Microsoft Word - UPLOAD TO ME HASSAN GUJAF VOL 6 ISSUE 2 APRIL MR HASSAN 2222[1] Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 122 AUDIT COMMITTEE AS A MODERATOR ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIVERSITYINBOARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING OF LISTED MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN NIGERIA Salvation Joshua Selven1 jsalvationselven@yahoo.com Timkat,NanmakPeter2 nanmakpeter@gmail.com Gong, Chai Deme3, Joshua, Rinarimam4, National Boundary Commission, Aguiyi-Ironsi Way, Maitama, Abuja, https://doi.org/10.57233/gujaf.v6i2.09 Abstract Corporate environmental practices are facing more and more scrutiny from stakeholders as a result of growing ecological concerns that affect not just local communities but the planet as a whole. To this end, this paper examines the moderating role of audit committees on the relationship between diversity-in-board and environmental reporting of Listed Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria (LMCN). The paper employed an ex-post facto research design and data collected from annual reports of thirty-six LMCN were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear multiple regression techniques. Findings suggest that while diversity-in-board positively influenced environmental reporting, this effect became statistically significant when moderated by the audit committee. This underscores the importance of audit committee crucial role as a moderator in influences that impact of diversity-in-board and ensures adequate disclosure of environmental information in the annual reports of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. The study recommends among others that Financial Reporting Council (FRC) of Nigeria should no longer allow environmental disclosure in Nigeria to be voluntary, but make it compulsory using ISO 14031 reporting guideline as a common standard among listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria for the purpose of attaining detailed environmental disclosures and easy comparison of such disclosures among firms. Also, encourage regulators to regularly review corporate governance codes to strengthen diversity provisions for more credible stakeholder reporting. Additionally, manufacturing firms should focus on boosting the effectiveness of their audit committees to enhance environmental stewardship, which will in turn improve corporate brand image and reputation. Keywords: Diversity-in-board, environmental reporting, audit committee, Nigeria. 1.0 Introduction Over the years, many businesses have focused more on growth, survival, and the maximisation of shareholder wealthoften at the expense of environmental sustainability (Felix & Aruna, 2021). Since the establishment of formal business structures, companies have heavily depended on the environment for their operations, as no business can exist in isolation (Uwuigbe et al.,2018). From sourcing raw materials to managing waste, the connection between business activities and the environment is undeniable. However, this interaction often comes with significant environmental and social threats affecting people, ecosystems, and society at large. These threats include occupational hazards, negative impacts on host communities, global warming, and harmful effects associated with products and services (Nwaigwe et al., 2020; Saka, 2024). Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 123 These externalities have led to environmental imbalances such as land degradation and desertificationespecially in developing countries where environmental regulations are weak or poorly enforced (Ogoun & Ekpulu, 2020). As the effects of this degradation on human health and well-being become more apparent, public awareness continues to rise. Yet, many large corporations contributing to these problems have not fully embraced their environmental responsibilities (Worimegbe & Oyewole, 2021). This has prompted investors and other concerned stakeholders to demand greater transparency and accountability in corporate environmental practices. Today, stakeholders expect companies to report not only their environmental efforts but also the strategies they adopt to promote sustainability. In response to these concerns, Environmental Reporting (ER) has emerged as a key mechanism for safeguarding natural resources and addressing the limitations of traditional financial reporting systems (Yaakoo et al., 2021). ER has gained growing attention in academic literature (Osemene & Fagbemi, 2019; Aliyu, 2019; Gardazi et al., 2020; Haruna, 2024). In Nigeria, particularly among publicly listed manufacturing firms, environmental disclosure is gradually gaining recognition alongside financial reporting. This development is significant, as transparency and accountability are fundamental pillars of good governance across both developed and developing economies. Forward-thinking companies increasingly recognise that ER fosters trust, attracts stakeholder support, mitigates operational risks, and ultimately enhances financial performance (Akinkunmi & Simeon, 2022). However, despite its potential benefits, ER remains largely unregulated in Nigeria and is still not widely practised (Okpala, 2019). Many firms fail to comply with existing frameworks such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (2018) and the Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance (2018). Additionally, although Nigeria has enacted environmental laws and established regulatory bodies, enforcement is weak. The non-mandatory nature of ER makes it easy for environmental concerns to be overlooked in managerial decision-making (Ogoun & Ekpulu, 2020). Given this backdrop, the drivers of ER adoptionparticularly in developing economiesremain unclear. From a corporate governance perspective, board diversity is considered one of the key factors that can promote environmental stewardship. A diverse board combines varied skills, experiences, and perspectives that enhance decision-making and strategic direction (Mgbame & Mgbame, 2018; Jonson et al., 2020; Rao & Tilt, 2016a). Accordingly, more companies are adopting heterogeneous boards to improve competitiveness and governance outcomes (Galbreath, 2016; Zhang et al., 2013). Thus, unlike extantliterature that assessed individual diversity traits (Khan et al., 2021; Beji et al., 2020; Yusof et al., 2019), this study builds on the concept of Diversity-in-Board (DiB), a composite index of board diversity that captures board members’ demographic attributes such as gender, age, nationality, and education (Hafsi & Turgut, 2013; Baalouch et al., 2019).It is expected that the composite index like DIB would give a comprehensive picture of their simultaneous influence on various organisational outcomes such as ER practices.Based on the foregoing, this study seeks to examine the influence of DiBon the environmental disclosure practices of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 124 In addition, audit committee (AC)is introduced as a moderating variable. The role of AC in this study is justify because it can affect how strong or in what direction the relationship between DiB and ER goes. As outlined in Section 11.4(1) of the Nigerian Corporate Governance Code (2018), every company is required to set up an audit committee that takes charge of audit-related tasks. These tasks include reviewing accounting policies, evaluating internal control systems, and making sure that external reporting requirements are met (Putri et al., 2017). Given its oversight responsibilities for both financial and non-financial disclosures, including environmental reports, the audit committee can have a significant influence on the quality and scope of ER (Ghassan et al., 2020). Therefore, understanding its moderating role is crucial for grasping how governance structures impact corporate environmental accountability. Consequent upon, the motivation for this study stems from rising stakeholder concerns over the environmental impacts of industrial activities such as oil exploration, gas flaring, mining, and especially manufacturing. Furthermore, most existing studies on DiB and ER have been conducted outside Nigeria (Hafsi & Turgut, 2013; Hoang, 2016, 2018). It is dangerous to generalised their findings to other economies in the world due to differences in economic systems, market structure, geographical location and reporting requirements. Also, past empirical studies(Otung et al., 2025; Blay et al., 2025; Saka, 2024, Haruna, 2024) were unable to considered the crucial role of audit committee as a moderating factor to influence relationships between corporate governance variables. To the best of the research knowledge, only Isa and Farouk 2018 made an earliest attempt to empirically test how audit committee moderates organizational outcomes. Although, their studies examined the influence of audit committee on the relationship between board diversity and earnings management of deposit money banks in Nigeria. The author’s domain is different from this study which is manufacturing firms. This has significantly thrown up a gap to be filled by this paper because, manufacturing sector is particularly important due to its substantial environmental footprint involving pollution and hazardous waste. Again, the inadequacy of corporate governance culture to effectively address the concerns of stakeholders especially the inability of corporate organization to meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations has provided additional justification for this study. Thus, the main objective of the study is to examine how the audit committee moderates the relationship between DiB and ER of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Other specific objectives include to: i. determines effect of DiB on ER practice of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria ii. explores the influence of audit committee on ER practice of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. iii. investigate whether audit committee moderates the relationship between DiB and ER of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Thus, the study hypothesized that: Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 125 H01: DiB has no significant effect on ER practice of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. H02: AC has no significant effect on ER of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. H03: AC does not significantly moderate the relationship between DiB and ER of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. This study, spanning 2006 -2023, focused on pollution potential in Nigerian manufacturing companies using ISO 14031 checklists for standardized reporting across companies of varying sizes. The findings offer policy insights for regulators, promote corporate transparency, and guide companies in effective environmental management and reporting. It also enriches academic literature on environmental reporting in Nigeria. The paper is organized into five sections: literature review, methodology, analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. 2.0 Literature Review This section focused on key study elements such as: ER, DiB encompassing board gender, age, nationality, and educational background), and the audit committee. The study also explored theoretical foundations and reviewed empirical studies. Conceptual framework (Figure1) shows audit committee's influence on DiB and ER, considering firm size, age, and profitability as control factors. Moderating Variable Independent Variables (Diversity-in-Board) Dependent Variable Cont Control Variables Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study Source: Researcher’s compilation (2023). "ER" is a broad term covering how organizations communicate their environmental activities, encompassing disclosure, expenditures, governance, sustainability reporting, and more. It's an umbrella term in this study for conveying environmental activities to end users (Gerged, 2021; Ofoegbu et al., 2018). Audit Committee Environmental Reporting Age Gender Nationality Education Firm size Firm Age Profitability Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 126 In the context of this study, "DiB" entails demographic differences in a board (gender, age, nationality, education). Researchers such as Hoang et al. (2018); Baalouch et al. (2019) acknowledge the influence of these DiB attributes on decision-making, including ER. To gauge the effect of these attributes on ER, they are aggregated into a DiB index for a holistic view, diverging from previous studies like Beji et al. (2020); Khan et al. (2021) examining attributes individually. The DiB index are categorized into tercile with values 0, 1, 2 representing "below average," "average," and "above average" values. This methodology allows for comprehensive assessment of their influence on ER. Subsequent discussion explores these DiB attributes in detail. The study evaluates gender diversity on corporate boards, recognizing its value in introducing diversity and broadening perspectives, particularly in environmental responsibility. Women are seen as more environmentally conscious and community-oriented, offering a balance of financial and non-financial objectives while meeting stakeholder needs (Bala et al., 2023). This study measured gender diversity as the proportion of female directors to total number of directors (Baalouch et al., (2019). Age diversity is crucial for boards, categorizing as older (60+) and younger (<60) and is measured as dummy variable; “1” if the average age of the board of directors is less than 60 years and “0” otherwise (Abdullah & Ku Ismail, 2013). Older directors bring expertise and maturity, enhancing decision-making and environmental reporting. Younger directors focus more on environmental issues and innovation. Diverse age groups avoid decision bias and enrich resources to address social and environmental concerns effectively (Al-Qahtani & Elgharbawy, 2020; Amorelli & García-Sánchez, 2020; Fernandes et al., 2019; Jansson et al., 2010). Board nationality is the ratio of foreign board members to total board size (Shehata, 2013). Foreign members bring a global perspective, emphasizing long-term environmental and social goals. They offer valuable resources, networks, and experiences. Having foreign board members can really boost how companies report on environmental issues and stick to corporate governance standards (Yarram & Adapa, 2021). Educational background diversity among board members significantly influences their behavior and decision-making processes. Diverse backgrounds in various fields promote environmental disclosure and overall performance. Specific backgrounds like accounting, finance, or law tend to enhance environmental information disclosure due to their affinity for voluntary environmental programs and compliance (Aifuwa et al., 2020; Iyakekhe et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2019a). Therefore, Board educational background (BEB) is measured as the ratio of BODs with accounting/finance or legal knowledge to total board size (Lewis et al., 2014). Audit committee comprises board members and shareholder representatives (maximum six members), plays a crucial role in supervising financial and nonfinancial reporting amidst rising environmental crises. Regulatory requirements mandate its formation to enhance internal control and financial statement reliability. Its effectiveness depends on size, expertise, diversity, and oversight capabilities (Elhawary, 2021). The variable is proxied and measured asAudit Committee size (ACS) = This is measured as total numbers of audit committee members divided by 6.(Abdulkadir & Alifiah, 2020), Audit Committee Composition (ACC) = This is measured as ratio of outside members to directors on the audit committee, Audit Committee Educational Background (ACEB) = This is measured as proportion of audit committee members that have accounting or legal to does without accounting or legal Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 127 knowledge, Audit Committee Meetings (ACM) = Number of meetings held by audit committee members in a year. Divided by 6 (Isa & Farouk ,2017). Researchers are increasingly highlighting the importance of looking into moderating variableslike innovation intensity, ownership structure, and gender/minority diversityto gain a clearer picture of how both internal and external factors influence the relationship between corporate governance and sustainability outcomes. In this regard, the audit committee stands out as a crucial governance structure that plays a significant role in shaping firms’ decision- making processes and accountability frameworks.Specifically, the audit committee serves as a bridge between the board and stakeholders by ensuring the transparency, accuracy, relevancy and completeness of disclosed information, particularly in areas like environmental reportingThankGod et al. (2021). This makes it a suitable and strategic moderator when examining the effectiveness of board diversity on environmental reporting. In Nigeria’s manufacturing sector, where environmental and regulatory demands are on the rise, a strong audit committee can strengthen or weakenthe impact of diversity-in-board on the quality and frequency of environmental disclosures. For instance, a well-functioning audit committee may reinforce the voice of diverse board members who advocate for sustainability, thereby amplifying the positive influence of board diversity on environmental transparency. Therefore, choosing the audit committee as a moderating variable is in line with existing literature and is especially significant for fostering sustainable practices in Nigerian companies. The study also incorporates firm size, age, and profitability as control variables to account for variations in environmental reporting beyond key factors (DiB). Larger firms disclose more future-oriented environmental information and is measured as thetotal number of directors on the board of the organization (Osemene & Fagbemi, 2019). Firm age signifies commitment to sustainability, while profitability influences disclosure (Chiu et al., 2020; Innocent & Okafor, 2018). Theoretical review This study is grounded in Resource Dependency Theory (RDT) and Stakeholder Theory.These theories provide a strong conceptual foundation for understanding the influence of audit committee on diversity-in-board and environmental reporting (ER) practices. RDT suggests that companies rely on external resources, and having a diverse board brings in a variety of viewpoints and networks that can improve ER, thus supporting H01. On the other hand, Stakeholder Theory highlights the importance of being transparent and responsive to all stakeholders, positioning the audit committee as a crucial player in ensuring clear, relevant comprehensive and high-quality environmental information that aligns with stakeholders’ expectation. The theory emphasizes the importance of managing key stakeholders such as the board of directors as environmental advocates, while balancing the often-conflicting interests of society and the operating environment (Shaheen et al., 2022), which supports H02. Lastly, H03 explores the moderating role of the AC. Here, RDT posits that the AC enhances the effectiveness of a diverse board in influencing ER strategies, while stakeholder theory justifies the moderating effect by positioning the audit committee as a steward of stakeholder interests, ensuring that diversity translates into accountable and transparent reporting practices. Review of Empirical Studies Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 128 In many developing economies, many people beginning to realize that having a diverse mix of genders on boards is essential to improving board effectiveness, encouraging good governance, and drawing attention from academics and business executives alike. Recently, studies have showed a link between gender diversity and environmental reporting, as aspect of sustainability reporting (Magambo & Nyamwesa, 2022; Tilt et al. (2021); Hoang et al., 2018; Nekhili et al., 2018; Katmon et al., 2017; Mohammed et al., 2024). Kanadlı et al. (2022) examined the role of gender diversity in shaping sustainability practices. The authors argued that women directors are more likely to advocate for sustainability since women frequently bring distinct viewpoints to the table relative to their male colleagues (Baker et al., 2019). While this argument aligns with prior research, it generalizes the behavioral tendencies of female directors, ignoring variations in individual leadership styles and industry- specific governance dynamics.This aligns with findings by Yahaya and Apochi (2021) Cicchiello et al. (2021), Riyadh et al. (2019), Issa and Fang (2019), Garcia-Sanchez et al. (2019), Awodiran and Kareem (2019), and Mahmood et al. (2018), who collectively affirm that increased female representation on boards enhances the quality of sustainability reporting particularly in terms of balance, comparability, and reliability especially in stakeholder- oriented environments. Again, Naveed et al. (2021) examined the link between board gender diversity (BGD) and corporate social performance (CSP) across Chinese industries from 2009 to 2015 using OLS regression. The study found that even the inclusion of one female director to the board has positive influences on CSP, particularly for firms exposed to environmental and social risk. However, the study focused solely on gender diversity and did not consider board nationality's impact on environmental disclosure. Exploring this relationship in the Nigerian context would enrich the literature. Supporting this, Odum (2023) also found a significant positive impact of board nationality diversity on environmental reporting. Further, Chebbi et al. (2020), used a sample of 85 French firms from 2010 to 2019, and found that the presence and proportion of women on corporate boards positively influence environmental disclosure. However, the study's findings may not be easily generalisable to countries with different regulatory frameworks on gender diversity and environmental reporting. This limitation underscores the need to investigate this relationship within the context of Nigeria, where environmental disclosure remains largely voluntary. In another development, Adeniyi and Fadipe (2018) looked into how effect of board diversity on sustainability reporting in Nigeria for the period 2015 and 2016. The authors established that board gender diversity does not significantly affect sustainability reporting. However, since the study only covered a two-year period, which is quite brief, it would be beneficial for future research to explore a longer timeframe. On board age diversity, Beji et al. (2020) found that greater age diversity on boards is linked to improved environmental performance, aligning with Fernandes et al. (2019), especially in boards with an average age of 55-60. However, Prudencio et al. (2021), Musa et al. (2020), and Baker et al. (2019) did not find a significant correlation between age diversity on boards and ER. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 129 In another study, Ma et al. (2019) found board educational background especially those with Master’s in Business Administration (MBA) to have positive affect on environmental disclosure, while board member with legal educational backgrounds have a negative effect. More so, Gold et al. (2021) discovered a positive influence of diverse board education on sustainability reporting in Nigerian consumer goods firms. Furthermore, Olanrewaju et al. (2020) found that board nationality diversity positively influences corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, using data from eight listed firms (2012–2018) and Panel Corrected Standard Error regression. However, expanding the focus to environmental disclosure especially among listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria and using ISO standards may yield broader insights and provide more favorable outcome. Similarly, Mirza et al. (2020) showed that board nationality moderates the relationship between corporate governance and investment decisions but did not treat it as an independent factor. Exploring board nationality’s impact as a composite index of DIB on environmental disclosure in Nigeria could provide valuable contributions which will add to the existing body of knowledge. In concurrence, Onyali and Okafor (2019) discovered a significant influence of foreign directors on ER of Nigeria consumer goods firms. The outcome was supported by studies like Zaid et al. (2020), Khan et al. (2019a, 2019b), and Berger (2019). In contrast, Anazonwu et al. (2018), Musa et al. (2020), Zaid et al. (2020) found no evidence of a connection. In another study by Kolsi (2022). The author discovered a significant positive link between audit committee independence and CSR disclosure among 410 UAE-listed firms, though the study lacked a specified period and broader context. Similarly, Moalla et al. (2020) in France, and Ika et al. (2021), Namakavarani et al. (2021), and Arif et al. (2020) across various contexts, all reported a positive effect of audit committee independence on environmental and sustainability disclosures (ENDC), including compliance with GRI guidelines. Broader studies in Nigeria may yield more context-relevant insights. In the same vein, Amin et al. (2021) investigated the relationship between audit committee characteristics and biodiversity disclosure in Japanese insurance firms (2012–2018), using qualitative data. The study found that frequent audit committee meetings significantly enhance biodiversity disclosure. However, the findings are limited to Japan’s insurance sector and may not apply broadly across manufacturing sector. A similar study covering Nigeria’s entire manufacturing sector could yield more comprehensive insights. In agreement with this finding, Arif et al. (2020), Odoemelam and Okafor (2018), Appuhami and Tashako (2017), and Samaha et al. (2015) also reported a strong positive association between audit committee meeting frequency and environmental and sustainability disclosures. These studies collectively underscore the importance of board's role in environmental disclosure, but context-specific variations exist, urging further research, especially in Nigeria's distinct context. In contrast, Blay et al. (2025) found a negative link between audit committee meeting frequency and environmental reporting in SSA firms but overlooked differences in environmental laws across countries. Their focus on only publicly traded non-financial firms limits generalizability. This study fills the gap by examining whether the audit committee strengthens or weakens environmental reporting, considering broader regulatory contexts. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 130 While existing studies on board diversity and sustainability reporting have been insightful, many overlook key disclosure principles outlined in the ISO 14031 guidelines. This creates a knowledge gap in assessing the quality of environmental reporting. To address this, the present study adopts ISO 14031, which provides flexible, voluntary standards applicable to manufacturing firms of all sizes. 3.0 Methodology This study adopts an ex-post facto research designas it enables existing data to analyses and examine relationships between variables without manipulating them. The population comprises all 61 manufacturing companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange (NGX) as of December 31, 2023, across six industries: Agriculture, Conglomerates, Industrial Goods, Consumer Goods, Healthcare, and Wood, Paper & Printing. These sectors were selected due to their perceived direct or indirect environmental impacts (Kolawale et al., 2021). A census sampling method with a three-point eligibility filter (Haruna, 2024) was used, resulting in a final sample of 36 firms (representing 59% of the population) after meeting the following criteria:i.) must have complete data for the study; ii.) timely submission of financial and governance reports; iii). musthave not been delisted at any point during the study period The dependent variable in this study is Environmental Reporting (ER), assessed through content analysis of audited annual reports. A checklist based on the ISO 14031 index, which contains 60 reportable disclosure items, was used for the analysis. Each item was scored as 1 if disclosed and 0 if not, in line Chiu, et al. (2020). This study used the unweighted dichotomous and calculated environmental disclosure index as follows: Total number of items appearing in the annual report Maximum number of items that should appear in annual reports The independent variable in this study is Board Diversity (DiB), commonly measured in literature by evaluating its components separately (Omoye & Eriki, 2013; Anazonwu et al., 2018). However, due to inconsistent findings from individual components, this study adopts a unified DiB index. Specifically, the Unweighted DiB (UWDiB) index is calculated using the tercile split method, categorizing each diversity attribute into three levels: below average (0), average (1), and above average (2) (Ben-Amar et al., 2013). For validation, the study also cross-checked results using a quartile split. Audit Committee (AC) is used as a moderating variable, measured through a composite index combining four attributes: committee size, composition, educational background, and meeting frequency. Although the main focus of this study is on the effect of DIB on Environmental Reporting (ER), the study also controls for firm-specific variablesfirm size, age, and profitabilityto minimize model bias (Jizi et al., 2014). Table 2 provides detailed descriptions, measurements, and sources for all variables. Table 1: Variables Definition and Measurement Proxy Variable Description Sources Dependent Variable Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 131 Environmental Reporting ER This study adopts ISO 14031 disclosures index, and use content analysis to analyse the disclosure items in the annual reports. The items are scored one or zero based on the presence or absence of a disclosure item. Uwigbe (2011), Uyagu et al. (2017). Independent Variables Diversity-in- board DiB A composite index is calculated by dividing the sum of board gender, board age, board nationality, and board educational background into terciles. Hafsi and Turgut (2013), Hoang et al. (2016), (2018) Moderating Variable Audit Committe AC An index measured as the sum of audit committee attributes: size, composition, educational background, and meetings. (Isa & Farouk 2018). Control Variables Firm Size FS This is proxied using the natural logarithm of total assets of the firm. Yahaya and Andow, (2015), Habbash (2016). Firm Age FA The number of years after the firm is listed Yahaya et al. (2017) Profitability ROA The ratio of net profit before tax to total assets. Akbas (2016). Source: Researcher’s compilations (2024) The study used three models. Model 1 tested the direct effect of DiB on ER. Model II examined the moderating effect of AC on ER. Model III analyzed the moderating effect of AC on the relationship between DiB and ER. The multiple regression models were presented as follows. Model ERit = α0+β1DiBit+ β2FSit +β3FAit+β4ROAit +Ԑit -----------------------------------------(1) ERit = α0+β1DiBit+β2AC+β3FSit +β4FAit+β5ROAit +Ԑit ----------------------------------(2) ERit = α0+β1DiBit+β2ACit+β3(ACit*DiBit) + β4FSit +β5FAit+β6 ROAit +Ԑit ---------- (3) Where: ER= Environmental reporting DiB = Diversity-in-Board AC= Audit Committee: - FS = Firm size Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 132 FA = Firm age PF=Profitability t = time period 2006-2023 α0 = Constant term, εit = Error term, β1- β5 = Coefficient of the variables. Before running regression analysis, key diagnostic tests were conducted and they met all statistical assumptions. Normality was checked using histograms, P-P plots, skewness, kurtosis, and Shapiro-Wilk test. Heteroscedasticity was tested with the Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test. Multicollinearity was assessed using correlation, Tolerance, and VIF. Finally, the Hausman test determined the appropriate model between fixed and random effects. 4.0 Results and Discussions Regression analysis was used to assess if AC moderates DiB's impact on ER in Nigeria. Before this analysis, data was described using Table 3 is descriptive statistics. Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max ER 648 0.270 0.115 0.017 0.567 DiB 648 1.119 0.641 0 2 AC 648 3.415 0.367 2.040 4 FS 648 6.901 0.807 5.001 8.975 FA 648 29 9 3 54 ROA 648 0.090 0.158 -0.939 0.881 Source: Stata SE/14.2 Output Table 2 summarizes environmental reporting in Nigerian listed manufacturing firms. On average, firms report 27% environmentally, with a relatively uniform pattern (SD = 11.5%). Minimum disclosure is 1.7%, suggesting incomplete ISO 14031 adherence. Maximum disclosure is 56.7%, slightly above average. DiB is moderate (mean = 1.119). AC mean is 3.415 (SD = 0.367), ranging from 2.040 to 4. FS averages 6.901 (SD = 0.807), ranging from 5.001 to 8.975. FA and ROA average 29 and 0.090 respectively. Minimum and maximum values for FA are 3 and 54, while for ROA, they are -0.939 and 0.881. Diagnostics and Robustness Checks This section covers regression assumptions and diagnostic tests to ensure result stability and reliability. The first test checks multicollinearity using Pearson's correlation coefficients for predictor variables, with results shown in Table 4. Table 3: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients ER DiB AC FS FA ROA Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 133 0 1 2 3 4 5 D en si ty -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 Residuals 0. 00 0. 25 0. 5 0 0. 75 1 .0 0 N o rm al F [( e 1- m )/ s] 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Empirical P[i] = i/(N+1) ER 1 DiB 0.3206 1 AC 0.5215 0.3631 1 FS 0.5094 0.5158 0.4825 1 FA 0.4964 0.2332 0.4314 0.3683 1 ROA 0.0479 0.0495 0.051 0.1336 0.071 1 Source: Stata SE/14.2 Output Table 3 presents Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients for dependent and independent variables. Results in Table 3 show no significant multicollinearity (highest correlation: 0.5158 which is below ±0.7 threshold recommended by Gujarati & Porter, 2009). Also, the histogram and P-P plot of standardised residuals indicate that the error terms in the Model presented in Figure 2a and 2b are fairly normally distributed. Figure 2(a) Histogram of the error term in model 1 Figure 2(b) the P-P plot showing normality of the error term in Model 1 FIGURE 2 (a) and FIGURE 2(b) Source: Stata SE/14.2 Output The Breusch-Pagan test showed no heteroscedasticity (χ² = 8.961, p = 0.003). The Hausman test favored the fixed effect model (χ² = 113.57, p < 0.001). Additionally, the Pesaran CD was used to test for cross-sectional dependence (χ² = 15.461, Pr < 0.001), the result indicates the presence of cross-sectional dependence, suggesting the use of Driscoll and Kraay standard errors as the appropriate method (Hoechle, 2007). Regression Results The study utilized multiple regressions and presented the findings in Table 4 to investigate how DiB influences ER of manufacturing firms listed in Nigeria. Table 4: Regression Results ER Coefficients (β) T P>t DiB 0.0077 1.64 0.102 Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 134 FS 0.0401 10.10 0.000 FA 0.0003 0.91 0.366 ROA 0.0322 2.17 0.030 Constant -0.0281 -1.12 0.261 F-Statistics 46.89 Prob. >F 0.000 R-squared 0.6778 Adjusted R-squared 0.6670 Source:STATA 14.2 Output (2023). The regression model was well-fitted (F=46.89, p<0.001), explaining 67.78% of ER variation with DiB and control variables. DiB showed a positive but statistically insignificant effect on ER (β=0.0078, t=1.64, p=0.102), opposing prior research such as Hoang et al. (2018). The study accepts hypothesis 1 (H01) and aligns with some literature (Zaid et al., 2020) but differs from others such as Beji et al. (2020) and Ozordi et al. (2018). Control variables were positively related to ER, and DiB contributes to strategic decision-making and innovation, consistent with resource dependence theory. Furthermore, the findings for the analysis of the second specific objective (AC on ER) and the tests of hypothesis 2 are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Regression Results ER Coefficients (β) T P>t AC 0.0318 3.60 0.000 FS 0.0431 10.76 0.000 FA 0.0004 1.34 0.180 ROA 0.0329 2.24 0.026 Constant 0.0511 1.60 0.110 F-Statistics 34.66 Prob >F 0.000 R-squared 0.6859 Adjusted R-squared 0.6743 Source: STATA 14.2 Output (2023). Table 5 examines the effect of AC on ER. The model significantly fits (F=34.66, p<0.01) and explains 67.43% of ER variation. AC has a statistically significant effect on ER (t=3.60, p=0.000), contradicting hypothesis H03. This aligns with previous studies by IKA et al. (2020) and Abdi et al. (2020), and supports stakeholder and resource dependency theories, emphasizing the role of AC in environmental disclosure and accountability. Diverse perspectives from AC influence strategic decisions, addressing environmental challenges. Table 6 indicates the moderating role of AC on the relationship between DiB and ER. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 135 Table 6 Regression Results Model 1 Model 3 ER Coefficien ts (β) T P>t Coefficien ts (β) T P>t DiB 0.0777 1.64 0.102 0.0886 0.23 0.818 AC - - - 0.0340 2.05 0.041 DiB x AC - - - 0.027 2.17 0.002 FS 0.0401 10.10 0.000 0.0431 10.75 0.000 FA 0.0003 0.91 0.366 0.0004 1.41 0.159 ROA 0.0322 2.17 0.030 0.0323 2.19 0.029 Constant -0.0281 -1.12 0.261 0.0506 0.94 0.350 F-Statisics 46.89 34.37 Prob >F 0.000 0.000 R-squared 0.6778 0.6852 Adjusted R-squared 0.6670 0.6736 Source: STATA 14.2 Output (2023). F-statistics confirm well-fitted models (F=46.89, p<0.001 in Model 1; F=34.37, p<0.001 in Model 3). Adjusted R-squared indicates DiB and controls explain 66.7% (Model 1) to 67.36% (Model 3) of ER variation. Initially, DiB's effect on ER is positive but not significant; with AC, it becomes significant. Thus, AC significantly moderates the DiB-ER relationship (β2=0.027, t=2.17, p=0.002). The study rejects H03, affirming AC's significant role in moderating DiB's effect on ER. Control variables align as expected. 5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations of the Study The study investigated the moderating role of AC on the DiB and ER relationship. It was found that DiB alone did not significantly influence ER due to the focus of corporate governance primarily on investors, not social or environmental performance thus, the result conflicting with stakeholder theory. However, with AC introduced, it was found to significantly moderate the DiB-ER relationship, emphasizing AC role in environmental reporting oversight. i. Based on the findings, the study recommendations include promoting DiB in manufacturing firms in Nigeria as regulators are encourage to regularly review codes of corporate governance to boost diversity requirements in governance for credible stakeholder reporting. ii. Also, manufacturing firms should really focus on boosting the functionality or effectiveness of their audit committees to improve environmental reporting (ER) and enhance their brand reputation. This is because by having well-organized committees that are the right size, with the right mix of skills and expertise, and holding regular meetings, they can establish solid audit processes. This not only promotes accountability and integrity within management but also ensures that the board's Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 136 actions with accuracy and diligence, which impact ER and the company's image, are properly overseen. iii. The policy makers like the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria, Security and Exchange Commission should review the Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance to change orientation from agency cost reduction to balance the interest of all stakeholders on listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. iv. Furthermore, from a regulatory perspective, Financial Reporting Council (FRC) of Nigeria should no longer allow environmental disclosure to be voluntary but make it compulsory using ISO 14031 reporting guideline as a common standard among listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria for the purpose of attaining detailed environmental disclosures and easy comparison of such disclosures among firms. In spite of the importance of our findings, this research has some limitation which includes a limited sample of listed manufacturing firms and reliance on annual reports for data, suggesting potential for broader sectoral studies and diverse data collection methods for future research. References Abdullah, S.N., & Ku Ismail, K. N. I. (2013).Gender, ethnic and age diversity of the boards of large Malaysian firms and performance. Journal Pengurusan,38(3), 27-40. Abdulkadir, U., & Alifiah, M. N. (2020).Review of related literature on the influence of corporate governance attributes on corporate social responsibility disclosure.Journal of critical reviews, 7(7),818-822. Abdi, M., Homayoun, S., & Kazemi Oloum M. (2020). Investigating the effect of audit committee characteristics on sustainability reporting level. Iranian Journal of Value and Behavioural Accounting, 5 (9), 335-369. Abubakar, A., & Moses, S. (2020). Effect of corporate governance attributes on environmental disclosure of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 12(27), 62-67. Abu, S. O., Nyor, T., & Okpanachi, J. (2018). Institutional and block-holder ownership and audit quality of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Journal of finance and accounting, 6(1),15-26. Adeniyi,S. I., & Fadipe, A. O. (2018). Effect of board diversity on sustainability reporting in Nigeria: A study of beverage manufacturing firms. Indonesian Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1(1), 43–50. Aifuwa, H.O., Musa, S., Gold, N. O. & Usman, K. M. (2020). Board cognitive diversity and firm performance nexus: Evidence from Nigeria. International Journal of Management, Innovation & Entrepreneurial Research, 6(2), 88-99. Akinkunmi, B. M., & Simeon,O.K.(2022). The determinants of environmental disclosure in the financial report of listed companies in Nigeria. Iconic Research And Engineering Journals,5(9),13-26. Aliyu, U. S. (2019). Board characteristics and corporate environmental reporting in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 4 (1), 2-17. Al-Qahtani, M. & Elgharbawy, A. (2020).The effect of board diversity on disclosure and management of greenhouse gas information: evidence from the United Kingdom, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(6), 1557-1579. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 137 Amin, S., Iqbal, J., & Makki, M. A. M. (2021). The impact of audit committee characteristics on corporate biodiversity disclosure: An analysis of Japanese firms. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 7(2), 239–254. Amorelli, M. F., & García-S´ anchez, I. M. (2020). Critical mass of female directors, human capital, and stakeholder engagement by corporate social reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 204–221. Anazonwu, H. O., Egbunike, F. C., & Gunardi, A. (2018). Corporate board diversity and sustainability reporting: A Study of selected listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 2(1), 65–78. Appuhami, R., & Tashakor, S. (2017). The impact of audit committee characteristics on CSRdisclosure: An analysis of Australian firms. Australian Accounting Review, 27(4),400. Arif, M., Sajjad, A., Farooq, S., Abrar, M., & Joyo, A. S. (2020). The impact of audit committee attributes on the quality and quantity of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 21(3), 497–514. Arista, D., Sabroto, B., & Hariadi, B. (2019). Effect of managerial share ownership, public share ownership, and slack resource on CSR reporting. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law,18 (5 ), 109-118. Awodiran, M. A., & Kareem, J. I. (2019). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility of listed firms in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Management, 2(1), 73-83. Baalouch, F., Damak, S., & Hussainey, K. (2019). A study of the determinants of environmental disclosure quality: Evidence from French listed companies. Journal of Management and Governance. 23, 1–33. Bala, H., Shaheen, R., Khatoon, G., Belgacem,S.B., Yusuf, J., & Shafiu,R.M.(2023). Corporate board attributes and environmental accounting disclosure of oil and gas firms in Nigeria, Earth and Environmental Science 1185(2023). Bakar, A. B. S. A., Ghazali, N. A. B. M., & Ahmad, M. B. (2019). Sustainability reporting and board diversity in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,9(2), 1044–1067. Berger, A. (2019). Sustainability disclosure and the limits of diversity. Journal of EU Business School, 2, 41-60. Beji R, Yousfi O, Loukil N, Omri A. (2020). Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-23. Ben-Amar, W., Francoeur, C., Hafsi, T. and Labelle, R. (2013). What makes better boards? A closer look at diversity and ownership, British Journal of Management, 24 (1), 85–101. Bicer, A. A., & Feneir, I. M. (2019). The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on Environmental and Social Disclosures: Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science 8(3), 111-121. Bravo, F. (2018). Does board diversity matter in the disclosure process ? An analysis of the association between diversity and the disclosure of information on risks. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 2(2), 2–11. Blay, M. W., Okyere, D. O., & Alhassan, M.(2025). Board of directors characteristics and environmental sustainability reporting in Sub-saharan Africa. African Journal of Applied Research,11(1), 257-284. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 138 Chebbi, K., Aliedan, M. M., Alsahlawi, A. M. (2020). Women on the board and environmental sustainability reporting: Evidence from France. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 14 (11), 231-258. Chiu, C. L., Zhang, J., Li, M., Wei, S., Xu, S., & Chai, X.(2020). A study of environmental disclosures practices in Chinese energy industry. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 5(9), 2-21. Cicchiello, A. F., Fellegara, A. M., Kazemikhasragh, A., & Monferra, S. (2021). Gender diversity on corporate boards: How Asian and African women contribute on sustainability reporting activity. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 36 (7), 801- 820. ElHawary, E. (2021). Audit committee effectiveness and company performance: Evidence from Egypt. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 10(2), 134–156. Emmanuel, O., Uwuigbe, U., Teddy, O., Tolulope, I., & Eyitomi, G. A. (2018). Corporate diversity and corporate social environmental disclosure of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Journal of Management, 16(3), 229–244. Felix, O., & Aruna, I.M. (2021). Corporate characteristics and environmental disclosure quality in listed Oil And Gas companies in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSRJBM), 23(11), 16-28. Fernandes, S. M., Bornia, A. C., & Nakamura, L. R. (2019). The influence of boards of directors on environmental disclosure. Management Decision, 57( 9), 2358-2382. Galbreath, J. (2016). When do board and management resources complement each other? A study of effects on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2), 281–292. Gardazi, S.S.N., Hassan,A.F.S.,Johari, J.B.(2020). Board of directors attributes and sustainability performance in the energy industry. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7 (12), 317–328. Gerged, A. M. (2021). Factors affecting corporate environmental disclosure in emerging markets: The role of corporate governance structures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 609-629. Ghassan, I. A., Oweidat, A. I., & Saleh, N. M. (2020). Audit committee versus other governance mechanisms and the effect of investment opportunities: evidence from Palestine, Corporate Governance, 20 (3), 527-544. Gold, N. O., Aifuwa, H. O., Usman, M. K., Subair, M. I., Osazevbaru, A., & Oloyede, B. M. (2021). Board members education diversity and sustainability reporting. Annals of Spiru haret University. Economic Series, 21(1), 109-129. Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463-479. Hamidah, A.A. (2020).The influence of corporate governance on sustainability report management: the moderating role of audit committee. Polish Journal Of Management Studies,21(1),146-157. Haruna, M.M.(2024). Do audit committee and board attributes influence environmental disclosure: An empirical investigation of listed firms in Nigeria.Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance,5(2), 235-248. Hoang, T. C., Abeysekera, I., & Ma, S. (2018). Board Diversity and Corporate Social Disclosure: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 833–852. Hoang, T. Cam., Abeysekera, I. & Ma, S. (2016). Board diversity and corporate social disclosure: evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(2), 1-20. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence, The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281-312. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 139 International Organisation for Standardization(2002). ISO 14031, Environmental performance evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.altech-roup.com/ftp/EPEarticle.pdf. Innocent, O. C., & Okafor, G. T. (2018). Firm Attributes and Corporate Environmental Performance : Evidence from Quoted Industrial Firms on Nigerian Stock Exchange. Scholars Journal of Economics, Business and Management (SJEBM), 2(5), 854–863. Isa, M. A., & Farouk, M. A. (2018). The effect of diversity-in-board, and the audit committee composition on earnings management for low and high leveraged banks in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting, Finance, and Auditing Studies,4(1), 14-39. Ika, S. R., Nugroho, J. P., Achmad , N., & Widagdo, A. K. (2020). The impact of corporate governance on environmental reporting: Evidence from the Indonesian manufacturing industry. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 739 (2021), 1-8. Iyafekhe, C., Imagbe, V.U., & Odu, V. C. (2020). Board Education Diversity and Sustainability Reporting of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria. Management Sciences Review, Journal of the Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Benin, 11(1), 202-229. Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2010). Green consumer behavior: Determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 358- 370. Jonson, E. P., McGuire, L., Rasel, S., & Cooper, B. (2020). Older boards are better boards, so beware of diversity targets. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(1), 15-28. Kanadlı, S. B., Torchia, M., Gabaldon, P., & Seierstad, C. (2022). Do independent boards pay attention to corporate sustainability? Gender diversity can make a difference. Corporate Governance, 22(3), 661–682. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-09-2021-0352. Khan, I., Khan, I., Asim Afridi, A. (2021). Does Board Diversity Matter for the Quality of CSR Disclosure? Evidence from the Financial Sector of Pakistan. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 23 (1),104-126. Khan, I., Khan, I., & Saeed, B. (2019a). Does Board Diversity Affect Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure? Evidence from Pakistan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Kolawole, S. M., Nyor, T., Yahaya, O. A., & Mustapha, L. O. (2021). Gender diversity and environmental reporting of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance, 1(1), 150-163. Kolsi, M.C., Muqattash, R. & Al-Hiyari, A. (2022). How do external auditor attributes impact environmental corporate social responsibility disclosures: Empirical evidence from ADX-listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 18,293–315. Lewis, B. W., Walls, J. L., & Dowell, G. W. S. (2014). Difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 712-722. Nwaigwe, N.G., Ofoegbu, G.N., Dibia, N.O., & Nwaogwugwu, C.V. (2020). Sustainability disclosure: Impact of its extent and quality on value of listed firms in Nigeria. Cogent Business & Management, 9: 2079393, 1-16. Ma,Y., Zhang, Q., Yin, Q., & Wang, B. (2019). The Influence of top managers on environmental information disclosure: The moderating effect of company’s environmental performance. International Journal of environmental research and Public Health, 16(7), 1167. Madugba, J.U., & Ben-Caleb, E., Agburuga, T.U., & Ani,W.C., Jegede,S.L., & Fadoju, S.O. (2021). Environmental Reporting and Sustainbility Reports in Oil Companies in Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 140 Nigeria, International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, 12(1), 310-318. s Magambo, E. F., & Nyamwesa, A. M. (2022). Gender Gap in Asset Ownership: Tanzania State of Play. African Journal of Applied Research, 8(1), 351-361. Mgbame, C.A. M., & Mgbame, C. O. (2018). Discretionary environmental disclosures of corporations in Nigeria. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 15(4), 252-261. Mirza, S. S., Majeed, M. A., & Ahsan, T. (2020). Board gender diversity, competitive pressure and investment efficiency in Chinese private firms. Eurasian Bus Rev, 10(1), 417–440. Moalla, M. Salhi, B. & Jarboui, A. (2020). An empirical investigation of factors influencing the environmental reporting quality: Evidence from France. Social Responsibility Journal, 17, 966–984. Moses, O. O., & Ajao, O. S. (2021). Corporate governance and environmental sustainability reporting: The Nigerian Perspective. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 11( 4),487-497. Musa, S., Gold, N. O., & Aifuwa, H. O.(2020). Board diversity and sustainability reporting: Evidence from industrial goods firms. Izvestiya Journal of Varna University of Economics, 64(4), 377 - 398. Naveed, K.; Voinea, C.L.; Ali, Z.; Rauf, F.; & Fratostiteanu, C. (2021). Board gender diversity and corporate social performance in different industry groups: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 13, 31- 42. Nekhili, M., Chakroun, H., & Chtioui, T. (2018). Women’s leadership and firm performance: Family versus non family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(2), 291–316. Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance (2018). Federal Republic of Nigeria. Odoemelam, N., & Okafor, R. G. (2018). Influence of corporate governance on environmental disclosure of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management,2(1), 25–49. 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), 1–27. Ogoun, S., & Ekpulu, G.A. (2020). Environmental reporting and operational performance: A study of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Intellectual Discourse (IJID),3(1), 381-396. Okpala, O. P. (2019). An exploratory study of the level of social and environmental disclosures by listed firms in Nigeria, 15(2), 160–172. Onyali, C. I., & Okafor, T. G. (2019). Firm attributes and corporate environmental performance: Evidence from quoted industrial firms on Nigerian Stock Exchange. Scholars Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 5(9), 854-863. Otung, A. U; Akpan, D. C., & Nsentip, E. B.(2025). Board attributes and environmental sustainability reporting among listed consumer goods firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Business & Law Research 13(1),324-334. Osemene,O. F., & Fagbeme, O. T. (2019). Evaluated the relationship existing between corporate governance and environmental reporting of listed consumer goods’ Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 141 companies in Nigeria. Fountain University Osogbo Journal of Management (FUOJM), 4(3), 1 – 22. Ozordi, E., Uwalomwa, U.,Obarakpo, T., Ikumapayi, T., & Gbenedio, A. E. (2018). Corporate diversity and corporate social environmental disclosure of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(3), 229-244. Prudencia, P., Forte, H., Crisostomo, V., & Vasconcelos, A. (2021). Effect of diversity in the board of directors and top management team on corporate social responsibility BBR. Brazilian Business Review, 18 (2), 118-139. Putri, D. A., Azhar & Erlina. (2017). Analysis of the factors that influence timeliness of financial statement submission in consumption industrial companies listed in Indonesian stock exchange (IDX). Retrieved form https://www.researchgate.net Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016a). Board composition and corporate social responsibility. The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 327-347. Riyadh, H. A., Sukoarsono, E. G., Alfaiza, S. A., & Ntim, C. G. (2019). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure and board characteristics on corporate performance. Journal of Cogent Bus. & Management, 6(1), 1-18. Saka, T. A.(2024). Environmental and social information disclosure quality and financial performance of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria.Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finanance,5(2),88-108. Samaha, K., Khlif, H., & Hussainey, K. (2015). The impact of board and audit committee characteristics on voluntary disclosure: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 24, 13–28. Salawu, M. A., Muhammed, T. D., Garba, A., & Salisu, M.(2021). Effect of board characteristics on social and environmental disclosure of listed environmentally sensitive firms in Nigeria. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, 2(3), 1-16. Shaheen, R., Luo, Q. & Bala, H. (2022) Female CEO succession and corporate social disclosure in China: unveiling the significance of ownership status and firm performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 1-17. Shehata, N. F. (2013). How could board diversity influence corporate disclosure? Corporate Board: role, duties and composition, 9(3), 42-49. ThankGod, C. N., Emmanuel, A. L. I., & Clifford, O. O. (2021). Board characteristics and environmental disclosure of quoted oil and gas firms in Nigeria: The moderating role of firm size. International Journal of Innovative Finance and Economics Research 9(4), 51-62. Tilt, C. A., Qian, W., Kuruppu, S., & Dissanayake, D. (2021). The state of business sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan Africa: an agenda for policy and practice. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 12(2), 267-296. Uyagu, B. D., Okpanachi, J., Nyor, T., & Muhammad, L. M. (2017). Effect of firm characteristics on environmental reporting practices of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Management Sciences, 6(1), 139-148. Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol.6, Issue 2, April, 2025 142 Uwuigbe, U., Teddy, U. 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. Worimegbe, T. M. & Oyewole T. (2021). Environmental accounting disclosure practice of quoted manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Global Journal of Business, Economics and Management, 11(1), 42–47. Yaakoo, D. P.,Ibanichuka, E. A. L., & Ofurum,C.O.(2021). Environmental accounting practices and return on asset of quoted manufacturing companies in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Finance and Economics Research 9(4),7-17. Yahaya, O. A., & Apochi, J. (2021). Board of directors and corporate social responsibility reporting of quoted companies in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies 7 (2), 38-52. Yahaya, O. A. (2018). Environmental reporting practices and financial performance of listed Environmentally-sensitive firms in Nigeria. Savanna: A Journal of Environmental and Social Sciences,24(2), 403-412. Yarram, S. R., & Adapa, S. (2021). Board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility: Is there a case for critical mass? Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 12(3),3-19. Yusof, S. M., Nordin, N. A., Jais, M., & Sahari, S. (2019). Impact of board diversity on corporate social responsibility on Malaysian Public Listed Companies. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9 (7), 1049–1069 Zahid, M., Rahman, H. U., Ali, W., Khan, M., Alharthi, M., Imran Qureshi, M., Jan, A. (2020). Boardroom gender diversity: implications for corporate sustainability disclosures in Malaysia. Journal. Cleaner. Production, 244(118683). Zaid, A. A. M., Wang, M., Adib, M., Sahyouni, A., Abuhijleh, T. F.S. (2020). Boardroom nationality and gender diversity: Implications for corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production,7(246). Zhang, J. Q., Zhu, H., & Ding, H. B. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility. An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 381-392.