Позитивные изменения. Том 3, № 4 (2023). Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 4(2023) - Редакция журнала «Позитивные изменения» Страница 64

Table 6 summarizes the results of the study’s assessments of direct relationships. The Table lists the type of regression (positive or negative), its significance (significant or insignificant), and its conclusion (indicating null or not) for the research.

This study investigates five (5) research hypotheses to assess the influence of the sustainability reporting committee on SRQ. The involvement of the board in SRQ is predicted by research hypothesis 1–4. The first study hypothesis examines the connection between SCSIZE and SRQ. According to the findings, there is a weak and negative correlation between board size and SRQ. H0(1) is therefore accepted. The results are at odds with earlier studies in the area of sustainability reporting (Chau & Gray, 2010; Shamil et al., 2014). This demonstrates that SRQ may be raised by using a bigger board. This conclusion is consistent with that of Carels et al. (2013) and De Villiers and Sharma (2017), who found that powerful boards may persuade management to provide appropriate sustainability reporting data.

The relationship between sustainability committee independence and SRQ is examined in the second hypothesis. The findings show a robust and beneficial association between the two, leading to the rejection of H0(2). Our findings are in line with those of the studies conducted by Shamil et al. (2014), Kaur and Lodhia (2014) and Garca-Sanchez et al. (2019). It implies that independent sustainability committees positively influence sustainability reporting quality, indicating the need for further research on their effectiveness in Nigerian and South African corporate reporting contexts.

The relationship between sustainability committee’s gender diversity on the board and SRQ is the subject of the third study hypothesis. The results demonstrate a significant and unfavorable correlation between SRQ and gender diversity. This finding contradicts earlier studies (Adams & McNicholas, 2007; Faisal et al., 2012; Cebrian et al., 2013). According to Bakar et al. (2019), female directors have a detrimental effect on corporate reporting procedures. Therefore, the study fails to support the third hypothesis of the study (H0(3)).

The fourth research hypothesis predicts how the diligence of sustainability committee and SRQ interact. The results show that sustainability committee’s diligence has a beneficial but insignificant effect on SRQ. This suggests that the committee’s meeting frequency is crucial, although holding meetings all year long does not raise the standard of sustainability reports. These results support the research of Arumona et al. (2019), which led to the acceptance of H0(4).

Furthermore, the study analyzed sustainability disclosures in Nigerian and South African banks using an independent t-test/two-sample t test. Results showed that South African banks have higher levels of disclosure than Nigerian banks, so the hypothesis H0(5) cannot be supported.

The Two-sample t-Test with equal variances showed t-statistics and the probability values of SRQ, SCSIZE, SCINDEP, SCDIV, SCDIL and CSIZE respectively (-5.029(0.000); -2.819(0.0058), — 5.995(0.000), — 2.289(0.0243), — 4.367(0.000) and -12.082(0.000); p-value=0.000<0.05; 98 d.o.f.) for respective sustainability committee disclosures as shown in Table 7. This suggests that both at equal and unequal variance levels, the difference in the mean values of sustainable committee attributes, CSIZE and SRQ dimensions of both countries do not vary substantially at 1 % level of significance. Thus, the results of the analyses support the null hypothesis of no significant differences in sustainability reporting between South African and Nigerian banks.

Table 7. Summary of 2-sample t-test

* “Ha” is the abbreviation or short form for “alternative hypothesis”.

Source: STATA 17.0 Output, 2023.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study has analyzed the impact of sustainability committee attributes on sustainability reporting quality (SRQ) of banks in Nigeria and South Africa. The GRI G4 sustainability reporting guideline’s ESG disclosure index was used to calculate SRQ. The highest score was achieved when sustainability reporting was independently verified by the big four or other audit firms.

The research aims to understand which attributes have the greatest influence on SRQ. The study reveals that the Sustainability Committee had a significant impact on SRQ in Nigerian banks from 2012 to 2022. Each committee attribute has positive correlation/ significant extent, positive correlation/ insignificant extent, negative correlation/ significant extent, or negative correlation/ insignificant extent effect on SRQ, respectively.

The study has also revealed that the importance of the sustainability committee in improving sustainability reporting quality is similar among South African banks.

The study suggests that increased SRQ levels are primarily influenced by the independence, diligence, and size of sustainability committees. It recommends dedicated committee with frequent meetings and expertise in sustainability-related duties, as well as unbiased external assurance to enhance corporate sustainability reporting quality. This suggests exploring the applicability of assurance and sustainability committees in different regulatory settings, comparative analysis of corporate governance and sustainability reporting across continents, and developing minimum requirements for sustainability reporting. Overall, it contributes to accounting and management literature on corporate sustainability practices and also to understanding company-level sustainability reporting in Nigeria and other developing nations.

REFERENCES

1. Adams, R. B., Gray, S. J., & Nowland, J. (2016). Does Gender Matter in Green Management? The Case of Environmental Management Systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 137–149.

2. Beck, N., & Katz, J. (1995). What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634647. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979

3. Beck, N., & Katz, J. (1996). Nuisance Vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models. Political Analysis, 6(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/6.1.1

4. Bedard, J. C., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Strengthening the financial reporting system: Can audit committees deliver? International Journal of Auditing, 14(2), 174–210.

5. Bertels, S., Papania, L., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Sustainability committees: do they influence sustainability reporting? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(6), 351–364.

6. Cameron, A. (2009). Microeconomics using Stata. College Station Tex.: Stata Press.

7. Cho, S. Y., Lee, S. J., & Pae, J. H. (2020). The impact of sustainability committee characteristics on sustainability reporting quality: Evidence from South Korea. Sustainability, 12(2), 703.

8. Deegan, C., Cooper, B. J., & Shelly, M. (2011). The CSR disclosure-performance gap: A