Date of submission: February 7, 2022; date of acceptance: March 20, 2022. * Contact information: nusiratgold@gmail.com, Department of Accounting and Fi- nance, Kwara State University, Malete, Kwara State, Nigeria, phone: +2348038881402; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8063-5695. ** Contact information: aifuwahopeosayantin@gmail.com, Department of Account- ing, Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria, phone: +2348113232082; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8908-6637. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting e-ISSN 2300-3065 p-ISSN 2300-12402022, volume 11, issue 3 Gold, N.O., & Aifuwa, H.O. (2022). Board Meeting and Sustainability Reporting of Banks in Ni- geria. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 11(3), 49–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/ CJFA.2022.013 nusiRat ojuolape golD Kwara State University hope osayantin aifuwa University of Benin boaRD meeting anD sustainability RepoRting of banks in nigeRia Keywords: board meeting, sustainability reporting, global reporting initiative, listed deposit money banks. J E L Classification: M10, M14, M41, M48. Abstract: A board meeting is an avenue for directors of an organization to carry out their oversight and monitoring functions as well as discuss and meet the request and needs of the stakeholders. Corporate strategies of an organization are taken and im- plemented when board members meet. Leaning on this fact, this study examined the impact of board meetings on sustainability reporting in listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. A sample of ten (10) listed deposit money banks from 2014 to 2020 was con- veniently selected. Descriptive and inferential statistics (panel least squares and logis- tic regression) was employed to summarize the data and to draw an inference on the population studied. Results from both the panel least squares regression and the bina- ry logit regression revealed that board meetings have no significant impact on sustain- Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa5050 ability reporting of listed deposit money banks in Nigeria after controlling corporate administration and firm-level attributes. The study concluded that board meetings do not have an impact on sustainability reporting inf luences sustainability reporting of listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. The study recommends that issues on sustain- ability should be discussed in the board meeting frequently.  Introduction Introduction Sustainability reporting has taken center stage in the heart of businesses across the globe. This is as a result of firms’ social and environmental neglect in the time past. Some of the high profile cases of firms environmental and so- cial neglect include: US nuclear catastrophe of 1979, British Petroleum (BP) oil spillage in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, Ukraine Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion in 1986, Exxon Valdez Alaska oil spill in 1989, the Bhopal chemical ac- cident India in 1984, the Kuwait Gulf War Oil Fire in 1991 (Gold, Aifuwa, Usman, Subair, Osazebvaru & Oloyede, 2021; Musa, Gold & Aifuwa, 2020), Nigeria Ogoni Land and Water pollution in 1991 and Lonmin Markana mining maltreatment of its workers in South Africa, to mention a few (Abdullahi & Makama, 2021). From the foregoing, there has been a wide awareness on the need for firms across the globe to include sustainability strategy into their business model. This entails disclosing their economic, social and environmental impact in ad- dition to the traditional financial reporting, as it affects the community and environment where they operate. The wide awareness on sustainability re- porting by firms was as result of the global adoption of the United Nation’s – Sustainable Development Goal (Musa, Gold & Aifuwa, 2020) and the voluntary activities of government and non-governmental organizations such as the As- sociation of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Global Reporting Initi- ative (GRI), The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN), Asso- ciation of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), The Nigeria Stock Exchange (NSE), The Central Bank of Ni- geria (CBN), to promote a sustainable world business and economy (Abdullahi & Makama, 2021). However, in Nigeria, despite the acceptance of sustainability reporting as a corporate strategy for firms to gain competitive advantage and long term survival, there still exists low disclosure rate on social and environmental is- sues in firms (Umukoro, Uwuigbe, Uwuigbe, Adegboye, Ajetunmobi & Nwaze, 2019). This low disclosure rate on sustainability is due to the nature of the re- Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 5151 port being voluntary (Aifuwa, 2020). Adeniyi and Fadipe (2018) argue that the low level of sustainability reporting of Nigerian firms is attributed to the in- effective and poor corporate governance practice and mechanisms. Corporate governance mechanism such as the board of directors has received wide and robust criticisms in academic literature. Specifically, the boards of directors in banks are often argued to be non-compliant and sensitive to economic, social and environmental issues (Babalola & Adedipe, 2014; Iyafekhe, Odu & Imagbe, 2020a; Iyafekhe, Aifuwa & Odu, 2020b). This could be explained through the theoretical lens of the Agency theory of profit maximization for the sharehold- ers, in a bid to maintaining the principal-agent relationship (Jensen & Meck- ling, 1996). The vehicle through which the directors in the boards of firms carry out oversight and monitoring function successfully is the board meeting. In the board meeting they discuss and resolve strategic issues that would improve the firms’ competitive advantage and performance (Fodio, Alhassan & Bello, 2021). Sustainability issues are also discussed in board meeting and policies are made to meet the need and request of stakeholders of organization (Baba & Abdul- manaf, 2017). In the literature there are inconsistent findings on the impact of board meeting on sustainability reporting. Grigoris (2014); Ju Ahmad, Rashid and Gow (2017); Falikhatu, Wahyuni, Nilasakti and Niswah (2020), Otuya, Ak- poriun, and Ofeimum (2019); Baba and Abdulmanaf (2017) and Valentino and Nichola (2019) found no evidence on the nexus between board meeting and sus- tainability reporting. The study of Mohammed (2017) evidenced a positive as- sociation between a board meeting and sustainability reporting; while Fodio, Alhasaan and Bello (2021) found negative relationship between a board meet- ing and sustainability reporting. To the best of the researchers knowledge, no study has specifically examined the impact of board meeting on sustainabil- ity reporting of banks in Nigeria, whilst controlling corporate admiration and firm-level attributes. The financial sector of any economy is considered as its backbone owing to the provision of financial resources; and as such this repre- sents a potential key driver for achieving the transition to an inclusive low car- bon and resource efficient economy (Okolie & Igaga, 2020). These gaps identi- fied in the literature were the motivation for the study. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section two focuses on the literature review and hypotheses development. Section three addresses the method with emphasis on theoretical framework and model specification. Sec- Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa5252 tion four presents data analysis, interpretation and discussion of findings. Sec- tion five concludes. Research methodology and research processResearch methodology and research process Sustainability Reporting of Banks in NigeriaSustainability Reporting of Banks in Nigeria The concept of Sustainability Reporting has been defined by researchers and international organizations as the process of disclosing firms’ economic, social and environmental impact on the geographical location where they operate in a particular period of time (Asaolu, Agboola, Ayoola, & Salawu, 2011; Awodiran, 2019; GRI, 2019; Aifuwa, 2020; Christofi, Christofi & Sisaye, 2012; Musa, Gold & Aifuwa, 2020; Gold et al., 2021). Sustainability Report shows firms’ commit- ment toward meeting the need of stakeholders and improving the performance (Aifuwa, 2020). In Nigeria, organizations and agencies of government have made great stride to ensure that firms disclose issues on their environmental and social impact, apart from the traditional financial report. Organizations such as the Institute of Chartered Accountant of Nigeria (ICAN), Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN), the Nigeria Securities and Exchange Commis- sion (NSE), the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN and Bankers Committee and La- bour Unions and Trade Organizations (Abdullahi & Makama, 2021). Despite these strides made, sustainability reporting is still voluntary and not a listing requirement quoted firms. However, the Nigerian banking sector has shown significant and promising prospect to disclosing environmental, social and economic issues (Iyafekhe, et al, 2020a). Deposit money banks have keyed into this agenda through the Nigerian Sustainability Bank Principles (NSBP). The NSBP is a set of standards that was created for the financial sector in Nigeria by the central bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the bankers’ committee to in- dicate a pledge to economic growth that is environmentally responsible and socially significant (Okolie & Igaga, 2020). Banks as lenders and business lead- ers recognize the role they play in conveying positive development impacts to society whilst securing the networks and environment in which they work. Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 5353 Board Meeting Board Meeting A board meeting, activity or diligence is a means whereby the directors of firms exercise their monitoring function in the board. A board meeting is a tool used by the board of directors to monitor and control the performance of an organi- zation (Baba & Abdulmanaf, 2017). According to the Nigeria Corporate Govern- ance Code of 2018, principal defined a board meeting as a principal vehicle for conducting the business of Board and successfully. Section 10 (1) and (2) stipu- late that the board of directors should meet at least once in every quarter to ef- fectively and efficiently carry out their oversight and monitoring function. The code also stresses the need for directors to diligently attend the board meeting and treat all matters arising before the next meeting. Therefore, board meeting frequency is a significant proxy for a board meeting (Vafeas, 1999). In literature there is still an ongoing argument on the importance of the fre- quency of board meetings on the performance of firms. Lipton and Lorsch (1992) argue that a regular board meeting improves the boards’ effectiveness in car- rying out their oversight and monitoring functions, which in turn increases the transparency in firms. Fodio, Alhassan and Bello (2021) argue that a frequent board meeting is crucial for directors to make effective decision. Herremans, Nazari and Mahmoudia (2016) further argue that a frequent board meeting is an avenue for directors to discuss and interact a firm’s environmental and so- cial disclosure and meet the needs of stakeholders. In contrast to this argument, Vafeas (1999) echoed that frequent board meetings show the inefficiency of the board of directors in carrying out their oversight and monitoring functions. Vafeas (1999) further argued that frequent board meetings reduce the directors performance. This is because most of the independent directors are involved in other board of firm – outside directorship; thus, they have limited time to per- form their board functions properly (Jensen, 1993). Extending these arguments to this study, a board meeting may improve the extent of environment, social and economic disclosure in listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. Control VariablesControl Variables This study introduced corporate administration and firm-level attributes as control variable of the study. The essence of control variables is to enhance the accuracy of the independent variable in regression to avoid a spurious re- Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa5454 sult (Owolabi & Olayinka, 2021). The corporate administration variables intro- duced include board independence, board size and board member education level, while firms level variables introduced include profitability, firm size and audit quality. These variables have a direct inf luence on sustainability report- ing (Gold et al., 2021; Iyaf khe et al., 2020; Musa et al., 2020; Owolabi & Olayin- ka, 2021). Empirical ReviewEmpirical Review In the United States of America, Grigoris (2014) investigated the potential ef- fects of corporate governance and financial characteristics on the extent of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure focusing on 366 companies in 2011. The environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure score calcu- lated by Bloomberg is used as a proxy for the extent of CSR disclosure while board meetings are used as proxy for corporate governance. Multiple regres- sion analysis was used to investigate the effect of board size on CSR disclosure. The results show that board meetings are not related to the extent of CSR dis- closure. In the United Kingdom, Mohammad (2017) examined the Inf luence of Board Composition on Sustainable Development using (ESG) disclosure of three hun- dred and fifty (350) firms from 2007–2012. Secondary data from Bloomberg was used by the researcher to provide the weighted CSR score based on the level and type of social, environmental and governance information a firm dis- closes while BM, board meetings, is the number of board meetings per year. The researcher found that that frequency of board meetings is positively and signif- icantly related to ESG disclosure. In Malaysia, Ju Ahmad, Rashid and Gow (2017) examined effectiveness of board meeting frequency on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting by public listed companies on the Main Market of Bursa Malaysia. The study sampled four hundred and fifty (450) firms and employed content analysis in developing CSR reporting index, and also utilized the ordinary least squares re- gression as the inferential statistic. The researchers found out that frequency of board meeting does not significantly affect corporate social responsibility reporting. In Indonesia, Falikhatun, Wahyuni, Nilasakti and Niswah (2020) investi- gated the mediating role of financial performance on the effect of Sharia Gov- Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 5555 ernance on Sustainability Reporting of Sharia Commercial Banks (BUS) from 2014–2017. The researchers found out that board of directors meeting has no significant inf luence on the sustainability reporting. In Nigeria, Fodio, Alhassan and Bello (2021) examined the effects of board capabilities in terms of female director qualification, environmental expertise of directors, and board activity on environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices of fourty-eight (48) listed non-financial firms. They employed the gen- eralized least squares regression as inferential statistics, and found that board activity negatively affects ESG practices of listed nonfinancial firms in Nigeria. Another study in Nigeria by Otuya, Akporien and Ofeimun (2019) investi- gated the inf luence of companies’ governance process on sustainability report- ing in Nigeria. The researchers used a modified checklist based on SEC (2018) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines to examine the level of disclosures by sam- pled firms for the period 2016 to 2018. Findings of the study from regression analysis revealed that board activity has no association with level of sustain- ability reporting in Nigeria. Baba and Abdul-manaf (2017) examine moderating effect of intellectual capital on the relationship between board governance mechanisms and sus- tainability disclosure of 80 companies listed on Nigerian Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2015. The researchers proxied board governance mechanisms with corporate Board size, board independence, board diversity and board meet- ings, while the sustainability disclosure index was used to proxy sustainabil- ity disclosure. They employed regression as inferential statistics and found out that board meeting was not significantly related to sustainability disclosure. Using meta-analytical review, Valentino and Nicola (2019) analysed the inf luence of corporate governance on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure. Their study used a sample of 24 empirical studies to clari- fy the relationship between the number of board meeting with ESG disclosure that number of board meetings does not affect the ESG Voluntary disclosure. Theoretical Framework and Model SpecificationTheoretical Framework and Model Specification Different theories have been used to underpin and explain the association be- tween sustainability reporting and corporate governance mechanism in firms. Theories ranging from Agency theory, Resource Dependency Theory, Legiti- macy theory, Stakeholder’s theory and the Upper Echelon theory (Fodio et al., Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa5656 2021; Gold et al., 2021; Musa, et al., 2020; Olayinka, 2021). However, this study is hinged on the resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The theory states that a firm depends on the resources from the environment to survive (Fodio et al., 2021). The board of an organization is a resource that plays an important role in establishing the link between the firm and the exter- nal environment. A mechanism for the board to successfully achieve this func- tion is through a board meeting. Board meetings have been recognized by re- searchers and organizations as a means of improving the quality of decision taken by directors (Iyafekhe et al., 2020b). In relation to this study, Ju Ahmad et al. (2017) argue that a board meeting is an avenue for directors to discuss, deliberate and make quality decision and policies on environmental, social and economic issues of a firm. Flowing from the theoretical framework, the model of the study was stated as: SRD = ƒ(Board Meeting; Control variables) (1) In econometric form: SRDit = β0 + β1BMit + β2BINit + β3BSit + β4BELit + β5PRFit + β6FSit + β7AQit + εit (2) Where: SRD = Sustainability Reporting, β0 = Constant, BM = Board Meeting, BIN = Board Independence, BS = Board Size, BEL = Board Members’ Education Level, PRF = Profitability, FS = Firm Size, AQ = Audit Quality, β1 = Coefficient of explanatory variable, ε = Standard error, i = Cross sectional (Companies), t = Time Series. A priori expectations for with extant literature noted to be β1 > 0 Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 5757 MethodologyMethodology To achieve the objective of the study, the study adopted the panel research de- sign. The rationale for this was because of the nature of the secondary data hav- ing properties of times series and cross sections. The researcher conveniently selected ten (10) of the fifteen (15) listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. The rationale for this was the availability of data. Data for the variables of the study was hand-collected from the annual financial statements, banks’ websites and stand-alone sustainability reports of selected listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. The study considered seven (7) years from 2014–2020. The period se- lected was based on the fact that listed deposit money banks have fully imple- mented and disclosed all reports on Sustainabilty reporting with the directives of the Nigeria Stock Exchange (Ozordi, Eluyela, Uwuigbe, Uwuigbe & Nwaze, 2020; Umukoro et al., 2019). Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse data. The Panel Least Squares was used to test hypotheses stated. The rationale for this was because the data include properties of time-series and cross-sectional data (Aifuwa & Okojie, 2015; Studenmund, 2014). Furthermore, we employed logistic analysis for the robustness check. Development of Sustainability Disclosure Index (SDI)Development of Sustainability Disclosure Index (SDI) In developing the sustainability reporting index, we used the G4 sector-specif- ic disclosures of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The rationale for this is that the general framework focusing on the economic, environmental, and so- cial indicators addresses specific industry needs (Ozordi et al., 2020; Musa et al., 2021). Therefore, based on the content analysis, we developed an unweight- ed sustainability disclosure index for the economic, environmental, and social performance of the sampled firms. For instance, where the sampled firm fully discloses economic, environmental, and social information, they will be scored 1 otherwise 0 for partial or non-disclosure. stated. The rationale for this was because the data include properties of time-series and cross- sectional data (Aifuwa & Okojie, 2015; Studenmund, 2014). Furthermore, we employed logistic analysis for the robustness check. Development of Sustainability Disclosure Index (SDI) In developing the sustainability reporting index, we used the G4 sector-specific disclosures of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The rationale for this is that the general framework focusing on the economic, environmental, and social indicators addresses specific industry needs (Ozordi et al., 2020; Musa et al., 2021). Therefore, based on the content analysis, we developed an unweighted sustainability disclosure index for the economic, environmental, and social performance of the sampled firms. For instance, where the sampled firm fully discloses economic, environmental, and social information, they will be scored 1 otherwise 0 for partial or non-disclosure. Therefore, Where; SBR = Sustainability Reporting TD = Total disclosure (N1 + N2 + N3) N1 = for the economic indicator i N2 = for the environmental indicator i N3 = for the social indicator i M = Maximum possible score of 158 The researcher obtained information regarding the board meeting from the annual reports of listed deposit money banks and circulars for the Nigeria Exchange Group. Where: SBR = Sustainability Reporting TD = Total disclosure (N1 + N2 + N3) Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa5858 N1 = for the economic indicator i N2 = for the environmental indicator i N3 = for the social indicator i M = Maximum possible score of 158 The researcher obtained information regarding the board meeting from the annual reports of listed deposit money banks and circulars for the Ni- geria Exchange Group. Table 1. Measure of variables Variable Measurement Supporting Scholars Dependent Variable Sustainability Reporting (SRD) GRI G4 framework on economic, social, and environmental sustainability disclosure as stated above. Iyafekhe et al. (2020a) Independent Variable Board Meeting (BM) Total number of meetings held by the corporate board. Iyafekhe et al. (2020b) Control Variable Board Independence (BIN) The number of non-executive directors on the board divided by the total number of directors sitting on the board Aifuwa & Embele (2019); Saidu & Aifuwa (2020) Board Size (BS) The total number of directors sitting on the board. Adeniyi & Fadipe (2018) Board Members Education Level (BEL) Total numbers of the board members with Postgraduate degree divided by the total number of directors. Musa et al. (2020) Profitability (PRF) Measured by return on assets (ROA) i.e. Profit after tax divided by Total assets Aifuwa, Saidu & Gold (2020) Firdm Size (FS) Natural logarithm of total assets. Aifuwa & Embele (2019); Saidu & Aifuwa (2020) Audit Quality (AQ) Dichotomous variable i.e. 1 if a firm is audited by the BIG4 in a particular year; otherwise, 0. Saidu & Aifuwa (2020) S o u r c e : authors’ compilation, 2021. Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 5959 Data presentation, analysis and discussion of findingsData presentation, analysis and discussion of findings In this section, we described the data used in the variables of the study and also inferences were drawn on them. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics Variables Mean Minimum Maximum Std. Dev SRD 0.3437 0.0000 0.7272 0.1802 BM 15.0666 7.0000 19.0000 2.9470 BIN 0.4401 0.1544 0.7693 0.1641 BS 14.4521 7.0000 19.0000 2.2455 BEL 0.5354 0.0178 0.8752 0.1245 PRF 0.0184 0.0424 0.0017 0.0110 FS 10.474 7.9541 12.876 1.307 AQ 0.8802 0.0000 1.0000 0.3287 S o u r c e : authors’ computation, 2021. Table 2 presents the summary of statistics for the sampled listed deposit mon- ey banks over the study period. The mean of sustainability disclosures was 34.4% while the company with the highest disclosure had 72.7% of the aggre- gate of sustainability disclosures. The mean value of board meeting stood at 15.0666, with a minimum and maximum number of board meeting times were 7 and 19 times, respectively. The means control variables of the study board in- dependence, board size, board members education level, profitability, firm size and audit quality stood at, 0.4401, 14.4521, 0.5354, 0.0184, 10.474 and 0.880, respectively. This implies that the proportion of non-executive directors to the total number of directors was about 44%, the average number of directors in the board was about 15 people, the ration of directors with postgraduate de- gree to total board size was about 54%, and about 88% of the banks investigat- ed were audited by the big four. Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa6060 Table 3. Correlation Matrix SRD BM BIN BS BEL PRF FS AQ SRD 1.000000 BM -0.199536 1.000000 BIN 0.237914 -0.274973 1.000000 BS 0.262578 -0.103288 0.004002 1.000000 BEL 0.050722 0.209387 -0.210415 -0.035144 1.000000 PRF -0.033415 -0.060768 0.041122 -0.147024 0.049165 1.000000 FS -0.057586 -0.156970 0.064205 -0.178164 -0.231150 0.598638 1.000000 AQ -0.167411 -0.555968 0.150934 -0.159437 -0.239500 0.126996 0.484750 1.000000 S o u r c e : authors’ computation, 2021. The linearity of variables (correlation matrix) as presented in table 3 showed that the variables exhibited both positive and negative relationships. Board meeting and sustainability reporting association was (-0.199536); and board independence and sustainability reporting (0.237914). Also, as seen in the ma- trix, the strength of the relationship between variables measured by the Pear- son product-moment correlation showed that the association between the var- iables is relatively small and were below the threshold of 0.80, suggesting the absence of the problem of multicollinearity in the predictor variables (Studen- mund, 2014). Multivariate AnalysisMultivariate Analysis This section presents the results of the Hausman test and the Panel Least Squares Regression. The hypotheses of the study were tested at 5% level of sig- nificance (that is, if p-value < 0.05 reject Ho, else accept otherwise). Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 6161 Table 4. Hausman test of effect specification Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Test cross-section random effects Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob. Cross-section random 10.18837 7 0.1781 S o u r c e : authors’ computation, 2020. The table above revealed the result of the Hausman test, HM (7) = 10.18837, p = 0.6792 > 0.05. Leaning on this result, the study ignored the fixed effect mod- el at 5%, and therefore accepted the random effect model of the panel least squares the regression. Table 5. Panel Least Squares (Random effects specification) Cross-section random effects test equation: Dependent Variable: SRD Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 10/20/21 Time: 14:37 Sample: 2014 2020 Periods included: 7 Cross-sections included: 10 Total panel (balanced) observations: 70 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. C 0.913866 0.692654 1.319368 0.2138 BM -0.013510 0.013699 -0.986156 0.3453 BIN 5.956548 1.163712 5.118576 0.0077 BS -0.062390 0.316190 -0.197317 0.8472 BEL 0.030982 0.028814 1.075250 0.3053 PRF -0.855357 7.831225 -0.109224 0.9150 FS 0.495161 1.054064 0.469764 0.6477 AQ -0.587239 0.487265 -1.205174 0.2534 Root MSE 0.043285 R-squared 0.838720 Mean dependent var 0.343733 Adjusted R-squared 0.574806 Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa6262 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. S.D. dependent var 0.109626 S.E. of regression 0.071483 Akaike info criterion -2.175336 Sum squared resid 0.056209 Schwarz criterion -1.287911 Log likelihood 51.63004 Hannan-Quinn crit. -1.891441 F-statistic 13.17810 Durbin-Watson stat 2.112825 Prob(F-statistic) 0.027444 S o u r c e : authors’ computation, 2021. The results of the panel least squares (random effect) regression in table 5 re- veal that a board meeting has no significant impact on the extent of sustain- ability reporting in listed deposit money banks in Nigeria after controlling for corporate governance performance and firm-level qualities, β1 = -0.013510; SE = 0.013699, p = 0.3453 > 0.05. Although the relationship was negative but was not statistically significant at 5% level of significance. This result supports the argument of Vafeas (1999) and Jensen (1993) who contend that frequent board meetings show the inefficiency of the board of directors in carrying out their oversight and monitoring functions. This findings of this study do not support the theoretical framework of the study, that board of directors are re- source would not promote corporate strategies such as sustainability report- ing through board meetings. The finding of this study is consistent with works Grigoris (2014) in the US, Ju Ahmad et al. (2017) in Malaysia, Falikhatun et al. (2020) in Indonesia, Valentino and Nicola (2019). In Nigeria, the finding of this work is in tandem with the works of Otuya, Akporien and Ofeimun (2019) in Ni- geria oil and gas companies and also the work of Baba and Abdul-manaf (2017) on selected quoted firms in Nigeria. In contrast to the finding of this study, Mohammed (2017) found a positive association between a board meeting and sustainability reporting; while Fodio et al. (2021) found a negative relationship between board meeting and sustain- ability reporting. The model of the study was statistically significant, F-statistic = 13.17810, p = 0.027444. This implies that the model is fit. Also, the Adjusted R-Square for the model stood at 0.574806 which implies that about 57% of the systematic variation in the dependent variable is caused by the explanatory variable used Table 5. Panel… Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 6363 in the study. While about 43% of the variations can be linked to other variables not included in the model but adequately captured by the standard error of the regression, SE = 0.071483. Robustness CheckRobustness Check To determine the robustness of the study, the study further extended the re- gression model by classifying the sustainability reporting to high and low qual- ity. Dummies were allocated to variable where 1 stands for any value greater than 0.5 signifying high-quality sustainability reporting and 0 stands for any value less than 0.5 representing low-quality sustainability reporting. Since the dependent variable is represented by the dummy variable, the study employed logistic analysis for the robustness check. From table 6, these results confirm the robustness of the main test as the desired variables retain their result. Table 6. Logistic Regression Dependent Variable: GRI Method: ML - Binary Probit (Newton-Raphson / Marquardt steps) Date: 10/20/21 Time: 14:39 Sample: 2014 2020 Included observations: 70 Convergence achieved after 6 iterations Coefficient covariance computed using observed Hessian Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob. C 0.070389 7.667261 0.009180 0.9927 BM -0.108849 0.159098 -0.684160 0.4939 BIN 13.46869 5.843984 2.304710 0.0212 BS 3.363543 3.136372 1.072431 0.2835 BEL 0.097156 0.330713 0.293779 0.7689 PRF 160.9396 110.3819 1.458025 0.1448 FS -12.20435 17.10093 -0.713666 0.4754 AQ -5.017561 5.818692 -0.862318 0.3885 McFadden R-squared 0.444156 Mean dependent var 0.333333 S.D. dependent var 0.479463 S.E. of regression 0.388884 Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa6464 Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob. Akaike info criterion 1.240939 Sum squared resid 3.327075 Schwarz criterion 1.614591 Log likelihood -10.61408 Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.360473 Deviance 21.22816 Restr. deviance 38.19085 Restr. log likelihood -19.09543 LR statistic 16.96269 Avg. log likelihood -0.353803 Prob(LR statistic) 0.017638 Obs with Dep=0 50 Total obs 70 Obs with Dep=1 20 S o u r c e : authors’ computation, 2020. For both hypotheses tested, the results were the same. Board meeting had no significant inf luence on sustainability reporting, β1 = -0.108849; SE = 0.159098, p > 0.05.  Conclusion  Conclusion The study examined the impact of a board meeting on sustainability reporting in Banks in Nigeria. Ten (10) Listed Deposit Money Banks were conveniently sampled from 2014 to 2020. The result of the study revealed that board meet- ings do not have significant impact on sustainability reporting in listed banks in Nigeria after control corporate administration and firm-level attributes. The study concluded that board meetings have no significant impact on sustaina- bility reporting of banks in Nigeria. The study recommended that banks should discuss more on sustainability issue, that is, social and environmental issues.  References References Abdullahi, A., & Makama, U. (2021). Sustainability reporting in Nigeria. Al-Hikmah Jour- nal of Arts & Social Sciences Education, 3(1), 143–151. Adeniyi, S.I., & Fadipe, A.O. (2018). Effect of board diversity on sustainability reporting in Nigeria: A Study of beverage manufacturing firms. Indonesian Journal of Corpo- Table 6. Logistic… Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 6565 rate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1(1), 43–50. http://dx.doi. org/10.35932/ijcsrem.v1i1.12. Aifuwa, H.O. (2020). Sustainability reporting and firm performance in developing climes: A review of literature. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 9(1), 9–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2020.001. Aifuwa, H.O., & Embele, K. (2019). Board characteristics and financial reporting quality. Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 5(1), 30–49. Aifuwa, H.O., & Okojie, P.I. (2015). Materials and methods: SPSS demystified. Unpublished manuscript, Samuel Adegboyega Univerisity, Ogwa, Nigeria. Aifuwa, H.O., Saidu, M., & Gold, N.O. (2020). Audit committee attributes and timeliness of corporate financial reporting in Nigeria. Accounting and Finance, 88(2), 114–124. Asaolu, T.O., Agboola, A.A., Ayoola, T.J., & Salawu, M.K. (2011). Sustainability reporting in the Nigerian oil and gas sector. Environmental Management Conference Proceed- ings, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. Awodiran, M.A. (2019). Corporate governance and sustainability disclosure: Evidence from listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria. Journal of Economics, Management and Social Sciences, 5, 67–82. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3395740 (assessed: 5.01.2021). Baba, U.B., & Abdulmanaf, K.B. (2017). Board governance mechanisms and sustainabil- ity disclosure: A moderating role of intellectual capital. Asian Journal of Multidisci- plinary Studies, 5(10), 163–189. Babalola, A., & Adedipe, O.A. (2014). Corporate governance and sustainable banking sector: Evidence from Nigeria. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 5(12), 32–43. Christofi, A., Christofi, P., & Sisaye, S. (2012). Corporate sustainability: Historical de- velopment and reporting practices. Management Research Review, 35(2), 157–172. Falikhatun, F., Wahyuni, S., Nilasakti, A.O., & Niswah, M.A. (2020). Sharia governance and sustainability reporting: The mediating role of financial performance. Al-Uqud: Journal of Islamic Economics, 4(2), 218–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.26740/al-uqud. v4n2.p218-234. Fodio, M.I., Alhassan, A.S., & Bello, M.B. (2021). Effect of board capabilities on environ- mental, social and governance disclosure practices of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. Lafia Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 6(1), 1–20. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2019). What is Sustainability reporting, https:// www. gri.org. Gold, N.O., Aifuwa, H.O., Usman, M.K., Subair, M.L., Osazebvaru, A., & Oloyede, B.M. (2021). Board members’ education diversity and sustainability reporting. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, 21(1), 109–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.26458/2115. Grigoris, G. (2014). Corporate governance and financial characteristics effects on cor- porate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), 569–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2013-0008. Herremans I. M., Nazari J.A., & Mahmoudian F. (2016). Stakeholder relationships, en- gagement, and sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 417–435. Nusirat Ojuolape Gold, Hope Osayantin Aifuwa6666 Iyafekhe, C., Aifuwa, H.O., & Odu, V.C. (2020b). Board characteristics and sustainability reporting: Does sustainability reporting committee matter? Management Sciences Review, Journal of the Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Benin, 11(1), 148– –173. Iyafekhe, C., Imagbe, V.U., & Odu, V.C. (2020a). Board education diversity and sustainabil- ity reporting of listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. Management Sciences Review, Journal of the Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Benin, 11(1), 202–229. Jensen, M.C. (1993). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit and the Failure of In- ternal Control Systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x. Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agen- cy costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X. Ju Ahmad, N.B., Rashid, A., & Gow, J. (2017). Board meeting frequency and corporate so- cial responsibility (CSR) reporting: Evidence from Malaysia. Corporate Board: role, duties and composition, 13(1–1), 87–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cbv13i1c1art3. Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J.W. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate govern- ance: Business source. The Business Lawyer, 48(1), 59–77. Mohammad, H. (2017). The effect of corporate governance mechanisms on social re- sponsibility disclosure. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 139–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4S2p139. Musa, S., Gold, N.O., & Aifuwa, H.O. (2020). Board diversity and sustainability reporting: Evidence from industrial goods firms. Izvestiya Journal of Varna University of Eco- nomics, 64(4), 377–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.36997/IJUEV2020.64.4.377. Okolie, A.O., & Igaga, C.A. (2020). Sustainability reporting and financial performance of deposit money banks in Nigeria. International Business & Economics Studies, 2(2), 68–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ibes.v2n2p68. Olayinka, O.M. (2021). Corporate governance and economic sustainability report- ing in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 13(4), 243–254. http://dx.doi. org/10.5897/JAT2021.0478. Otuya, S., Ofiemun, G., & Akporien, F. (2019). Does financial statement information still matter? Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 10(13), 16–22. http://dx.doi. org/10.7176/RJFA/10-13-03. Owolabi, S.A., & Olayinka, O.M. (2021). Corporate governance and sustainability re- porting: The controlling effect of company size and age in selected listed firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 10(4), 36–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.24940/ijird/2021/v10/i4/APR21021. Ozordi, E., Eluyela, D.F., Uwuigbe, U., Uwuigbe, O.R., & Nwaze, C.E. (2020). Gender diver- sity and sustainability responsiveness: Evidence from Nigerian fixed money depos- it banks. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 18(1), 119–129. http://dx.doi. org/10.21511/ppm.18(1).2020.11. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource de- pendence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Board mEEting and sustainaBility rEPorting of Banks in nigEria 6767 Saidu, M., & Aifuwa, H.O. (2020). Board characteristics and audit quality: The moderat- ing role of gender diversity. International Journal of Business and Law Research, 8(1), 144–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3544733. Studenmund, A.H. (2014). Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide (6th ed.). Harlow, Eng- land: Pearson Education Limited. Umukoro, O.E., Uwuigbe, O.R., Uwuigbe, U., Adegboye, A., Ajetunmobi, O., & Nwaze, C. (2019). Board expertise and sustainability reporting in listed banks in Nigeria. In- ternational Conference on Energy and Sustainable Environment, 331. http://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1755-1315/331/1/012048. Vafeas, N. (1999). Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53(1), 113–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(99)00018-5. Valentino, L., & Nicola, C. (2019). Corporate governance and environmental, social and governance disclosure: A meta-analysis review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 701–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1716.