















































Article 2592.indd


Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
59

American Journal of  Environmental
Economics (AJEE) 

Effects of  CEO Tenure and Education on Corporate Social and Environmental Perfor-
mance: Evidence from Listed Firms on Namibia Stock Exchange

Maria Magano Nashilyo1*, Timothy Masuni Nagriwum1, Anita Nti-Kwakye2

Volume 3 Issue 1, Year 2024
ISSN: 2833-7905 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajee.v3i1.2592
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: July 03, 2024

Accepted: August 06, 2024

Published: August 10, 2024

Given the increasing focus on sustainability and corporate responsibility, it is essential to 
comprehend the infl uence of  CEO characteristics on the accomplishment of  a company. 
The main objective of  this research is to investigate the correlation between the length of  
time a CEO serves in their position, their level of  education, company corporate social 
performance, and environmental performance. The study utilized a descriptive research 
design, employing a quantitative method by conducting a cross-sectional survey. The study 
sample comprised Chief  Executive Offi cers (CEOs) from 52 publicly traded businesses, and 
the analysis was based on 39 collected responses. With the help of  SPSS, a multiple regression 
analysis was performed to evaluate the infl uence of  CEO term of  offi ce and education on 
business social performance and environmental performance. The results indicate that CEO 
tenure has a favorable and substantial infl uence on environmental performance, whereas 
CEO education substantially infl uences corporate social performance. The results offer 
useful insights into the complex correlation between CEO characteristics and sustainability 
success. We propose policymakers to implement restrictions or recommendations for the 
length of  time a CEO can hold their position and their educational qualifi cations. This 
will help ensure the effi cient management of  social and environmental responsibilities. 
Moreover, providing incentives for CEOs and high-level executives to participate in 
continuous education and training programs could boost their comprehension of  social and 
environmental matters, ultimately leading to the implementation of  enhanced sustainability 
practices within organizations.

Keywords

Corporate Social Performance, 
Environmental Performance, 
Chief  Executive Offi cer (CEO)

1 School of  Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Jiangsu, China
2 Faculty of  Sociology, Anthropology and Folkloristics, University of  Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: mnashilyo@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION
Over the past ten years, investors have used corporate 
social and environmental performance as a key criterion 
for determining a company’s worth and whether or 
not to invest (Hsu et al., 2015). Businesses are under 
enormous and unprecedented pressure due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, with many facing possible closure. 
A company’s CSR commitment will be tested in these 
circumstances, and depending on how the company 
responds, employees’ perceptions of  CSR are likely to be 
sharpened either positively or negatively. The COVID-19 
pandemic triggered momentous distractions to the 
world economy, affecting profi ts and profi tability at a 
level not often observed outside of  a substantial global 
economic meltdown. Industries committed to moral 
behavior and corporate social responsibility (CSR) have 
been tested during this incredibly challenging period 
(He and Harris, 2020). As a result, fi rms face diffi culties 
balancing stakeholders’ and their interests (Asante Antwi 
et al., 2021). In light of  the growing number of  social and 
environmental scandals, companies must adopt strategies 
that go beyond the fi nancial aspects of  their operations 
to attract investors. These strategies must also take the 
environmental and social infl uence of  their activities or 
operations into consideration. To improve their social 
and environmental performance, many businesses have 
changed their policies, increased their involvement in 
CSR initiatives, and generally engaged in CSR practices.
Businesses are expected more and more to contribute 

to long-term development to positively impact society. 
Organizations in Namibia have been compelled to 
reorient their traditional economic goals and take on 
social and environmental responsibilities alongside 
their economic activities due to growing demands 
from investors and other stakeholders (Aldrugi, 2013). 
Corporate managers, especially CEOs, now prioritize 
social responsibility due to the growing signifi cance 
of  social and environmental performance, which has 
sparked a discussion about the variables that can affect 
social and environmental performance (Khoo, 2022). 
According to this logic, it makes sense to assume that 
CEOs would be more inclined to start social projects 
that improve company performance. As a result, during 
their fi rst terms in offi ce, CEOs are more concerned with 
structuring company profi ts while boards of  directors 
are more interested in assessing their competence in 
terms of  company performance (Ali and Zhang, 2015). 
Furthermore, executives are inclined to prioritize social 
events to enhance their performance assessments because 
social activities are becoming increasingly recognized 
at the fi rm level (Callan and Thomas 2011). According 
to Ason et al., (2021), investigating how a CEO’s term 
of  offi ce affects corporate social performance and 
environmental performance (CSP&EP) in a unique 
manner and therefore vital. It is assumed that a company 
would need qualifi ed, well-trained, educated, and 
knowledgeable personalities to handle, manage, and 
superintend over those investments to make good social 



Pa
ge

 
60

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

and environmental investment decisions 
According to Linck, Netter, and Yang (2008), the Chief  
Executive Offi cer (CEO) holds the most power within 
a management team. A CEO chooses the company’s 
strategy, assigns funds based on the goals of  the 
organization, and manages the senior leadership group. 
The decision-making power of  Chief  Executive Offi cers 
(CEOs), who hold high positions in organizational 
structures, is a signifi cant factor in determining a 
company’s inclination towards Corporate Social 
Responsibility (CSR). This propensity can be infl uenced 
by the preferences and priorities of  CEOs, which are 
shaped by their personalities and values (Chatterjee and 
Hambrick 2011). Basically, a company’s main goal is to 
make as much money as possible. Consequently, the 
company needs a CEO who can oversee the company’s 
operations. The CEO role truly dictates the company’s 
performance and has the power to steer it in the direction 
of  success or failure. 
The growth and success of  the company are signifi cantly 
infl uenced by the professional and demographic traits 
of  the CEO. However, according to some researchers, 
a CEO’s education alone does not always translate into 
a company’s performance improvement (Bhagat et al., 
2010). According to Peni and Vähämaa (2012), there 
is evidence in the relevant literature linking the CEO’s 
experience and the executions of  the company, but there 
are also indications pointing to the adverse effects of  
experience on performance (Hamori and Koyuncu, 2015). 
Similarly, different conclusions have been made regarding 
the relationship between CEO tenure and a company’s 
performance, comprising both negative and positive 
associations (Luo et al., 2014). A solid basis for connecting 
CEO practice to social and environmental performance is 
laid out by this argument. One key element in determining 
a fi rm’s success is its performance. Head of  the One of  
the elements infl uencing a fi rm’s performance is power. 
A CEO is in charge of  the company’s daily operations, 
including taking necessary business-related actions. The 
CEO serves a critical role in a business, as noted in Tien 
et al., (2013) because he is a leader who will determine the 
success or failure of  the company.
Environmental sustainability and corporate social 
responsibility (CSR) have become essential components 
of  organizational strategy and performance in 
the modern business world. Beyond just fi nancial 
performance, companies are increasingly being examined 
for their contributions to social and environmental 
welfare. The Chief  Executive Offi cer (CEO) of  a 
company plays a crucial role in directing organizational 
policies, culture, and strategies, which include CSR and 
environmental sustainability. With their unique qualities 
including leadership style, experience, education, and 
values CEOs have a big impact on a company’s social and 
environmental performance and initiatives. In the context 
of  Namibian listed companies, the link between CEO 
term of  offi ce, education, corporate social performance, 
and environmental performance has drawn additional 

attention. Businesses in Namibia are under pressure to 
strike a balance between generating profi ts and meeting 
social and environmental obligations, so it is critical to 
look into how CEO personality traits and leadership 
philosophies impact their companies’ sustainability efforts. 
But despite the increasing emphasis on environmental 
sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) 
worldwide, there is a shortage of  research on Namibian-
listed companies in particular.
By addressing the question, “To what extent does CEO 
tenure and educational background impact the corporate 
social and environmental performance of  the Namibian 
listed companies?” this study seeks to close a research gap 
and demonstrate how certain attained and measurable 
attributes (tenure and education) of  CEOs can impact on 
the corporate social and environmental performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW 
Theoretical Review
Stakeholder theory and agency theory serve as the 
primary theoretical axes within the context of  this paper. 
These were chosen for the study due to their applicability 
in the area of  environmental and social performance in 
corporations.

Stakeholder Theory
Businesses want to maximize their profi t margin, 
which is their ultimate objective (Najmuddin et al., 
2018). Corporations must satisfy stakeholder needs and 
enhance their brand and image to attain the best revenues 
(Najmuddin et al., 2018). The stakeholder theory is where 
the fi rms get these benefi ts. According to this view 
(Laplume et al., 2008), fi rms ought to be accountable to 
a range of  stakeholders. According to Bhattacharyya and 
Verma (2020), in addition to making an effort to meet the 
needs of  the environment and local communities, CEOs 
of  organizations should assume appropriate responsibility 
and meet the needs of  stakeholders on a large scale. This 
is in line with the stakeholder theory perspective. This 
theory’s newfound reasoning is predicated on a conditional 
relationship between satisfying stakeholders’ needs and 
attaining the large profi t margin that shareholders desire.
According to Freeman (1984), the attempt to create value 
for stakeholders is the fundamental component of  this 
theory because it is the key to enhancing and developing 
the performance of  businesses. Based on the notion 
of  stakeholders, Freeman highlights that a company’s 
commitment to sustainable responsibilities may enhance 
the management-stakeholder relationship, which will 
ultimately result in enhanced fi nancial performance. 
Overall, to achieve strong fi nancial performance, CEOs 
of  companies are advised by the stakeholder theory to 
consider their obligations to address the needs of  a wider 
stakeholder (Zhou et al., 2021).

Agency Theory
The friction and differences between shareholders 
and fi rm owners are refl ected in agency theory. The 



Pa
ge

 
61

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

contradictory interests of  principals and agents are the 
focus of  agency theory. The agency costs and ownership 
structure model developed by Jensen and Meckling (2019) 
is a key work in the fi eld of  corporate governance. Still, 
the theory makes a strong case for the basic confl ict of  
interest that exists between managers and owners. That 
relationship regularly occurs between managers of  a fi rm 
acting as agents and shareholders serving as principals. 
Every big decision in certain companies is decided by 
the CEO. Decisions made in other companies are more 
obviously the result of  executive consensus. The allocation 
of  decision-making authority within organizations may 
have an impact on the decisions that are made if  different 
people have divergent viewpoints. Although managerial 
choices may or may not have an impact on the success of  
the company, executive traits, and organizational factors 
may have an impact (Li & Tan, 2013).

CEO’s Tenure 
This research uses the duration of  the CEO’s contractual 
agreement with the company to calculate the CEO’s term 
of  offi ce on a year-by-year basis. Chief  executive offi cers 
with longer tenure should be more knowledgeable 
about the organization’s resources and how they relate 
to their environment. Through increased operational 
effi ciency and consequently faster growth, will help the 
organization. Conversely, CEOs with longer tenures tend 
to become complacent and adhere to outdated paradigms 
(Khan et al., 2020). Given their greater receptivity to 
novel concepts, CEOs with shorter tenures stand to 
gain in this situation. Longer-serving CEOs have strong 
social networking connections with a variety of  fi nancial 
sources due to their knowledge power; these connections 
are likely to deepen over time and have a decreasingly 
marginally positive effect on the performance of  the 
company (Luo et al. 2014). There are clear benefi ts to 
having a thorough understanding of  how the business 
operates and the ability to identify areas for improvement.

CEO’s Education
One of  the key characteristics of  a CEO that infl uences 
the fi rm’s value and overall decisions is their educational 
background. A CEO with more education is capable of  
making appropriate and wise decisions in any challenging 
circumstance. The value of  the company is increased when 
top management has a higher level of  education because 
it facilitates managerial effectiveness, optimal decision-
making, and stakeholder motivation (Martínez-Sola et 
al., 2014). Technically and business-savvy executives are 
more adaptable and make wise decisions that will benefi t 
the fi rm’s long-term results. This research also focused 
on the CEO’s educational background to investigate how 
the CEO’s demographic characteristics affected fi nancing 
choices and company performance. An executive’s ability 
to make wise fi nancial and investment choices is greatly 
impacted by their educational background. A fruitful 
career in any fi eld requires relevant education. Financial 
education is benefi cial to CEOs because it enables them to 

comprehend fi nancial concerns and respond appropriately 
to ensure solid business performance. Institutions with 
CEOs who possesses distinct background in business-
related education perform fi nancially well (Arano et 
al. 2010, Kokeno and Muturi 2016). CEOs’ investing 
behavior and the fi nancial health of  their companies 
are infl uenced by their formal education. To maintain 
a strong fi nancial position in the market, CEOs with 
formal education are more inclined to embrace additional 
creative and innovative business practices.

Corporate Social Performance and Environmental 
Performance 
A company’s efforts to conduct business in a way that is 
both environmentally sustainable and socially responsible 
are measured by corporate social and environmental 
performance (CSEP). Corporate Social Responsibility 
(CSEP) refers to the actions that businesses take to 
make sure they are fulfi lling their responsibilities to 
their stakeholders, which include their workers, clients, 
shareholders, and the larger community in which they 
operate (Kubareva et al., 2018). The management of  a 
company’s social, environmental, and economic impacts 
is referred to as corporate social and environmental 
performance. It includes a variety of  initiatives, such as 
lowering greenhouse gas emissions, guaranteeing workers’ 
safety at work, aiding neighbourhood communities, and 
advancing diversity and inclusivity.
Businesses can measure and report on their social 
performance and environmental performance using a 
variety of  frameworks. By utilizing sustainable reporting 
frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 
or the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB) 
is one way businesses can evaluate and measure their 
CSEP (Joshi & Kansil, 2023). These frameworks offer 
standards and recommendations for businesses reporting 
on their governance, social, and environmental (ESG) 
performance. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 
which provides standards for companies to disclose their 
sustainability performance is one well-known framework. 
When making decisions, investors and customers are 
becoming more conscious of  a company’s social and 
environmental performance. Strong social performance 
and environmental performance are often associated with 
a company’s perceived responsibility and reliability, which 
can boost brand value and customer loyalty (Ağan et al., 
2016).
Implementing sustainable practices across their entire 
business is another way for organizations to show their 
dedication to CSEP. This can involve putting energy-
effi cient technology into practice, cutting emissions and 
waste, locating sustainable resources, and assisting with 
community development projects. The triple bottom line, 
which evaluates an institution’s social, environmental, and 
fi nancial performance, is another popular framework. 
The concept of  the “triple bottom line” emphasizes the 
need for entities to consider their environmental and 
social infl uence in addition to fi nancial gains. In summary, 



Pa
ge

 
62

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

CSEP is an essential idea for businesses in the current 
business climate. A growing number of  stakeholders who 
are worried about the wider effects of  corporate actions 
beyond just fi nancial performance are becoming aware of  
this broad range of  issues regarding social responsibility, 
sustainability, and environmental stewardship (Mason 
and Simmons, 2014). Ultimately, the idea behind CSEP 
highlights how crucial it is for businesses to approach 
operations holistically, taking into account the social 
and environmental effects of  their work and aiming 
to generate long-term value for all parties involved. By 
doing this, businesses can contribute to ensuring a more 
sustainable and equitable future for society as a whole.

Corporate Social and Environmental Practices of  
Organizations
Organizations are realizing the importance of  corporate 
social responsibility and environmental practices as 
they work to fulfi ll their obligations. Organizations can 
signifi cantly increase their ability to accomplish their 
business objectives and their positive effect on society 
and the environment by implementing corporate social 
and environmental practices. These are a few examples of  
companies’ environmental and social policies.
Environmental Stewardship: Acknowledging the 
infl uence an organization has on the environment is 
part of  environmental stewardship. Utilizing sustainable 
materials, reducing waste, and lowering energy usage are 
some examples of  how to accomplish this. Organizations 
can lessen their impact on the environment and enhance 
their standing as socially conscious companies by 
implementing environmentally friendly practices.
Corporate Philanthropy: Corporate philanthropy, or 
giving back to the community via charitable contributions 
or volunteer work, is another signifi cant practice. Helm, 
(2011), employers, clients, and other stakeholders may 
develop a feeling of  purpose and a positive reputation 
as a result of  this. Charities can receive donations from 
organizations, and local events can be sponsored or 
grants given to community organizations.
Ethical Business Practices: Prioritizing ethical business 
practices entails ensuring that operations are carried out in 
a way that is just, truthful, and transparent. Organizations 
must uphold moral principles in interactions with vendors, 
clients, and other stakeholders and abstain from immoral 
acts like bribery and corruption. Integrity in operations 
helps fi rms gain the trust of  stakeholders and improve 
their standing.

Empirical Review
CEO’s Tenure, Corporate Social Performance and 
Environmental Performance
The CEO’s tenure is determined by the duration of  the 
CEO’s contractual agreement with the entity. CEOs with 
extended tenure are expected to be more knowledgeable 
about the resources available to the organization and 
how they interact with their environment. As a result, 
the company will grow more quickly and achieve more 
operational effi ciency. Conversely, longer-serving CEOs 

tend to get complacent and adhere to outdated concepts 
(Saridakis et al., 2023). In this case, CEOs with shorter 
tenures stand to gain more, as they are more receptive to 
new ideas. However, with a slowly expanding company, 
expansion is more likely to hurt rivals, hence effi ciency 
is essential to the company’s success. Longer-tenured 
CEOs have strong social networking connections with 
a variety of  fi nancial sources due to their knowledge 
power; these connections are expected to deepen over 
time and have a decreasingly marginally positive effect on 
the performance of  the company (Luo et al., 2014). There 
are clear benefi ts to having a thorough awareness of  how 
the business operates and the ability to identify areas for 
development.
Hartnell et al., (2016) assert that a CEO becomes more 
adept at communicating and sharing information about 
the company as their tenure increases. Longer-serving 
CEOs have substantial social network connections with 
different money sources, which affects their choice 
of  capital structure because of  their informational 
dominance. Per Naseem et al., (2020), longer tenure enables 
CEOs to maintain the fi nancial structure of  the company 
and show off  their macroeconomic understanding amid 
downturns. Ndalu et al., (2021) examined the effect of  
CEO traits on environmental performance in Nigeria’s 
oil and gas business. The study employed a sample of  
25 Nigerian oil and gas businesses to gather information 
on their waste management and emissions policies 
as well as CEO attributes like tenure, age, gender, and 
education. The study indicated that the length of  time 
a CEO had held their position had no bearing on their 
commitment to environmental sustainability and that 
there was no signifi cant connection between CEO tenure 
and environmental performance. 
The research by Apreku-Djana et al., (2023) sought to 
investigate the infl uence of  CEO qualities on corporate 
social responsibility (CSR) in Ghana. The fi ndings 
indicated that there was a positive relationship between 
CEO term of  offi ce and CSR performance. The length 
of  a CEO’s tenure may infl uence shareholder wealth 
through decision-making. CEOs who are nearing 
retirement, for instance, could be assessed according 
to existing performance metrics because shareholders 
have historically favored this indicator (Hou, Priem, & 
Goranova, 2017). In contrast, CEOs who were in the 
early years of  their contractual arrangements may be 
evaluated using performance metrics derived from market 
data and their effect on the company’s prospects. In light 
of  the conversation above, we formulate the following 
hypotheses:

H1a: CEO tenure positively affects corporate social 
performance. 

H1b: CEO tenure positively affects environmental 
performance.

CEO’s Education, Corporate Social Performance, 
and Environmental Performance
One of  the key characteristics of  a CEO that infl uences 
the fi rm’s value and decision-making process is their 



Pa
ge

 
63

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

educational background. A CEO with more education 
is capable of  making appropriate and wise decisions in 
any challenging circumstance (Chen, 2011). The value of  
the company is increased when senior management has 
a higher level of  education since it facilitates managerial 
effectiveness, optimal decision-making, and stakeholder 
motivation (Martínez-Sola et al., 2014). Technically 
and business-savvy executives are more adaptable and 
make wise decisions that will benefi t the entity’s long-
term results. This research also looked at the CEO’s 
educational background to investigate how the CEO’s 
demographic characteristics affected fi nancing choices 
and company performance. As stated by Custódio & 
Metzger, (2014) a CEO’s educational background has a 
signifi cant impact on their ability to make wise fi nancial 
and investment choices. Having the right education 
is crucial for success in any industry. CEOs gain from 
fi nancial education because it makes it easier for them 
to comprehend fi nancial concerns and take appropriate 
action to ensure solid business performance 
Also, a meta-analysis of  66 empirical study on the 
connection among CEO traits and corporate social 
responsibility (CSR) performance was carried out by 
(Pérez and Rodríguez del Bosque 2013). The analysis 
encompassed research that was published between 
1992 and 2016, encompassing various industries and 
geographical areas. According to the meta-analysis, CSR 
performance was signifi cantly infl uenced by the qualities 
of  the CEO. The study revealed that organizations with 
stronger CSR performance were typically led by CEOs 
with greater educational backgrounds. The study also 
found several plausible explanations for the association 
between CSR performance and CEO traits. Higher 
educated CEOs, for instance, can be better equipped 
to comprehend the value of  CSR and create plans for 
implementing it inside their organizations.
Corresponding to this, CEOs with longer tenures might 
be more knowledgeable about how their business is run 
and more qualifi ed to create and carry out CSR programs. 
Apreku-Djana et al., (2023) indicated that CEO tenure 
was positively correlated with CSR performance in their 
study on the impact of  CEO qualities on corporate 
social responsibility (CSR) in Ghana. The research by 
Ndalu et al., (2021) states that, CEOs who possess better 
educational qualifi cations are also more inclined to 
adopt environmentally friendly technologies and develop 
environmental management systems. Organizations led 
by CEOs with a specialization in business education 
show strong fi nancial performance (Arano et al., 2010, 
Kokeno and Muturi, 2016). CEOs’ formal education 
affects both the fi nancial health of  their companies and 
how they invest. To maintain a robust fi nancial position in 
the market, CEOs with formal education are more prone 
to employ additional inventive and creative commercial 
techniques. In light of  the discussion above, we formulate 
the following hypotheses:

H2a: The educational background of  CEOs positively 
affects corporate social performance. 

H2b: The educational background of  CEOs positively 
affects environmental performance
CEO’s Characteristics (Tenure and Education), Corporate 
Social Performance and Environmental Performance
The relationship between environmental performance 
and CEO traits is mediated in large part by corporate 
performance. Guo and Zheng (2021) assert that the 
principles, views, and leadership style of  a chief  executive 
offi cer have a substantial impact on the strategic choices 
that are made inside a fi rm, particularly those that 
pertain to environmental sustainability. According to 
the study, CEOs who have a strong commitment to 
sustainability and ethical leadership through education 
also tend to support corporate policies that improve 
environmental performance. However, a corporation’s 
overall performance acts as a powerful mediating factor 
in this relationship. A company is more likely to invest 
in sustainable practices and technology and improve its 
environmental performance if  its fi nances are sound and 
its operations are effi cient.
Further analysis by Berrone et al., (2017) reinforces the 
idea that corporate performance performs a substantial 
mediating role in the relationship between CEO 
characteristics and environmental performance. The 
study shows that companies with CEOs who prioritize 
sustainability have better environmental performance 
records, but the implementation of  these strategies and 
practices is highly dependent on the overall performance 
and competitive positioning of  the company. Essentially, 
a competitively positioned company is more likely to be 
able to implement and maintain sustainable practices.

H3a: The CEO’s characteristics (tenure and education) 
positively affect corporate social performance.

H3b: The CEO’s characteristics (tenure and education) 
positively affect environmental performance. 

Conceptual Framework
In the context of  the infl uence of  CEO term in offi ce 
and education on company social performance and 
environmental performance, the conceptual framework 
illustrates the relationship between independent, 
dependent elements and control variables. The fi nal step 
in creating a conceptual framework that connects the 
study’s key topic is the literature review. The conceptual 
model represents the link between CEO attributes 
(tenure and education) and corporate social performance 
and environmental performance.          
As illustrated in Figure 1, the independent factors that 
comprise of  CEO characteristics are CEO tenure 
and education. The dependent variables are corporate 
performance and environmental performance, while the 
control variables are fi rm size and reporting period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design and Data 
This study used a descriptive research design because a 
research framework that makes the study’s execution 
easier is required to meet the project’s objectives. The 



Pa
ge

 
64

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Source: Author’s Construction (2023)

descriptive research methodology based on the case study 
reveals the accurate events and profi les of  situations 
(Saunders et al., 2009). This study was carried out using 
the Survey method, a very helpful tool for learning 
people’s opinions and tendencies. There are three primary 
methodologies to think about when addressing research 
topics: mixed methods, which incorporate aspects of  
both qualitative and quantitative methods. Depending 
on which methodology is most suited for the particular 
problem at hand, researchers can use quantitative, 
qualitative, or hybrid approaches (Bell, et al., 2022). 
The research utilized a quantitative analysis approach, 
focusing on a cross-sectional survey approach. To gain 
a comprehensive understanding and establish a statistical 
evaluation of  the phenomena, this research relied on the 
questionnaire as a research tool for data collection with a 
critical consideration for the analytical mission.
The study’s population consists of  52 reputable 
companies that were listed as of  December 2022 on 
the Namibian Stock Exchange (NSX). Thus, 52 CEOs 
of  the listed businesses made up the sampling frame for 
this research. Primary data was used in the study and in 
gathering the data for the study based on the research 
questions, a structured questionnaire was developed. 
Using Google Forms, the questionnaires were emailed to 
each CEO of  the fi rms and of  the 52, 39 responded and 
were used for this study. With the aid of  Microsoft Excel 
and Google Statistical Form, the data was edited, coded, 
and categorized, the responses were examined to make 
sure they consistently addressed the research questions. 
The data was then analyzed using the Statistical Package 
for Social Sciences (SPSS) program and the results were 
presented in tables.

Measurement of  Variables
The measuring of  the selected key CSR and environmental 
activities of  listed corporations was reviewed based 
on the following criteria: environmental stewardship, 
community involvement, workplace safety and employee 
welfare, ethical business practices, diversity and inclusion, 
and corporate governance. The CEO’s Tenure is 
determined by the mean duration of  years that fi rm 

directors have served on the board. This measurement 
technique is in line with (Deschênes et al., 2015) and (De 
Villiers et al., 2011). They maintained that one way to 
examine the correlation between board tenure and social 
and environmental performance is to look at the mean 
duration of  years that directors have served on the board. 
According to Darmadi, (2013) and Ujunwa, (2012), the 
CEO’s education was evaluated in relation to whether or 
not they held a postgraduate degree and a professional 
qualifi cation (ACCA, ICMA, CPA, or CA). If  not, it 
was rated as zero. The criteria for measuring gender is 
based on male or female. Age is measured based on the 
length of  time that a CEO has lived and fi rm size is also 
measured using the natural logarithm of  the company’s 
total assets at the end of  a specifi ed period.

Model Specifi cation
To estimate the correlation between CEO term of  offi ce 
and education on corporate social performance and 
environmental performance, the study proposed the 
following two models:
LnCSP = β0 + β1TEN + β2Edu +β3GDR + β4AGE + 
β4FIS + εt ..................... Model 1 
LnEP = β0 + β1TEN + β2Edu +β3GDR + β4AGE + 
β4FIS + εt.....................  Model 2
Where:  
LnCSP= Corporate Social Performance
LnEP= Environmental Performance 
TEN= Tenure
Edu= Education
GDR= Gender
AGE= Age 
FIS= Firm Size
β1- β4=  co-effi cient of  the explanatory variables
β0= Constant
εt= error term

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive Statistics 
Table 1 displays the study’s descriptive statistics for 
the variables. The study found that the majority of  
the respondents are Male (64.1%). Also, most of  the 



Pa
ge

 
65

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics
Particular Frequency Percent
Respondents Gender
Male 25 64.1%
Female 14 35.9%
Total 39 100.0%
Educational Background
HND/Degree 8 20.5%
MSc/MBA/MPhil 17 43.6%
Professional/Technical 9 23.1%
Prof/Dr. 3 7.7%
Other 2 5.1%
Total 39 100.0%
 Respondents Age 
21-30 years 4 10.3%
31-40 years 9 23.1%
41-50 years 17 43.6%
51-60  years 9 23.1%
Total 39 100.0%
Respondents Tenure
Less than 1 year 4 10.3%
1-2years 6 15.4%
3-5 years 9 23.1%
6-10 years 6 15.4%
More than 10 years 14 35.9%
Total 39 100.0%

Source: Self-constructed based on the responses.

respondents, 43.6%, have either an MSc, MBA, or MPhil. 
It was established that most of  the respondents are 
between the ages of  41 and 50 (43.6%) and have more 
than ten years of  tenure. 

Correlation Analysis 
Table 2 provides the study’s correlation analysis. The 
correlation value for each variable in the correlation. This 
study uses Pearson’s correlation coeffi cient to consider 

Table 2: Correlation Analysis
1 2 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender 1
2. Level of  Education 0.017 1

0.817
3. Age 0.025 -0.02 1

0.737 0.784
4. Tenure -0.039 0.001 -0.073 1

0.592 0.99 0.318
5. Firm Size -0.129 .169 0.085 -.250 1

0.079 0.02 0.246 0.001
6. Environmental Performance .183 -0.044 -0.032 -0.041 0.127 1

0.012 0.552 0.661 0.581 0.082
7. Corporate Social Performance .200 0.081 0.019 -0.023 .152 .729 1

0.006 0.268 0.791 0.755 0.038 0.000
Source: Self-constructed based on the responses.



Pa
ge

 
66

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

the strength and direction of  linear relationships between 
variables. The correlation coeffi cient ranges from -1 to +1. 
The magnitude of  the coeffi cient directly correlates with 
the strength of  the link between the variables. As shown 
in Table 2, there is no problem with Multicollinearity, 

indicated if  the value is more than 0.8.

Regression Analysis 
Multiple regression analysis was done to meet the goals of  
this study. It also covered the connections between CEO 

Table 3: Multiple Regression Analysis
Variables Corporate Social Performance (Model 1) Environmental Performance (Model 2)

 Coef. ( St.Err.)  t-value  Coef. ( St.Err.)  t-value
Gender -0.016 -0.46 0.206 5.00***

(0.034) (0.041)
Age -0.034 -0.72 0.069 1.18

(0.047) (0.058)
Education Level 0.092 3.33*** -0.092 -2.7***

(0.028) (0.034)
Tenure 0.008 0.41 0.045 1.92**

(0.019) (0.023)
Firm Size 0.839 26.86*** -0.015 -0.40

(0.031) (0.038)
Constant 2.062 20.49*** 2.945 23.84***

(0.101) (0.124)
Mean dependent var. 3.60 3.357
R-squared 0.70 0.209
F-test  170.34 9.13
Akaike crit. (AIC) 447.32 603.295
SD dependent var. 0.78 0.559
Number of  obs.  380.00 380
Prob > F 0.00 0.000
Bayesian crit. (BIC) 470.97 626.936

Source: Self-constructed based on the responses.

tenure and education on corporate social performance 
and environmental performance as well as the control 
variables. Table 3 presents the fi ndings.
Two models were utilized in this investigation, as 
shown in Table 3; both model 1 and 2 used corporate 
social performance and environmental performance 
respectively as the dependent variables. The table lists 
four values: the coeffi cient value, standard error (in 
brackets), t-value, and p-value (using stars to indicate). 
According to model 1, the R-square value is 0.70 and the 
R-square value of  model 2 is 0.209, the control variables 
(Gender, Firm Size, and Age) and independent variables 
(Level of  Education and Tenure) account for 70% of  
corporate social performance while only 40.9% accounts 
for environmental performance.
With a signifi cance level of  P (0.05), Table 3 displays 
signifi cant values for the two models (Model 1: F-test 
=170.34, p=0.00; Model 2: F-test =9.13, p=0.000). The 
two models’ representations of  the correlations are 
suggested to be signifi cant by the ANOVA’s signifi cance. 
According to Table 3, among the three control variables 
used in Model 1, Firm Size (β =0.839, t=26.86, p=0.01) 

was discovered to signifi cantly affect corporate social 
performance. Additionally, it was discovered that the 
independent variable, education level (β=0.092, t=3.33, 
p=0.01) had a positive and substantial impact on 
corporate social performance. Gender (β=0.206, t=5.00, 
p=0.01) was found to have a signifi cant impact on 
environmental performance in the case of  three of  the 
control factors. It was also discovered that education level 
(β=-0.092, t=-2.7, p=0.01), and tenure (β=0.045, t=1.92, 
p=0.05) signifi cantly affect environmental performance.

Discussion of  Result 
First, the study examines the link between a CEO’s tenure 
and environmental performance. The study revealed that 
a CEO’s tenure has a positive and substantial infl uence 
on environmental performance, indicating that the 
tenure of  that CEO contributes to the environmental 
performance of  the fi rm. Secondly, the study established 
the association between a CEO’s term of  offi ce and 
corporate social performance. The study revealed 
that a CEO’s tenure has an insignifi cant infl uence on 
corporate social performance, indicating that the tenure 



Pa
ge

 
67

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

of  that CEO contributes little or nothing to the social 
performance of  the fi rm.
Thirdly, the study examined the connection between 
education level and environmental performance. The 
research found that educational background has a 
negative and substantial infl uence on the environmental 
performance of  fi rms. This indicates that the level of  
education attained by the CEO contributes negatively 
to the environmental performance of  fi rms. Finally, 
the study sought to examine the relationship between 
education level and social performance. It is also 
revealed that education level has a positive and signifi cant 
infl uence on social performance indicating that the level 
of  education attained by the CEO contributes positively 
to corporate social performance.
The results of  the study confi rm the fi ndings of  Saridakis 
et al., (2023), Kanuri et al., (2014), Hartnell et al., (2016), 
and Ndalu et al., (2021). For instance, the study by 
Ndalu et al., (2021) employed a sample of  25 Nigerian 
oil and gas businesses to gather information on their 
waste management and emissions policies, as well as 
CEO attributes like tenure, age, gender, and education. 
The study indicated that the length of  time a CEO had 
held their position had no bearing on their commitment 
to environmental sustainability and that there was 
no signifi cant relationship between CEO tenure and 
environmental performance.

CONCLUSIONS
The study’s fi ndings defi nitively establish that the duration 
of  a CEO’s term of  offi ce has a positive and substantial 
infl uence on environmental performance. In contrast, 
its impact on corporate social performance is negligible. 
Moreover, the educational attainment of  CEOs has a 
detrimental and substantial effect on environmental 
performance, whereas it has a benefi cial and substantial 
impact on social performance. The results demonstrate 
the intricate interaction between CEO attributes and their 
infl uence company. Organizations must take into account 
the length of  time and educational background of  their 
CEOs when evaluating and executing environmental and 
social performance plans.
According to the research by Khan et al., (2020),  CEOs’ 
environmental performance improves considerably 
during their fi rst few years of  employment compared to 
later years. Their research confi rms the current research’s 
fi ndings by offering proof  of  the benefi cial infl uence of  
a CEO’s term of  offi ce on environmental performance. 
Although the CEO’s term of  offi ce had little bearing on 
the company’s social performance but according to the 
empirical fi ndings of  Malik et al., (2020) it was revealed 
that the CEO’s term of  offi ce positively impacted CSR 
disclosure. Their research supports the current study’s 
fi ndings that there is a considerable impact of  educational 
level on corporate social performance.
Through this research, policymakers may consider 
imposing regulations or guidelines on CEO tenure and 
educational qualifi cations to ensure that company leaders 

have the requisite expertise to effectively manage social 
and environmental responsibilities. Government entities 
and business organizations can promote and offer 
incentives for ongoing education and training programs 
targeted at CEOs and high-level executives. These 
programs would seek to enhance their understanding of  
environmental and social issues and their infl uence on 
the overall performance of  companies. Policy measures 
can be implemented to strengthen transparency and 
accountability requirements for social and environmental 
performance. Implementing this measure would 
encourage fi rms to disclose relevant information 
and metrics about the CEO’s length of  service and 
educational background. Stakeholders and policymakers 
can consider implementing incentive schemes that align 
CEO compensation with social and environmental 
performance metrics, which can help motivate CEOs to 
prioritize these aspects of  corporate responsibility.
In order to conduct a further study analysis, we suggest 
an examination of  the potential mediating factors that 
could clarify the varying infl uence of  a CEO’s length of  
service and educational background on environmental 
and social performance. For instance, examine how 
corporate governance procedures, organizational 
culture, or stakeholder engagement initiatives infl uence 
the connection between CEO qualities and business 
sustainability outcomes. We strongly advise an industry-
specifi c study to determine if  previously observed 
connexion between CEO traits and sustainability results 
differ across various sectors. Industries facing various 
environmental and social diffi culties might exhibit diverse 
patterns, providing insights into context-specifi c elements 
that impact corporate responsibility.

REFERENCES
Ağan, Y., Kuzey, C., Acar, M. F., & Açıkgöz, A. (2016). The 

relationships between corporate social responsibility, 
environmental supplier development, and fi rm 
performance. Journal of  Cleaner Production, 112, 1872-
1881.

Aldrugi, A. M. (2013). Environmental disclosure in the 
Libyan oil and gas sector [Doctoral dissertation, 
Nottingham Trent University].

Ali, A., & Zhang, W. (2015). CEO tenure and earnings 
management. Journal of  Accounting and Economics, 59(1), 
60-79.

Amore, M. D., Bennedsen, M., Larsen, B., & Rosenbaum, P. 
(2019). CEO education and corporate environmental 
footprint. Journal of  Environmental Economics and 
Management, 94, 254-273.

Apreku-Djana, P. K., Ayittah, S. K., Apreku, I. K. O., 
Ameyaw, F., & Opare, E. A. (2023). The Mediating 
Effect of  Corporate Social Responsibility and 
Corporate Accountability in the Relationship between 
Corporate Governance and Value-Based Financial 
Performance of  Banks. International Journal of  Business, 
28(2), 1-36.

Arano, K., Parker, C., & Terry, R. (2010). Gender-based 



Pa
ge

 
68

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

risk aversion and retirement ass et al location. Economic 
Inquiry, 48(1), 147-155.

Asante Antwi, H., Zhou, L., Xu, X., & Mustafa, T. (2021, 
April). Beyond COVID-19 pandemic: an integrative 
review of  global health crisis infl uencing the evolution 
and practice of  corporate social responsibility. 
Healthcare, 9(4), 453.

Ason, Y. J., Bujang, I., Jidwin, A. P., & Said, J. (2021). 
A manifestation of  accounting conservatism: A 
case study in Malaysia. The Journal of  Asian Finance, 
Economics and Business, 8(2), 365-371.

Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business 
research methods. Oxford University Press.

Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2017). Does 
greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship 
between environmental actions and environmental 
legitimacy. Journal of  Business Ethics, 144, 363-379.

Bhagat, S., Bolton, B. J., & Subramanian, A. (2010). CEO 
education, CEO turnover, and fi rm performance. 
[Working Paper]. Available at SSRN 1670219.

Bhattacharyya, S. S., & Verma, S. (2020). The intellectual 
contours of  corporate social responsibility literature: 
Co-citation analysis study. International Journal of  
Sociology and Social Policy, 40(11/12), 1551-1583.

Callan, S. J., & Thomas, J. M. (2011). Executive 
compensation, corporate social responsibility, 
and corporate fi nancial performance: a multi-
equation framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and 
Environmental Management, 18(6), 332-351.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive 
personality, capability cues, and risk-taking: How 
narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and 
stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202-
237.

Chen, H. L. (2011). Does board independence infl uence 
the top management team? Evidence from strategic 
decisions toward internationalization. Corporate 
Governance: An International Review, 19(4), 334-350

Custódio, C., & Metzger, D. (2014). Financial expert 
CEOs: CEO’s work experience and fi rm’s fi nancial 
policies. Journal of  Financial Economics, 114(1), 125-154.

Darmadi, S. (2013). Board members’ education and fi rm 
performance: evidence from a developing economy. 
International Journal of  Commerce and Management, 23(2), 
113-135.

De Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & Van Staden, C. J. (2011). The 
effect of  board characteristics on fi rm environmental 
performance. Journal of  Management, 37(6), 1636-1663.

Deschênes, S., Rojas, M., Boubacar, H., Prud’homme, 
B., & Ouedraogo, A. (2015). The impact of  board 
traits on the social performance of  Canadian fi rms. 
Corporate Governance, 15(3), 293-305.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A 
stockholder approach. Pitman.

Guo, M., & Zheng, C. (2021). Foreign ownership and 
corporate social responsibility: evidence from China. 
Sustainability, 13(2), 508.

Hamori, M., & Koyuncu, B. (2015). Experience matters? 

The impact of  prior CEO experience on fi rm 
performance. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 23-
44.

Hartnell, C. A., Kinicki, A. J., Lambert, L. S., Fugate, M., & 
Doyle Corner, P. (2016). Do similarities or differences 
between CEO leadership and organizational culture 
have a more positive effect on fi rm performance? 
A test of  competing predictions. Journal of  Applied 
Psychology, 101(6), 846.

He, H., & Harris, L. (2020). The impact of  Covid-19 
pandemic on corporate social responsibility and 
marketing philosophy. Journal of  Business Research, 116, 
176-182.

Helm, S. (2011). Employees’ awareness of  their impact 
on corporate reputation. Journal of  Business Research, 
64(7), 657-663.

Hou, W., Priem, R. L., & Goranova, M. (2017). Does 
one size fi t all? Investigating pay-future performance 
relationships over the “seasons” of  CEO tenure. 
Journal of  Management, 43(3), 864-891.

Hsu, C. W., Lien, Y. C., & Chen, H. (2015). R&D 
internationalization and innovation performance. 
International Business Review, 24(2), 187-195.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (2019). Theory of  
the fi rm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and 
ownership structure. Corporate Governance, 19(2), 77-
132.

Joshi, S., & Kansil, R. (2023). Looking at and beyond 
corporate governance in India: A journey of  three 
decades of  reforms. Springer Nature.

Khan, T. M., Gang, B., Fareed, Z., & Yasmeen, R. (2020). 
The impact of  CEO tenure on corporate social and 
environmental performance: An emerging country’s 
analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 
27(16), 19314-19326.

Khoo, K. (2022). Common ownership and corporate 
social responsibility: Evidence from the Blackrock-
BGI merger. SSRN. 

Kokeno, S., & Muturi, W. (2016). Effect of  chief  
executive offi cer’s characteristics on the fi nancial 
performance of  fi rms listed at the Nairobi Securities 
Exchange. International Journal of  Economics, Commerce 
and Management, 4(7), 307-318.

Kubareva, I., Maliarchuk, O., & Pohuda, N. (2018). 
Corporate social responsibility of  Ukrainian tourist 
enterprises: Identity, strategy and performance. 
Eastern Journal of  European Studies, 9(2), 145.

Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). 
Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves 
us. Journal of  Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.

Li, Y., & Tan, C. H. (2013). Matching business strategy 
and CIO characteristics: The impact on organizational 
performance. Journal of  Business Research, 66(2), 248-
259.

Linck, J. S., Netter, J. M., & Yang, T. (2008). The 
determinants of  board structure. Journal of  Financial 
Economics, 87(2), 308-328.

Luo, X., Kanuri, V. K., & Andrews, M. (2014). How does 



Pa
ge

 
69

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 59-69, 2024

CEO tenure matter? The mediating role of  fi rm-
employee and fi rm-customer relationships. Strategic 
Management Journal, 35(4), 492-511.

Malik, F., Wang, F., Naseem, M. A., Ikram, A., & 
Ali, S. (2020). Determinants of  corporate social 
responsibility related to CEO attributes: An empirical 
study. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244019899093.

Martínez-Sola, C., García-Teruel, P. J., & Martínez-
Solano, P. (2014). Trade credit and SME profi tability. 
Small Business Economics, 42(3), 561-577.

Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2014). Embedding corporate 
social responsibility in corporate governance: A 
stakeholder systems approach. Journal of  Business 
Ethics, 119(1), 77-86.

Najmuddin, O., Deng, X., & Bhattacharya, R. (2018). 
The dynamics of  land use/cover and the statistical 
assessment of  cropland change drivers in the Kabul 
River Basin, Afghanistan. Sustainability, 10(2), 423.

Naseem, T., Shahzad, F., Asim, G. A., Rehman, I. U., 
& Nawaz, F. (2020). Corporate social responsibility 
engagement and fi rm performance in Asia Pacifi c: 
The role of  enterprise risk management. Corporate 
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 
501-513.

Ndalu, T. C., Ibanichuka, E. A. L., & Ofurum, C. O. 
(2021). Board characteristics and environmental 
disclosure of  quoted oil and gas fi rms in Nigeria: The 
moderating role of  fi rm size. International Journal of  
Innovative Finance and Economics Research, 9(4), 51-62.

Peni, E., & Vähämaa, S. (2012). Did good corporate 
governance improve bank performance during the 
fi nancial crisis? Journal of  Financial Services Research, 
41(1-2), 19-35.

Pérez, A., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). Measuring 
CSR image: Three studies to develop and to validate 
a reliable measurement tool. Journal of  Business Ethics, 
118(2), 265-286.

Saridakis, C., Angelidou, S., & Woodside, A. G. (2023). 
How historical and social aspirations reshape the 
relationship between corporate fi nancial performance 
and corporate social responsibility. Journal of  Business 
Research, 157, 113553.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research 
methods for business students. Pearson Education.

Tien, C., Chen, C. N., & Chuang, C. M. (2013). A study 
of  CEO power, pay structure, and fi rm performance. 
Journal of  Management & Organization, 19(4), 424-453.

Ujunwa, A. (2012). Board characteristics and the fi nancial 
performance of  Nigerian quoted fi rms. Corporate 
Governance: The International Journal of  Business in 
Society, 12(5), 656-674.

Zhou, Z., Zheng, F., Lin, J., & Zhou, N. (2021). 
The interplay among green brand knowledge, 
expected eudaimonic well-being and environmental 
consciousness on green brand purchase intention. 
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental 
Management, 28(2), 630-639.


