6363Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting e-ISSN 2300-3065 p-ISSN 2300-12402024, volume 13, issue 1 Date of submission: January 1, 2024; date of acceptance: February 10, 2024. * Contact information: usmankamal22@gmail.com, Department of Accounting and Finance, Kwara State University, Malete, Nigeria, phone: +2348031163417; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4303-840X. Usman, M.K. (2024). Sustainability Committee, Audit Firm Type and Corporate Sustainability Re- porting of Non-Financial Firms in Nigeria. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 13(1), 63– 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2024.004 muhammed kamaldeen usman* Kwara State University sustainability committee, audit firm type and corporate sustainability reporting of non-financial firms in nigeria Keywords: Sustainability Committee, Audit Firm Type (Big Four), Corporate Sustain- ability Reporting. J E L Classification: M41, Q56. Abstract: In spite of the detrimental consequences, such as pollution and other envi- ronmental risks arising from corporate activities, there has been a noticeable lack of transparency in disclosing social, environmental, and economic information. In light of this, the research aims to present empirical evidence regarding the impact of sustain- ability committees and the type of audit firm on the reporting of corporate sustaina- bility information by companies. The study utilized an Ex-post facto research design, considering a population of one hundred and fifteen (115) listed non-financial firms. Ninety-two (92) companies were selected as the sample. Both descriptive and infer- ential (Panel Corrected Standard Error) estimation techniques were employed to ana- lyze data collected from the annual reports and accounts of the sampled listed manu- facturing companies over a seven-year period (2016-2022). The findings revealed that the presence of a sustainability committee and audit type significantly predict corpo- rate sustainability reporting among listed non-financial firms at a 5% level of signifi- cance. In conclusion, the study determined that sustainability committees and audit types play a crucial and meaningful role in shaping corporate sustainability report- ing practices among listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. As a result, the study recom- mends that listed companies should establish sustainability committees to proactively Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman6464 address sustainability issues and enhance disclosure. Additionally, non-Big Four audit firms are encouraged to enhance their services by providing their staff with up-to-date audit skills.  Introduction Introduction The recurrent failures of companies worldwide have raised concerns about the effectiveness of corporate reporting practices. These unfortunate incidents have led to calls from various stakeholders, including the host community, government, stock market regulators, and shareholders, for greater corporate transparency and disclosure. Sustainability reporting has emerged as a crucial avenue through which organizations strive to meet the expectations of their stakeholders. Private enterprises, for instance, aim to augment transparency, strengthen brand value, reputation, and legitimacy, facilitate comparison with competitors, signal competitiveness, motivate employees, and support corpo- rate information and control processes by revealing sustainability information (Herzig & Schaltegger, 2006). In the contemporary landscape, the incorporation of sustainability princi- ples into business strategies and operations is gaining prominence on the agen- das of policymakers, market regulators, businesses, and investors alike. This shift is driven by the increasing concern of investors, particularly institutional investors, about the social responsibility of firms when making investment de- cisions (Chen, Dong & Lin, 2020). Globally, a study conducted by KPMG in 2015 indicates a growing interest in corporate transparency, especially in the realm of sustainability reporting and disclosure. Githaiga and Kosgei (2023) assert that sustainability reporting is essential for providing stakeholders with in- formation regarding an organization’s performance in tangible aspects. How- ever, it is crucial to note that the disclosure of sustainability reports, according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), must adhere to several principles out- lined in the GRI-G3 Guidelines, including balance, comparability, accuracy, time sequence, compliance, and accountability. Many organizations seem to allocate insufficient attention and considera- tion to communities and the environment in their financial reports. This re- luctance to disclose information regarding environmental and social concerns could significantly impact their corporate image, as highlighted by Usman (2019) and Aifuwa, Usman, Subair, Philip and Hussien (2022). The repercus- sions of this approach are evident in the stock market, where declining stock sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 6565 prices have contributed to a negative impact on their reputation. Consequently, the annual reports produced by companies are anticipated to address the in- formation needs of all stakeholders, including the immediate environment, as emphasized by Welbeck, Owusu, Bekoe and Kusi (2017). It is reasonable to an- ticipate that firms equipped with sophisticated accounting systems and staffed by highly qualified professional accountants, especially those affiliated with the Big Four, would scrutinize these reports more thoroughly than smaller au- dit firms. The study addresses issues surrounding sustainability reporting among listed non-financial enterprises in Nigeria. Many of these enterprises lack awareness of the benefits of sustainability reporting, hindering transparency, accountability, and stakeholder trust. The absence of standardized reporting procedures compromises the reliability and utility of sustainability reports, making it challenging for stakeholders to make informed decisions. Stakehold- er expectations, including those of customers, investors, employees, and civ- il society organizations, are driving the demand for accountability and trans- parency in addressing environmental and social issues through sustainability reporting. Failure to meet these expectations may result in a loss of trust and reputational challenges. The research focuses on the 115 non-financial com- panies listed on the Nigerian Exchange Group as of December 2022, chosen for their perceived environmental sensitivity. The study spans the seven-year pe- riod from 2016 to 2022, addressing a timing gap in the literature. The year 2016 is significant as it saw the release of the Nigerian Financial Reporting Council’s 2016 Corporate Governance Code and the launch of the Global Reporting Initia- tive’s 101. The choice of 2022 as the endpoint corresponds to the most recent year at the time of data collection and aligns with the post-period impacted by the industrial global meltdown due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Literature Review And Hypotheses DevelopmentLiterature Review And Hypotheses Development Sustainability Committee and Corporate Sustainability ReportingSustainability Committee and Corporate Sustainability Reporting The presence of a sustainability committee within a company is a critical fac- tor influencing corporate sustainability reporting practices. A sustainabili- ty committee, often established at the board level, is dedicated to oversee- ing and guiding the organization’s sustainability initiatives. Its role extends Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman6666 to monitoring environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and ensuring that the company aligns with sustainable practices. Companies with a sustainability committee are more likely to engage in comprehensive sus- tainability reporting, disclosing information related to environmental impact, social responsibility, and governance practices. The committee’s involvement fosters a structured approach to data collection, measurement, and reporting on key sustainability metrics. For instance, studies by Yahaya, Bamigbade and Ajiboye (2022), Abdul Latif, Taufil Mohd, Kamardin and Mohd Ariff (2023), Ka- bara, Abdullah, Khatib, Bazhair and Al Amosh (2023), Chandula, Dissanayake and Anuradha (2023), Githaiga (2023), Coscia(2022), Abedin, Subha, Anwar, Kabir, Tahat and Hossain (2023), Alkhazalih, Shahbudin and Ghazali (2022) af- firmed that board characteristics such as board independence, size, gender di- versity, tenure, sustainability and managerial shareholding play pivotal roles in shaping the sustainability reporting practices of firms in developed and de- veloping economies. This study therefore hypothesized that: H01: The presence of sustainability committee has no significant influ- ence on the sustainability reporting practices of listed non-financial compa- nies in Nigeria. Audit Firm Type and Corporate Sustainability ReportingAudit Firm Type and Corporate Sustainability Reporting The type of audit firm engaged by a company plays a significant role in shap- ing its corporate sustainability reporting practices. The choice between a Big 4 audit firm (Ernst & Young, Deloitte, KPMG and PwC) and a Non-Big 4 audit firm influences the credibility, rigor, and depth of sustainability disclosures. Companies engaging Big 4 audit firms benefit from the perceived credibility and assurance associated with these globally recognized and well-established firms. Stakeholders often view sustainability reports audited by Big 4 firms as more reliable and trustworthy. Big 4 firms possess extensive expertise and re- sources in assessing complex sustainability metrics. Their global networks and specialized sustainability teams enable a thorough examination of a company’s sustainability performance and reporting practices. The influence of audit firm type on corporate sustainability reporting is complex and can depend on various factors, including the company’s size, in- dustry, and the specific expertise of the chosen audit firm. However, studies have such as Mahmood and Orazalin (2017), Ofoegbu, Odoemelam and Okafor sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 6767 (2018), Usman (2019) and Yahaya, Bamigbade, and Ajiboye (2022) have shown that companies audited by Big 4 firms tend to exhibit more extensive and standardized sustainability reporting, aligning with global reporting frame- works and standards. Based on the above, the study hypothesized that: H02: There is no significant relationship between audit firm type and sus- tainability reporting practices of listed non-financial companies in Nigeria. Theoretical FrameworkTheoretical Framework The theoretical review functions as a framework that enhances the com- prehension of the issues explored in this research. It directs the identification and examination of pertinent theories on which the study is grounded, offering clarity to the study’s perspective. The theories examined in this study encom- pass legitimacy theory, signaling theory, and stakeholder theory. Legitimacy theory, conceptualized by Dowling and Pfeffer in 1975, proposes that organiza- tions align their policies with those of the broader society (Guthrie, Cuganesan & Ward, 2007). In the realm of environmental awareness, legitimacy theory underscores how a company responds to community expectations, suggesting that corporations will undertake necessary actions to uphold the perception of being a legitimate business in society (Amos, 2023). Given its perception- based nature, legitimacy theory posits that any managerial response to com- munity expectations should be accompanied by disclosures, often manifest- ed through environmental performance reporting in annual reports (Geerts, Dooms & Stas, 2021). Signaling theory, introduced by Spence in 1973 to address information asymmetry in the labor market, posits that the party with more information should release it to reduce information gaps among users (Uwuigbe, Teddy, Uwuigbe, Emmanuel, Asiriuwa, Eyitomi & Taiwo, 2018). This theory contends that organizations voluntarily disclose more information when performing well, with managers signaling business success to stakeholders (Eccles, Herz, Keegan & Philips, 2001). Signaling theory also elucidates that companies with strong performance utilize financial information in annual reports to send sig- nals to the market, often emphasizing financial details due to regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Report- ing Council of Nigeria (FRCN) guiding financial disclosure. Also, Stakeholder theory, formulated by Freeman in 1984, defines stakeholders as individuals Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman6868 with influence or those influenced by the organization’s business activities in pursuit of its purpose. The survival and success of an organization hinge on the support and approval of its stakeholders, and organizations are accountable for creating value for all stakeholders (Talbot, Raineri & Daou, 2021). Stakehold- er theory underscores that organizations meeting stakeholders’ demands en- hance their reputation and have a positive financial impact, while those failing to do so may face negative consequences. MethodologyMethodology Research Design, Population and Sample SizeResearch Design, Population and Sample Size The study employs an ex-post facto research design to examine the impact of sustainability committees and the type of audit firm on the sustainability re- porting practices of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. This design was cho- sen due to the availability of relevant data in the annual reports of these firms, containing both quantitative and qualitative information for analysis. The study includes all listed non-financial firms on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (115 companies in 10 sectors), selected based on their recognized environmen- tal sensitivity. The representative sample size is 92, determined using the Kre- jcie and Morgan (1970) sample size determination table to ensure representa- tiveness and unbiasedness. The sample selection involves a stratified sampling method combined with a random sampling technique, where companies are randomly chosen from six sectors. Table 1. Sample Size and Sampling Technique S/N Sector (Stratum) Population Krejcie and Morgan Sample Size 1 Agriculture 5 5/115*92 4 2 Conglomerate 5 5/115*92 4 3 Construction/Real Estate 9 9/115*92 7 4 Consumer Goods 20 20/115*92 16 5 Health Care 11 11/115*92 9 sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 6969 S/N Sector (Stratum) Population Krejcie and Morgan Sample Size 6 ICT 10 10/115*92 8 7 Industrial Goods 15 15/115*92 12 8 Natural Resources 4 4/115*92 3 9 Oil and Gas 11 11/115*92 9 10 Services 25 12/115*92 20 Total 115 92 S o u r c e : researcher’s computation, 2023. Source and Methods of Data CollectionSource and Methods of Data Collection The study relied on secondary data extracted from the annual reports and ac- counts of the selected companies spanning the accounting years from 2016 to 2022. The sustainability disclosure quantity index for each company was com- puted using the formula developed by Aburaya (2012). Where: disclosure quantity index for each company was computed using the formula developed by Aburaya (2012). Where: CED Quantity=Sustainability Disclosure Quantity Index Quantity = 1 if the item i is disclosed; 0 if the item i is not disclosed MAX Quantity=maximum applicable disclosure quantity score N=number of items disclosed. Model Specification To achieve the purpose of this study, El Ghoul, Guedhami, Wang and Kwok(2016) model was adopted and modified. This was modified because the researcher focused on the relationship between corporate governance and business characteristics (board size, board independence, CEO duality, director’s shareholding, audit committee, firm age, firm growth, firm debt ratio and firm size) and sustainability reporting disclosure considering 2010-2013 annual reports of Taiwan 50 Index-listed companies which are different from this current study. SusRepit=α0+β1SusComit+β2AudType+β3FirmAgeit+ɛἱit(1) Where: SusRep: Sustainability Reporting Practices α0: intercept SusCom: Sustainability Committee Aud Type: Auditor Firm Type Firm Age: Firm Age Ɛἱ: random error term The apriori signs areβ1>0, β2>0, β3>0, β4>0, β5>0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDING Results and Analysis The table of descriptive statistics presents details regarding the mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum values for both the explanatory and explained variables. Table 2. provides a concise overview of the descriptive statistics. Table 2. Summary Statistics CED Quantity=Sustainability Disclosure Quantity Index Quantity = 1 if the item i is disclosed; 0 if the item i is not disclosed MAX Quantity=maximum applicable disclosure quantity score N=number of items disclosed. Model SpecificationModel Specification To achieve the purpose of this study, El Ghoul, Guedhami, Wang and Kwok(2016) model was adopted and modified. This was modified because the researcher focused on the relationship between corporate governance and business char- acteristics (board size, board independence, CEO duality, director’s sharehold- Table 1. Sample… Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman7070 ing, audit committee, firm age, firm growth, firm debt ratio and firm size) and sustainability reporting disclosure considering 2010-2013 annual reports of Taiwan 50 Index-listed companies which are different from this current study. SusRepit=α0+β1SusComit+β2AudType+β3FirmAgeit+ɛἱit (1) Where: SusRep: Sustainability Reporting Practices α0: intercept SusCom: Sustainability Committee Aud Type: Auditor Firm Type Firm Age: Firm Age Ɛἱ: random error term The apriori signs are β1>0, β2>0, β3>0, β4>0, β5>0 Data Analysis and Discussion of FindingData Analysis and Discussion of Finding Results and AnalysisResults and Analysis The table of descriptive statistics presents details regarding the mean, stand- ard deviation, maximum, and minimum values for both the explanatory and explained variables. Table 2. provides a concise overview of the descriptive statistics. Table 2. Summary Statistics Obs Mean Std.Dev. min max Sd 644 .274 .137 .029 .629 Suscom 644 .065 .247 0 1 Audtype 644 .626 .484 0 1 Fage 644 44.611 19.364 5 96 S o u r c e : author’s computation, 2023. sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 7171 Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for both explanatory and explained variables in this study. As an illustration, sustainability disclosure (SD) is a ra- tio ranging from 0 to 1, and it can also be expressed as a percentage. Examin- ing the mean of sustainability disclosure (0.274), it indicates that, on average, sustainability disclosure is 27.4%. This suggests that the average sustainabil- ity disclosure throughout the investigation period was relatively low. Addition- ally, the highest average disclosure is 62.9%, while the lowest average disclo- sure quality is 2.9%, showcasing a broad spectrum of sustainability disclosure activities among the sampled firms. This variability may stem from the diverse nature of businesses in terms of size and levels of sustainability awareness. The standard deviation of 0.137, not significantly different from the mean, implies a moderate level of variation within the sampled companies. Furthermore, the mean value for the existence of a sustainability commit- tee, measured dichotomously, is 0.065. This suggests that only a small percent- age of companies have established sustainability committees to assess their sustainability policies and activities. The range between the minimum and maximum values of 0 and 1 indicates that certain firms do not have sustainabil- ity committees. With a standard deviation of 0.247, there is a moderate level of variation regarding the presence of sustainability committees among the sam- pled firms. The table also reveals an average value of 0.26 for the size of audit firms. Throughout the research period, prominent audit firms in Nigeria, such as KPMG, PWC, Ernst & Young, and Akintola Williams Deloitte, audited eighty (62.6%) of the listed firms. In contrast, non-Big Four audit firms in Nigeria au- dited only twenty (37.4%) of the selected firms during the study period, as in- dicated by the mean value of eighty (62.6%) obtained. The standard deviation of 0.484 indicates low disparity among the selected firms. This demonstrates that the audit market in Nigeria is dominated by the major four audit firms, with just a few non-Big Four audit firms auditing Nige- rians listed non-financial firms. During the research period, the minimum and maximum audit firm sizes were zero (0) and one (1), respectively. The mini- mum and maximum values of audit firm size show that auditor size is deter- mined by a dummy variable that takes the value of one if the company is audit- ed by one of the Big Four audit firms and zero otherwise. Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman7272 Table 3. Correlation Matrix of dependent and independent variables Variables Sd Suscom Audtype Fage Sd 1.000 Suscom Audtype 0.174*(0.000) 0.767* 1.000 -0.007 1.000 Fage 0.234* 0.309* 0.160* 1.000 (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) ***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1 S o u r c e : author’s computation, 2023. The Pearson Correlation results presented in Table 3. outline the correlation between the explained and explanatory variables in the study. The findings in- dicate a positive relationship between the presence of the sustainability com- mittee and the auditor type, signifying that these variables exhibit similar movements as sustainability disclosure. The correlation matrix table affirms the absence of potential multicollinearity among the independent variables. Ac- cording to Gujarati (2004), a correlation coefficient exceeding 0.80 between two independent variables is considered excessive. In Table 3., all correlation coefficients between independent variables remain below 0.80, with the high- est relationship among the independent variables approximately at 0.309. This value falls below the 0.80 threshold, indicating the absence of potential multi- collinearity. The verification of this absence can be further supported by exam- ining the variance inflation factor. Table 4. Hausman Specification Test Chi-square test value 61.18 P-value 0.000 S o u r c e : author’s computation, 2023. sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 7373 As depicted in Table 4., the research performed a Hausman specification test following the execution of fixed and random tests for the models. The Hausman specification test yielded a p-value of 0.000, indicating statistical significance. This suggests that the variation across entities is assumed to be fixed and correlated with the independent variables incorporated in the mod- el. Consequently, the outcome of the fixed effect model was deemed appropri- ate for the analysis. Test for MulticollinearityTest for Multicollinearity Based on the findings presented in Table 5, it can be concluded that there is no evidence of a multicollinearity issue. This assertion is supported by the fact that all the VIF values for the variables are below 10, and the tolerance values for each variable are above 0.10, as recommended by Hair et al. (2006). The VIF test results range from a minimum of 1.124 to a maximum of 1.244, all of which are less than 10, confirming the absence of collinearity among the explanatory variables. Additionally, the mean VIF of 1.154 further reinforces the conclusion that there is no multicollinearity among the explanatory and control variables in the study. Table 5. Variance inflation factor VIF 1/VIF Audtype 1.244 .804 Fage 1.164 .859 Suscom 1.124 .89 MeanVIF 1.154 . S o u r c e : author’s computation,2023. Normality Distribution of the DataNormality Distribution of the Data The normal distribution of data is a critical assumption in regression, essen- tial for the application of parametric test analysis. This is because one of the conditions for parametric tests is that the data should exhibit normal distribu- Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman7474 tion across the variables for the test results to be applicable for generalization (Park, 2008). Consequently, this study conducted a normality test on the resid- uals of the model using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Table 6. Shapiro-Wilk W test for normal data Variable Obs W V Z Prob>z Resid 644 0.996 1.104 0.237 0.406 S o u r c e : author’s computation, 2023. The p-value for the model, as extracted from Table 6. for the Shapiro-Wilk test, is 0.406. Given that this value exceeds 0.05, as specified in Table 6., the null hypothesis stating that the residuals are not normally distributed across the models is rejected. Consequently, this study asserts that the residuals of the model exhibit a normal distribution. Table 7. Panel Corrected Standard Error Regression Car Coef. St.Err. t-value p-value Sig Suscom .260 .048 5.34 .000 *** Audtype .092 .002 59.44 .000 *** Fage .0005 .0001 3.68 .000 *** Constant .213 .0131 16.31 .000 *** Numberofobs 460.000 Chi-square 4924.74 Prob>chi2 0.000 R-squared .6464 ***p<.01, ** p<.05, *p<.1 S o u r c e : author’s computation, 2023. The association between predictors and sustainability reporting practices in listed non-financial firms was elucidated through the interpretation of coeffi- cient values, t-values, and probability values (sig), which reveal both the direc- tion and strength of the relationships among the variables. Additionally, the R2 was employed to assess the cumulative impact of independent variables on the sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 7575 dependent variables, while the Waldchi2 and its corresponding significance values were utilized to evaluate the suitability and predictability of the inde- pendent variables in the study models. With an R2 value of 0.6464, it is indi- cated that the collective influence of the sustainability committee’s presence, audit type, and firm age accounts for 64.6% of the variability in sustainability reporting practice. Discussion of FindingsDiscussion of Findings The overall objective of this study is to examine the impact of sustainability committee and audit firm type on sustainability reporting practices among listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. Sustainability Committee and Sustainability Reporting PracticesSustainability Committee and Sustainability Reporting Practices The presence of a sustainability committee is found to have a statistically sig- nificant and positive impact on the sustainability reporting practices of list- ed non-financial firms in Nigeria. Examining the coefficient for the presence of a sustainability committee in Table 8. reveals a significant influence, supported by a coefficient of 0.260 and a p-value of 0.000, signifying significance at the 1% level. Consequently, in light of this evidence, the study rejects the null hypoth- esis asserting that the presence of a sustainability committee has no signifi- cant influence on the sustainability reporting practices of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. From the finding in Table 7., the presence of a sustainability committee turned out to have a positive and significant relationship with sus- tainability reporting practices. This means that the presence of a sustainability committee will result in to increase in sustainability reporting practices. This is because the sustainability committee tends to focus on reviewing sustaina- bility reporting issues, identifying risks and monitoring risk management, es- tablishing policies and standards, and monitoring compliance with and perfor- mance against the companies’ sustainability reporting policies. The results are therefore aligned with the stakeholder theory view point that includes a sus- tainability committee on the board serves as an efficient oversight device and a sound way of addressing the needs of larger stakeholders. This result is sup- ported by the study’s a-prior expectation, however, and is in tandem with the study of Danvila del Valle, Díez Esteban and López de Foronda Pérez (2019)who Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman7676 found significant positive results between sustainability committee and corpo- rate social responsibility but the researcher found no study which contradicts the findings of this result. Audit Firm Type and Sustainability Reporting PracticesAudit Firm Type and Sustainability Reporting Practices There is a significant positive effect between audit firm type and the sustain- ability reporting practices of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. The results from Table 5. reveal that the audit firm type, represented by a dichotomy of one and zero, exerts a positive and statistically significant influence on the sustain- ability reporting practices of these firms. This is evident in the coefficient of 0.092, accompanied by a p-value of 0.000, which falls below the 5% critical lev- el. This indicates that the position of audit firm type positively and significant- ly impacts sustainability reporting practices. In light of this outcome, the study rejects the null hypothesis asserting that there is no significant effect between audit firm type and the sustainability reporting practices of listed non-finan- cial firms in Nigeria. The audit firm type, indicated by a dichotomy of 1 and 0, exhibits a positive and significant correlation with sustainability reporting practices. This implies that an increased reliance on Big Four audit firms posi- tively impacts sustainability reporting practices. The rationale behind this is that auditing firms encourage their clients to enhance their disclosure levels, signaling to the market. This signaling mechanism remains consistent, includ- ing in the context of sustainability disclosure. Big Four firms typically prompt their clients to elevate voluntary disclosure levels to enhance visibility. Nota- bly, this finding aligns with the anticipated outcome. The study’s results are in line with those of Orazalin and Mahmood (2019), who identified a substantial influence of auditor type on the extent, nature, and quality of sustainability re- porting. However, it contradicts the findings of Ofoegbu et al. (2018).  Conclusion and Recommendation Conclusion and Recommendation The study evaluated the impact of presence of sustainability committee and au- dit firm type on sustainability reporting practices among listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. Based on the findings of the study, the study concluded that the presence of a sustainability committee has a significant and positive effect sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 7777 on sustainability reporting practices. Hence, the study concludes that the sus- tainability committee is a significant determinant of sustainability reporting practices; the audit firm type as one of the factors used in the study has a posi- tive and significant effect on sustainability reporting practices. Thus, the study concludes that audit firm type is an important predictor of sustainability re- porting practices. Based on the findings and conclusion of this study, the following recommen- dations are made. In order to enhance sustainability reporting practices among listed companies, it is strongly recommended that firms establish dedicated sustainability committees. These committees should be strategically posi- tioned within the organizational structure to proactively address sustainabil- ity issues, ensuring a comprehensive and systematic approach to sustainability disclosure. By doing so, companies can demonstrate a commitment to respon- sible business practices, fostering transparency and accountability in their sustainability reporting. Moreover, an increased reliance on the services of Big Four audit firms is advised as a strategic move to positively influence sustain- ability practices. The rationale behind this recommendation lies in the proven correlation between audit firm type and the quality of sustainability reporting. Opting for the services of larger audit firms, particularly the Big Four, can pro- vide companies with the advantage of greater expertise and resources. These firms are well-equipped to navigate the complexities of sustainability metrics and ensure compliance with evolving disclosure regulations. The recommendation to choose international audit firms, such as the Big Four, is underpinned by the notion that these firms have a heightened moti- vation to uphold their reputation. Given their extensive client base and global reach, these firms are incentivized to maintain high standards in sustainabil- ity reporting. Their global presence and reputation make them well-suited to guide companies in aligning their sustainability practices with international standards and frameworks. As part of the broader recommendation, non-Big Four audit firms are encouraged to bolster their services by investing in contin- uous professional development for their staff. Providing ongoing training and updating audit skills will empower non-Big Four firms to offer competitive and high-quality services in the field of sustainability reporting. This proactive ap- proach ensures that these firms remain relevant and capable of meeting the evolving needs of companies committed to robust sustainability practices. Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman7878  REFERENCES REFERENCES Abdul Latif, R., Taufil Mohd, K.N., Kamardin, H., & Mohd Ariff, A.H. (2023). Determinants of sustainability disclosure quality among plantation companies in Malaysia. Sustainability, 15(4), 3799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043799. Abedin, S.H., Subha, S., Anwar, M., Kabir, M.N., Tahat, Y.A., & Hossain, M. (2023). Environmental performance and corporate governance: evidence from Japan. Sustainability,15(4), 3273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043273. Aburaya, R. (2012). The relationship between corporate governance and environmental disclosure: UK evidence. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3456/ (accessed: 27.03.2012). Aifuwa, H.O., Usman, M.K., Subair, M.L., Philip, G.T., & Hussien, K. (2022). Board Ethnicity and Sustainability Reporting. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 11(1), 9–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2022.001. Alkhazalih, Q., Shahbudin, A., & Ghazali, A. (2022). The relationship between corpo- rate governance mechanisms and CSR disclosure: evidence from Jordanian’s listed firms. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 12(4), 4768-4768. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v12i4.20499. Amos, G.J. (2023). Corporate social and environmental reporting in the mining sector: seeking pragmatic and moral forms of legitimacy? Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 14(3), 548-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-05-2021-0152. Chandula, A.M.T., Dissanayake, H., & Anuradha, I. (2023). Role of gender diver- sity on corporate social responsibility: evidence from a developing economy. International Journal of Academe and Industry Research, 4(1), 24-45. http://dx.doi. org/10.53378/352971. Chen, T., Dong, H., & Lin, C. (2020). Institutional shareholders and corporate so- cial responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 135(2), 483-504. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.007. Coscia, M. (2022). Board gender diversity and family firms’ corporate environmental responsibility: does” critical mass” matter? Corporate Governance and Research & Development Studies, 2, 137-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3280/cgrds2-2022oa15066. Danvila del Valle, I., Díez Esteban, J. M., & López de Foronda Pérez, O. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability committee inside the board. European Journal of International Management, 13(2), 159-175. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122-36. Eccles, R.G., Herz, R.H., Keegan, E.M., & Philips, D.M.H. (2001). The value reporting revo- lution: Moving beyond the earnings game. New York: John Wiley & Sons. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Wang, H., & Kwok, Ch.C.Y. (2016). Family control and corpo- rate social responsibility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 73, 131-143. https://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2016.08.008. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston (MA), USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v12i4.20499 http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v12i4.20499 http://dx.doi.org/10.53378/352971 http://dx.doi.org/10.53378/352971 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.007 sustainaBility CoMMittEE, audit firM tyPE… 7979 Geerts, M., Dooms, M., & Stas, L. (2021). Determinants of sustainability reporting in the present institutional context: the case of port managing bodies. Sustainability, 13(6), 3148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063148. Githaiga, P.N. (2023). Sustainability reporting, board gender diversity and earnings management: Evidence from East Africa community. Journal of Business and Socio- Economic Development, 4(2), 142-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-09-2022-0099. Githaiga, P.N., & Kosgei, J.K. (2023), Board characteristics and sustainability reporting: a case of listed firms in East Africa. Corporate Governance, 23(1), 3-17. https://doi. org/10.1108/CG-12-2021-0449. Guthrie, J., Cuganesan, S., & Ward, L. (2007). Extended Performance Reporting: Evaluating Corporate Social Responsibility and Intellectual Capital Management . Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 1(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.22164/ isea.v1i1.4. Herzig, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2006) Corporate Sustainability Reporting. An Overview. In: Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R. (eds) Sustainability Accounting and Reporting., vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4974-3_13. Kabara, A.S., Abdullah, D.F., Khatib, S.F., Bazhair, A.H., & Al Amosh, H. (2023). Moderating Role of Governance Regulatory Compliance on Board Diversity and Voluntary Disclosure of Non-Financial Firms in a Developing Country. Sustainability, 15(5), 4527. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054527. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610. Mahmood, M., & Orazalin, N. (2017). Green Governance and Sustainability Reporting in Kazakhstan’s Oil, Gas, and Mining Sector: Evidence from a Former USSR Emerging Economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 389-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.06.203. Ofoegbu, G.N., Odoemelam, N., & Okafor, R.G. (2018). Corporate board characteristics and environmental disclosure quantity: Evidence from South Africa (integrated reporting) and Nigeria (traditional reporting). Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1551510. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1551510. Orazalin, N., & Mahmood, M. (2019). Determinants of GRI-based sustainability re- porting: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 140-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2018-0137. Park, H.M. (2008). Univariate Analysis and Normality Test Using SAS, Stata, and SPSS. Technical Working Paper. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University. Talbot, D., Raineri, N., & Daou, A. (2021). Implementation of sustainability management tools: The contribution of awareness, external pressures, and stakeholder consulta- tion. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 71-81. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.2033. Usman, M.K. (2019). Determinants of Corporate Environmental Disclosures of Listed Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria. ProQuest Publications. Muhammed Kamaldeen Usman8080 Uwuigbe, U., Teddy, O., Uwuigbe, O.R., Emmanuel, O., Asiriuwa, O., Eyitomi, G.A., & Taiwo, O. S. (2018). Sustainability reporting and firm performance: A bi-directional approach. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 1-16. Welbeck, E., Owusu, G., Bekoe, R., & Kusi, J. (2017). Determinants of environmental disclosures of listed firms in Ghana. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2(11). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40991-017-0023-y. Yahaya, K.A., Bamigbade, D., & Ajiboye, O.G. (2022). The effect of corporate govern- ance on environmental disclosure by listed Nigerian consumer goods firms. Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis, 11(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.14710/jab.v11i1.41599.