Community Development Cost, Pollution Control Disclousure and Market Value of Listed Consumer and Industrial Goods Firms in Nigeria

Community Development Cost, Pollution Control Disclousure and Market Value of Listed Consumer and Industrial Goods Firms in Nigeria

Oshiole, Blessing Victor

Department of Accounting, Bingham University Karu, Nasarawa State

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1110064

Received: 10 October 2024; Accepted: 18 October 2024; Published: 21 November 2024

ABSTRACT

Current environmental picture and problem of lack of adequate disclosures of environmental related issues by companies in Nigeria in their annual reports today is a thing of concern to ascertain how environmental disclosure affect the Market Value of Companies. Therefore the study examined effect of community development cost and pollution control disclosure on market value of listed consumer and industrial goods firm in Nigeria covering the period of ten (10) year 2014-2023. The study adopted ex-post facto research design.  Longitudinal Panel design was used for analysis which was obtained from Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) Panel regression analysis technique was used to analyze the data. The result showed that community development cost and pollution control disclosure has negative and insignificant effect on Tobin Q of listed consumer and industrial goods firm in Nigeria. The study therefore conclude that community development cost and pollution control disclosure has negative and insignificant effect on market value of consumer and industrial goods firm in Nigeria. Based on the findings of this study and the conclusion made, the study recommend that Management of consumer and industrial goods firm should not increase community development cost and pollution control disclosure because it does not enhanced market value of the firm

Keywords: Community Development Cost, Pollution Control Disclosure, Market Value, Firm Size, Shareholder.

INTRODUCTION

Firm value is the perceived or observed value of an asset on the market within a specific period of time of an accounting year; and that is why it is also known as current value. The company’s value is the investor’s opinion of the company’s success rate which frequently related with stock prices. The stockholder wealth maximization goal states that management should seek to maximize the present market value of the expected future returns to the owners (shareholders) of the firm (Obiora & Omaliko, 2022). The stock price is a relative and proportional value of a firm’s worth. The stock’s price only tells you a firm’s current value or its market value. This is based on the perception that the higher the stock price, the more profitable it will be for shareholders. The market value of firms over the years has been the primary concern of business practitioners and owners of all types of organizations. This is largely due to the implications it has on the health of a firm and ultimately its survival. Firm value is the present value of the firm’s current and future profits (Emeka-Nwokeji, 2019).

Environmental reporting refers to any financial or nonfinancial disclosure made by firms on their business’s social and environmental effects and remains mostly a voluntary activity (Hossain et al, 2017). It has become increasingly relevant to enterprises. Environmental disclosure practices have become an essential issue in the development process to ensure environmental protection. The rapid growth of industries in our country has helped to raise economic development, but at the same time, it has brought many environmental problems, and these problems led to a conception on the natural well-being is in danger such as global warming, pollution of water, air, soil, etc. (Qureshi et al., 2012). Environmental disclosures are made in response to recommendations for a better business reporting paradigm which is hoped to lessen information asymmetry between management and investors. Majority of social sustainability disclosures are descriptive in character, with very little quantitative data. Disclosing social issues show linkages between firm’s social and environmental dimensions of its activities, products and services. Community Development disclosure cost means reporting on company’s practices designed to achieve respect for human beings. However, community development cost disclosure is still weak and evolving in developing countries including Nigeria (Okpala, 2019). Environmental challenges confronting the world at large and Nigeria in particular are enormous. Our environment is more threatened now than ever before as evidenced increased pollution, emission, degradation, deforestation and other climate change effect leading to high mortality rate as a resuilt of deadly diseases across the globe (Oshiole et al, 2020). The vulnerability of the environment could be linked to uncoordinated chain of human activities with total disregard for environmental laws and regulations. The current environmental picture is a consequence of human activities in the past and at present which will culminate into a poor the future outlook of the global community. The null hypothesis is formulated

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Framework

Stewardship Theory

The stewardship theory was propounded by Donaldson and Davis (1991). The theory is based on the assumption that the interest of shareholders and the interest of management are aligned. Therefore, management is motivated to take decision that would maximize performance and the total value of the organization. The theory believes that there is greater utility in cooperative than individualistic behavour and hence whilst the actions of management would he maximizing shareholders’ wealth, it would at same time meeting their personal needs, the managers protects and maximize shareholder’s wealth through organization performance, because by so doing , their utility functions are maximized (Davis et al 1997) To achieve this goal congruent, the shareholders must put in place appropriate empowering governance structure and mechanisms, information and authority to facilitate the autonomy of management to take decisions that would maximize their utility as they achieve organizational objectives rather than self –serving objectives. For Chief Executives Officers (CEO) who are stewards, their pro-organizational actions are best facilitated when the corporate governance structure gives them high authority and discretion. (donaldson and davis ,1991).

Signalling Theory

Signalling is the ideal that one party (termed the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal). For example, in Micheal Spence’s job-market signaling model, (Micheal 1973), (potential) employees send a signal about their ability level to the employer by acquiring certain education credentials. The informational value of the credential comes from the fact that the employer assumes it is positively correlated with having greater ability (Micheal, 1973).  Signaling took root in the idea of asymmetric information (a deviation from perfect information) which says that in some economic transactions, inequalities in access to information upset the normal market for the exchange of goods and services

Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder Theory is a view of capitalism that stresses the interconnected relationships between a business and its customers, suppliers, employees, investors, communities and others who have a stake in the organization. The theory argues that a firm should create value for all stakeholders, not just shareholders. In 1984, R. Edward Freeman originally detailed the Stakeholder Theory of organizational management and business ethics that addresses morals and values in managing an organization. Stakeholder theory suggests that shareholders, also known as financial investors, are one of many groups a corporation or organization must serve. Under stakeholder theory, anyone that is affected by the organization or its workings in any way is considered a stakeholder, including employees, customers, suppliers, local communities, environmental groups, governmental groups, and more. Stakeholder theory holds that organizations and corporations should strive to do right by all these stakeholders and that in doing so, the organization will achieve true lasting success (Freeman & Alexander 2013).

The underpinning theory for this study is the Stakeholder Theory. Stakeholder theory is relevant to this study because it refers to the ethical concept that addresses the outcome of business decisions, trends and profits and its collective impact on all stakeholders, including the shareholders, employees, financers, government, customers, suppliers, and so on

Conceptual Framework

Pollution Control Disclosure

Environmental pollution is any activity, by corporations or individuals, which compromises the health and/or environment of other persons in a localized area, where the causal link is clearly established (Dissanayake et al., 2019). To Calabrese et al., (2019), pollution control disclosure is a term referring systems used to regulate and eliminate the emission of potentially hazardous substances including particulate matter and gases produced by manufacturing, process system, and research applications into the air.

Pollution control is an essential task where waste products enter the environment in various forms and threaten the quality of the air, land, and water. The presence of waste products in water is especially serious, as many of these products can enter the food chain, where the biochemical processes can rapidly increase their concentration to toxic level. Hence, it is extremely important to eliminating them from aqueous system (Silva et al., 2019).

Community Development Cost

The United Nations Development Group, 2014 defines community development broadly as a process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems. and the International Association for Community Development (IACD) defines it as both a practice based profession and an academic discipline (Clay & Jones, 2017). Following the adoption of the IACD definition in 2016, the association has gone on to produce International Standards for Community Development Practice. The values and ethos that should underpin practice; these can be expressed as: Commitment to rights, solidarity, democracy, equality, environmental and social justice. The purpose of community development is understood by IACD as being to work with communities to achieve participative democracy, sustainable development, rights, economic opportunity, equality and social justice. This practice is carried out by people in different roles and contexts, including people explicitly called professional community workers (and people taking on essentially the same role but with a different job title), together with professionals in other occupations ranging from social work, adult education, youth work, health disciplines, environmental education, local economic development, to urban planning, regeneration, architecture and more who seek to apply community development values and adopt community development methods. Community development practice also encompasses a range of occupational settings and levels from development roles working with communities, through to managerial and strategic community planning roles.

The Community Development Challenge report (2014) defines community development as a set of values and practices which plays a special role in overcoming poverty and disadvantage, knitting society together at the grass roots and deepening democracy. Community Development Exchange defines community development as both an occupation (such as a community development worker in a local authority) and a way of working with communities. Its key purpose is to build communities based on justice, equality and mutual respect (Wischermann, 2013).

Market Value

Market value is a microeconomic concept that states that a firm exists and makes decisions to maximize profits. The stockholder wealth maximization goal states that management should seek to maximize the present market value of the expected future returns to the owners (shareholders) of the firm (Okwy & Oluwamayowa, 2018). The stock price is a relative and proportional value of a firm’s worth. The stock’s price only tells you a firm’s current value or its market value. This is based on the perception that the higher the stock price, the more profitable it will be for shareholders. The high market value also does not only affect the smooth running of the current firm but also benefits the firm’s prospects in the future. Therefore, the value of the company has increased. In addition to assets and profits, the company’s debt policy also affects the company’s value. The higher the debt, the higher the share price. The value of a firm is basically the sum of claims of its creditors and shareholders. Therefore, one of the simplest ways to measure firm value is by adding the market value of its debt, equity and non-controlling interest. But generally, it refers to the market value of a company. FV = market value of equity + market value of preference share + market value of debt + non- controlling interest – cash and investments. Firm value is determined based on the firm’s asset earning power. If a firm has higher earning powers of the company, it has a positive impact on greater profit and more efficient company assets. One of the ways to measure market value is Tobins Q.

Tobin’s Q ratio that expresses the relationship between market valuation and the book value or the replacement cost. It is normally used to compare how a company (shares) market valuation changes with added products and markets. Tobin Q comprises of two variables which are market value of firm and the replacement cost of the assets of the firm (Okwy & Oluwamayowa, 2018). Tobin’s Q or the Q ratio is a financial ratio that measures the market value of a company relative to its book value or total asset replacement cost. Market value is centered around a company’s stock price, while book value is based on the difference between total assets and total liabilities on a company’s financial position.

Firm Size

In the present world’s trend, due to economies of scale, size of a firm plays very important role in competing with competitors through the cost reduction and, take and hold more opportunities. Further based on this concept the firm size is a factor in determining the firm’s profitability and reveals a positive association between size and firm’s profitability by several experts. Arani (2016) states as “Firm size has been recognized as an essential variable in explaining organizational profitability and a number of studies have tried to explore the effect of firm size on profitability”. Okpala, (2019) also supportively said to this as big firms have the opportunity to have more profit since they have a bigger market share

Empirical Review

Ezonfade et al (2024), investigated the relationship between environmental accounting and financial performance of Conoil. The ex-post facto research design was employed in this case study of the sampled oil gas giant in Nigeria due to its comprehensive disclosure of environmental expenditures in its annual reports. The study utilized secondary data obtained from annual reports and accounts, downloads from Nigerian Exchange Group (NXG), and the company websites covering the period 2008 to 2022. The study employed descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression using Eview 9 econometric software for data analysis. The correlation analysis result indicates that environmental restoration costs (ERC) are negatively correlated with profit after tax (PAT) and return on assets (ROA), while a positive correlation exists between PAT and ROA, providing insights into Conoil Plc’s financial and environmental performance dynamics. The regression analyses reveal that while environmental restoration costs have a significant negative impact on return on assets (ROA), neither ERC nor health, safety, and environmental expenses (HSE) significantly influence profit after tax (PAT), indicating the nuanced relationship between environmental accounting metrics and financial performance in Conoil Plc’s operations. The study recommended that the corporation should regularly carry out environmental audits to evaluate adherence to environmental rules and pinpoint opportunities for enhancing environmental performance. The study was conducted in the gas industry. Hence This study was carried out in the Consumer and industrial good firm to solve the industrial gap in the previous study.

Joseph and Grace (2024), investigates the impact of environmental accounting on the financial performance of quoted deposit money banks in Nigeria. The sample consisted of 14 banks, which were selected using census sampling techniques. A random effect regression model was used to test the hypotheses after conducting diagnostic tests. The results indicate that environmental conservative cost disclosure has a significant positive effect on return on assets, while environmental compliance cost disclosure has an insignificant positive effect on return on assets. Additionally, community development cost disclosure has an insignificant negative effect on return on assets. The study recommend that deposit money banks in Nigeria should prioritize environmental conservative cost disclosure in their financial reporting and continue to comply with environmental regulations by disclosing their environmental compliance costs to improve their financial performance. The researcher is of the opinion that deposit money banks involvement in environmental activities will not have much impact therefore this studies is targeted on consumer and industrial goods firms whose activities has much greater effects on the environment.

Lawrence and Bernard (2023), investigates the relationship between environmental costs and financial performance of selected industrial goods firm in Nigeria. The main objective of the study is to empirically determine if waste management costs and communities development costs lead to better performance or not. The study covers the period between 2011 and 2020 and uses the Panel Estimated Generalized Least Squares (Panel EGLS) regression. Results show that waste management cost and communities development costs (CDC) as well as firm size (FSIZE) are positively significant while the moderated waste management costs (FS*WMC) and moderated communities development costs (FS*CDC) are negatively significant with NPM. The study recommends among others that the larger firms should be more involved and behave responsibly with respect to issues that demand environmental friendliness. The study of Lawrence and Bernard covered 2011 to 2020 as such The study considered 2014 – 2023 a more recent scope to address the gap on the scope of study.

Yang et al., (2022) used the panel data of 30 provinces and cities in China from 2004 to 2017, to empirically study the impact of environmental regulation on China’s high-quality economic development and the mediating effect mechanism through the spatial Durbin model and threshold model. The results showed that China’s high-quality economic development showed a fluctuating upward trend, and the east was higher than the middle and west. Environmental regulation significantly inhibited high-quality economic development, but its impact was moderated by accelerating industrial upgrading, promoting technological innovation, and enhancing foreign direct investment. As the primary driving force, technological innovation has a significant spatial spillover effect. The results showed that industrial upgrading has no threshold effect, and technological innovation and foreign direct investment have the characteristics of a ‘U’ single threshold. The researcher observed that the study was done in China it recommendation cannot be generalize for Nigerian environment.

Obiora and Omaliko (2022) examined the impact of community development and waste management disclosure on corporate liquidity of finance institutions in Nigeria. The study’s independent variables include community development disclosure and waste management disclosure while the dependent variable is company liquidity which was proxy as cash ratio. Two hypotheses were formulated for this study. An ex post facto design was used and data for the study were sourced from the published annual financial reports of all 41 companies listed on the financial sector of Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) with the data covering the period of 2015-2020. Using Ordinary least square regression analysis, the study found that disclosures on community development and waste management have a significant impact on the liquidity of firms in Nigeria at 5% level of significance. Based on this, the study concluded that disclosures on community development and waste management have positively improved the liquidity of companies over the years. The researcher is of the opinion that finance institution involvement in environmental accounting disclosure will not have much impact because finance institution activities does not affect the environment much Hence the studies was targeted to consumer and industrial goods sectors whose activities has much effects on the environment.

Onyebuenyi and Ofoegbu (2022) examined the effect of environmental sustainability disclosure on financial performance of listed oil and gas companies in three countries within sub-Sahara Africa: Nigeria, Namibia, and Kenya. Based on descriptive and ex-post facto research design panel data set collected from fifteen (15) oil and gas listed firms in all three countries of interest within a nine (9) year time frame (2011 to 2019) were utilized. Six hypotheses were formulated, using content analyses procedure based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard to extract
required information on environmental sustainability disclosure proxies: Emission and Energy disclosure, Effluent and Waste information disclosure, sustainability compliance policy disclosure, protection expenditure and investment disclosure and grievance policy disclosure been the independent variables of interest. Firm financial performance which is the dependent variable was measured in terms of return on equity, gross profit margin and earnings per share. The study employed Robust Least Square Regression analyses technique to test the stated hypotheses. The study found that emission and energy disclosure have significant negative and positive effect on performance measure of return on equity and gross profit after tax margin respectively. Particularly the effect of effluent and hazardous waste disclosure was seen to be statistically significant on performance measure of earnings per share. Further, it was found that biodiversity and water disclosure significantly affect performance measures of return on equity(positively) and gross profit margin(negatively) while the effect of environmental sustainability protection expenditure disclosure was seen to be positive and statistically significant on performance measure of gross profit margin. The researcher opines that similar studies should be carried out in other sector other than the oil and gas sector and also the years of the data should be made to 2023 to account for current reality 2019 is too backward.

Okafor et al., (2022) ascertained the determinants of environmental disclosure of quoted Oil and Gas firms in Nigeria for a period of thirteen (13) years spanning from 2008 to 2020. Specifically, this study ascertained the relationship between Leverage, Firm Size and Audit Committee Size and Effluent Disclosure. Panel data were used in this study, which were obtained from the annual reports and accounts of eleven (11) sampled quoted Oil and Gas firms for the periods 2008-2020. Ex-Post Facto research design was employed. Descriptive statistics of the dataset from the sampled firms were used to describe using the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of the data for the study variables. Inferential statistics using Pearson correlation coefficient, Multicollinearity test, Panel Least Square (PLS) regression analysis and Hausman test were applied to test the hypotheses of the study. The results of the tested hypotheses revealed that there is a significant and positive relationship between Leverage and Effluent Disposal of quoted Oil and Gas firms in Nigeria at 5% level of significance there is a significant but negative relationship between Firm Size and Effluent Disposal of quoted Oil and Gas firms in Nigeria at 5% level of significance there is a significant and positive relationship between Audit Committee Size and Effluent Disposal of quoted Oil and Gas firms in Nigeria at 5% level of significance. The researcher opines that similar studies should be carried out in other sector other than the oil and gas sector and also the years of the data should be made to 2023.

Arumona et al., (2022) examined the effect of environmental disclosure on financial performance of quoted oil and gas companies in Nigeria, using panel series data and regression analysis approach. The focus variables of this study were environmental disclosure for independent variable and financial performance for dependent variable. The independent variable was proxied by research and development cost and estimated future expenditure while dependent variable is proxied by Net Profit Margin and Return on Asset. The secondary data obtained from the annual reports of 12 oil and gas companies quoted on the floor of the Nigeria Stock Exchange (NSE) for 10 years ranging from year 2010- 2019 were used. The study adopted the E-view as a statistical tool for analysis with focus on Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression method. The study found that environmental disclosure has positive and statistically significant effect on financial Performance of quoted oil and gas companies in Nigeria during the period under review. The researcher opines that  similar studies should be carried out in other sector other than the oil and gas sector and also the years of the data should be made to 2023.

Ofurum and Iwunna (2022) evaluated the impact of environmental cost disclosure on the financial performance of oil and gas companies. The study used an ex-post facto research design and secondary data from companies’ annual audited financial reports and the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) from 2008 to 2019. The study included 13 oil and gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange and used a panel regression technique to estimate the study parameters. The results showed that waste management costs are positively and significantly related to the ROA of oil and gas companies in Nigeria. In addition, the study found that pollution control costs have a significant and negative impact on ROA. Consequently, the study concluded that environmental costs significantly impacted the financial performance of listed oil and gas companies during that period. The researcher opines that similar studies should be carried out in other sector other than the oil and gas sector and also the years of the data should be made to 2023 to account for current reality 2019 is too backward.

Obiora et al., (2022) assessed the impact of environmental accounting disclosure on profitability of quoted firms in Nigeria from 2017 to 2021. Environmental disclosure index was employed as the independent variable while financial performance measures such as return on assets, return on equity and return on capital employed were employed as the dependent variable. Related conceptual, theoretical and empirical literatures were reviewed. The study was anchored on stakeholders’ theory. Ex post facto research design was employed. Five firms from different sectors of the economy were sampled. The data used in this study were sourced from annual reports and statement of accounts of the selected firms. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and ordinary least square (OLS) regression were employed in analyzing the data. The study found that environmental accounting disclosure has a significant impact on return on assets of quoted firms in Nigeria. Environmental accounting disclosure was also found to have significant impact on return on equity of quoted firms in Nigeria. However, environmental accounting disclosure was found to have a non-significant impact on return on capital employed of quoted firms in Nigeria. The study concluded that environment accounting disclosure has significant impact on financial performance. The researcher opines that similar studies should be carried out to examine environmental accounting disclosure and market value of firms to furthers have a diversity from environmental disclosure and profitability of firms.

Mohammed et al., (2022) investigated the association of environmental information disclosure and corporate financial performance for the manufacturing industry. The study focused on manufacturing industry listed companies in Nigeria Stock Exchange from 2012-2018. The environmental information disclosure includes environmental financial and non-financial information. The population of this study was the 41 listed manufacturing companies on the Nigerian Stock Exchange as at 2019. Sampling technique was used to sample all the 41 listed manufacturing companies as the sample size. The study used secondary data collected from the annual reports of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria and data from the Nigerian Stock Exchange fact book for the period of six (6). Content analysis and Ordinary Least Square regression analysis were employed for the test of hypothesis. The result disclosed that Disclosure on Material used (DMT) has non-significant negative effect on financial performance (ROA) of listed pharmaceutical manufacturing companies in Nigeria. The study also found that disclosure on environmental compliance has significant positive effect on financial performance (ROE) of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. The researcher opines that similar studies should be carried out in other sector other than the oil and gas sector and also the years of the data should be made to 2023 to account for current reality 2018 is too backward.

Oshiole et al., (2020) ascertained the effect of environmental cost disclosure on profitability of oil and gas firms listed on Nigeria Stock Exchange between 2010 and 2019. Eleven (11) listed oil and gas firms were purposively sampled. The proxies for environmental cost disclosure include waste management cost disclosure, employee health and safety cost disclosure and environmental remediation cost, while net profit margin was employed as profitability measure. Content analysis was employed while Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Panel Least Square (PLS) Regression analysis via STATA 13 statistical software were used to test the hypotheses of the study. The result of this study showed that waste management cost disclosure, employee health and safety cost disclosure and environmental remediation cost disclosure have a significant positive effect on net profit margin at 5% level of significance. The researcher opines that similar studies should be carried out in other sector other than the oil and gas sector and also the years of the data should be made to 2023 to account for current reality 2019 is too backward.

 Ho₁: Pollution Control Disclosure has no significant effect on Tobin Q of listed Industrial Goods firms in Nigeria

Ho₂: Community Development cost has no significant effect on Tobin Q of listed Industrial Goods firms in Nigeria

METHODOLOGY

This study adopted the ex post facto research design and secondary data for the study. Population of the study consists of thirty four (34) listed industrial and consumer goods firms operating on the Nigeria, Nigeria Exchange Group (NGX) as at 31st May 2024. The sample size is twenty six (26) and purposeful sampling techniques was adopted. Data required for this study were obtained from audited financial statements and annual reports of the listed industrial and consumer goods firms in Nigeria 10 years (2014-2023). The inferential analyses also involve the application of the appropriate statistical technique of Panel Regression Analysis: this is due to the nature of the data. The study adapting the model of Obiora & Omaliko (2022)

The Panel regression model

TQ = β₀ + β₁CDC + β₂PCD + β₃FS + ϵ_it

Where:

β₀              =    The autonomous parameter estimate (Intercept or constant term)

β₁ – β₃    =    Parameter coefficient of Environmental Disclosure

TQ   =   Tobin Q

CDC   = Community Development Cost

PCD    =   Pollution Control Disclosure

FS     = Firm Size

Table 4: Study Variables and their Measurement

Variable Acronym	Variable Name	Variable types	Measurement	Source
TQ	Tobin Q	Dependent	Total market value of firm divided by Total Asset of the firm.	Okwy & Oluwamayowa (2018)
CDC	Community Development Cost	Independent	Cost of Investment on social responsibility in the environment	Obiora & Omaliko (2022)
PCD	Pollution Control Disclosure	Independent	Coded 1 when reported and 0 if not reported	Wang et al (2019)
FS	Firm Size	Control	Natural logarithm of Total Assets	Elshabasy (2018)

Source: Author’s Compilation (2024)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics gives a presentation of the mean, maximum and minimum values of variables applied together with their standard deviations obtainable.

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics Result

	TQ	CDC	PCD	FS
Mean	0.838344	0.343040	0.876000	5.936440
Median	0.825000	0.260000	1.000000	5.595000
Maximum	9.600000	1.550000	1.000000	8.680000
Minimum	-0.960000	0.030000	0.000000	3.110000
Std. Dev.	0.818901	0.249210	0.330243	1.412267
Skewness	9.768438	2.876643	-2.281681	0.348648
Kurtosis	105.8400	12.51974	6.206069	1.836417
Jarque-Bera	114143.4	1288.811	323.9912	19.16819
Probability	0.000000	0.000000	0.000000	0.000069
Sum	209.5860	85.76000	219.0000	1484.110
Sum Sq. Dev.	166.9790	15.46429	27.15600	496.6301
Observations	250	250	250	250

Source: E-View 12 Output, (2024)

Table 4.1 presents the descriptive statistics effect of community development cost, pollution control disclosure on market value of listed consumer and industrial goods firms in Nigeria during the period of 2013 to 2022. The table shows that Tobin q (TQ) as a measure of market value has a mean of 0.83834, with a standard deviation of 0.81890 as well as a minimum value of -0.9600 and maximum value of 9.6000 respectively. Given that the range between the minimum and maximum is quite wide, it implies unstable market value as the standard deviation indicated that there is no much slightly wide dispersion of the data from the mean value. For the other measure of community development cost and pollution control disclosure shows a mean of value of 0.3430 and 0.87600 with standard deviation of 0.24921, 0.33024 and a minimum and maximum value of 0.03000, 0.0000, 1.5500 and 1.0000 respectively. This implies that community development cost and pollution control disclosure witnessed a marginal increase during the study period, as the standard deviation is not so large compared to the mean, together with the low range between the minimum and maximum values. Firm size as control variable has a mean of 5.9364 with minimum value of 3.11000 and maximum value of 8.6800.

Table 4.2: Correlation Matrix

The correlation matrix table presents correlation relationship between dependent and independent variables and the correlation among the independent variables.

Covariance Analysis: Ordinary
Date: 05/07/24   Time: 02:54
Sample: 2014 2023
Included observations: 250
Correlation
Probability	TQ	CDC	PCD	FS
TQ	1.000000
	—–
CDC	-0.016899	1.000000
	0.7903	—–
PCD	0.048392	0.172952	1.000000
	0.4462	0.0061	—–
FS	0.002254	-0.080355	0.139580	1.000000
	0.9717	0.2054	0.0273	—–

Source: E-View 12 Output, (2024)

In table 4.2 correlation analysis, which is used to quantify the association between two continuous variables. In correlation analysis, we estimate a sample correlation coefficient, more specifically the Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficient. The result presented above confirms that community development cost and pollution control disclosure has a negative and positive correlation which are -0.01689 and 0.0483 with Tobin Q respectively, while firm size as control variable has a positive correlation with Tobin Q at value of 0.00225.

Multicollinearity Test (VIF)

The Multicollinearity test was carried out to check if there is strong correlation among the independent variables that may produce misleading result.

Table 4.3:  Multicollinearity Test (VIF)

Variance Inflation Factors
Date: 05/07/24   Time: 02:55
Sample: 2014 2023
Included observations: 250
	Coefficient	Uncentered	Centered
Variable	Variance	VIF	VIF
C	0.067540	24.95194	NA
CDC	0.045632	3.026629	1.042806
PCD	0.026331	8.521443	1.056659
FS	0.001406	19.33454	1.031714

Source: E-View 12 Output (2024)

*Decision rule: Centred VIF of less than 10 is an indication of absence of multi-collinearity, while the centred VIF of more than 10 is an indication of presence of multi-collinearity. As stated above, the decision rule for the multicollinearity test using the variance inflation factor is that Centred VIF of less than 10 shows the absence of multi-collinearity, while the centred VIF of more than 10 is an indication of presence of multi-collinearity. Table above clearly shows that there is absence of multicollinearity among the independent variables, given that all the independent variable (CDC, PCD and FS) have a center VIF that is less than 10.

Heteroskedasticity Test

In order to validate the robustness of the estimates, the Heteroskedasticity test was conducted as a diagnostic check. Heteroskedasticity happens when the standard errors of a variable, monitored over a specific amount of time, are non-constant.

Table 4.4: Heteroskedasticity Test

Panel Cross-section Heteroskedasticity LR Test
Null hypothesis: Residuals are homoscedastic
Equation: UNTITLED
Specification: TQ C CDC PCD FS
	Value	df	Probability
Likelihood ratio	705.5544	25	0.0000
LR test summary:
	Value	df
Restricted LogL	-303.9032	246
Unrestricted LogL	48.87399	246

Source: E-View 12 Output, (2024).

Table 4.4 shows the results of the panel cross-section Heteroskedasticity regression test. The decision rule for the panel cross-section Heteroskedasticity test is stated thus:

*Decision Rule: At 5% level of Significance

H₀: No conditional Heteroskedasticity (Residuals are homoskedastic)

H₁: There is conditional Heteroskedasticity

The null hypothesis of the test states that there is no Heteroskedasticity, while the alternate hypothesis states that there is Heteroskedasticity. The null hypothesis is to be accepted if the p value is greater than 5% level of significance. From the result in table 4.4 above with a ratio value of 705.5544 and a corresponding probability value of 0.0000 which is less than 5%, the study therefore posits that, there is reason to reject the null hypothesis, while the alternative hypothesis that states there is conditional Heteroskedasticity problem is accepted.

Hausman Test

The Hausman test is a test for model specification in panel data analysis and this test is employed to choose between fixed effects model and the random effects model. Due to the panel nature of the data set utilized in this study, both fixed effect and random effect regressions were run. Hausman specification test was then conducted to choose the preferred model between the fixed effect and the random effect regression models. The test basically checked if the error terms were correlated with the regressors. Thus, the decision rule for the Hausman specification test is stated thus; at 5% Level of significance.

Table 4.5: Hausman Test

Correlated Random Effects – Hausman Test
Equation: Untitled
Test cross-section random effects
Test Summary	Chi-Sq. Statistic	Chi-Sq. d.f.	Prob.
Cross-section random	5.676084	3	0.1285

Source: E-View 12 Output, (2024)

The Result of Hausman test shows that chi-square statistics value is 5.6760 while the probability values of it is 0.1285. This implies that there is enough evidence to accept the null hypothesis which states that random effect is most appropriate for the Panel Regression analysis. It thus stands that error component model (Fixed effect) estimator is not most appropriate because the fixed effects are not well correlated with the regressors. Thus, the most consistent and efficient estimation for the study is the random effect cross-sectional model. Consequently, the result suggests that the random effect regression  is most appropriate for the sampled data because the Hausman test statistics as represented by corresponding probability value is greater than 5%.

Langranger Multiplier Test

The langranger multiplier test is a test for model specification in panel data analysis and this test is employed to choose between pooled effect model and the random effects model.

Table 4.6: Breusch-Pagan Langranger Multiplier Tests

Residual Cross-Section Dependence Test
Null hypothesis: No cross-section dependence (correlation) in residuals
Equation: Untitled
Periods included: 10
Cross-sections included: 25
Total panel observations: 250
Note: non-zero cross-section means detected in data
Cross-section means were removed during computation of correlations
Test	Statistic	d.f.	Prob.
Breusch-Pagan LM	573.8151	300	0.0000

 Source: E-View 12 Output, (2024)

*Decision Rule: At 5% level of Significance

H₀: Pooled Effect is more appropriate

H₁: Random Effect is more appropriate

Based on the probability value of the Breusch-Pagan Langranger Multiplier Test at 0.0000, the null hypothesis is rejected, thus random effect is most appropriate when compared to pooled effect.

Table 4.7: Panel Regression Result (Random Effect)

Dependent Variable: TQ
Method: Panel EGLS (Cross-section random effects)
Date: 05/07/24   Time: 02:35
Sample: 2014 2023
Periods included: 10
Cross-sections included: 25
Total panel (balanced) observations: 250
Swamy and Arora estimator of component variances
Variable	Coefficient		Std. Error	t-Statistic	Prob.
C	1.464636		0.170419	8.594311	0.0000
CDC	-0.182276		0.126325	-1.442918	0.1503
PCD	-0.022556		0.093356	-0.241614	0.8093
FS	-0.005641		0.024904	-0.226516	0.8210
LOGTQ	1.938343		0.089498	21.65793	0.0000
	Effects Specification
				S.D.	Rho
Cross-section random				0.102518	0.0474
Idiosyncratic random				0.459404	0.9526
		Weighted Statistics
R-squared		0.645819	Mean dependent var		0.696918
Adjusted R-squared		0.639989	S.D. dependent var		0.791617
S.E. of regression		0.475011	Sum squared resid		54.82938
F-statistic		110.7723	Durbin-Watson stat		1.683931
Prob(F-statistic)		0.345000

Source: E-View 12 Output, (2024)

This study assessed effect community development cost and pollution control disclosure on market value of listed consumer and industrial goods firms in Nigeria. From table 4.7 above, the coefficient of multiple determinations (R²) is 0.64 and in line with the panel nature of the data used in this study, the regression model shows that the range of values between adjusted R² and R² falls between 64%, and 63% respectively. This indicates that about 64% of the total variations in Tobin Q (TQ) is explained by the variations in the independent variables (CDC, PCD and FS), while the remaining 36% of the variation in the model is captured by the error term, which further indicates that the line of best fit is highly fitted. The panel regression result for the sampled consumer and industrial goods firm showed that there is negative and insignificant relationship between community development cost, pollution control disclosure and Tobin Q with a corresponding negative probability value of 0.1503 and 0.8093 which is greater than 5%. However, when taken collectively, the regressors (CDC and PCD) against the regressed (TQ), the value of F-statistic is 110.7723 and the value of the probability of F-statistic is 0.34500. This result implies that the overall regression is both negative and statistically insignificant at 5%.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

This study evaluates effect of community development cost, pollution control disclosure on market value of listed consumer and industrial goods firms in Nigeria.  The findings of this study is on the basis of formulated hypotheses, models and analysis carried out. Firstly, study found that generally that community development cost on market value of listed consumer and industrial goods firm in Nigeria have a negative and insignificant effect on Tobin Q as measure of market value. This disagree with the study of Obiora and Omaliko (2022) who examined effect of environmental disclosure on financial performance of listed finance institutions in Nigeria. The study agree with the study of Andriana and Anisykurlillah (2019) who examined the effect of environmental disclosure on financial performance of oil and gas companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. Secondly, study found that  pollution control disclosure on market value of listed consumer and industrial goods firm in Nigeria have a positive and insignificant effect on Tobin Q as measure of market value This is in consonance with the study of Mohammed et al (2022) who examined effect of environmental disclosure on financial performance of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The study disagree with the study of Lawrence and Bernard (2023) who examined positive effect of environmental disclosure on financial performance of listed  industrial goods companies in Nigeria.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study examine community development cost and pollution control disclosure on market value of listed consumer and industrial goods firms in Nigeria from 2014-2023 in Nigeria. The study conclude that community development cost and pollution control disclosure has negative and insignificant effect on market value of consumer and industrial goods firm in Nigeria. Based on the findings of this study and the conclusion made, the study recommend that Management of consumer and industrial goods of firm should continue involve in  community development cost and pollution control disclosure even though  it  has a negative and  insignificant effect market value of the firm

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, A.S. (2018) Social and environmental accounting effect on companies’ profit: An empirical study of some companies in Erbil. Accounting and Financial Management Journal, 3(7), 1621-1633
2. Adhariani, D. (2021). The shape of water analysis of corporate water disclosure in Indonesia. Australian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 4(2), 125-126.
3. Adler, R., Mansi, M., & Pandey, R. (2022). Accounting for waste management a study of the reporting practices of the top listed Indian companies. Accounting & Finance, 9(7), 2404-2413.
4. Al-Mawali, H .(2021). Environmental cost accounting and financial performance: The mediating role of environmental performance, Accounting 7,535–544
5. Al-Naser, K.H., Riyadh, H.A., & Albalaki, F.M. (2021). The impact of environmental and social costs disclosure on financial performance mediating by earning management. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT), 23(2), 50-64
6. Alsayegh, M.F., Rahman, R.A., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability, 12(3910), 1-20
7. Andriana, A.E., & Anisykurlillah, I. (2019). The Effects of Environmental Performance, Profit Margin, Firm Size, and Environmental Disclosure on Economic Performance. Accounting Analysis Journal, 8(2), 143-150.
8. Angelstig, M., & Gustavsson, S. (2020).The effect of ownership structure on the sustainability reporting assurance practice. Master Thesis in Accounting and Financial Management, Stockholm School of Economics, 1-55.
9. Arumona, J., Lambe, I., & Ogunmakinde, I. (2022). Effect of environmental disclosure on financial performance of quoted oil and gas companies in Nigeria. Bingham University Journal of Accounting and Business (BUJAB), 1(1), 1-16.
10. Atang, G.T., & Eyisi, S.A. (2020). Determinants of environmental disclosures of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Management Studies and Social Science Research, 2(1), 1˗8.
11. Bello, M.A., & Ogungbenle, K.S. (2022).The determinants of environmental disclosure in the financial report of listed companies in Nigeria. Iconic Research and Engineering (IRE) Journals, 5(9), 13-26.
12. Benjamin, S.J., Regasa D.G., Wellalage, N.H., & Marathamuthu, M.S. (2020). Waste disclosure and corporate cash holdings. Applied Economics, 11(8), 5399-5412.
13. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Ghiron, N.L., & Menichini, T. (2019). Materiality analysis in sustainability reporting: A tool for directing corporate sustainability towards emerging economic, environmental and social opportunities. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., 25(7), 1016–1038.
14. Cárcamo, E.A., & Peñabaena-Niebles, R. (2022). Opportunities and challenges for the waste management in emerging and frontier countries through industrial symbiosis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3(1), 15-24.
15. Chouaibi, J., Miladi, E., & Elouni, N. (2022). Exploring the relationship between board characteristics and environmental disclosure: Empirical evidence for European firms. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 21(1), 51-76.
16. Cui, L.Y., & Zhu, Z.Y. (2022). Corporate social responsibility report disclosure, financing constraint and investment efficiency under the new economic situation: From the perspective of the institutional environment. Front. Sci. Technol. Eng. Manag., 41(25), 70–76.
17. Deviatkin, I., Horttanainen, M., & Havukainen, J. (2021). Sustainability of waste management systems: Final disposal. In encyclopedia of sustainable management. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021, 1–10.
18. Dos-Santos, C.R., Arcanjo, G.S., de-Souza-Santos, L.V., Koch, K., Amaral, M.C. (2021). Aquatic concentration and risk assessment of pharmaceutically active compounds in the environment. Environ. Pollut., 290, 118049.
19. Ekweozor, M.A., Ogbodo, O.C., & Amahalu, N.N. (2022). Effect of corporate social responsibility on financial performance of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)6 (2), .282-289.
20. Elshabasy, Y.N. (2018). The impact of corporate characteristics on environmental information disclosure: an empirical study on the listed firms in Egypt. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR), 12(2), 232-241.
21. Emeke, E., Olaoye, S.A. & Ogundajo, G.O. (2021). Effect of social and environmental disclosure on the performance of listed consumer goods producing companies in Nigeria, International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting,, 11(1),35-47
22. Festus, A.F., Rufus, A.I., & Janet, T.O. (2020). Sustainability reporting: Imperative for turnover growth. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 16(1), 8-18.
23. Geerts, M., Dooms, M., & Stas, L. (2021). Determinants of sustainability reporting in the present institutional context: The case of port managing bodies. Sustainability, 13, 3148.
24. Gerged, A.M. (2021). Factors affecting corporate environmental disclosure in emerging markets: The role of corporate governance structures. Bus. Strategy Environ., 30(15), 609–629.
25. Giannarakis, K. (2021). The effect of corporate governance and financial characteristics. https://www.simplilearn.com/finacialperformance-rar21-article. Retrieved 03/09/2022.
26. Gill, H. (2021). The financial, governance and environmental determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 5 (2), 8-228.
27. Gull, A.A., Atif. M., & Hussain, N. (2022). Board gender composition and waste management: Cross-country evidence. The British Accounting Review, 1(1), 2-4.
28. Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P., & Fauzi, H. (2022). The evolution of sustainability reporting practices in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1(1), 1-14.
29. Handoyo, S., & Angela, P. (2021). The Determinants of Environmental Disclosure Quality: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Business, 4(1), 1˗13.
30. Ifeanyi, C., Azubike, J.U. & Iormbagah, J.A. (2020).Effect of triple bottom line reporting on the financial performance of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria, International Journal of Management Studies and Social Science Research,2(2), 9-18
31. Iheduru, N.G & Ike, R.C.(2019). Effect of environmental and social cost on performance of manufacturing companies in Nigeria, International Journal of Accounting & Finance Review; 4(2), 5-12.
32. Ji, M., Ji, Y., & Dong, S. (2022). Environmental accounting information disclosure driving factors: The case of listed firms in China. Sustainability, 14(8), 15797.
33. Jiang, S., Wang, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2022). The impact of green credit on the employment scale of traditional energy industry – A study based on the perspective of enterprise behavior. Ind. Technol. Econ., 41(19), 100–108.
34. Kraus, S., Rehman, S.U., & García, F.J. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 160, 120262.
35. Kumar, S. (2021). Impact of firm attributes on environmental information disclosure: An empirical study of NSE listed Indian firms. Purushartha J. Manag. Ethics Spiritual, 14(3), 116–124.
36. Lawrence, T.M. (2022). Sustainability reporting compliance and financial performance of companies listed on the Nigerian stock exchange. European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Research, 10(5), 25-73, 2022.
37. Lawrence U.E., & Bernard, E.E. (2023). Environmental cost and financial performance of selected industrial goods firms in Nigeria. Fuoye Journal of finance and Contemporary Issues, 4 (1), 83-97
38. Li, Y., Wong, C.W., & Miao, X. (2022). Political connection, political promotion and corporate environmental information disclosure in China. Chin. Manage. Stud., 16(5), 78–101.
39. Liu, Z., & Bai, Y. (2022). The impact of ownership structure and environmental supervision on the environmental accounting information disclosure quality of high-polluting enterprises in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 29(17), 21348–21364
40. Mamudu, L. (2022). Relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and community development. Accounting and Finance Research, 4(3). 20-30.
41. Mbonu, C.M. & Amahalu, N.N. (2022). Effect of corporate social responsibility costs on financial performance of listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. Journal of Global Accounting, 8(1), 40 – 52.
42. Miettinen, M., & Khan, S.A. (2022). Pharmaceutical pollution: A weakly regulated global environmental risk. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law, 31(6), 75–88.
43. Mishra, S., Bharagava, R.N., More, N., Yadav, A., Zainith, S., Mani, S., & Chowdhary, P. (2019). Heavy metal contamination: An alarming threat to environment and human health. Environmental Biotechnology: For Sustainable Future; Springer: Singapore, 103–125.
44. Mohammed, A., Alhassan, I., & Mohammed, Y. (2022). Effect of environmental disclosure on financial performance of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. International Academic Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 8(5), 56-65.
45. Najul, L. (2019). Does sustainability reporting enhance firms’ profitability? A study on selected companies from India and South Korea. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 12(1) 2–20.
46. Nguyen, T.H., Vu, Q.T., Nguyen, D.M., & Le, H.L. (2021). Factors influencing corporate social responsibility disclosure and its impact on financial performance: The case of Vietnam. Sustainability, 13(7), 8197.
47. Nie, Z.., & Wang, Y. (2022). The impact of environmental information disclosure on the innovation of resource-based enterprises – Based on the perspective of external pressure. Resour. Ind., 8(2), 1–29.
48. Obiora, F., & Omaliko, E. (2022). Effect of community development and waste management disclosures on liquidity of firms in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Advances in Research, 15(3), 1-10.
49. Obiora, F., Onuora, J.K., & Ezeogidi, C.S. (2022). An assessment of the impact of environmental accounting disclosure on profitability of firm in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Finance and Economics Research 10(1), 92-103.
50. Ofurum, C.O., & Iwunna, A.S. (2022). Environmental cost disclosure and financial performance of listed oil and gas companies in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) 24(7), 67-74.
51. Okafor, O.O., Egbunike, P.A., & Amahalu, N.N. (2022). Determinants of environmental disclosure of quoted oil and gas firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Management Studies and Social Science Research, 4(1), 77-88.
52. Okeke, E.E., Ifurueze, M.S., & Nwadiaro E.O. (2021). Effect of Effluent and Waste Treatment Cost Disclosure on Economic Value Added of Quoted Oil and Gas Firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Development ISSN: 2713-4683. Volume 6(4), 78-97.
53. Okere, W., Rufai, O., & Okeke, O.C. (2021). Board characteristics and environmental information disclosure of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. J. Bus. Entrep., 9(2), 82–93.
54. Okudo, A.G., & Ndubuisi, A.N. (2021). Corporate governance and carbon disclosure practices of quoted manufacturing firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, 12 (07), 20420-20433
55. Okwy, P.O., & Oluwamayowa, O.I. (2018). Effect of corporate social environmental disclosure on market value of listed firms in Nigeria. Copernican Journal of Finance and Accounting, 7 (3), 9-28
56. Omaliko, E.L., Nweze, A.U., & Nwadialor, E.O. (2020). Effect of social and environmental disclosures on performance of non-financial firms in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 6(1), 40-58.
57. Oshiole, S., Elamah, A.F., & Amahalu, N.N. (2020). Effect of environmental cost disclosure on profitability of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in
58. Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences 10(2), 157-170.
59. Rahman, M.S., Ahmed, Z., Seefat, S.M., Alam, R., Islam, A.R., Choudhury, T.R., Begum, B.R., & Idrisf, A.M. (2022). Assessment of heavy metal contamination in sediment at the newly established tannery industrial Estate in Bangladesh: A case study. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol., 4(1), 1–12.
60. Ryou, J.W., Tsang, A., & Wang, K.T. (2022). Product market competition and voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosures. Contemp Accting Res., 39(2), 1215–1259.
61. Shi, B., Zhou, S., & Zhang, L. (2022). An empirical study on the coupling and decoupling of environmental information disclosure quality and financial performance – Based on the data of listed companies in heavy pollution industries. Econ. Manag, 36(17), 50–56.
62. Silva, S., Nuzum, A.K., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). Stakeholder expectations on sustainability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature review. Clean. Prod., 217, 204–215.
63. Solikhah, B., & Maulina, U. (2021). Factors influencing environment disclosure quality and the moderating role of corporate governance. Cogent Bus. Manag, 8(1), 1876543.
64. Tao, R., Su, C.W., Naqvi, B., & Rizvi, S. K. (2022). Can Fintech development pave the way
    for a transition towards low-carbon economy: A global perspective. Technological
    Forecasting and Social Change, 174.
65. Wang, Q.Y., & Lu, F.Z. (2018). Can environmental regulation boost China’s high-quality economic development – Empirical test based on inter provincial panel data. Journal of Zhengzhou University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 51(9) 64–70.
66. Wang, S., Wang, H., Wang, J., & Yang, F. (2020). Does environmental accounting information disclosure contribute to improve firm financial performance? An examination of the underlying mechanism. Sci. Total Environ, 714, 136855.
67. Wang, X., Shen, X., & Yang, Y. (2020). Does environmental information disclosure make firms’ investments more efficient? Evidence from measure 2007 of Chinese A-listed companies. Sustainability, 12(1895), 1-16
68. Wardhani, R., & Rahadian, Y. (2021). Sustainability strategy of Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil industry: A qualitative analysis. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(5), 1085.
69. Wasara, T.M., & Ganda, F. (2019). The relationship between corporate sustainability disclosure and firm financial performance in Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) listed mining companies.Sustainability, 11(16), 4496–4519.
70. Wei, J., & Geng, C. (2022). Can environmental regulation improve the efficiency of enterprise financing—Research based on heavy pollution industry and clean energy industry. J. Jinan Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.), 32(15), 111–120.
71. Xin, C., Hao, X., & Cheng, L. (2022). Enterprise green innovation and stock price synchronization – Based on the perspective of operational risk and environmental information disclosure. Mon. J. Financ. Account, 18(9), 152–160.
72. Yang, S., Chen, Z., Umar, M., & Khursheed, A. (2022) Environmental regulation and high-quality sustainable development of China’s economy– an empirical study based on a spatial durbin model and threshold model. Economic Research- Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 5699-5718.
73. Zhang, H., & Tao, L. (2022). Foreign investors’ shareholding and environmental information disclosure: An empirical analysis from listed companies. World Econ. Res., 7(1), 105–119, 137.
74. Zhang, Z.B. (2021). Public participation, regulatory information disclosure and urban environmental governance: Based on panel data analysis of 35 key cities. Theory Pract. Financ. Econ. 42, 109–116.

Raw Data

COMPANY	CODE	YEARS	TQ	CDC	PCD	FS
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2014	0.44	0.12	0	5.25
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2015	0.59	0.11	0	5.35
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2016	0.65	0.14	1	5.42
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2017	0.68	0.23	1	5.51
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2018	0.76	0.11	1	5.58
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2019	0.67	0.24	1	5.62
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2020	0.56	0.16	1	5.68
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2021	0.75	0.32	1	5.73
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2022	0.86	0.45	1	5.64
Cadbury Nigeria Plc	1	2023	0.76	0.12	1	5.39
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2014	0.65	0.13	0	4.78
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2015	0.65	0.23	0	4.87
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2016	-0.75	0.13	1	4.91
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2017	0.76	0.24	1	5.88
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2018	0.56	0.23	1	4.45
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2019	0.67	0.23	1	4.53
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2020	0.89	0.45	1	4.16
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2021	0.86	1.55	1	4.64
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2022	0.88	0.17	1	4.46
Champion Breweries Plc	2	2023	0.20	0.45	1	4.45
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2014	0.57	0.46	1	3.45
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2015	0.67	0.37	1	4.45
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2016	0.75	0.24	1	4.44
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2017	0.80	0.56	1	4.45
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2018	0.88	0.28	1	4.84
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2019	0.89	0.34	1	4.83
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2020	0.97	0.23	1	4.96
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2021	0.96	0.56	1	4.98
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2022	0.98	0.23	1	5.01
Flour Mills Nigeria Plc	3	2023	0.99	0.26	1	4.04
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2014	0.65	0.25	0	5.03
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2015	0.88	0.26	0	4.02
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2016	0.76	0.44	1	4.84
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2017	0.67	0.23	1	5.33
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2018	0.56	0.34	1	4.85
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2019	0.75	1.07	1	3.94
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2020	0.86	0.45	1	4.89
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2021	0.76	0.28	1	4.82
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2022	0.54	0.34	1	5.74
DN Tyre & Rubber Plc	4	2023	0.66	0.25	1	5.69
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2014	0.76	0.34	1	5.09
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2015	0.76	0.36	1	4.11
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2016	0.88	0.45	1	4.08
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2017	0.89	0.23	1	5.17
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2018	0.67	0.33	1	5.76
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2019	0.57	0.34	1	5.89
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2020	0.66	0.35	1	5.79
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2021	0.69	0.45	1	5.86
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2022	0.87	0.45	1	5.92
Golden Guinea Plc	5	2023	0.90	0.67	1	5.92
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2014	0.94	0.34	1	5.97
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2015	0.95	0.23	1	5.01
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2016	0.98	0.23	1	5.25
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2017	0.95	0.23	1	6.29
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2018	0.98	0.23	1	5.24
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2019	0.97	0.12	1	5.71
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2020	0.66	0.13	1	4.88
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2021	0.98	0.41	1	5.04
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2022	0.65	0.34	1	5.14
Unilever Nigeria Plc	6	2023	0.98	0.32	0	5.16
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2014	0.92	0.22	0	5.21
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2015	0.94	0.24	0	5.37
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2016	-0.96	0.23	1	5.45
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2017	0.98	0.34	1	5.47
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2018	0.99	0.36	1	5.54
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2019	0.88	0.23	1	5.54
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2020	0.87	0.23	1	4.68
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2021	0.88	0.34	1	5.61
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2022	0.76	0.45	1	5.78
PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc	7	2023	0.79	0.23	1	5.86
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2014	0.98	0.34	1	5.86
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2015	0.88	0.34	1	5.87
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2016	0.67	0.45	1	5.89
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2017	0.78	0.26	1	5.96
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2018	0.76	0.23	1	5.03
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2019	0.87	0.45	1	5.08
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2020	0.87	0.25	1	5.12
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2021	0.88	0.26	1	5.09
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2022	0.67	0.24	1	4.14
Nigeria Breweries Plc	8	2023	0.87	0.43	1	5.16
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2014	0.77	0.32	0	5.19
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2015	0.78	0.23	0	5.37
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2016	0.88	0.34	1	5.48
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2017	0.98	0.22	1	5.46
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2018	0.95	0.23	1	5.65
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2019	0.99	0.43	1	5.74
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2020	0.76	0.33	1	5.81
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2021	0.78	0.23	1	5.83
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2022	0.87	0.32	1	4.88
Nestle Nigeria Plc	9	2023	0.88	0.34	1	5.05
International Breweries Plc	10	2014	0.31	0.34	1	4.01
International Breweries Plc	10	2015	0.34	0.21	1	5.97
International Breweries Plc	10	2016	0.35	0.23	1	5.28
International Breweries Plc	10	2017	0.36	0.34	1	6.22
International Breweries Plc	10	2018	0.45	0.32	1	6.71
International Breweries Plc	10	2019	0.76	0.43	1	5.02
International Breweries Plc	10	2020	0.76	0.23	1	4.16
International Breweries Plc	10	2021	0.54	0.32	1	4.16
International Breweries Plc	10	2022	0.90	0.23	1	4.36
International Breweries Plc	10	2023	0.87	0.43	1	4.39
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2014	0.82	0.32	1	5.48
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2015	0.84	0.12	1	5.52
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2016	0.85	0.23	1	5.65
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2017	0.92	0.23	1	5.49
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2018	0.94	0.22	1	5.25
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2019	0.86	1.25	1	5.35
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2020	0.65	0.34	1	5.42
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2021	0.78	0.34	1	5.51
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2022	0.97	0.38	1	5.58
Guinness Nig Plc	11	2023	0.87	0.32	1	5.62
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2014	0.56	0.40	0	4.67
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2015	0.55	0.45	0	4.09
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2016	0.53	0.67	0	4.67
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2017	0.62	0.56	1	4.33
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2018	0.64	0.43	1	5.78
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2019	0.74	1.03	1	5.91
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2020	0.84	1.40	1	4.54
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2021	0.83	1.37	1	4.33
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2022	0.99	1.09	1	4.65
Nascon Allied Industries Plc	12	2023	0.76	1.27	1	4.54
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2014	0.71	0.12	0	4.67
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2015	0.83	0.23	0	4.32
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2016	0.84	0.23	0	3.11
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2017	0.85	0.21	1	4.65
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2018	0.89	0.34	1	3.96
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2019	9.60	0.12	1	3.56
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2020	0.98	0.24	1	3.87
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2021	0.99	0.54	1	3.78
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2022	0.87	0.56	1	4.23
Nigerian Enamalware plc	13	2023	0.76	0.23	1	4.05
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2014	0.43	0.22	0	4.09
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2015	0.42	0.15	0	4.11
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2016	0.45	0.32	0	4.05
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2017	0.56	0.45	1	4.04
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2018	0.66	0.23	1	4.32
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2019	0.67	0.21	1	4.21
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2020	0.89	0.44	1	4.35
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2021	0.87	0.43	1	5.09
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2022	0.95	1.02	1	4.65
Union Dicon sait Plc	14	2023	0.99	1.12	1	4.34
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2014	0.74	0.03	0	4.23
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2015	0.76	0.05	0	4.56
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2016	0.75	0.11	1	4.65
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2017	0.77	0.12	1	4.56
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2018	0.87	0.21	1	4.34
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2019	0.98	0.22	1	4.32
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2020	0.87	0.12	1	4.56
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2021	0.76	0.11	1	4.56
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2022	0.65	0.14	1	4.68
Vita Foam Nigerian Plc	15	2023	0.67	0.23	1	4.09
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2014	0.94	0.11	1	5.25
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2015	0.95	0.24	0	5.35
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2016	0.98	0.16	0	5.42
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2017	0.95	0.32	1	5.51
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2018	0.98	0.45	1	5.58
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2019	0.97	0.12	1	5.62
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2020	0.66	0.13	1	5.68
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2021	0.98	0.23	1	5.73
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2022	0.65	0.13	1	5.64
AutinLAZ Coy Plc	16	2023	0.98	0.24	1	5.39
Berger Paint Plc	17	2014	0.92	0.23	1	6.78
Berger Paint Plc	17	2015	0.94	0.23	1	6.87
Berger Paint Plc	17	2016	0.96	0.45	1	6.91
Berger Paint Plc	17	2017	0.98	1.55	1	6.88
Berger Paint Plc	17	2018	0.99	0.17	1	7.45
Berger Paint Plc	17	2019	0.88	0.45	1	7.53
Berger Paint Plc	17	2020	0.87	0.46	1	7.16
Berger Paint Plc	17	2021	0.88	0.37	1	7.64
Berger Paint Plc	17	2022	0.76	0.24	1	7.46
Berger Paint Plc	17	2023	0.79	0.56	1	7.45
Beta Glass Plc	18	2014	0.98	0.28	1	7.45
Beta Glass Plc	18	2015	0.88	0.34	0	7.45
Beta Glass Plc	18	2016	0.67	0.23	0	7.44
Beta Glass Plc	18	2017	0.78	0.56	1	6.45
Beta Glass Plc	18	2018	0.76	0.23	1	6.84
Beta Glass Plc	18	2019	0.87	0.26	1	6.83
Beta Glass Plc	18	2020	0.87	0.25	1	6.96
Beta Glass Plc	18	2021	0.88	0.26	1	6.98
Beta Glass Plc	18	2022	0.67	0.44	1	7.01
Beta Glass Plc	18	2023	0.87	0.23	1	6.04
Cap Plc	19	2014	0.77	0.34	1	5.03
Cap Plc	19	2015	0.78	1.07	1	7.02
Cap Plc	19	2016	0.88	0.45	1	7.84
Cap Plc	19	2017	0.98	0.28	1	7.8
Cap Plc	19	2018	0.95	0.34	1	7.85
Cap Plc	19	2019	0.99	0.25	1	7.94
Cap Plc	19	2020	0.76	0.34	1	7.89
Cap Plc	19	2021	0.78	0.36	1	7.82
Cap Plc	19	2022	0.87	0.45	1	7.74
Cap Plc	19	2023	0.88	0.23	1	7.69
Cutix Plc	20	2014	0.31	0.33	1	7.09
Cutix Plc	20	2015	0.34	0.34	1	8.11
Cutix Plc	20	2016	0.35	0.35	1	8.08
Cutix Plc	20	2017	0.36	0.45	1	7.17
Cutix Plc	20	2018	0.45	0.45	1	7.76
Cutix Plc	20	2019	0.76	0.67	1	7.89
Cutix Plc	20	2020	0.76	0.34	1	7.79
Cutix Plc	20	2021	0.54	0.23	1	7.86
Cutix Plc	20	2022	0.90	0.23	1	7.92
Cutix Plc	20	2023	0.87	0.23	1	7.92
Greif Nig	21	2014	0.82	0.23	0	7.97
Greif Nig	21	2015	0.84	0.12	0	8.01
Greif Nig	21	2016	0.85	0.13	0	8.25
Greif Nig	21	2017	0.92	0.41	1	8.29
Greif Nig	21	2018	0.94	0.34	1	8.24
Greif Nig	21	2019	0.86	0.32	1	7.71
Greif Nig	21	2020	0.65	0.22	1	7.88
Greif Nig	21	2021	0.78	0.24	1	8.04
Greif Nig	21	2022	0.97	0.23	1	8.14
Greif Nig	21	2023	0.87	0.34	1	8.16
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2014	0.56	0.36	1	8.21
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2015	0.55	0.23	1	8.37
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2016	0.53	0.23	1	8.45
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2017	0.62	0.34	1	8.47
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2018	0.64	0.45	1	8.54
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2019	0.74	0.23	1	8.54
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2020	0.84	0.34	1	8.68
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2021	0.83	0.34	1	8.61
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2022	0.99	0.12	1	7.78
Larfarge Africa Plc	22	2023	0.76	0.11	1	7.86
Meryer Plc	23	2014	0.71	0.14	1	7.86
Meryer Plc	23	2015	0.83	0.23	0	7.87
Meryer Plc	23	2016	0.84	0.11	0	7.89
Meryer Plc	23	2017	0.85	0.24	1	7.96
Meryer Plc	23	2018	0.89	0.16	1	8.03
Meryer Plc	23	2019	9.60	0.32	1	8.08
Meryer Plc	23	2020	0.98	0.45	1	8.12
Meryer Plc	23	2021	0.99	0.12	1	8.09
Meryer Plc	23	2022	0.87	0.13	1	8.14
Meryer Plc	23	2023	0.76	0.23	1	8.16
Premier Paint Plc	24	2014	0.43	0.13	1	8.19
Premier Paint Plc	24	2015	0.42	0.24	1	7.37
Premier Paint Plc	24	2016	0.45	0.23	1	7.48
Premier Paint Plc	24	2017	0.56	0.23	1	7.46
Premier Paint Plc	24	2018	0.66	0.45	1	7.65
Premier Paint Plc	24	2019	0.67	1.55	1	7.74
Premier Paint Plc	24	2020	0.89	0.17	1	7.81
Premier Paint Plc	24	2021	0.87	0.45	1	7.83
Premier Paint Plc	24	2022	0.95	0.46	1	7.88
Premier Paint Plc	24	2023	0.99	0.37	1	8.05
Tripple Gee Company	25	2014	0.74	0.24	1	8.01
Tripple Gee Company	25	2015	0.76	0.56	1	5.97
Tripple Gee Company	25	2016	0.75	0.28	1	5.28
Tripple Gee Company	25	2017	0.77	0.34	1	6.22
Tripple Gee Company	25	2018	0.87	0.23	1	6.71
Tripple Gee Company	25	2019	0.98	0.56	1	5.02
Tripple Gee Company	25	2020	0.87	0.23	1	7.16
Tripple Gee Company	25	2021	0.76	0.26	1	7.16
Tripple Gee Company	25	2022	0.65	0.25	1	7.36
Tripple Gee Company	25	2023	0.67	0.26	1	7.39