Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance (GUJAF) Vol. 5 Issue 1, April, 2024 ISSN: 2756-665X A Publication of Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State -Nigeria Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 ii © Department of Accounting and Finance Vol. 5 Issue 1 April, 2024 ISSN: 2756-665X A Publication of Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State -Nigeria All Rights reserved Except for academic purposes no part or whole of this publication is allowed to be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means be it mechanical, electrical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the Copyright owner. Published and Printed by Ahmadu Bello University Press Limited, Zaria, Kaduna State, Nigeria. Tel: 08065949711 e-mail: abupress@abu.edu.ng info@abupress.com.ng abupress2013@gmail.com Website: www.abupress.com.ng mailto:abupress2013@gmail.com http://www.abupress.com.ng/ Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 iii EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Shehu Usman Hassan Department of Accounting, Federal University of Kashere, Gombe State. Associate Editor: Dr. Muhammad Mustapha Bagudo Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State. Managing Editor: Umar Farouk Abdulkarim Department of Accounting and Finance, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. Editorial Board Prof.Ahmad Modu Kumshe Department of Accounting, University of Maiduguri, Borno State. Prof Ugochukwu C. Nzewi Department of Accounting, Paul University Awka, Anambra State. Prof Kabir Tahir Hamid Department of Accounting, Bayero University, Kano, Kano State. Prof. Ekoja B. Ekoja Department of Accounting, University of Jos. Prof. Clifford Ofurum Department of Accounting, University of PortHarcourt, Rivers State. Prof. Ahmad Bello Dogarawa Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Prof. Yusuf. B. Rahman Department of Accounting, Lagos State University, Lagos State. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 iv Prof. Suleiman A. S. Aruwa Department of Accounting, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nasarawa State. Prof. Muhammad Junaidu Kurawa Department of Accounting, Bayero University Kano, Kano State. Prof. Muhammad Habibu Sabari Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Prof. Okpanachi Joshua Department of Accounting and Management, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna. Prof. Hassan Ibrahim Department of Accounting, IBB University, Lapai, Niger State. Prof. Ifeoma Mary Okwo Department of Accounting, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Enugu State. Prof. Aminu Isah Department of Accounting, Bayero University, Kano, Kano State. Prof. Ahmadu Bello Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Prof. Musa Yelwa Abubakar Department of Accounting, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto State. Prof. Salisu Abubakar Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State. Prof. Sunusi Sa'ad Ahmad Department of Accounting, Federal University Dutse, Jigawa State. Prof. Isaq Alhaji Samaila Department of Accounting, Bayero University, Kano State. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 v Dr. Fatima Alfa Department of Accounting, University of Maiduguri, Borno State. Dr. Nasiru A. Ka’oje Department of Accounting, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto State. Dr. Aminu Abdullahi Department of Accounting, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto, State. Dr. OnipeAdebenege Yahaya Department of Accounting, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna State. Dr. Saidu Adamu Department of Accounting, Federal University of Kashere, Gombe State. Dr. Nasiru Yunusa Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Dr. Aisha Nuhu Muhammad Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Dr. Lawal Muhammad Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Dr. Farouk Adeza School of Business and Entrepreneurship, American University of Nigeria, Yola. Dr. Bashir Umar Farouk Department of Economics, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. Dr Emmanuel Omokhuale Department of Mathematics, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara. State Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 vi ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS Prof. Kabiru Isah Dandago, Bayero University Kano,Kano State. Prof A M Bashir, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto, Sokoto State. Prof. Muhammad Tanko, Kaduna State University, Kaduna. Prof. Bayero A M Sabir, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto, Sokoto State. Prof. Aliyu Sulaiman Kantudu, Bayero University Kano, Kano State. Editorial Secretary Yazid Kabir Ibrahim Department of Accounting and Finance, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 vii CALL FOR PAPERS The editorial board of Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance (GUJAF) is hereby inviting authors to submit their unpublished manuscript for publication. The journal is published in two issues of April and October annually. GUJAF is a double-blind peer reviewed journal published by the Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State Nigeria The Journal accepts papers in all areas of Accounting and Finance for publication which include: Accounting Standards, Accounting Information System, Financial Reporting, Earnings Management, , Auditing and Investigation, Auditing and Standards, Public Sector Accounting and Auditing, Taxation and Revenue Administration, Corporate Governance Issues, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and Environmental Reporting Issue, Information and Communication Technology Issues, Bankruptcy Prediction, Corporate Finance, Personal Finance, Merger and Acquisitions, Capital Structure, Working Capital Management, Enterprises Risk Management, Entrepreneurship, International Business Accounting and Finance, Banking Crises, Bank’s Profitability, Risk and Insurance Issue, Islamic Finance, Conventional and Islamic Banks and so forth. GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION AND MANUSCRIPT FORMAT The submission language is English and must be a well-researched original manuscript that has not previously been submitted elsewhere for publication. The paper should not exceed more than 15 pages on A4 type paper in MS-word format, 1.5-line spacing, 12 Font size in Times new roman. Manuscript should be tested for plagiarism before submission, as the maximum similarity index acceptable by GUJAF is 25 percent. Furthermore, the length of a complete article should not exceed 5000 words including an abstract of not more than 250 words with a minimum of four key words immediately after the abstract. All references including in text citation and reference list, tables and figures should be in line with APA 7th Edition publication manual. Finally, manuscript should be send to our email address elfarouk105@gmail.com and a copy to our website on journals.gujaf.com.ng http://www.gujaf.com.ng/ Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 viii PUBLICATION PROCEDURE After receiving a manuscript that is within the similarity index threshold, a confirmation email will be send together with a request to pay a review proceeding fee. At this point, the editorial board will take a decision on accepting, rejecting or making a resubmission of the manuscript based on the outcome of the double-blind peer review. Those authors whose manuscript were accepted for publication will be asked to pay a publication fee, after effecting all suggested corrections and changes made on the manuscript. All corrected papers returned within the specified time frame will be published in that issue. PAYMENT DETAILS Bank: FCMB Account Number: 7278465011 Account Name: Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance FOR INQUIRY The Head, Department of Accounting and Finance, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. elfarouk105@gmail.com +2348069393824 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT The Editor-in-Chief on +2348067766435 The Associate Editor on +2348036057525 OR visit our website on www.gujaf.com.ng or journals.gujaf.com.ng http://www.gujaf.com.ng/ http://www.gujaf.com.ng/ Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 ix CONTENTS Impact of Audit Quality on Earnings Management of Consumer Goods Firms in Nigeria Sirajo Bappah, Auwal Saad, Shehu Usman Hassan PhD, Saidu Adamu PhD Board Characteristics and Corporate Social Responsibility of Listed Oil and Gas Companies in Nigerian. Aliyu Abubakar, Yunusa Nasiru PhD, Dr. Umar Abubakar Board Characteristics and Audit Quality of Listed Consumer Goods Firms in Nigeria Aliyu Shehu Usman, Danson Andrew, Abdullahi Bala Ado PhD, CEO Characteristics and Financial Reporting Quality in Listed Consumer Goods Companies in Nigeria Okika Nkiru Philomena, Oyeneye Temitope Esther, Adedeji Daniel Gbadebo Liquidity Risk and Financial Performance of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria Bashir Abdulrauf Mohammed, Aliyu Ahmed Abdullah PhD, Prof. Salisu Mamman Ibrahim Yusuf PhD, Suleiman Salami PhD Information Asymmetry and Cost of Capital: A Review of Empirical Evidence Sunusi Ridwan Ayagi PhD, ACA, Rashida Lawal, PhD Ownership Structure and Female Inclusion of Listed Financial Firms in Nigeria Gbemigun Catherine Omoleye , Alade Muyiwa Ezekiel Phd CSR Initiatives and Sustainability Resilience in Nigeria's Oil and Gas Industry: A PLS-SEM Approach from Local Communities' Perspective Tajudeen Alaburo, Rofiat Bolanle, Abdussalam, Abdulrahman Abubakar, Tajudeen, Akeem Olamilekan Babatunde Capital Structure and the Financial Performance of Listed Information and Communications Technology Firms in Nigeria Nasiru Adamu Kanoma, Nurudeen Usman Miko, Augustine Ayuba, Idris Mohammed, Mark G, Tagwai Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 x Profitability and Turnover Appraisal of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria Odogu, Terry Keme Zuode (PhD) and Koroye, Amapamo Stephen Board Attributes and Timeliness of Financial Reports of Listed Non-Financial Firms in Nigeria Rashida Lawal PhD and Prof. Kabir Hamid Tahir Board Independence and Financial Reporting Quality of Listed Oil and Gas Companies in Nigeria: Moderated by Firm Size Adamu Lawal Bello, Prof. J. Okpanachi, Prof. T. Nyor and Lateef Olumude Mustapha (Ph.D) Does ESG Investment Impact the Financial Sustainability of Nigerian Energy Companies: A Panel Regression Approach? Tajudeen Alaburo, Abdulsalam and Adedeji Daniel Gbadebo Board Attributes and Sustainability Reporting of Listed Firms in Nigeria Idris Mohammed, Bejamin K, Gugong PhD, Rofiat Adedokun, Abdulrahman A, Olorunloga and Mark, G, Tagwai Mediating Effect of Internal Auditors’ Ethical Conduct on The Relationship Between Usage of Information Technology, Management Support for Internal Audit Department, and Internal Audit Effectiveness: A Conceptual Framework Nura Badamasi, Adura Binti Ahmad Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 19 BOARD CHARACTERISTICS AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF LISTED OIL AND GAS COMPANIES IN NIGERIA Aliyu Abubakar Department of Accounting ABU Business School Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. +2348066031147, aaolatunji2107@gmail.com Yunusa Nasiru PhD Department of Accounting ABU Business School Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. +2348036612790, nasiruyunusa80@yahoo.com Dr. Umar Abubakar Department of Accounting ABU Business School Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. +2348038063760, umarne1@gmail.com Abstract This research investigated the influence of board characteristics on corporate social responsibility of listed oil and gas companies in Nigerian Exchange. Variables examined are bord size, independence, gender diversity, activity, professionalism and equity ownership of board members. While corporate social responsibility was proxy by CSR expenditure. The population consists of twelve (12) listed oil and gas firms from which five (5) firms have consistently published their annual reports within the period covered and extracted data from their respective annual reports. Panel corrected standard error was used for analysis. Findings revealed both board size and board activity have no significant impacts on CSR while in contrast, board independence, female gender, board professionalism and board equity ownership have a significant effect on CSR. It was recommended that the management of listed oil and gas companies need to have more independent outside directors on the board to enhance monitoring and CSR performance. Also, higher participation of female on the board will improve CSR performance because of their concern for environmental issues. In addition, having more members with professional expertise will improve the decision making of the board and equally shape CSR performance. Board members with equity stake will align the interest of the managers with those of shareholders and likewise, focus more on long-term goals of the firm. Listed oil and gas firm should maintain appropriate board size and required number of board meetings as stipulated by code of corporate governance. Keywords; Board characteristics, CSR, listed oil and gas firms, panel corrected standard error mailto:aaolatunji2107@gmail.com mailto:nasiruyunusa80@yahoo.com Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 20 1. Introduction Concern about the worsening environmental and social conditions due to the business activities of companies has become a global problem today. (Aristananda & Risman, 2022). Public awareness of the company's role in the social and environmental responsibility is also increasing. The increasing awareness on corporate social responsibility is not only the result of external pressure, but also due to changes in firms’ attitude to meet corporate governance principles. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a now phenomenon of public, academic and management discussions globally which has been growing since 1950s due to the importance of business survival (Carroll, 2016; Orazalin, 2020; Martín & Herrero, 2019). In the history of the corporate world for the first time, CSR was mentioned by Bowen in his seminar book Social Responsibility of the Businessmen in 1953 where it was also stressed the importance of knowing business ethics so that it can lead to superior enduring performance (Sameer, 2021). Nowadays, the number of publications dedicated to CSR in the national media has grown speedily (Dyczkowska et al., 2016). Oil and gas companies is one of the major firms that contributes to environmental pollutions. Despite their immense contributions to the economic and technological development, they are also publicly criticized as well as reportedly responsible for problems like environmental degradation and social issues (Tan et al., 2016). Majority of these adverse impacts include among other, gas flaring, oil spills, conflict and violence, waste, resource reduction, health and safety problems, the privileges and status of employees and other negative social impacts have all become major concerns that need urgent attention. Worldwide outcry has vehemently drawn much awareness to enormous environmental, health and safety corporate tragedies leading to loss of numerous people in various emerging nations including Nigeria. Specifically, Nigeria has been recognized as one of the major environmental polluting nations worldwide that contributes immensely to the global environmental problems and presently placed seventh highest gas burning and 10th most polluted nation in the world (Airvisual, 2018; World Bank, 2020). Most of these problems are due to actions, practices and operations of companies seeking to achieve the economic objectives of their shareholders. Specifically, these issues are peculiar to oil and gas firms operating in the Niger Delta, then the expectation is that firms operating there should demonstrate a responsible practice. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 21 Most of these multinational companies still pay not much attention to some of these environmental problems as their concern is not as expected in spite of their negative consequences. Due to this, stakeholders urge and pressurize companies to take more responsibility for their negative impacts, by considering environmental and sustainability issues when making decisions and stimulating their CSR efforts (Braam et al., 2016). In addition, awareness of stakeholders on significance of CSR is increasing specifically, its role in ensuring a proper balance in the long run between the sustainability of a firm and its loyalty to society (Galant & Cadez, 2017; Zemigała, 2019).Thus, in order to follow up the growing stakeholders’ interest, emerging firms are strongly encouraged to employ effective CSR policies and intensify sustainability programs that addresses present environmental problems (Wijethilake, 2017; Wijethilake & Lama, 2018). As such, many oil and gas MNCs are engaged in numerous CSR policies in the Niger Delta including the rest of the world (Egbon et al., 2018). CSR efforts in Nigeria often include the erecting of educational buildings, clinics, markets, and providing pipe born water among others (Amaeshi et al., 2006). In spite of this, the degree of CSR efforts and their contributions to societal growth of such region remain contested (Idimuda& Osayande, 2016). CSR thus allows firms to be responsible to several stakeholders rather than only shareholders. Suppliers, customers, shareholders, environment, and communities among others are the stakeholders (Ekhator, 2014). Therefore, CSR is the notion that firms have a responsibility to the community other than its main responsibilities to their shareholders (Amao, 2014). CSR clearly depicts the relationship of firms with the generality of the environment. It has developed and increased its importance. Accordingly, Yao et al., (2011) articulate that refusal of firm to carry out social obligation efficiently and sufficiently could bring negative aftermaths. Presently, Social obligation is a vital issue in the management policy that influences the competitive strength of firms and is turning to an efficient strategy and tool for stimulating the confidence of stakeholders. Apart from that, CSR is important to the inner decision making since it allows the assessment of the significance of long-term relationships and assets through identifying strengths and challenges across the whole firm responsibility areas (Vurro& Perrini, 2011). With CSR operations, success and capacity of Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 22 organizations to satisfy the divergent needs of various stakeholders may be evaluated. In addressing some of these environmental issues, board of directors are thought to be at the forefront of not only influencing shareholder’s objectives (higher dividends) but also ensuring that the firms are concerned about social welfare (Goodpaster, 1991; Freeman, 1994; Beltratti, 2005). An increasing body of green governance literature demonstrates formation of the boards in a manner they consider social issues priority among corporate objectives (Mahmood &Orazalin, 2017). Therefore, they function as a necessary supervisory mechanism for safeguarding stakeholders’ interests, assuring the actualization of ethical, social, and environmental obligations and motivating the firm to participate in CSR (Pucheta- Martínez &GallegoÁlvarez, 2019; García Martín & Herrero, 2019). Haniffa and Cooke (2005) debate in favour of looking at the different characteristics of the board as major determinant factors of CSR. Among the essential characteristics of the board is board size as it has impact on the role of controlling and supervision (Liao et al., 2018). Adams et al., (2005) articulated that bigger boards tend to possess different expertise, education and experience that enhances its capacity to monitor and control the company’s CSR practices (Laksmana, 2008; Adams et al., 2005). The existence of independent directors as they have a greater effect on the formulation of CSR plans (Jo &Harjoto, 2011). According to Abubakar (2016), Independent board members are a significant tool for assessing stakeholder importance by controlling CSR practices. Furthermore, they exercise a vital function of resolving conflicts within a firm's stakeholders by reducing managers' opportunistic impulses when it comes to CSR investment. Female executives add a range of insights to the board and are more worried with both members and the community as a whole, hence, the existence of female directors on the board may improve the quality of decisions and influence the remedy of difficult issues of CSR (Bear et al., 2010). Zhang et al., (2013) opine that the existence of females in the board could encourage the board to fulfil the stakeholder’s anticipations. Therefore, the implementation of CSR and its disclosure is more feasible (Webb, 2004).Apart from improved monitoring role of female board members, an active board with a strategic focus are more likely Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 23 incorporate sustainability and social responsibility into their strategic decision- making and guide the organization toward meaningful CSR initiatives (Aguilera, Filatotchev, Gospel, and Jackson, 2008).Furthermore, the know-how of the Board members is an important aspect of good corporate governance. Directors with higher education or professional qualifications are more likely to be committed to CSR and are ready to deliver CSR performance (Ceres, 2019). Moreover, board equity ownership can influence CSR practices by shaping the board's decision-making process. Firms with boards that have a significant stake in the company are more likely to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term gains. When board members have a personal financial stake in the company, they may be more inclined to consider the broader impact of business activities on society and the environment (Hillman and Dalziel, 2003). Thus, companies with diverse board characteristics will provide a larger expertise and perspective base to make choices on socially conscious problems, thus strengthening the contribution of companies to social responsibility. From the forgoing, it is reasonable to conclude that board characteristics are best positioned to demonstrate and make key choices which would enhance the company's approach to social responsibility. Scholars and professionals have recently shifted toward CSR and sustainability to explain how emerging firms develop CSR policies and sustainability to enhance environmental and social results (Hussain et al., 2018; Nave & Ferreira, 2019). However, existing literatures argue that corporate mechanism is an important driver of a company's sustainable efforts (Biswas et al., 2018). However, despite enormous studies on the association between board characteristics and CSR, relatively few attentions have been paid to study the impact of board professionalism and board equity ownership on corporate environmental and social performance (Cucari et al., 2018). For example, the studies of Awodiran and Jimba (2019), Riyaldh et al. (2019) and Rao and Tilt (2106) provided evidence on the association between board characteristics (focusing on board independence, gender, size and tenure) and CSR but failed to capture other variables. More so, many of the earlier researches have focused on board mechanisms and CSR in developed countries (Galbreath, 2017; Oh et al., Chang, & Jung, 2019; Sanan, 2018; Yaseen et al., 2019; Zhuang et al., 2018). Whereas, only a few concentrating on developing nations like Nigeria (Abubakar, 2016; Awodiran & Jimba, 2019). Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 24 Furthermore, the study utilized the amount expended on social obligations as a measure of CSR that has historically gotten few coverages. Until present, majority of CSR studies have focused on CSR disclosure. Few studies have looked at the Nigerian oil and gas sector that has common problems of air emission and employee exploitation. As a consequence, this study aim to bridge the gap by examining the impact of board characteristics on CSR of listed oil and gas companies in Nigeria. The main objectives of this study is to examine the effect of board characteristics on corporate social responsibility of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. Other specific objectives are to ascertain the impact of board size, independence, gender, activity, professionalism and equity ownership on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. Thus, on the bases of stated objectives, the following hypotheses were proposed: H01: Board size has no significant impact on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria H02: Board gender does not remarkably affect CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria H03: Board independence has no significant effect on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. H04: Board activity has no remarkable impact on CRS of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. H05: Board professionalism has no significant effect on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. H06: Board equity ownership does not significantly influence CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The rest of the paper is divided as follows: Section two literature reviews, section three methodology, section four data analysis and presentation and section five conclusion and recommendation. 2. Literature Review Awodiran and Jimba (2019) conducted a study on the impact of gender diversity on CSR. The target population included all industrial goods companies listed on the NGX. A total of 13 companies were chosen for the study. Data used were extracted via their yearly financial reports from 2008 to 2017. According to the Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 25 regression result, board size, tenure, and gender representation significantly and positively influences CSR. Independence, on the other hand, showed a not significant influence on CSR. Female presence on boards should be increased, according to the report, because women are more inclined to support responsible and philanthropic activity, which encourages CSR. Riyadh et al., (2019) looked into how CSR reporting and board compositions like independence, board size, and female gender affected firm performance. This research used a quantitative approach focused on secondary data collection to assess the effect, and the data was evaluated using ordinary least squares. The population for this research is multinational energy companies that has the largest 250 corporations in the world for each of the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. The impact of CSR reporting on firm results and board independence is not significant, according to this report. As a result, board size and the gender diversity have a remarkable impact on organizational success. Rao and Tilt (2016) investigated the link between gender diversity, and CSR reporting of Australia's largest 150 publicly traded firms. Over a three-year cycle from 2009 to 2011. Due to financial problems, mergers, and takeovers, 35 businesses were shut down. Over a three-year cycle, the final survey included 115 businesses, yielding 345 observations. The relationships were investigated using regression analysis with panel results. Findings revealed that board gender, tenure have the capacity to affect CSR reporting. However, both independence and size of the board have no significant association with CSR. However, the study covered a three-year period that could be extended. Muttakin (2016) investigated the relation between director diversity on level of CSR disclosures in a developed country background for the years 2005 to 2009. The dataset contains 116 publicly traded Bangladeshi non-financial firms. Data were source using CSR disclosure checklist on annual reports, and multiple regression was employed in looking into the connection. The findings show that female directorship have an inverse relationship with CSR, while foreign directors has a positive relationship with CSR. However, the effect of gender diversity on firm CSR may vary between emerging and industrialized countries, with the latter becoming somewhat hampered. Ghabayen et al., (2016) examined the linkage between board composition and the level of CSR disclosure. The dataset was based on Jordanian banking sector over a 10-year span with a sample of 147 banks/years (2004-2013). Regression technique Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 26 was employed to test the theories that have been established. A correlation between a larger board of directors and a greater level of disclosure was shown. Low disclosure, on the other hand, is related to a higher ratio of independent directors. Furthermore, it has been discovered that a woman director has a negative impact on the extent of transparency. In addition, Giannarakis (2014) looked at the association between governance mechanisms and CSR. Corporate mechanism variables examined includes board size, gender diversity and board composition and board activity. Data were collected on 100 sampled of listed firms in US for the financial year 2011. Findings from the regression shows that board activity to CSR has a positive influence on CSR disclosure level. However, the time effect was not considered. It can be improved on by extending the number of years. The impact of the board composition in the implementation of the GRI guideline for dissemination of knowledge was examined by Fuente et al., (2016). The population made up of 169 Spanish firms, of which 118 quoted on the Madrid Stock Exchange were chosen. Due to lack of data for the whole time studied, 20 businesses were eliminated. Financial information was then collected via the Thomson Reuters data base. The final selection included 98 Spanish companies from 2004 to 2010, yielding a data panel of 686 observations. The findings revealed that corporate sustainability disclosure is closely related to the independence and female composition on the board of directors, as well as the establishment of a dedicated CSR committee. Selcuk and Kiymaz (2017) looked at the correlation between CSR and the performance of companies listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange. The analysis utilizes a sample size of 341 companies per year of observation for a total of 1023 firms. Data was obtained from a secondary source through an annual report, and content analysis was used to interpret it. The findings revealed a negative correlation between CSR and financial performance. After accounting for debt and company size, we learn that although heavily leveraged companies are less productive, larger firms are more profitable. Finally, no major correlations regarding R&D spending and financial results were discovered. The effectiveness of board activity on CSR reporting of public listed firms in Malaysian was investigated by Ahmad et al., (2017). A content review was utilized to create a 51-item CSR reporting database. The link between board activity and Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 27 CSR was found out with OLS regression. It was revealed that the frequency of board meetings is not significant with CSR reporting. The research confirms the concept that a board's advisory propensity is vital to a firm's capacity to defend the rights of stakeholders. As a result, authorities and lawmakers can be stricter in their oversight of companies' compliance with regulations. Kurawa and Abdulrahman (2014) carried out a study on the impact of corporate mechanism on CSR. Data were generated from annual report of 5 listed firms in Nigeria Petroleum industry from 2002 to 2011. Corporate governance variables examine includes board size and independence among others. Findings from panel regression analysis shows that both board size and independence influence CSR activities in Nigerian petroleum industry. However, the periods of the study are not current. Regarding board professionalism, Zhuang et al. (2018) investigated a study on the relationship between board composition and CSR performance using data collected from 839 Chinese firms spanning from 2008 to 2016. The upper echelon theory was used as the theoretical basis of the study. Generalized least square model result indicates that directors with academic experience and qualification have positive influence on CSR performance.Similarly, Harjoto et al. (2015) found that board expertise has a significant positive impact on CSR performance using data collected from 1489 U.S. firms from 1999 to 2011. The study by Deschenes et al. (2015) analyzed the relationship between CSR and certain board characteristics for 192 publicly traded Canadian firms during a five- year period. The researchers’ examination concluded that CSR is positively related with the percentages of women and independent directors on the board. However, the study could not find a relationship between CSR and other board characteristics, including director’s remuneration, director’s tenure and director’s ownership. A study by Carpenter and Wade (2002) found that firms with higher levels of board ownership were more likely to engage in socially responsible activities, suggesting a positive correlation between board equity ownership and CSR. Also. The empirical evidence reported by many previous studies including those conducted by Ghazali (2007) and Brammer and Pavelin (2008) showed a negative relationship between board equity ownership and CSR disclosure level. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 28 This study thus adopted agency theory to anchor board characteristics and CSR obligation of firms because the board of directors are appointed by shareholders to act as monitoring mechanism that checkmate the opportunism of managers and align their interest with shareholders. It suggests that with different board characteristics, the monitoring and control of managers, shareholders’ insight will be increased and improve corporate behavior in organization (Buniamin et al., 2011). The major aim of this study is to investigate the effect of board characteristics on CSR. Agency theory according to Jensen and Meckling (1976) states that agency relationships occur when one or more people (principals) hire other people (agents) to provide a service and then delegate decision-making authority. Agency theory assumes that all individuals act in their own interests. So that there is a conflict of interest between the owner and the agent because the agent may not always act in accordance with the interests of the principal, thus triggering agency costs. From the perspectives of Fama and Jensen (1983), agency theory preaches that the BOD reduces principal–agent conflicts through its monitoring actions which will consequently affect firm performance. Agency theory suggests that boards of directors can offer a possible governance mechanism of monitoring entrenched or self-serving managers to mitigate wasteful CSR. A board of directors is responsible for monitoring management and providing resources (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003). Therefore, an effective board can be characterized by the extent to which it fulfills its expected roles and responsibilities (e.g., monitoring and resource provision) and, as a result, positively affects organizational outcomes. Board size as one of the characteristics of the board, may have a considerable effect on the level of CSR performance. Siregar and Bachtiar (2010) articulated that larger boards tend to be associated with greater level of CSR disclosure. In line with the proposition of agency theory, larger boards are viewed as being more desirable because they enhance the firm's engagement in CSR and provide them with more ways to connect with external stakeholders who control the resources necessary for the company’s operations (Harjoto et al., 2015; Chang, 2010). Riyaldh et al. (2019) reported a positive relationship between board size and CSR of multinational energy companies that has the largest 250 corporations in the world for each of the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 29 In addition to vital influence of board size on CSR, agency theory argues that independent directors are more conscientious and will pay more attention to stakeholders’ interests when making board decisions as it adds to their professional image (Zahra & Stanton, 1988; Chen &Roberts, 2010; Webb, 2004). Boards with a high level of independent directors are effective in improving a firm's social performance because efficient boards aid management to have knowledge of the external environment, represent broader stakeholder groups, and provide the needed resources to effectively manage diverse stakeholders. (Harjoto et al., 2015). For example, Rao and Tilt (2016) provided evidence of positive relationship between independent directors and CSR of Australia's largest 150 publicly traded firms. Over a three-year cycle from 2009 to 2011. Apart from monitoring management and social performance by independent directors, agency theory also articulated that gender diversity can enhance monitoring and may signify to external stakeholders that the firm greatly consider women workforces and gender equality, which makes the board to appreciate the value of CSR and equally portray them as socially responsible (Bear, Rahman, & Post, 2010). This is because the potential influence of board gender diversity on CSR is based on the level of firm financial performance and the firm can improve financial performance by including more female directors to provide stricter monitoring and directing actions on the management (Gul et al., 2011). Also, women directors are more worried with CSR issues and could view it meticulously than male directors and as such, may result in a more environmental and social responsibilities (Ibrahim & Angelidis, 1995). Ghabayen et al. (2016) established a negative relationship between board gender and CSR of Jordanian banking sector over a 10-year span with a sample of 147 banks/years (2004-2013). Furthermore, board activities, including strategic oversight, meetings, financial management, and ethical compliance, are essential mechanisms through which boards can align the interests of managers with those of shareholders, potentially influencing the firm's engagement in CSR initiatives and guide managers toward socially responsible practices (Jensen, 2001; Trevino & Nelson, 2011). The study of Giannarakis (2014) provided positive impact of board activity on CSR of 100 sampled of listed firms in US for the financial year 2011. Moreover, agency theory also emphasizes on the professional qualifications of members as being essential to good corporate governance. Members with relevant know-how in setting and achieving sustainable development goals are also Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 30 paramount because they have a wider variety of wherewithal to address problems and improve CSR practices (Bear et al., 2010). Companies with board professionalism are more likely to have strongly committed to CSR and are better positioned to deliver CSR performance (Ceres, 2019; Minguel, 2017). For example, Zhuang et al. (2018) and Harjoto et al. (2015) revealed statistical evidence that board professionalism is positively significant with CSR of listed Chinese and US firms. Board equity ownership, where members of the board hold shares in the company, is seen as a mechanism to align the interests of managers with those of shareholders. If board members have a substantial financial interest in the company, they may be more inclined to consider the long-term sustainability and reputation of the firm, which are often associated with robust CSR practices and which result in increased support for CSR policies and practices (Dalton et al., 2003). However, directors and managers who own corporate stock usually tend to be less eager to over-invest in CSR actions, because they have to bear a proportion of the costs as shareholders (Barnea and Rubin, 2010). However, Carpenter and Wade (2002) found that firms with higher levels of board equity ownership were more likely to engage in socially responsible activities, suggesting a positive correlation between board equity ownership and CSR. 3. Methods and Model Specification In order to ascertain the impact of board characteristics on CSR, correlational research design was adopted. The population consists of twelve (12) listed oil and gas firms in the Nigerian Stock Exchange Group as at 31st December, 2023. Out of these, five (5) listed oil and gas firms have consistently published their annual reports from the period of 2007 to 2022 selected by the study. Therefore, the sample size of the study is five. The selection of the period allowed an examination of the current events in CSR reporting practices. Secondary data was utilized and extracted from yearly reports of the listed oil and gas in Nigerian. The data was analyzed with panel regression and correlation. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 31 The review: Variables and Measurements Variable Types Measurements Sources Corporate Social Responsibility Dependent Variable Total amount in naira spent on the CSR (Awodiran& Jimba,2019) Board Size Independent Variable The aggregate of members who made up the board. (Ahmad et al., 2017). Board independence Independent Variable Proportion of independent non- executive members on the board. Abubakar (2016) Board Gender Independent Variable Proportion of women directors on the board. Oh et al (2019) Board Activity Independent variable Number of times meetings are held by board members in a year. (Harjoto et al., 2015) Board Professionalism Independent Variable Number of members with professional qualification divided by the total number of directors. Ntim & Osei (2013). Board Equity Ownership Independent Variable Proportion of shares held by members of a company's board of directors Brammer &Pavelin, 2008 Profitability Control Variable Natural logarithm of total assets of the company’s year – end (Akbas,2016) Firm Size Control Variable Profit before tax divided by total asset of the firm at year end. (Sanan, 2018). Source: Compiled by the researchers from various literature reviewed The model was formulated to examine the impact of board mechanisms on CSR: CSR it = β0 + β1BSIZEit + β2BINDit + β3BGDit + β4BACTit + β5BPRFit + β6BEQOit+ β7PROFit + β8FSIZE+ Єit Where; CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility BSIZE = Board Size BIND = Board Independence Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 32 BGD = Board Gender Diversity BACT= Board Activity BPRF= Board Professionalism BEO = Board Equity Ownership PROF= Profitability FSIZE = Firm Size ß0 = Intercept; ß1 to ß8 = Coefficient of the independent and control variables; Є = Error term; it = Subscript for Panel Data 4. Result and Discussion Data collected during the course of the study were presented and discussed in this section. The descriptive statistics, correlation matrix and inferential statistics are presented in this section. The hypothesis formulated for the study was tested to institute the effect of board characteristics on corporate social responsibility. Table 2: Summary of Descriptive Statistics Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max CSREXP(₦Million) 80 25,837 45,559 0 158,336 BSIZE 80 7.285 2.063 4 11 BIND 80 .075 .142 0 .668 BGD 80 .124 .078 0 .383 BACT 80 4.780 1.922 4 7 BPRF 80 .139 .103 0 .375 BEO 80 .158 .192 0 .653 PROF 80 .011 .254 - .658 .132 FSIZE (₦Million) 80 87,785 54,915 22,375 169,155 Source: STATA Output, 2023 Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 33 The summary statistics show the dependent variable and all independent variables of this study. This means that on average, total of ₦25.84million was spent on CSR with a maximum of ₦158.34million and a minimum of 0 spent. The standard deviation of approximately ₦45.56million indicates a moderate variation among the sample firms. The average board size is 7 members with a standard deviation of 2.063. This suggests a low variation across the listed oil and gas firms. The minimum and maximum members for the period under consideration are 4 and 11. The average of board independence (BIND) across the listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria for the period under study is 7.5%, while the standard deviation stands at 0.142. This indicates a moderate variation in the level of board independence for the period under consideration. The minimum and maximum board independence is 0% and 66.8%. This implies that some listed oil and gas firms have no independent non-executive directors on the board. On the average, the mean of board gender is 12.4%, while the deviation is 0.078. This suggests a moderate variation of the data from the mean. The minimum and maximum board gender is 0% and 38.3% respectively. This implies that some listed oil and gas companies do not have women on the board. As revealed from the summary statistics, board activity measured by number of meetings held is approximately 5 times on the average, the standard deviation stood at 1.992 which is an indication of low variation among the sampled firms. The minimum and maximum are respectively 4 and 7 times. On the average, the company that have members with professional expertise is 13.9% while the standard deviation is 0.103 which indicates a moderate variation. The minimum and maximum are 0 and 37.5% respectively. The minimum and maximum of board equity ownership are 0% and 65.3%. While the mean and the standard deviation are 15.8% and 0.192 respectively. This implies a higher dispersion among the sampled firms. Profitability averages 0.011 with a standard deviation of 0.254 which shows a wide variation. The minimum is -0.658 and the maximum is 0.132. Finally, firm size shows an average asset valued at ₦87.785billion approximately, while the standard deviation of ₦54.92billion shows a moderate variation among the sampled firms of listed oil and gas. The minimum and maximum are ₦22.375billion and ₦169.155billion. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 34 Table 3: Correlation matrix CSR BSIZ BIND BGD BPROF BACT BEOQ PROF FSIZE CSR 1.000 BSIZE 0.109 1.000 BIND 0.178 0.145 1.000 BGD 0.558 - 0.384 0.217 1.000 BACT 0.614 0.564 -0.052 0.076 1.000 BPRF - 0.136 0.053 0.150 0.043 0.168 1.000 BEO - 0.054 0.087 0.462 0.023 -0.551 -0.432 1.000 PROf 0.163 0.077 -0.338 -0.025 0.065 0.081 0.021 1.000 FSIZE 0.469 0.495 0.122 0.032 0.352 0.336 0.061 0.654 1.000 Source: STATA Output, 2023 It can be observed from the correlation table that board size, independence, gender, profitability and firm size have a positive relationship with CSR. This implies they move in the same direction with CSR. However, board professionalism and equity ownership have a negative relationship with CSR which implies that they move in the opposite direction with corporate social responsibility. The association of independent variables themselves are revealed from the correlation matrix. According to Gujarati (2004) a correlation coefficient between two independent variables above 0.80 is considered excessive. From the table above, it can be observed that all correlation coefficients among the independent variables are all below 0.80 which shows absence of multicollinearity. However, to further test for collinearity issues, this study employed Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test to measure its magnitude in our model, where variance factors for each variable are estimated. The result of the VIF test ranges from Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 35 minimum of 1.014 to maximum of 1.553 which are all less than 10. To further substantiate this claim, the mean VIF is 1.191, also confirming the absence of multicollinearity among all the independent variables of the study (Hair et al., 2014). Table 4: Panel Corrected Standard Error Result CSR Coef. St.Err. z-value p-value VIF BSIZE BIND -0.0158 0.1015 1.212 1.875 -2.11 1.68 0.489 0.008 1.142 1.181 BGD BACT BPRF BEO PROF FSIZE Constant 1.0616 2.0133 1.1042 0.1031 0.0045 0.0153 -0.1347 0.022 0.231 3.013 0.298 2.081 1.116 3.902 3.31 0.58 1.22 2.21 0.34 3.88 -1.87 0.000 0.345 0.001 0.021 0.006 0.234 0.029 1.147 1.237 1.024 1.014 1.228 1.553 Number of obs R-squared Wald chi Prob > chi 80.000 0.294 71.41 0.000 Mean VIF Hettest Hausman 1.191 0.000 0.000 Source: STATA Output, 2023 The Panel Corrected Standard Error Regression (PSCE) result revealed that the coefficient of determination of R-squared was 0.294 which indicates about 29.4% of variation in CSR caused by variations in independent variables as explained by the model. This means that board size, independence, gender, activities, professionalism, equity ownership and the control variables jointly explained 29.4% of CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria and it is statistically significant at 1% as indicated with p-value 0.000. While the remaining 70.6% were due to other factors not captured in the model but measured by the error terms. The wald chi-square value of 71.4% is significant at 1% level and therefore, the model is well fitted with variables of the study. The regression result reveals that board size has a coefficient value of -0.016, a z- value of -2.11 and probability value of 0.489 which is insignificant. This shows that board size has no significant impact on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The finding of the study is in line with the finding of Rao and Tilt (2016) but contradict the findings of Kurawa and Abdulrahman (2014). On this basis, we Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 36 therefore fail to reject the null hypothesis which states that board size has no significant impact on corporate social responsibility. Moreover, the regression result reveals that board independence has a positive and statistically significant influence on CSR as evidenced by coefficient of 0.102 and a probability value of 0.008 which is statistically significant at 1%. By implication, it means increase in board independence will enhance CSR practices. The finding of the study contradicts the findings of Awodiran and Jimba (2019), Rao and Tilt (2016) and Riyadh et al (2019) but is in line with the result of Fuente et al (2016). On this basis, we therefore reject the null hypothesis which states that board independence has no significant impact on corporate social responsibility. The regression result reveals that board gender has a coefficient value of 1.062, a z-value of 1.68 and probability value of 0.000 which is significant. This shows that board gender has significant impact on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. This is attributed to the fact that female directors have more concerns and sympathy towards CSR issues. This positive and significant result is not strange as it is consistent with the findings of Awodiran and Gimba (2018), Riyadh (2019), Fuente, Sanchez and Lozano (2016). On this basis, we therefore reject the null hypothesis, which states that board gender diversity has no significance effect on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. It was also revealed from the result that board activity has no significant impact on CSR as suggested by the coefficient value of 2.013, z-value of 0.58 and a probability value of 0.345. This implies that increase in board activity will not affect (either increase or decrease) CSR. The finding supports the finding of Ahmad et al. (2017) but contradicts the findings of Giannarakis (2014). Based on this, the study fails to reject the null hypothesis which claims that board activity has no significant effect on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. Board professionalism as shown by the findings has a positive significant effect on CSR as evidenced by the coefficient value of 1.104 and a probability value of 0.001which is significant at 1%. What this implies is that an increase in members with professional expertise will increase CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The study therefore fails to reject the null hypothesis which hypothesizes that board professionalism has no significant impact on CSR. The regression result revealed that board equity ownership has a negative significant effect on CSR as statistically shown that coefficient value is -0.135 and the probability value is 0.021 which is significant at 5%. This means that an Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 37 increase in equity share of board members will decrease CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The study therefore finds sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis which states that board equity ownership has no significant effect on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. 5. Conclusion and Recommendation This study empirically examined the impact of board characteristics on CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The data were sourced and collected from annual report of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria, and analyzed using panel regression. It was shown from the study that board independence, higher percentage of female directors on the board, board professionalism and board equity ownership significantly influence corporate social responsibility. Neither board size nor board activity show a significant association with corporate social responsibility. The study therefore recommends that a larger proportion of independent outside directors will enhance monitoring of the management thereby driving superior performance of CSR. Encouraging more participation of female directors on the board tends to improve the value of the firm in the long run and CSR because they are more concerned about CSR. Also, higher proportion of members with professional expertise will address the issue of CSR because of their wider network and resources. Giving board members ownership stake will negatively affect the CSR of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. In spite of the importance of the findings of this study, the research still has some limitations like other empirical studies. Firstly, the sample size of the study only considered listed oil and gas firms. In addition, the investigation solely relied on content analysis of information presented in annual reports. The limitations do not undermine the validity of the results. They function as building blocks for new research. A number of potential areas for future research arise from this study. First, the research work may consider the use of various means of gathering information other annual reports such as stand-alone reports or the corporate websites. Further studies can also be carried out in other sectors like consumer good sectors or financial service sector as this will enable them to forward more generalized findings and recommendations. References Abubakar, A. (2016). Firm attributes, board characteristics and corporate social responsibility of listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. (MSc Dissertation, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria). Retrieved from: http://kubanni.abu.edu.ng/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8099/1/. http://kubanni.abu.edu.ng/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8099/1/ Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 38 Achua, J.K. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility in Nigerian banking system”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 57-71. Adams, R., Almeida, H., & Ferreira, D. (2005). Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance. The Review of Financial Studies, 18(4), 1403– 1432. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/ hhi030 Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the Boardroom and Their Impact on Governance and Performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291-309. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007 Aguilera, R. V., Filatotchev, I., Gospel, H., & Jackson, G. (2008). Strategic Board Involvement in Corporate Social Responsibility:Theory and Evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 199-213. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9760- 0 Ahmad, J. B., Rashid, A., & Gow, J. (2017). Board meeting frequency and corporate social responsibility (csr ) reporting : evidence from malaysia. Corporate Board: Role, Duties & Composition, 13(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv13i1c1art3 Akbas, H. E., (2016), The association between board mechanisms and environmental disclosure: evidence from Turkish listed companies: South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 11 (2), 7-19. Airvisual. (2018). The 2018 World Air Quality Report. Retrieved from https://www.airvisual.com/world-most-polluted-cities/world- air-quality- report-2018-en.pdf Amaeshi, K., Adi, A.B.C., Ogbechie, C., & Amao, O.O (2006): Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria: Western mimicry or indigenous influences? The journal of Corporate Citizenship,24, 83-99 Amao, O. (2014). Emergent state practice on creation and practice of standards on corporate social responsibility. State Practice and International Law Journal, 1(1), 117-137. Andres, P.de and Vallelado, E. (2008), “Corporate governance in banking: the role of board of directors”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 2570-2580. Asgary, N., & Li, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: Its economic impact and link to the bullwhip effect. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (4), 665– 681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2492-1 Awodiran, M. A. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability disclosure: Evidence from listed industrial goods firms in Nigeria. 1–16. Awodiran, M. A., & Jimba, I. K. (2019). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility of listed firms in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv13i1c1art3 https://www.airvisual.com/world-most-polluted-cities/world-%20air-quality-report-2018-en.pdf https://www.airvisual.com/world-most-polluted-cities/world-%20air-quality-report-2018-en.pdf Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 39 Management, 2(1), 73–83. Barako, D. G., & Brown, A. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and board representation: Evidence from the Kenyan banking sector. Journal of Management and Governance, 12(4), 309-324. Barnea, A. and Rubin, A. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 71- 86. Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207-221. March 2019. doi:10.1007/s10551-010- 0505-2 Berete, M. (2011).Relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in the pharmaceutical industry, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Walden University. Birindelli, G., Iannuzzi, A. P., & Savioli, M. (2019). The impact of women leaders on environmental performance: Evidence on gender diversity in banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1485–1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1762 Biswas, P. K., Mansi, M., & Pandey, R. (2018). Board composition, sustainability committee and corporate social and environmental performance in Australia. Pacific Accounting Review, 30(4), 517–540. https:// doi.org/10.1108/PAR-12-2017-0107 Braam, G. J., de Weerd, L. U., Hauck, M., & Huijbregts, M. A. (2016). Determinants of corporate environmental reporting: The importance of environmental performance and assurance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 724-734. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.039. Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2008), “Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 120-136 Buniamin, S., Alrazi, B., Johari, N. H. and Rahman, N. R. A. (2011), "Corporate governance practices and environmental reporting of companies in Malaysia: Finding Possibilities of Double Thumbs Up", Jurnal Pengurusan, Vol. 32 No. 2011, pp. 55-71 Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497. March 2019. doi:10.2307/257850 Castelo Branco, M., & Lima Rodriques, L. (2007). Positioning stakeholder theory within the debate on corporate social responsibility. EJBO-Electronic https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1762 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.039 Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 40 Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 12(1), 5-15. Ceres. (2019). How board governance can drive sustainability performance. Retrieved from: https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/systems-rule- how-board-governance-can-drive-sustainability-performance. Chang, W.S. (2010), “Social, network and corporate financial performance: conceptual framework of board composition and corporate social responsibility”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 92-97. Chen, J. and Roberts, R. (2010), “Toward a more coherent understanding of the Organization-Society relationship: theoretical considerations for social and environmental accounting research”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 651-665 Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23. Claessens, S. and Yurtoglu, B.B. (2013), “Corporate governance in emerging markets: a survey”, Emerging Markets Review, Vol. 15, pp. 1-33. Dalton, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Kesner, I. F. (2003). Financial Expertise on Boards and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 195-206. doi:10.1023/A:1022944100540 Dixon, R., Mousa, G. A., & Woodhead, A. (2005). The role of environmental initiatives in encouraging companies to engage in environmental reporting. European Management Journal, 23(6), 702-716. Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Collaborative Governance: Enhancing Board Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ethical Leadership and Legal Compliance: The Role of Boards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Egbon, O., Idemudia, U., &Amaeshi, K. (2018). Shell Nigeria Global memorandum of understanding and corporate-community accountability relations: A critical appraisal. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 3(1), 51-74. Ekhator, E. O. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and Chinese oil multinationals in the oil and gas industry of Nigeria: An appraisal. Cadernos De EstudosAfricanos, 28, 119-140. Fernandex-Gago, R., Cabeza-Garcia,L.,&Nieto,M.(2018). Independent director’s background and CSR disclosure. Corp Soc Res Env Ma. 1-11 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1515 Figar, N., & Figar, V. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the context of the stakeholder theory. Facta universitatis-series: Economics and Organization, Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 41 8(1), 1-13. Freedman, M. and Jaggi, B. (2005), “Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting industries”, The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 215-232. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Fuente, J. A., García-Sánchez, I. M., & Lozano, M. B. (2017). The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 737–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.155 Galant, A., & Cadez, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: A review of measurement approaches. Economic Research-EkonomskaIstrazivanja, 30(1), 676–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1313122 García Martín, C. J., & Herrero, B. (2019). Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 74–94. https:// doi.org/10.1002/csr.1775 Galbreath, J. (2018). Is board gender diversity linked to financial performance? The mediating mechanism of CSR. Journal of Business and Society, 57(5), 863- 889. Ghabayen, M. A., Mohamad, N. R., & Ahmad, N. (2016). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility disclosure in the Jordanian banks. Corporate Board: Role, Duties & Composition /, 12(1), 84–100. Ghazali, N.A. (2007), “Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some malaysian evidence”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 251-266. Giannarakis, G. (2014). The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(5), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-05-2013-0021 Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Gul, F. A., & Leung, S. (2004). Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23(5), 351-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.155 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-05-2013-0021 Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 42 Hackston, D. and Milne, M.J. (1996), “Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 77-108. Hair, J. J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Georgia: Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson. Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The Impact of Culture and Governance on Corporate Reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391- 430. Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). 'Board diversity and corporate social responsibility.' Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641-60. Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 45–67. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125-139. Hillman, A., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383–396. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., &Hoskisson, R. E. (2019). Strategic Oversight in Corporate Governance. New York: Wiley & Sons. Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-016-3099-5 Ibrahim, A. H., & Hanefah, M. M. (2016). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility in Jordan. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 14(2), 279 – 298. Available at: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-06-2015- 0065. Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1995). The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differences between inside and outside directors? Journal of Business Ethics, 14(5), 405-410. Idemudia, U., &Osayande, N. (2016). Assessing the effect of corporate social responsibility on community development in the Niger Delta. A corporate perspective. Community Development Journal, 53(1), 155-172. Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 43 Jensen, M. C. (2001). Strategic Oversight and Managerial Alignment: Aligning Managerial Interests with Shareholder Value. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8-21. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6622.2001.tb00428.x Joudeh, A. H. M., Almubaideen, H. I. M., &Alroud, S. F. (2018). Environmental disclosure in the annual reports of the Jordanian mining and extraction companies. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting, 5(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2018.787 Kurawa , J. M., & Kabara, A. S. (2014). Impact of Corporate Governance on Voluntary Disclosure by Firms in the Downstream Sector of the Nigerian Petroleum Industry. Proceedings of World Business Research Conference, (pp. 1-19). Novotel World Trade Centre, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1- 922069-48-1. Laksmana, I. (2008). Corporate board governance and voluntary disclosure of executive compensation practices. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 1147-1182. Lawal, B. (2012). Board Dynamics and Corporate Performance: Review of Literature and Empirical Challenges. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(1):22-35. Liao, L., Lin, T., & Zhang, Y. Y. (2018). Corporate board and corporate social responsibility assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 211–225. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-016-3176-9 Lin, C. H., Yang, H. L., and Liou, D. Y. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan, Technology in Society, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 56-63. Liu, H. & Fong, M. (2010). Board Characteristics of Medium and Large Chinese Companies. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 10(2):163-175. Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006) ‘Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp.1– 18 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. Minguel, N. G. G. E. (2017). The evolution of sustainability reporting. A case study of the airlines sector. Retrieved from: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=143881 Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2018.787 Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 44 the UK supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics,34(3-4), 299-315. Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Subramaniam, N. (2016). Firm characteristics, board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Pacific Accounting Review, 27, 353–372. Oh, W.-Y., Chang, Y. K., & Jung, R. (2019). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: Does family involvement in management matter? Journal of Business Research, 103, 23-33. Available https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.028. Orazalin, N. (2020). Do board sustainability committees contribute to corporate environmental and social performance? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2354 Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., & Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2019). An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 612-627. Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board diversity and CSR reporting: an Australian study. Dynamic Factor Models, 24(2). Rao, N.S. and Kumari, N.N. (2013), “Revitalization of Public Library System in India: A CSR Perspective”, Journal of Library & Information Technology, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 25-28 Riyadh, H. A., Sukoharsono, E. G., & Alfaiza, S. A. (2019). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure and board characteristics on corporate performance. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1647917 Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595-612. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0361- 3682(92)90015-k. Rupley, K. H., Brown, D., & Marshall, R. S. (2012). Governance, media and the quality of environmental disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(6), 610-640. Sanan, N. K. (2018). Influence of board characteristics on CSR: A study of Indian firms. International Journal of Corporate Governance, 9(3), 300-315. Selcuk, A, E., &Kiymaz, H. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: Evidence from an Emerging Market. Accounting and Finance Research, 6(4), 42. https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v6n4p42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.028 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2354 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1647917 https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v6n4p42 Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 45 Silvia, A., &Aegandona, A. (2009). Responsible Corporate Governance: Towards a Stakeholder Board of Directors? Siregar, S.V. and Bachtiar, Y. (2010), “Corporate social reporting: Empirical evidence from Indonesia stock exchange”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 241-252 Sukcharoensin, S. (2012), “The determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure of Thai listed firms”, IPEDR, Vol. 46 No.12, pp. 61-65. Tan, A., Benni, D., & Liani, W. (2016). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure and investor reaction. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(4S), 11–17. Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2011). Ethical Compliance and the Role of Boards: Addressing Conflicts of Interest and Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 23-43. doi:10.5465/amp.25.3.23 Tricker, R. I. (2015). Board Professionalism: Fiduciary Duty in Corporate Governance. New York: Academic Press. Van der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., Tondkar, R. H. 2005. Exploring differences in social disclosure internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24: 123–151. Vurro, C. and Perrini, F. (2011), “Making the most of corporate social responsibility reporting: disclosure structure and its impact on performance”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 459-474. Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibil- ity: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534–544.Watts, R. L. and Zimmerman, J. L. (1990), "Positive accounting theory: a ten year perspective", Accounting Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 131-156 Webb, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 255– 277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-004-1107-0. Welford, R. (2007). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: Issues for Asia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(1), 42-51. Wijethilake, C. (2017). Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 569–582. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.057 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-004-1107-0 Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, Issue 1, April, 2024 46 Wijethilake, C., & Lama, T. (2018). Sustainability core values and sustainability risk management: Moderating effects of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 143– 154. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2245 Wooldridge, J. M. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. World Bank. (2020). Global gas flaring tracker report. Global gas flaring reduction partnership. Washington, DC. USA: World Bank Publications Yao, S., Wang, J., & Song, L. (2011). Determinants of social responsibility disclosure by Chinese firms. Discussion Paper 72. China Policy Institute, The University of Nottingham. Zemigała, M. (2019). Tendencies in research on sustainable development in management sciences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 796–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02. 009 Zhuang, Y., Chang, X., & Lee, Y. (2018). Board composition and corporate social responsibility performance: Evidence from Chinese Public Firms. Sustainability, 10(8), 1-12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082752