was ex-post facto, and both

primary and secondary data were employed. The target population consisted of 150 workers

in the three strategic departments of human resources, accounts, and marketing of the 18

insurance companies using the purposive sampling technique. Regression analysis was used

23
to test the hypotheses, and 150 questionnaires were distributed to respondents. The results

indicated that human capital efficiency was negatively insignificant on ROE, EPS, and DPS

(P>0.05). The secondary data analysis revealed that human capital was negatively significant

on ROCE at (P<0.05) and ROA at (P<0.05).

Holienka and Pilkova (2014) conducted a study in Slovakia to investigate the relationship

between human capital efficiency and firm performance. The study analyzed panel data from

the financial statements of 1947 Slovak SMEs operating in 10 industries over the years 2008

and 2011. The results of their regression analysis indicated that human capital efficiency

significantly and consistently predicts firm financial performance.

Another study conducted by Odhong, Were, and Omolo (2014) examined the effect of human

capital management drivers on organizational performance. The research employed a case

study design and stratified random sampling, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data

analysis techniques. 98 questionnaires were analyzed to answer the research questions. The

results of the regression analysis demonstrated that leadership practices, employee

engagement, knowledge accessibility, workforce optimization, and learning capacity

adequately explain changes in organizational performance.

Ismaila (2013) investigated the relationship between human capital efficiency and financial

performance of 14 Nigerian banks that were publicly listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

The study utilized regression analysis to test the hypothesis. The results of the analysis

showed that human capital efficiency had no significant impact on the EPS and ROE of

Nigerian banks.

24
2.4 Summary of Empirical Review

Table 2.1: Empirical Literature Reviewed

S/N Author(S) Years Related Objective Statistical Tools Findings
Effect of human capital Human capital disclosure has a
Salvi, Raimo, Fixed-effects regression
1. 2022 disclosure on the firm value significant and a positive
Petruzzella and Vitolla model
of listed firms. impact on firm value
Relationship between
Human capital efficiency
human capital efficiency Generalized method of
Davydenko, Gulnara, significantly affects the
2 2021 and financial profitability moments and Ordinary Least
and Ovechkin profitability of agricultural
in the agribusiness industry Square Regression
businesses in Russia
in Russia
Effect of Intellectual Capital
Human capital efficiency has a
Abubakar, Ayuba, on the financial performance
3 Ishaya, and Olanrewaju
2020 of all listed deposit money
Multiple regression analysis positive and significant effect on
return on assets
banks in Nigeria
Relationship between human
There is a significant and positive
capital efficiency and
Pooled Ordinary Least Square association between human
4 Muhammad 2020 financial performance of non-
regression capital efficiency and return on
financial publicly quoted
assets
firms in Pakistan
Training and development, as
well as pension, have a
Effect of human capital
significant positive
accounting on Earnings per Static panel data of fixed and
5. Olaoye and Afolalu 2020 relationship with EPS. Other
Share (EPS) of deposit random effects
salaries and wages have
money banks in Nigeria.
insignificant positive
relationships
6 Sedeaq 2020 Relationship between Panel data model Human capital efficiency
human capital efficiency (HCE) has a positive
and corporate financial relationship with return on
performance of firms in assets

25
 Palestine.
Impact of Human Capital Human capital efficiency has
Efficiency (HCE) on the an insignificant positive effect
7 Udeh and Okeke 2020 Regression analysis
profitability of Nigerian on the profitability of Nigerian
deposit money banks. deposit money banks
Influence of human capital
Human capital had a positive
efficiency on the
8 Xu and Liu 2020 Regression analysis effect on firm performance in
performance of Korean
Asian markets
manufacturing firms
Effect of human capital
efficiency on the financial
Human capital efficiency has a
performance of non-
9 Hendra and Widya 2018 Regression analysis negative effect on financial
financial companies listed
performance
on the Indonesian Stock
Exchange
Influence of human capital
efficiency on the
Human capital efficiency does
10 Vitalis 2018 performance of companies Ordinary least squares
not affect asset turnover
listed on the Nigeria Stock
Exchange
Relationship between
There is a significant and
human capital efficiency
Azlina, Atan, and positive relationship between
11 2017 and firm performance in Correlation analysis
Amrizah human capital efficiency and
the Malaysian technology
firm performance
industry
Relationship between Human capital efficiency has a
Ozkan, Cakan, and human capital performance positive impact on the
12 2017 Regression analysis
Kayacan and financial performance financial performance of the
of banks in Turkey banks
13 Shafiu, Udin, and 2017 Effect of intellectual capital Regression analysis There is a significant positive
Saleh on the financial influence of intellectual capital
performance of Nigerian on financial performance

26
 food products companies
listed on the Nigerian Stock
Exchange
Impact of Human Capital
there is a positive significant
Efficiency on Corporate
relationship between Human
Performance of industrial
14 Ajike and Danjuma 2016 Multiple linear regression Capital Efficiency and
goods companies listed in
performance measures such as
the Nigerian Stock
ROA and EPS
Exchange
Effect of human capital Human capital development
development programs on programs employed in Abia
Emerole, Ibeh, and
15 2016 optimizing employee Logistic regression State House of Assembly were
Sampson
performance in Abia State significantly related to
House of Assembly employee performance
Impact of human capital
efficiency on the financial Human Capital Efficiency
performance of listed coefficient significantly affects
16 Omete 2016 Regression analysis
commercial banks at the the financial performance of
Nairobi Securities commercial banks
Exchange
Effect of human capital
Human capital development
development on the Multiple linear regression and
17 Omodero and Worlu 2016 has a negative effect on the net
financial performance of student t-test
asset of the firms
banks in Nigeria
Effect of human capital on The study results revealed a
the financial performance positive relationship between
18 Geert and Shohreh 2015 Multiple linear regression
of Dutch production human capital efficiency and
companies. corporate performance
19 Munjuri, Obonyo, and 2015 Influence of human capital Simple linear regression Influence of human capital on
Ogutu on the performance of analysis non-financial measures of firm
insurance firms and performance was statistically
commercial banks in significant.

27
 Kenya
Human capital efficiency was
Effects of human capital
negatively insignificant on
efficiency on the value
20 Ben 2014 Regression analysis ROE, EPS, and DPS; human
creation of insurance
capital was negatively
companies in Nigeria.
significant on ROCE and ROA
Relationship between Human capital efficiency
human capital efficiency significantly and consistently
21 Holienka and Pilkova 2014 Regression analysis
and firm performance in predicts firm financial
Slovakia. performance
Leadership practices,
employee engagement,
Effect of human capital
knowledge accessibility,
Odhong, Were, and management drivers on
22 2014 Regression analysis workforce optimization, and
Omolo organizational
learning capacity adequately
performance.
explain changes in
organizational performance
Relationship between Human capital efficiency had
human capital efficiency no significant impact on the
23 Ismaila 2013 Regression analysis
and financial performance EPS and ROE of Nigerian
of Nigerian banks
Source: Empirical literatures reviewed, 2023

28
2.5 Gap in Literature

Numerous research endeavours have delved into investigating the correlation between human

resource costs and corporate performance. These include inquiries by Salvi, Raimo,

Petruzzella, and Vitolla (2022); Davydenko, Gulnara, and Ovechkin (2021); Olaoye and

Afolalu (2020); Abubakar, Ayuba, Ishaya, and Olanrewaju (2020); Xu and Liu (2020); Udeh

and Okeke (2020); Muhammad (2020); Azlina, Atan, and Amrizah (2017); Omodero and

Worlu (2016); Ajike and Danjuma (2016); Omete (2016); Munjuri, Obonyo, and Ogutu

(2015), among others. However, there exists a current dearth of recent research explicitly

delving into the linkage between human resource costs and the return on assets for listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria. The present study endeavors to address this gap in research

comprehensively.

29
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter illustrates the methodology that was followed in conducting the study. It

explains the research design adopted, the target population, the data collection method used

and how the data was analyzed.

3.2 Research Design

The study aimed to examine the effect of human resource costs on financial performance in

Nigerian industrial goods firms using an ex-post facto research design. This design is an

observational study that investigates the effects of an independent variable that has already

occurred or been manipulated without the researcher's control. This approach was deemed

appropriate for the study as it allows for the analysis of the relationship between variables

and past events, and the data collected cannot be manipulated as the variables have already

occurred in the past.

3.3 Population of the Study

The population of the study comprised 13 industrial goods firms listed on the Nigerian

exchange group as at 31st December, 2022. The population is given below in Table 3.1.

3.1 Population of the Study

1. Austin Laz & Company Plc.
2. Berger Paints Plc.
3. Beta Glass Plc.
4. Bua Cement Plc.
5. Cap Plc.
6. Cutix Plc.
7. Dangote Cement Plc.
8. Greif Nigeria Plc.
9. Lafarge Africa Plc.
10. Meyer Plc.

30
 11. Notore Chemical Ind. Plc.
12. Premier Paints Plc.
13. Tripple Gee and Company Plc.
Source: Nigerian Exchange Group (2021)

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Technique

The researchers selected a total of 5 firms for the study, out of a population of 13 listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria. The purposive sampling technique was utilized, which

enabled the selection of firms that had complete data available from 2013 to 2022.

Additionally, the selected firms were those that had been listed on the stock exchange

between the accounting period of 2013 and 2022. The list of the 5 sampled firms is presented

in Table 3.2. This sampling method was chosen because it allowed the researchers to focus

on firms that had consistent data for the entire period of the study, which would enable them

to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the effect of human resource costs on financial

performance.

Table 3.1 Sample Size of the Study

1. Beta Glass Plc.
2. Cutix Plc.
3. Dangote Cement Plc.
4. Greif Nigeria Plc.
5. Lafarge Africa Plc.
Source: Researcher’s Compilation (2023)

3.5 Instrument for Data Collection

The instrument used for data collection was financial statement of the sampled firms. The

study used secondary data. To ensure that the study elements are complete and consistent, the

researcher collected data for the industrial goods firms that were in operation from 2013 to

2022. The ten (10) year period was considered adequate to provide the data that is in the

analysis.

31
3.6 Validity and Reliability of Research Instrument

Validity refers to the extent to which a research instrument measures what it is supposed to

measure while reliability of a research instrument refers to whether or not the research

instrument yields the same answer as many times it is used. A research instrument is reliable

if it produces stable and consistent results. The financial statements used as the instrument for

data collection are valid and reliable because they have been signed by relevant authorities.

The four most common ways of measuring reliability for any empirical method or metric:

1. Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which raters or observers

respond the same way to a given phenomenon is one measure of reliability.

2. Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability signifies the internal validity of a test and

ensures that the measurements obtained in one sitting are both representative and

stable over time.

3. Parallel forms reliability: Parallel forms reliability measures reliability obtained by

administering different versions of an assessment tool to the same group of

individuals.

4. Internal consistency reliability: Internal consistency measures whether several items

that propose to measure the same general construct produce similar scores.

3.7 Method of Data Collection

To collect data for the study, a secondary data collection method was employed. Specifically,

the annual reports and financial statements of the listed firms in the sample were used to

gather the necessary data. The data collected spanned the accounting periods from 2013 to

2022, enabling the examination of recent trends in human resource costs. This approach

allowed for the retrieval of comprehensive and reliable data that had already been recorded

by the firms themselves.

32
3.7 Method of Data Analysis

The data collected for the study was analyzed using descriptive analysis and Ordinary least

square regression analysis. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize and describe the

characteristics of the dataset. This was done using various statistical methods such as

measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion. The hypotheses of the study were

tested using the estimates from Ordinary Least square regression, with the model below.

ROA= β0+ β1TSCit + β2EBCit + β3SAWit + eit

Where, ROA = Return on Asset

TSC = Total Staff Cost

EBC = Employee Benefit Cost

SAW = Salaries and Wages

β0 = Constant

β1-3 = Coefficients of the Independent Variable

e = error term

i = firm

t = year

33
3.8 Description of Variables

Table 3.3 Measurement of Variables

Variables
1) Return on Assets
2) Total Staff Costs
3) Employee Benefit Costs
4) Salaries and Wages
Source: Researcher’s Concept (2023)
Type Measurement
Dependent Net income/Total assets
Independent Total expenditure on employees
Employee Benefit Costs refer to the
expenses incurred by an
organization for providing benefits
Independent
to its employees, such as health
insurance, retirement plans, and
paid time off
The official compensation that paid
Independent to employees for the work that they
perform

3.9 Decision Rule

In hypothesis testing, the significance level is typically set at 0.05. If the calculated p-value is

less than the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant

effect. Conversely, if the p-value is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis is not rejected, and

it is concluded that there is no significant effect.

34
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the focus is on presenting the collected data and conducting a comprehensive

analysis. The primary objective is to provide a clear overview of the data collected for the

study and to apply various analytical techniques to draw meaningful insights. By presenting

and analyzing the data, this chapter contributes to the understanding of the research topic and

helps address the research questions and objectives.

4.2 Presentation and Descriptive Analysis of Data

The data collected for the study were total staff costs, employee benefit costs, salaries and

wages, and also return on asset.

Table 4.1 Presentation of Data for Total Staff Costs

Firm/ Dangote
Beta Glass Cutix Greif Lafarge
Year Cement
2013 2216462 120485 13997005 52909 7803410
2014 2242099 134457 17605000 52721 8193329
2015 2471542 155086 23513000 58240 10903227
2016 2753551 180091 29122000 64568 6914903
2017 2606314 228574 28762000 71615 15874686
2018 3199672 288560 32613000 72004 16052908
2019 3051411 397441 36912000 74122 16597997
2020 3160154 372421 44415000 27515 19091159
2021 3533516 394216 39963000 24424 22634078
2022 3936757 500004 53883000 10441 20668621
Source: Researcher’s Computation (2023)

Among the firms analyzed, Beta Glass exhibited a peak Total Staff Cost in 2022 at 3936757

and the lowest in 2013 at 2216462. The Total Staff Cost for Beta Glass exhibited a

descending trend across the years, with the highest value observed in 2022 at 3936757,

followed by 3533516 in 2021, 3199672 in 2018, 3160154 in 2020, 3051411 in 2019,

2753551 in 2016, 2606314 in 2017, 2471542 in 2015, 2242099 in 2014, and the lowest

reported in 2013 at 2216462.

35
Cutix Plc. reached its highest Total Staff Cost of 500004 in 2022 and its lowest at 120485 in

2013. For Cutix Plc., the Total Staff Cost displayed an ascending trend over the years, with

the highest value observed in 2022 at 500004, followed by 394216 in 2021, 397441 in 2019,

372421 in 2020, 288560 in 2018, 228574 in 2017, 180091 in 2016, 155086 in 2015, 134457

in 2014, and the lowest reported in 2013 at 120485.

Dangote Cement's highest Total Staff Cost was noted in 2022 at 53883000, followed by

44415000 in 2020, 39963000 in 2021, 36912000 in 2019, 32613000 in 2018, 29122000 in

2016, 28762000 in 2017, 23513000 in 2015, 17605000 in 2014, contrasting with its lowest

point of 13997005 in 2013. Greif Nigeria Plc. followed by 72004 in 2018, 71615 in 2017,

64568 in 2016, and 58240 in 2015. However, the TSC decreased substantially in subsequent

years, reaching its lowest point in 2022 at 10441 experienced its highest Total Staff Cost in

2017 at 71615 and its lowest in 2022 at 10441.

Lafarge Africa Plc's zenith Total Staff Cost occurred in 2022 at 20668621, followed by

20668621 in 2022, 19091159 in 2020, 16597997 in 2019, while its nadir was observed in

2016 at 6914903. In summary, Dangote Cement had the highest Total Staff Cost in 2022,

while Cutix Plc. had the lowest Total Staff Cost in 2013, based on the available data.

Table 4.2 Presentation of Data for Employee Benefit Costs

Firm/ Dangote
Beta Glass Cutix Greif Lafarge
Year Cement
2013 439811 31408 1031711 7162 0
2014 386918 38928 965000 7188 744639
2015 453590 35650 1140000 9211 1363681
2016 488221 41553 1534000 10171 542344
2017 534431 71766 1826000 0 1187296
2018 553989 86988 1075000 0 931099
2019 327738 83048 1259000 0 1122460
2020 317342 77100 1251000 0 1206163
2021 359847 66143 1986000 0 1499842
2022 466838 108097 2871000 1416 1355052
Source: Researcher’s Computation (2023)

36
In terms of employee benefit costs analysis, for Beta Glass, the highest cost was observed in

2022 at 466838, while the lowest was in 2020 at 317342. The Employee Benefit Costs for

Beta Glass demonstrated a varied pattern over the years, with the highest amount recorded in

2022 at 466838, followed by 553989 in 2018, 534431 in 2017, 488221 in 2016, 453590 in

2015, 439811 in 2013, 386918 in 2014, 359847 in 2021, 327738 in 2019, and the lowest

reported in 2020 at 317342. Cutix Plc. had its peak cost in 2022 at 108097 and its lowest in

2013 at 31408.

Dangote Cement recorded the highest employee benefit cost in 2022 at 2871000, followed by

1986000 in 2021, 1826000 in 2017, 1534000 in 2016, and 1259000 in both 2019 and 2020.

The years 2013 and 2014 saw relatively lower EBC values at 1031711 and 965000

respectively.

Greif Nigeria Plc. experienced a rise in employee benefit costs from 2013 to 2016, followed

by 65393 in 2017, and then a sharp decline to 24424 in 2021 and further to 9025 in 2022 but

from 2017 to 2021, the cost remained at zero, followed by a slight increase to 1416 in 2022.

Lafarge Africa Plc's employee benefit costs were initially absent in 2013, followed by a

notable increase in 2014 at 744639. The costs continued to rise until 2021 at 1499842 and

then decreased slightly to 1355052 in 2022. , followed by 1363681 in 2015, 1355052 in 2022,

1206163 in 2020.

Table 4.3 Presentation of Data for Salaries and Wages

Firm/ Dangote
Beta Glass Cutix Greif Lafarge
Year Cement
2013 1776651 89077 12965294 45747 7803410
2014 1855181 95529 16640000 45533 7448690
2015 2017952 119436 22373000 49029 9539546
2016 2265330 138538 27588000 54397 6372559
2017 2071883 156808 26936000 65393 14687390
2018 2645683 201572 31538000 61569 15121809
2019 2723673 314393 35653000 69292 15475537
2020 2842812 295321 43164000 27515 17884996
2021 3173669 328073 37977000 24424 21134236
2022 3469919 391907 51012000 9025 19313569

37
Source: Researcher’s Computation (2023)

Analyzing the table 4.3 for salaries and wages among the firms, Beta Glass displayed a

consistent growth pattern over the years, with the highest recorded amount in 2022 at

3469919 and the lowest in 2013 at 1776651. The Salaries and Wages for Beta Glass

showcased a consistent upward trajectory over the years, with the highest amount reported in

2022 at 3469919, followed by 3173669 in 2021, 2842812 in 2020, 2723673 in 2019,

2645683 in 2018, 2265330 in 2016, 2071883 in 2017, 2017952 in 2015, 1855181 in 2014,

and the lowest recorded in 2013 at 1776651.

Cutix Plc. exhibited a steady upward trend, reaching its peak in 2022 at 391907 and the

lowest point in 2013 at 89077. Cutix’s Salaries and Wages followed the upward trend, with

the highest amount recorded in 2022 at 391907, followed by 328073 in 2021, 295321 in

2020, 201572 in 2018, 156808 in 2017, 138538 in 2016, 119436 in 2015, 95529 in 2014,

89077 in 2013, and the lowest in 2013 at 89077.

Dangote Cement demonstrated substantial salary increases, reaching the highest value in

2022 at 51012000, while it started from 12965294 in 2013. Salaries and Wages (SAW)

showcased a similar trend, with the peak observed in 2022 at 51012000, followed by

43164000 in 2020, 37977000 in 2021, 35653000 in 2019, 31538000 in 2018, 27588000 in

2016, 26936000 in 2017, 22373000 in 2015, 16640000 in 2014, and the lowest in 2013 at

12965294.

Greif Nigeria Plc. showed fluctuations in salaries and wages, hitting the lowest point in 2022

at 9025 after a decline from 2019. Greif’s ROA has the highest in 2019 at 69292, followed by

65393 in 2017, and then a sharp decline to 24424 in 2021 and further to 9025 in 2022

Lafarge Africa Plc. showcased continuous growth, hitting the highest value in 2021 at

21134236, followed by 19313569 in 2022, 17884996 in 2020, 15475537 in 2019 with the

38
lowest in 2016 at 6372559. To summarize, Dangote Cement reported the highest salaries and

wages in 2022, while each firm followed distinct growth trajectories over the years based on

the provided data.

Table 4.4 Presentation of Data for Return on Asset

Firm/ Dangote
Beta Glass Cutix Greif Lafarge
Year Cement
2013 .05 .14 .26 .06 .18
2014 .09 .12 .19 .07 .08
2015 .07 .08 .19 .03 .08
2016 .11 .10 .25 .04 .05
2017 .11 .11 .16 .06 -.02
2018 .11 .16 .28 -.55 .01
2019 .11 .17 .14 -1.80 .05
2020 .06 .11 .17 1.09 .06
2021 .09 .13 .15 -.13 .10
2022 .06 .16 .15 -.05 .09
Source: Researcher’s Computation (2023)

Analyzing the Return on Assets (ROA) data of the firms, Dangote Cement demonstrated

varying ROA values over the years, with its highest recorded in 2018 at 0.28 and the lowest

in 2017 at 0.16. The Return on Assets (ROA) for ROA fluctuated across the years, with the

highest reported in 2018 at 0.28, followed by 0.26 in 2013, 0.25 in 2016, 0.19 in 2014 and

2015, 0.17 in 2020, 0.16 in 2017, and the lowest in 2019 and 2021 at 0.15, indicating varying

performance in different years based on the provided data.

Beta Glass exhibited fluctuating ROA figures, peaking in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 at 0.11,

while the lowest was in 2020 and 2013 at 0.06 and 0.05, respectively. The Return on Assets

(ROA) for Beta Glass displayed varying levels across the years, with the highest reported in

2017, 2018, and 2019 at 0.11, followed by 0.09 in 2014, 2015, and 2021, 0.07 in 2015, 0.06

in 2020, and the lowest observed in 2013 and 2022 at 0.05.

Cutix Plc. displayed a mixed pattern, reaching its highest ROA in 2019 and 2022 at 0.17 and

0.16, respectively, and the lowest in 2015 at 0.08.Cutix’s Return on Assets (ROA), the firm

39
reported the highest value in 2019 at 0.17, followed by 0.16 in 2022, 0.13 in 2021, 0.12 in

2014, 0.11 in 2017 and 2020, 0.10 in 2016, 0.08 in 2015, and the lowest was in 2013 at 0.14.

Greif Nigeria Plc. had varied ROA values, with the highest in 2020 at 1.09 and the lowest in

2019 at -1.80. Return on Assets (ROA) for Greif experienced fluctuations as well, with

positive peaks recorded in 2020 at 1.09, followed by 0.06 in 2017, 0.07 in 2014, and 0.06 in

both 2013 and 2016. However, the ROA plunged to -0.55 in 2018 and further decreased to -

1.80 in 2019, before slightly recovering to -0.05 in 2022.

Lafarge Africa Plc showcased diverse ROA values, with the highest observed in 2021 at 0.10,

followed by 0.09 in 2022, 0.08 in 2014 and 2015, 0.06 in 2020, 0.05 in 2019; 2016, and while

the lowest was in 2017 at -0.02, revealing unique trends in their Return on Assets over the

years based on the provided data.

4.2.1 Descriptive Statistical Analysis of the Data

Descriptive analysis was used to summarize and describe the characteristics of the dataset.

This was done using various statistical methods such as measures of central tendency and

measures of dispersion.

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistical Analysis

LOG(Total Staff LOG(Employee LOG(Salaries
ROA Cost) Benefit Costs) and Wages )
Mean 0.070583 6.219489 4.770988 6.160437
Median 0.100412 6.462197 5.615443 6.388835
Maximum 1.088969 7.731452 6.458033 7.707672
Minimum -1.799173 4.018742 0.000000 3.955447
Std. Dev. 0.326493 1.087624 1.934409 1.107831
Skewness -3.377198 -0.319432 -1.727387 -0.271519
Kurtosis 24.65795 1.723037 4.737950 1.657354
Jarque-Bera 1072.268 4.247460 31.15820 4.369977
Probability 0.000000 0.119585 0.000000 0.112479
Sum 3.529174 310.9744 238.5494 308.0219
Sum Sq. Dev. 5.223296 57.96334 183.3550 60.13723
Observations 50 50 50 50
Source: Eviews 10 Statistical Software (2023)

40
The Return on Assets (ROA) variable indicates the financial performance of the listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria. The mean ROA is approximately 0.0706, which suggests an

average return of 7.06% on the assets. The maximum ROA observed is 1.089, indicating that

the most successful firm achieved a return of 108.9%. Conversely, the minimum ROA is -

1.799, implying that a firm experienced a substantial negative return. The relatively high

standard deviation of 0.3265 suggests a notable dispersion of ROA values around the mean,

indicating a diverse range of performance levels. The negative skewness of -3.377 indicates

that the distribution of ROA values is skewed to the left, potentially indicating more frequent

occurrences of lower returns. The very high kurtosis of 24.66 indicates a distribution with

heavy tails and potentially extreme values. The probability of the Jarque-Bera test being close

to zero suggests that the distribution of ROA is significantly different from a normal

distribution.

The variable "LOG(Total Staff Cost)" represents the logarithmic transformation of the total

staff cost. The maximum value of 7.731452 suggests that the highest transformed cost is

around 10 million units. The minimum value of 4.018742 indicates that the smallest

transformed cost is approximately 55 units. The standard deviation of 1.087624 implies that

the transformed costs exhibit moderate variability around the mean. The skewness of -

0.319432 indicates a slightly left-skewed distribution, meaning that the majority of data

points are concentrated more on the higher end. The positive kurtosis value of 1.723037

suggests that the distribution has heavier tails and potential outliers. The probability of the

Jarque-Bera test, 0.119585, indicates that the distribution is fairly close to a normal

distribution but might have minor deviations.

The variable "LOG(Employee Benefit Costs)" represents the logarithmic transformation of

employee benefit costs. The maximum logarithmic value of 6.458033 implies that the highest

41
transformed cost is around 650,000 units. The presence of a minimum value of 0.000000

indicates that there might be zero or very small benefit costs present. The relatively high

standard deviation of 1.934409 suggests a wide spread of transformed costs. The significant

negative skewness of -1.727387 indicates a strong left-skewed distribution, implying that a

majority of data points are clustered at higher benefit cost values. The high kurtosis value of

4.737950 suggests heavy tails and the potential for outliers. A probability of 0.000000 in the

Jarque-Bera test implies a substantial departure from a normal distribution, indicating a

skewed and potentially leptokurtic distribution.

The variable "LOG(Salaries and Wages)" represents the logarithmic transformation of

salaries and wages. The maximum logarithmic value of 7.707672 suggests that the highest

transformed value corresponds to around 5 million units. The minimum logarithmic value of

3.955447 indicates that the smallest transformed value is approximately 52 units. The

moderate standard deviation of 1.107831 implies moderate variability in the transformed

salaries and wages. The slightly negative skewness of -0.271519 suggests a minor leftward

skew, indicating that the distribution is slightly more spread out towards higher values. The

positive kurtosis value of 1.657354 indicates heavier tails than a normal distribution, although

not as extreme. The Jarque-Bera probability of 0.112479 suggests that the distribution is

relatively normal with minor deviations.

4.3 Hypotheses Testing

The hypotheses of the study were tested using the estimates from Ordinary Least square

regression, with the model below.

ROA= β0+ β1TSCit + β2EBCit + β3SAWit + eit

42
Table 4.6 Ordinary Least Square Regression Analysis
Dependent Variable: ROA
Method: Panel Least Squares
Date: 08/09/23 Time: 11:35
Sample: 2013 2022
Periods included: 10
Cross-sections included: 5
Total panel (balanced) observations: 50

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

LOGTSC -1.190758 1.747388 -0.681450 0.4990

LOGEBC 0.076603 0.044658 1.715328 0.0930
LOGSAW 1.132743 1.678714 0.674769 0.5032
C 0.132820 0.471678 0.281590 0.7795

R-squared 0.103007 Mean dependent var 0.070583

Adjusted R-squared 0.044508 S.D. dependent var 0.326493
S.E. of regression 0.319145 Akaike info criterion 0.630275
Sum squared resid 4.685258 Schwarz criterion 0.783237
Log likelihood -11.75688 Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.688524
F-statistic 1.760824 Durbin-Watson stat 2.770094
Prob(F-statistic) 0.167891

Source: Eviews 10 Statistical Software (2023)

The regression analysis in Table 4.7 was used to assess whether human resource cost

variables (LOGTSC, LOGEBC, and LOGSAW) have statistically significant effect on the

financial performance metric ROA.

1. The R-squared value of 0.103007 indicates that the regression model explains

approximately 10.30% of the variation in the dependent variable (ROA). Other

variables not included in the model explained 89.7%. The Adjusted R-squared of

0.044508 accounts for the number of predictors in the model and suggests that the

model's explanatory power is small after accounting for the number of predictors.

43
 2. F-statistic and Prob (F-statistic): The F-statistic of 1.760824 tests the overall

significance of the model. The Prob (F-statistic) of 0.167891 exceeded 0.05, which

implies that the overall model is not statistically significant.

3. Durbin-Watson Statistic: The Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.770094 checks for the

presence of autocorrelation (serial correlation) in the residuals. A value between 2 and

4 is generally considered acceptable, suggesting that in this case, there might not be

significant autocorrelation.

4.3.1 Hypothesis One

H0: Total staff costs does not significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria.

H1: Total staff costs significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods firms in

Nigeria.

The coefficient for the variable LOGTSC, which represents the logarithm of Total Staff

Costs, is calculated to be -1.190758. This negative coefficient implies that, according to the

model being analyzed, when the logarithm of Total Staff Costs increases, there is a

corresponding decrease in Return on Assets (ROA). In other words, as the costs associated

with staffing the organization grow, the company's profitability, as measured by ROA, tends

to decline.

The t-Statistic for the coefficient is calculated to be -0.681450. This t-Statistic measures the

ratio of the estimated coefficient to its standard error. The associated p-value, which is

calculated to be 0.4990, is indicative of the probability that such an extreme value of the t-

Statistic could occur by random chance, assuming the null hypothesis that the coefficient is

zero.

44
Given 0.05 significance level, the p-value of 0.4990 is higher than this threshold. This

indicates that the coefficient for LOGTSC is not statistically significant at the 0.05

significance level. In simpler terms, the null hypothesis was accepted and that Total staff

costs have a negative non-significant effect on the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria (β = --1.190758; p-value = 0.4990).

4.3.2 Hypothesis Two

H0: Employee benefit costs do not significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial

goods firms in Nigeria.

H1: Employee benefit costs significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria.

The coefficient for the variable LOGEBC, representing the logarithm of Employee Benefit

Costs (EBC), is determined to be 0.076603. This positive coefficient indicates that, according

to the model's calculations, an increase in the logarithm of Employee Benefit Costs

corresponds to a slight increase in Return on Assets (ROA) by the value of 0.076603. This

suggests that higher employee benefit costs are associated with a modest improvement in the

company's profitability, as measured by ROA.

The t-Statistic for the coefficient of LOGEBC is calculated to be 1.715328. The t-Statistic

measures the ratio of the estimated coefficient to its standard error and is used to assess the

significance of the coefficient. Accompanying the t-Statistic is the p-value, which is

calculated to be 0.0930. The p-value indicates the probability that the observed value of the t-

Statistic could occur by random chance, assuming the null hypothesis that the coefficient is

zero (i.e., no relationship between LOGEBC and ROA).

45
With a significance level of 0.05, the p-value of 0.0930 is greater than this threshold. As a

result, the coefficient for LOGEBC is not statistically significant at the 0.05 significance

level. This implies that the observed effect of the logarithm of Employee Benefit Costs on

ROA could potentially be attributed to random variation rather than a genuine meaningful

association. Therefore, having accepted the null hypothesis, the study concludes that

Employee benefit costs have a positive non-significant effect on the return on asset of listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria (β = 0.076603; p-value = 0.0930).

4.3.3 Hypothesis Three

H0: Salaries and wages do not significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods

firms in Nigeria.

H1: Salaries and wages significantly affect the return on asset of listed industrial goods firms

in Nigeria.

The coefficient attributed to the variable LOGSAW, which denotes the logarithm of Salaries

and Wages (SAW), is calculated to be 1.132743. This positive coefficient suggests that,

according to the model's estimations, an augmentation in the logarithm of Salaries and Wages

corresponds to an increase in Return on Assets (ROA) by a substantial 1.132743 units. This

implies that a higher level of salaries and wages is associated with a considerable

improvement in the company's profitability, as indicated by ROA.

However, the t-Statistic for the coefficient of LOGSAW is computed to be 0.674769. The t-

Statistic gauges the ratio of the estimated coefficient to its standard error and is crucial in

determining the statistical significance of the coefficient. Additionally, the p-value is derived

to be 0.5032. The p-value represents the probability that the observed t-Statistic value could

occur by random chance, under the assumption that the null hypothesis holds true—that there

is no significant relationship between LOGSAW and ROA.

46
Given the 0.05 significance level, the p-value of 0.5032 surpasses this threshold.

Consequently, the coefficient for LOGSAW lacks statistical significance due to its t-

Statistic's absolute value being less than 2 and its associated p-value exceeding 0.05.

Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted that Salaries and wages have a positive non-

significant effect on the return on asset of listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria (β =

1.132743; p-value = 0.5032).

4.4 Discussion of Findings

The finding that total staff costs have a negative effect on the return on assets (ROA) of listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria suggests an intriguing relationship. This implies that as total

staff costs increase, the financial performance of these firms, as measured by ROA, tends to

decrease. This could indicate that high expenditures on staff might not be translating into

proportional gains in terms of asset utilization and revenue generation. It might also hint at

potential inefficiencies in resource allocation or the need for cost optimization strategies

within these firms. This result negates the findings by Udeh and Okeke (2020); and Xu and

Liu (2020) but agrees with the findings by Hendra and Widya (2018).

The finding that employee benefit costs have a positive effect on the return on assets is an

interesting contrast to the previous result. This suggests that investing in employee benefits is

associated with improved financial performance, as measured by ROA. It could imply that

providing attractive benefits contributes to employee satisfaction and productivity, leading to

better utilization of assets and enhanced revenue generation. This finding underscores the

potential value of strategic human resource management in positively impacting financial

outcomes. The above finding corroborates the results by Munjuri, Obonyo, and Ogutu (2015)

and Salvi, Raimo, Petruzzella and Vitolla (2022).

47
The positive effect of salaries and wages on the return on assets aligns with the employee

benefits finding. This indicates that companies that allocate resources to fair compensation

for their employees might experience better financial performance. It could reflect a positive

correlation between motivated and well-compensated employees and the efficient use of

assets, ultimately leading to higher revenue generation and improved ROA. Contrary result

was found by Olaoye and Afolalu (2020).

48
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of Findings

The findings of the study indicate the multifaceted interplay between human resource

expenditures and the financial performance of firms operating within Nigeria's industrial

goods sector. The decisions pertaining to staff costs, comprising not only the design of

compensation structures but also the strategic management of comprehensive benefit

packages, emerge as critical determinants that can mold a company's financial performance

trajectory. The allocation of resources towards employee compensation and benefits takes on

a dual role, where it impacts both the short-term operational efficiency and the long-term

sustainability of the business. Compensation schemes that align with industry standards and

reflect the value of employee contributions can bolster workforce morale, engagement, and

productivity. Moreover, judiciously designed benefit packages can enhance employee

retention, attract top talent, and contribute to the cultivation of a positive organizational

culture. The implications of the research results are that:

1) The coefficient for LOGTSC is -1.190758. This negative coefficient suggests that an

increase in the logarithm of Total Staff Costs is associated with a decrease in ROA.

2) The coefficient for LOGEBC is 0.076603. This positive coefficient implies that an

increase in the logarithm of Employee Benefit Costs is associated with a slight increase in

ROA by 0.076603.

3) The coefficient for LOGSAW is 1.132743. This positive coefficient indicates that an

increase in the logarithm of Salaries and Wages is associated with a rise in ROA by

1.132743.

49
5.2 Conclusion

The influence of decisions on human resource expenditure extends beyond the realm of

human resources, resonating throughout the financial dimensions of the organization. The

careful balance between staff costs and the financial bottom line is crucial. Overspending on

compensation and benefits might erode profitability, while underinvestment could hinder the

attraction and retention of skilled personnel, ultimately affecting operational effectiveness

and market competitiveness. Therefore, the goal of developing human resource is to boost the

workforce's creativity, innovation, efficiency, and accuracy. This, in turn, leads to improved

operational efficiency and growth. The summary of research findings is that:

1) Total staff costs have a negative non-significant effect on the return on asset of listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria (β = -1.190758; p-value = 0.4990).

2) Employee benefit costs have a positive non-significant effect on the return on asset of

listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria (β = 0.076603; p-value = 0.0930).

3) Salaries and wages have a positive non-significant effect on the return on asset of listed

industrial goods firms in Nigeria (β = 1.132743; p-value = 0.5032).

5.3 Recommendations

In order to address the specific implications of each finding while aligning with the broader

goal of improving financial performance through strategic human resource cost management,

the study makes the following recommendations:

1) Listed industrial goods firms should conducting a thorough review of staffing levels across

departments, identifying roles that might be redundant or overstaffed in order to streamline

50
the workforce while ensuring essential functions are retained. This will enable the firms

reduce overall staff costs without compromising productivity.

2) Managers of industrial goods firms should tailor benefits to acknowledge high-performing

employees and incentivize their continued dedication. Implement performance-based bonuses

or benefits that foster a sense of ownership and engagement among employees.

3) Firms should invest in employee skill enhancement and performance recognition

initiatives by providing training opportunities that enhance employee capabilities, enabling

them to contribute more effectively to the company's operations and innovation. Additionally,

establish a structured performance appraisal system that identifies and rewards exceptional

contributions.

51
 References

Abubakar, A., Ayuba, A. I., Ishaya, L. C. & Olanrewaju, I. (2020). Intellectual Capital
and Financial Performance of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344632529

Ajike, A. M., & Danjuma, K. J. (2016). Human capital efficiency and corporate
performance: The Nigerian perspective. The international journal of Business &
management, 4(3), 1-9.

AlBattat, A. R. S., & Som, A. P. M. (2013). Employee dissatisfaction and turnover crises
in the Malaysian hospitality industry. International Journal of Business and
Management, 8(5), 62.

Apornak, A., Raissi, S., Keramati, A., & Khalili-Damghani, K. (2021). Optimizing
human resource cost of an emergency hospital using multi-objective Bat
algorithm. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 14(3), 873-879.

Aroul, R. R., Sabherwal, S., & Villupuram, S. V. (2022). ESG, operational efficiency
and operational performance: evidence from Real Estate Investment
Trusts. Managerial Finance.

Azlina, R., Atan, R. & Amrizah, K. (2017). Human capital efficiency and firm
performance: An empirical study on Malaysian technology industry. In SHS Web
of Conferences (Vol. 36, p. 00026). EDP Sciences.

Baik, B., Chae, J., Choi, S., & Farber, D. B. (2013). Changes in operational efficiency
and firm performance: A frontier analysis approach. Contemporary Accounting
Research, 30(3), 996-1026.

Bassey, B. E., & Tapang, A. T. (2012). Capitalized human resources cost and its
influence on corporate productivity: A study of selected companies in
Nigeria. International Journal of Financial Research, 3(2), 48.

Bauer, E. (2018). Improving operational efficiency of applications via cloud

computing. IEEE Cloud Computing, 5(1), 12-19.

Calvin, O. Y. (2017). The impact of remuneration on employees’ performance (a study

of Abdul Gusau Polytechnic, Talata-Mafara and state college of education Maru,
Zamfara State). Arabian Journal of Business and management review (Nigerian
chapter), 4(2), 34-43.

Davydenko, V. A., Gulnara, F. R. & Ovechkin, D. V. (2021). The impact of intellectual

capital on the profitability of Russian agricultural firms. Agronomy, 11(2), 286.

Degraft-Otoo, E. (2012). Effect of Training and Development on Employee Performance

at Accra Polytechnic. An Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis Submitted to Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

52
Emerole, G. A., Ibeh, G. O. & Sampson, C. J. (2016). Effect of Human Capital
Development Programmes in Optimizing Employees Performance: A Study of
Abia State House of Assembly, Nigeria. Singaporean Journal of Business
Economics and Management Studies, 5(4): 1-12.

Geert, W. J. & Shohreh, P. (2015). The Relationship between Human Capital Efficiency
and Financial Performance of Dutch Production Companies. Research Journal of
Finance and Accounting, 6(8), 188-201.

Githinji, A. (2014). Effects of Training on Employee Performance: A Case Study of

United Nations Support Office for the African Union Mission in Somalia. An
Unpublished B.Sc. Research Project Submitted to United States International
University.

Hendra, G. & Widya, R. (2018). How intellectual capital effects firm’s financial
performance. Journal of Applied Accounting and Taxation, 3(1), 1-8.

Hogarh, J. K. (2012). Effect of Training on Staff Performance: A Case Study of Sic

Insurance Company Limited. An Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis Submitted to Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

Holienka, M., & Pilkov, A. (2014). Impact of intellectual capital and its components on
firm performance before and after crisis. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 12(4), 261-272.

Hosen, M. N., Jie, F., Muhari, S., & Khairman, M. (2019). The effect of financial ratios,
Maqasid sharia index, and index of Islamic social reporting to profitability of
Islamic bank in Indonesia. Al-Iqtishad: Jurnal Ilmu Ekonomi Syariah, 11(2), 201-
222.

Ismaila, Y. (2013). The relationship between human capital efficiency and financial
performance: An empirical investigation of quoted Nigerian banks. Research
Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(4), 148-154.

Iwu, C. G., Kapondoro, L., Twum-Darko, M., & Lose, T. (2016). Strategic human
resource metrics: A perspective of the general systems theory. Acta Universitatis
Danubius. Œconomica, 12(2).

Jeong, K. Y., & Phillips, D. T. (2001). Operational efficiency and effectiveness

measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 21(11), 1404-1416.

Kamaruddin, R., Abdullah, N., & Ayob, M. A. (2018). Determinants of job satisfaction
among Malaysian youth working in the oil palm plantation sector. Journal of
Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies.

Lee, C. Y., & Johnson, R. (2014). Operational efficiency. Handbook of Industrial and
Systems Engineering, Second Edition Industrial Innovation, 17-44.

53
Madanhire, I., & Mbohwa, C. (2016). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) in improving
operational efficiency: Case study. Procedia CIRP, 40, 225-229.

Mathis, R. L., Jackson, J. H., Valentine, S. R., & Meglich, P. (2016). Human resource
management. Cengage Learning.

Munjuri, M. G., Obonyo, P., & Ogutu, M. (2015). Human capital and performance of
commercial banks and insurance firms in Kenya. DBA Africa Management
Review, 5(2).

Odhong, A. Were, A. & Omolo, J. (2014) Effect of human capital management

drivers on organizational performance in Kenya. A case of investment and
mortgages bank ltd. European Journal of Business Management, 2 (1), 341-356.

Olaoye, C. O. & Afolalu, A. B. (2020). Effect of human capital accounting on earning

per share of equity owners of deposit money banks in Nigeria. African Journal of
Business Management, 14(11), 485-497.

Omete, F. I. (2016). Analysis of Intellectual Capital and Financial Performance of

Commercial Banks in Kenya: An Application of Value Added Intellectual
Coefficient. International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing, 6(7), 1-
15.

Omodero, C. O. & Worlu, C. N. (2016). The effect of human capital development on

financial performance of banks in Nigeria. Global journal of human resource
management, 4(6), 34-47.

Ozkan, N., Cakan, S., & Kayacan, M. (2017). Intellectual capital and financial
performance: A study of the Turkish Banking Sector. Borsa Istanbul
Review, 17(3), 190-198.

Pudlowski, E. M. (2009). Managing human resource cost in a declining economic

environment. Benefits Quarterly, 25(4), 37.

Salvi, A., Raimo, N., Petruzzella, F., & Vitolla, F. (2022). The financial consequences of
human capital disclosure as part of integrated reporting. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 23(6), 1221-1245.

Sedeaq, N. (2020). The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Corporate Performance:

Evidence from Palestine. EJBMR, European Journal of Business and
Management Research, 5(6).

Shafiu, A. K., Udin, N. M. & Saleh, M. B. (2017). The impact of intellectual capital on
the financial performance of listed Nigerian food products companies. Journal of
Accounting and Taxation, 9(11), 147-160.

Swanson, R. A. (2022). Foundations of human resource development. Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

54
Udeh, F. N. & Okeke, I. V. (2020). Effect of Intellectual Capital on the Profitability of
Nigerian Deposit Money Banks. International Journal of Trend in Scientific
Research and Development, 4(3), 146-158.

Vitalis, E. (2018). Effect of intellectual capital on performance of firms listed on Nigeria

stock exchange. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 9(8), 138-150.

Xu, J., & Liu, F. (2020). The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Firm Performance: A
Modified and Extended VAIC Model. Journal of Competitiveness, 12(1), 161–
176. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2020.01.10

Yawson, R. M. (2013). Systems theory and thinking as a foundational theory in human

resource development—a myth or reality?. Human Resource Development
Review, 12(1), 53-85.

Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A., & Bon, A. T. (2018). The impact of green human resource
management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable
performance: An empirical study. Journal of cleaner production, 204, 965-979.

55
Appendix I Data Extraction for the Variables (all amounts in N’000)
Firm Year Total Staff Cost Employee benefit costs Salaries and wages Earnings After Tax Total Assets LogTSC LogEBC LogSAW ROA
Beta Glass 2013 2216462 439811 1776651 1467344 27166481 6.35 5.64 6.25 .05
Beta Glass 2014 2242099 386918 1855181 2390223 26928387 6.35 5.59 6.27 .09
Beta Glass 2015 2471542 453590 2017952 1991127 27171069 6.39 5.66 6.30 .07
Beta Glass 2016 2753551 488221 2265330 3799393 33190672 6.44 5.69 6.36 .11
Beta Glass 2017 2606314 534431 2071883 4115142 38211613 6.42 5.73 6.32 .11
Beta Glass 2018 3199672 553989 2645683 5052805 46079629 6.51 5.74 6.42 .11
Beta Glass 2019 3051411 327738 2723673 5580220 52080362 6.48 5.52 6.44 .11
Beta Glass 2020 3160154 317342 2842812 3466670 53963634 6.50 5.50 6.45 .06
Beta Glass 2021 3533516 359847 3173669 5457671 63112410 6.55 5.56 6.50 .09
Beta Glass 2022 3936757 466838 3469919 4685414 75944552 6.60 5.67 6.54 .06
Cutix Plc. 2013 120485 31408 89077 151423 1073865 5.08 4.50 4.95 .14
Cutix Plc. 2014 134457 38928 95529 207116 1744670 5.13 4.59 4.98 .12
Cutix Plc. 2015 155086 35650 119436 149209 1968813 5.19 4.55 5.08 .08
Cutix Plc. 2016 180091 41553 138538 190551 1891720 5.26 4.62 5.14 .10
Cutix Plc. 2017 228574 71766 156808 257497 2329792 5.36 4.86 5.20 .11
Cutix Plc. 2018 288560 86988 201572 440295 2836262 5.46 4.94 5.30 .16
Cutix Plc. 2019 397441 83048 314393 477070 2861339 5.60 4.92 5.50 .17
Cutix Plc. 2020 372421 77100 295321 393053 3627990 5.57 4.89 5.47 .11
Cutix Plc. 2021 394216 66143 328073 601627 4801452 5.60 4.82 5.52 .13
Cutix Plc. 2022 500004 108097 391907 790467 5086471 5.70 5.03 5.59 .16
Dangote Cement 2013 13997005 1031711 12965294 210262754 821699780 7.15 6.01 7.11 .26
Dangote Cement 2014 17605000 965000 16640000 185814123 963441064 7.25 5.98 7.22 .19
Dangote Cement 2015 23513000 1140000 22373000 213171000 1124475000 7.37 6.06 7.35 .19
Dangote Cement 2016 29122000 1534000 27588000 368205000 1502564000 7.46 6.19 7.44 .25
Dangote Cement 2017 28762000 1826000 26936000 254630000 1611087000 7.46 6.26 7.43 .16
Dangote Cement 2018 32613000 1075000 31538000 481456000 1721974000 7.51 6.03 7.50 .28
Dangote Cement 2019 36912000 1259000 35653000 261349000 1825076000 7.57 6.10 7.55 .14
Dangote Cement 2020 44415000 1251000 43164000 352609000 2116060000 7.65 6.10 7.64 .17
Dangote Cement 2021 39963000 1986000 37977000 381100000 2582298000 7.60 6.30 7.58 .15
Dangote Cement 2022 53883000 2871000 51012000 402857000 2658463000 7.73 6.46 7.71 .15
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2013 52909 7162 45747 30626 533136 4.72 3.86 4.66 .06
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2014 52721 7188 45533 43443 663773 4.72 3.86 4.66 .07
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2015 58240 9211 49029 24624 715714 4.77 3.96 4.69 .03
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2016 64568 10171 54397 27106 722490 4.81 4.01 4.74 .04
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2017 71615 0 65393 49424 786664 4.86 .00 4.82 .06
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2018 72004 0 61569 -262589 475731 4.86 .00 4.79 -.55

56
 Greif Nigeria Plc. 2019 74122 0 69292 -312232 173542 4.87 .00 4.84 -1.80
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2020 27515 0 27515 350487 321852 4.44 .00 4.44 1.09
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2021 24424 0 24424 -31407 240468 4.39 .00 4.39 -.13
Greif Nigeria Plc. 2022 10441 1416 9025 -19209 351470 4.02 3.15 3.96 -.05
Lafarge Africa Plc 2013 7803410 0 7803410 28022200 159866917 6.89 .00 6.89 .18
Lafarge Africa Plc 2014 8193329 744639 7448690 28360146 343627558 6.91 5.87 6.87 .08
Lafarge Africa Plc 2015 10903227 1363681 9539546 29837395 363132982 7.04 6.13 6.98 .08
Lafarge Africa Plc 2016 6914903 542344 6372559 20778348 445792505 6.84 5.73 6.80 .05
Lafarge Africa Plc 2017 15874686 1187296 14687390 -13223626 583295071 7.20 6.07 7.17 -.02
Lafarge Africa Plc 2018 16052908 931099 15121809 4141764 577692296 7.21 5.97 7.18 .01
Lafarge Africa Plc 2019 16597997 1122460 15475537 22721616 500081653 7.22 6.05 7.19 .05
Lafarge Africa Plc 2020 19091159 1206163 17884996 28714884 505332716 7.28 6.08 7.25 .06
Lafarge Africa Plc 2021 22634078 1499842 21134236 53455912 534054123 7.35 6.18 7.32 .10
Lafarge Africa Plc 2022 20668621 1355052 19313569 55032460 609182343 7.32 6.13 7.29 .09
Source: Annual Reports, 2013 to 2022

57