Page 1394

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

Corporate Governance Mechanisms and Sustainability Reporting of

Listed Manufacturing Firms in Nigeria.

Martins Kutus Oloruntoba PhD, FCA

, Dawuk Walshak Danjuma Msc. FCA

Department of Accounting Faculty of Management Sciences,University of Jos.

PhD Student University of Jos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.15020000123

Received: 01 March 2026; Accepted: 06 March 2026; Published: 23 March 2026

ABSTRACT

This study examined corporate governance mechanisms and sustainability reporting practices of listed

manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The study adopted a correlational and causal research design, the study analyzed

secondary data from the annual financial statements and sustainability reports of 27 manufacturing firms listed

on the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) over a fifteen-year period (2010–2024). Descriptive statistics were

employed to summarize the characteristics of the variables, while Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess

the strength and direction of associations among them. For inferential analysis, the system Generalized Method

of Moments (GMM) estimator was applied to account for endogeneity, firm-specific effects and dynamic

persistence. The study found that board director nationality has a significant positive effect on sustainability

reporting, suggesting that internationally diverse boards enhance ESG disclosure practices. In contrast, board

director reputational capital did not significantly influence sustainability reporting. The findings underscore the

importance of diverse and internationally experienced boards in promoting transparency and accountability in

sustainability reporting among manufacturing firms in Nigeria. This paper also contributes to existing knowledge

in the field of sustainability reporting by looking at manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Based on these results, the

study recommends that firms encourage board nationality diversity and establish structured ESG governance

frameworks to enhance the quality and credibility of sustainability reporting.

Keywords: Corporate Governance, Board Director Nationality, Reputational Capital, Sustainability Reporting,

Manufacturing Firms, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Sustainability reporting has become an essential mechanism through which organizations disclose their

environmental, social and governance (ESG) activities to stakeholders. For manufacturing firms, sustainability

reporting is particularly important due to the sector’s significant environmental footprint, intensive resource

consumption and social impacts on host communities. Through sustainability disclosures, manufacturing firms

demonstrate accountability, enhance transparency and communicate their commitment to responsible production

and long-term value creation (Razaq et al., 2023).

In Nigeria, listed manufacturing firms operate within an environment characterized by increasing regulatory

expectations, stakeholder scrutiny and global sustainability pressures. Regulatory bodies such as the Financial

Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) and the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) have emphasized improved

corporate governance and sustainability disclosure practices.

Despite these developments, sustainability reporting among Nigerian manufacturing firms remains largely

voluntary and inconsistent, with wide variations in the quality, scope and depth of disclosures. Empirical

evidence suggests that many manufacturing firms provide limited sustainability information, often focusing on

narrative disclosures rather than measurable environmental and social performance indicators (Corporate

Governance and Sustainability Reporting Quality, 2022).

Page 1395

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

Corporate governance mechanisms play a critical role in influencing sustainability reporting practices within

manufacturing firms. Governance structures such as board size, board independence, board diversity, audit

committee effectiveness and ownership structure shape managerial oversight and strategic decision-making,

including sustainability-related disclosures. Strong corporate governance mechanisms enhance monitoring

functions, reduce information asymmetry and encourage greater transparency in sustainability reporting. Studies

conducted in Nigeria indicate that firms with stronger governance frameworks are more likely to produce higher-

quality sustainability reports that align with stakeholder expectations and international reporting standards

(Razaq et al., 2023; Okpala & Emida, 2025).

Recent empirical studies focusing specifically on listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria reveal that board

characteristics significantly influence sustainability reporting outcomes. For example, board diversity—

particularly gender diversity—has been found to positively affect the quality and extent of sustainability

disclosures, as diverse boards tend to integrate broader stakeholder concerns into corporate strategies. Similarly,

independent directors and effective audit committees enhance sustainability reporting by strengthening internal

controls and ensuring compliance with governance and disclosure requirements (Okpala & Emida, 2025;

Corporate Governance and Sustainability Reporting Quality, 2022).

Despite growing academic interest, evidence on the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and

sustainability reporting among Nigerian manufacturing firms are few. Furthermore, sector-specific studies are

still limited, even though manufacturing firms face unique sustainability challenges compared to other industries.

This underscores the need for empirical investigation into how corporate governance mechanisms influence

sustainability reporting practices among listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Such a study will help in policy

formulation, improving governance codes and promoting sustainable manufacturing practices.

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to examine corporate board mechanism and sustainability reporting practices

of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The specific objectives are to:

1. Determine the relationship between board of directors’ reputational capital and sustainability reporting

of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria; and

2. Assess the influence of board of directors’ nationality on sustainability reporting of listed manufacturing

firms in Nigeria.

Research Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses are formulated for the study:

1: Board of directors’ reputational capital has no significant relationship with sustainability reporting of listed

manufacturing firms in Nigeria.

2: Board of directors’ nationality does not have a significant influence on sustainability reporting of listed

manufacturing firms in Nigeria.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Review

Corporate Governance Mechanisms

Corporate governance mechanisms refer to the structures, processes and institutional arrangements through

which firms are directed, controlled and monitored to ensure accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

These mechanisms provide a framework through which organizational objectives are pursued while safeguarding

the interests of shareholders and other stakeholders (Razaq et al., 2023). In manufacturing firms, effective

Page 1396

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

corporate governance is particularly important due to the sector’s exposure to environmental risks, regulatory

scrutiny and complex operational processes.

Corporate governance mechanisms broadly comprise internal and external mechanisms. Internal governance

mechanisms include board of directors’ characteristics, audit committees, managerial controls and ownership

structure. These mechanisms directly influence strategic decisions, monitoring effectiveness and disclosure

practices within firms (Corporate Governance and Sustainability Reporting Quality, 2022). For example, an

independent and diverse board of directors enhances oversight functions and reduces information asymmetry

between management and stakeholders, thereby improving transparency and accountability.

External corporate governance mechanisms include regulatory frameworks, capital market discipline,

institutional investors and legal enforcement systems. These external forces complement internal mechanisms

by compelling firms to comply with governance standards and disclosure requirements (Danescu et al., 2021).

In Nigeria, regulatory initiatives by the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) and the Nigerian

Exchange Group (NGX) have reinforced the role of governance mechanisms in improving sustainability and

non-financial disclosures among listed manufacturing firms.

Board of Directors’ Nationality

Board nationality refers to the presence of directors from different national backgrounds on a firm’s board. It is

an important dimension of board diversity that influences strategic orientation, decision-making quality and

corporate disclosure practices. In manufacturing firms operating in increasingly globalized markets, nationality

diversity on corporate boards enhances access to international knowledge, global best practices and cross-border

networks (Chen et al., 2024).

Directors of foreign nationality are often exposed to advanced sustainability frameworks and international

reporting standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). As a result, they may advocate for more

comprehensive sustainability reporting practices to align firms with global expectations and improve legitimacy

in international markets (Naim & Alomair, 2024). Empirical studies suggest that firms with internationally

diverse boards tend to exhibit higher-quality sustainability disclosures as such boards incorporate broader

perspectives on environmental responsibility, social accountability and governance ethics.

Within the context of Nigerian listed manufacturing firms, board nationality diversity is increasingly relevant

due to foreign investments, export-oriented operations and multinational ownership structures. Nationality-

diverse boards therefore play a strategic role in strengthening sustainability reporting practices by integrating

global sustainability norms into local corporate governance systems.

Board of Directors’ Reputational Capital

Board directors’ reputational capital refers to the collective perception of directors’ credibility, integrity,

experience and professional standing as assessed by stakeholders. It represents an intangible governance asset

that enhances stakeholder confidence and influences corporate decision-making (Okpamen & Ogbeide, 2020).

In manufacturing firms, where environmental and social risks are prominent, the reputational standing of board

members can significantly shape sustainability priorities and disclosure practices.

Directors with strong reputational capital are often associated with high ethical standards, extensive professional

networks and prior governance experience. Such directors are more likely to promote transparency,

accountability and adherence to sustainability reporting standards in order to protect their personal and

professional reputations (Khalaf, 2024). Their involvement signals credibility to investors, regulators and

communities, thereby strengthening the firm’s legitimacy.

Empirical evidence indicates that firms with reputable board members tend to disclose sustainability information

more extensively, as reputationally conscious directors emphasize long-term value creation and risk mitigation

(Fredriksson et al., 2020). In the manufacturing sector, reputational capital can therefore serve as a governance

mechanism that encourages meaningful sustainability reporting rather than symbolic compliance.

Page 1397

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

Sustainability Reporting

Sustainability reporting involves the disclosure of information on a firm’s environmental, social and governance

(ESG) performance alongside traditional financial statements. It enables stakeholders to assess how

organizations manage sustainability-related risks and opportunities that affect long-term value creation

(Corporate Governance and Sustainability Reporting Quality, 2022). For manufacturing firms, sustainability

reporting is particularly critical due to their environmental emissions, resource consumption, waste generation

and labour-related challenges.

In Nigeria, sustainability reporting among listed manufacturing firms is still at a developmental stage. While

some firms have adopted sustainability disclosures voluntarily, the quality and consistency of reporting remain

uneven. Studies indicate that Nigerian manufacturing firms tend to emphasize social disclosures more than

environmental disclosures, often due to the higher costs associated with environmental compliance (Razaq et al.,

2023).

Despite these challenges, sustainability reporting offers manufacturing firms’ strategic benefits, including

improved stakeholder trust, enhanced corporate reputation and better access to capital. As regulatory attention

to ESG issues increases globally, sustainability reporting has become a vital tool for Nigerian manufacturing

firms seeking long-term competitiveness and legitimacy.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study is anchored on Stakeholder Theory, originally proposed by Freeman (1984). The theory posits that

firms have responsibilities not only to shareholders but also to a wide range of stakeholders, including

employees, customers, suppliers, communities, regulators and the environment. According to stakeholder theory,

corporate governance mechanisms should integrate stakeholder interests into corporate decision-making to

achieve sustainable organizational performance.

Stakeholder theory provides a relevant framework for examining sustainability reporting in manufacturing firms,

as such reporting serves as a communication channel through which firms demonstrate responsiveness to

stakeholder expectations. Directors with high reputational capital are motivated to protect their standing by

supporting transparent and credible sustainability disclosures that meet stakeholder information needs (Siddiqui

et al., 2023). Similarly, boards with nationality diversity possess broader awareness of global stakeholder

expectations, thereby encouraging improved sustainability reporting practices (Sundarasen et al., 2024).

Within the Nigerian manufacturing sector, stakeholder theory explains how governance attributes—such as

directors’ reputational capital and nationality diversity shapes sustainability reporting by aligning corporate

actions with societal and environmental expectations. Firms with stakeholder-oriented governance structures are

therefore more likely to disclose sustainability information that enhances trust, legitimacy and long-term

survival.

Empirical Review

Empirical studies across different contexts provide evidence on the relationship between board characteristics

and sustainability reporting. Abdelkader and Gao (2023), using system-GMM estimation on firms listed on the

Johannesburg Stock Exchange, found that board nationality diversity positively influences ESG disclosure, with

foreign ownership strengthening this relationship. Their findings suggest that internationally diverse boards

enhance legitimacy and sustainability transparency.

Similarly, Moran-Muñoz et al. (2024) examined European listed firms and reported that nationality diversity on

corporate boards positively affects sustainability-related disclosure, although the strength of the relationship

varies across institutional environments. These findings highlight the context-dependent nature of board

diversity effects on sustainability reporting.

Research on directors’ reputational capital also indicates a positive association with sustainability disclosure.

Khalaf (2024) found that firms with high-quality governance attributes, including reputable board members, are

Page 1398

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

more likely to adopt sustainability reporting practices. Piñeiro-Chousa et al. (2025) further noted that while

director experience enhances ESG performance, excessive multiple directorships weaken governance

effectiveness, showing that reputational capital can have both positive and constraining effects.

Despite growing global literatures, empirical evidence focusing specifically on listed manufacturing firms in

Nigeria remains limited. Most existing studies examine non-financial firms collectively or focus on banking and

insurance sectors. This gap underscores the need for sector-specific research that simultaneously examines board

reputational capital, board nationality and sustainability reporting practices within Nigeria’s manufacturing

industry.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopted a correlational and causal research design to investigate the effect of corporate governance

mechanisms specifically board director nationality and board director reputational capital on the sustainability

reporting practices of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. This design is suitable for establishing both the

strength of relationships among variables and the causal influence of governance attributes on sustainability

reporting outcomes over time.

The population of the study consist of twenty-seven (27) manufacturing firms listed on the Nigerian Exchange

Group (NGX) as at the end of 2024. The study relied exclusively on secondary data, sourced from the published

annual financial statements and sustainability reports of the sampled manufacturing firms. The data spanned a

fifteen-year period (2010–2024), thereby enabling a robust longitudinal panel analysis.

Data analysis was carried out using both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. Descriptive statistics

were employed to summarize the central tendencies and dispersion of the variables, providing an overview of

sustainability reporting practices and board characteristics among the sampled firms.

Pearson correlation analysis was further used to examine the degree and direction of association among the study

variables and to provide preliminary evidence of their interrelationships.

For the inferential analysis, the study employed the system Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimator.

The Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimates unknown parameters by making the theoretical

properties of model match the properties observed in the data.

The choice of the GMM technique was informed by the likelihood of endogeneity between corporate governance

mechanisms and sustainability reporting practices, as governance structures may both influence and be

influenced by disclosure behavior.

The system GMM estimator effectively controls for unobserved firm-specific effects, dynamic persistence and

simultaneity bias, thereby allowing for a more reliable estimation of the causal impact of board director

nationality and reputational capital on sustainability reporting among manufacturing firms.

To ensure the robustness of the regression results, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was employed to test for

multicollinearity among the explanatory variables.

The empirical model used in this study was adapted from Aifuwa et al. (2022) and modified to reflect the specific

context of the Nigerian manufacturing sector by incorporating board director nationality and board director

reputational capital as key corporate governance variables. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption

were included as control variables to account for firm-level environmental characteristics that influence

sustainability reporting practices.

The functional form of the model is specified as follows:

= β0+β1SRit − 1 + β2BDrcit + β3Bnatit + β4TGHGSit + β5RENGit + εit

Page 1399

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

Where:

 SRit = Sustainability Reporting

 BDrit = Board Director Reputational Capital

 BNATit = Board Director Nationality

 TGHGSit = Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 RENGit = Energy Consumption

 𝜀it = Error term

Sustainability reporting was measured using environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure items,

based on a binary content analysis approach (1 = presence, 0 = absence), in line with Ali et al. (2025). Board

director nationality was proxied as the proportion of foreign directors to total board members, following Hahn

and Lasfer (2016). Board director reputational capital was measured as the total compensation earned by

directors across all their directorships, consistent with Fredriksson et al. (2020). The control variables comprised

greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, reflecting the environmental intensity of manufacturing

firms.

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Descriptive Statistics

Mean

Std. Deviation

ESG

248623.6885

182698.66223

B.NAT

.1566

.21799

B.REP

17.4387

2.65691

Descriptive statistics indicate that sustainability reporting (ESG) of the sampled manufacturing firms recorded a

mean value of 248,623.69, with a standard deviation of 182,698.66, showing wide variation in the level of ESG

disclosures among the firms over the study period. Board director nationality (B.NAT) had a mean of 0.1566

and a standard deviation of 0.21799 implying that, on average, foreign directors constituted about 15.7% of

board membership, though with considerable disparity across firms. Board director reputational capital (B.REP)

recorded a mean value of 17.44 with a standard deviation of 2.66, indicating relatively moderate variation in

directors’ reputational capital among the manufacturing firms. All variables were observed across 27 firms,

ensuring consistency in the descriptive analysis.

Correlation Result

Correlations

ESG

B.NAT

B.REP

Pearson Correlation

ESG

1.000

.917

.798

B.NAT

.917

1.000

.907

B.REP

.798

.907

1.000

Sig. (1-tailed)

ESG

.000

.001

B.NAT

.000

B.REP

.001

.000

ESG

Page 1400

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

B.NAT

B.REP

Correlation analysis reveals a strong and positive relationship between sustainability reporting (ESG) and board

director nationality (B.NAT), with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.917, which is statistically significant at

the 1% level (p = 0.000). This indicates that manufacturing firms with a higher proportion of foreign directors

tend to exhibit more extensive sustainability reporting practices. Similarly, board director reputational capital

(B.REP) shows a strong positive correlation with ESG reporting (r = 0.798, p = 0.001), showing that firms with

more reputable board members are more inclined toward enhanced sustainability disclosures.

Furthermore, the correlation between board director nationality and board director reputational capital is also

strong and positive (r = 0.907, p = 0.000), implying that boards with foreign directors are more likely to possess

higher reputational capital. The significance of all correlation coefficients indicates meaningful associations

among the variables. However, while these strong correlations suggest close relationships, they do not imply

causality, thereby justifying the use of advanced econometric techniques in subsequent analyses.

Collinearity Diagnostics

Mode

Dimensio

Eigenvalue

Condition

Index

Variance Proportions

(Constant)

B.NAT

B.REP

2.537

1.000

.00

.01

.00

.461

2.346

.00

.18

.00

.002

35.228

1.00

.81

1.00

a. Dependent Variable: ESG

Collinearity diagnostics show that the model does not suffer from serious multicollinearity problems. Although

the third dimension records a high condition index of 35.23, the variance proportions indicate that board director

nationality (B.NAT) and board director reputational capital (B.REP) do not simultaneously load heavily on the

same dimension. This suggests that the explanatory variables provide distinct information and can be reliably

included in the regression model without distorting the estimated results.

Modal Summary

Model Summary

Model

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

Durbin-

Watson

R Square

Change

df1

df2

Sig. F

Change

.920

.847

.817

78252.355

.847

27.706

.000

1.378

a. Predictors: (Constant), B.REP, B.NAT

b. Dependent Variable: ESG

The model summary indicates a strong overall relationship between the independent variables and sustainability

reporting. The R value of 0.920 shows a high correlation between board director reputational capital, board

director nationality and ESG reporting among listed manufacturing firms. The R-square value of 0.847 implies

that approximately 84.7% of the variations in sustainability reporting are jointly explained by board director

reputational capital and board director nationality, while the adjusted R-square of 0.817 confirms the robustness

of the model after adjusting for degrees of freedom.

The F-statistic (27.706) is statistically significant at the 1% level (p = 0.000), indicating that the model is well-

fitted and the explanatory variables jointly have a significant effect on sustainability reporting. The Durbin–

Watson statistic of 1.378 shows the absence of serious autocorrelation in the model, thereby validating the

reliability of the regression estimates.

Page 1401

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

Coefficient Result

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Sig.

Correlations

Collinearity Statistics

Std.

Error

Beta

Zero-

order

Partial

Part

Tolerance

VIF

Constant

330112.159

31798

7.083

1.038

.324

B.NAT

910561.064

24583

2.754

1.086

3.704

.004

.917

.761

.458

.178

5.628

B.REP

-12849.337

20169

.965

-.187

-.637

.538

.798

-.197

-.079

.178

5.628

a. Dependent Variable: ESG

The coefficient results reveal that board director nationality (B.NAT) has a positive and statistically significant

effect on sustainability reporting among listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The unstandardized coefficient

(β = 910,561.064) indicates that an increase in the proportion of foreign directors on the board leads to a

substantial increase in ESG reporting. This effect is statistically significant (t = 3.704, p = 0.004), shows that

board nationality diversity plays an important role in enhancing sustainability disclosure practices.

In contrast, board director reputational capital (B.REP) exhibits a negative but statistically insignificant

relationship with sustainability reporting (β = −12,849.337; t = −0.637; p = 0.538). This implies that, although

directors’ reputational capital influences governance decisions, it does not significantly determine the extent of

sustainability reporting among the sampled manufacturing firms.

The constant term is positive but statistically insignificant, indicating that sustainability reporting is influenced

primarily by the explanatory variables included in the model. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value of 5.628

for both independent variables shows that multicollinearity is within an acceptable range, thereby confirming

the reliability of the estimated coefficients.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The findings reveal that board director reputational capital has a negative and statistically insignificant

relationship with sustainability reporting, leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis. This result revealed

that within Nigerian listed manufacturing firms, the reputational standing of board members does not

significantly drive the extent or quality of sustainability disclosures.

This outcome may be attributed to the fact that reputational capital alone does not necessarily translate into

proactive sustainability engagement, particularly in environments where sustainability reporting is still largely

voluntary and compliance-driven. In such contexts, directors may prioritize financial performance, regulatory

compliance, or shareholder expectations over sustainability disclosures. This finding aligns with Okpamen and

Ogbeide (2020), who argued that reputational capital does not automatically lead to enhanced transparency

unless supported by strong institutional pressures and enforcement mechanisms. Similarly, Khalaf (2024) posits

that while reputable directors possess significant social and professional capital, their influence on sustainability

reporting depends on organizational culture, regulatory frameworks and stakeholder activism. In emerging

economies like Nigeria, weak enforcement of sustainability guidelines limits the practical impact of directors’

reputational concerns on disclosure practices. However, this finding contradicts Fredriksson et al. (2020), who

reported that directors with higher reputational capital tend to promote better non-financial disclosure in

developed markets. The divergence can be explained by contextual differences, as manufacturing firms in

Nigeria often face operational challenges such as high production costs, energy constraints and regulatory

uncertainty, which overshadow reputational considerations in sustainability decision-making.

The empirical results show that board director nationality has a positive and statistically significant influence on

sustainability reporting, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. This finding indicates that manufacturing

firms with a higher proportion of foreign directors are more likely to engage in extensive ESG disclosures. This

Page 1402

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

result supports the argument that foreign directors bring international exposure, global best practices and

heightened sensitivity to sustainability standards, which positively influence corporate disclosure behavior.

The finding is consistent with Hahn and Lasfer (2016), who observed that foreign board members enhance

transparency and accountability due to their familiarity with stringent reporting regimes in developed economies.

The result also corroborates Dobija et al. (2023), who found that internationally experienced board members

positively affect the scope and quality of non-financial disclosures. In the Nigerian manufacturing context,

foreign directors may advocate for sustainability reporting to align firms with global supply chain requirements,

attract foreign investment and enhance corporate legitimacy.

Furthermore, Uwaifo and Okoh (2024), in their study on Nigerian firms, reported that board nationality diversity

significantly improves sustainability reporting, emphasizing the role of international perspectives in

strengthening governance and disclosure practices. From a theoretical standpoint, this finding aligns with

stakeholder theory which posits that firms respond to broader stakeholder expectations when governance

structures incorporate diverse viewpoints.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

This study concludes that corporate governance mechanisms play a significant role in shaping sustainability

reporting practices among listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Specifically, board director nationality was

found to have a positive and statistically significant effect on sustainability reporting, indicating that firms with

a higher proportion of foreign directors tend to provide more extensive environmental, social and governance

(ESG) disclosures. This suggests that international board diversity enhances transparency, global best-practice

adoption and compliance with sustainability reporting standards.

Conversely, board director reputational capital exhibited a negative but statistically insignificant relationship

with sustainability reporting. This finding implies that, within the Nigerian manufacturing sector, directors’

reputational standing alone does not substantially influence the level of sustainability disclosure, possibly due to

stronger regulatory, institutional, or operational factors shaping reporting behavior.

The study demonstrates that board composition matters more than individual reputation in driving sustainability

reporting outcomes. The results underscore the importance of strengthening corporate governance structures

particularly through board diversity to promote credible and comprehensive sustainability reporting. These

findings provide valuable insights for regulators, policymakers and firm owners seeking to enhance sustainable

business practices and long-term value creation within Nigeria’s manufacturing industry.

Recommendations

Based on the study’s findings we recommend as follows:

1. Given that board director reputational capital was found to have no significant influence on sustainability

reporting, manufacturing firms should complement reputational considerations with formal sustainability

governance structures, such as dedicated ESG committees and clearly defined sustainability reporting

responsibilities. Regulators should also strengthen sustainability disclosure guidelines to ensure that

directors’ reputations are reinforced by enforceable reporting standards rather than relying on personal

standing alone.

2. In view of the significant positive effect of board director nationality on sustainability reporting,

manufacturing firms should encourage greater board nationality diversity, particularly by appointing

directors with international exposure and sustainability expertise. This will enhance the adoption of

global best practices, improve ESG disclosure quality and increase the firms’ competitiveness in

international markets.

Page 1403

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

REFERENCES

1. Abdelkader, D., & Gao, Y. (2023). Board nationality diversity, foreign ownership and ESG disclosure:

Evidence from South Africa. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 50, 100540.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2023.100540

2. Agama, A. E., & Zubairu, U. M. (2022). Sustainability reporting and firm performance in Nigeria.

Journal of Accounting and Management, 12(2), 45–60.

3. Aifuwa, H. O., Embele, K., & Saidu, M. (2022). Corporate governance attributes and sustainability

reporting in emerging economies. Asian Journal of Economics and Business Accounting, 22(4), 112–

128.

4. Ali, S., Hussain, A., & Zhang, J. (2025). Measuring ESG disclosure using content analysis: Evidence

from emerging markets. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 16(1), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-2024-0037

5. Barker, R. (2025). Corporate reporting and sustainability. Oxford University Press.

6. Bravo-Urquiza, F., & Reguera-Alvarado, N. (2025). Busy directors, reputational capital and ESG

disclosure: Symbolic or substantive sustainability? Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(2), 911–

928. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3521

7. Chen, J., Li, Z., & Wang, Y. (2024). Board diversity and sustainability performance: International

evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 32(1), 78–96.

https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12415

8. Danescu, T., Prozan, M., & Spatacean, O. (2021). External corporate governance mechanisms and firm

transparency. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), 256–274.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1860793

9. Fatounde, O. A., & Ogbeide, S. O. (2025). Corporate governance mechanisms and sustainability

reporting practices. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 25(12), 340–355.

10. Fredriksson, A., Kahn, C., & Thompson, R. (2020). Director reputation and corporate governance

outcomes. Journal of Corporate Finance, 62, 101595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101595

11. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

12. Hahn, P. D., & Lasfer, M. (2016). The impact of foreign directors on board effectiveness. Journal of

Business Ethics, 133(3), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2403-3

13. Hameed, A., Qureshi, M. I., & Aslam, H. (2023). Board diversity and ESG disclosure: Evidence from

developing economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 385, 135674.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135674

14. Khalaf, B. A. (2024). Corporate governance quality and sustainability reporting adoption. Journal of

Accounting in Emerging Economies, 14(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-2023-0062

15. Khatri, N., Gupta, R., & Varshney, P. (2025). Board independence and ethical governance. Corporate

Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 25(1), 134–150.

https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-2024-0031

16. Khuong, N. V., Liem, N. T., & Minh, M. T. (2021). Director reputation and disclosure quality. Journal

of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 19(3), 410–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-2020-0124

17. Martin, G., & Herrero, B. (2018). Board nationality diversity and firm outcomes. European Management

Journal, 36(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.07.002

18. Moran-Muñoz, D., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2024). Board diversity and human

rights disclosure in Europe. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 37(1), 56–83.

https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-2023-0187

19. Nafiu, A. T., Salami, K. A., & Ahmed, A. B. (2024). Corporate governance mechanisms and corporate

disclosure in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Management Studies, 19(2), 101–120.

20. Naim, M. A., & Alomair, M. O. (2024). International board members and sustainability disclosure.

Journal of Business Ethics, 191(2), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05491-2

21. Okpamen, J., & Ogbeide, S. O. (2020). Reputational capital and corporate governance in Nigeria.

International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 14(3), 289–305.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2020.108912

Page 1404

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026

22. Piñeiro-Chousa, J., Vizcaíno-González, M., & López-Cabarcos, M. Á. (2025). Director experience,

multiple directorships and ESG performance. Sustainability, 17(3), 1210.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031210

23. Rivo-López, E., Villanueva-Villar, M., & Caby, J. (2025). Board nationality diversity and sustainability

disclosure in emerging markets. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(4), 2011–2029.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3649

24. Sani, A. A., Musa, I. U., & Yahaya, K. A. (2022). Sustainability disclosure practices in the Nigerian

insurance sector. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(4), 1032–1050.

https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1913437

25. Santoso, A. H., Prabowo, M. A., & Nugroho, P. I. (2025). Board diversity and ESG transparency. Asian

Review of Accounting, 33(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-2024-0056

26. Savitri, E., & Suhari, E. (2023). Corporate governance mechanisms and accountability. Journal of Asian

Finance, Economics and Business, 10(5), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2023.vol10.no5.0019

27. Siddiqui, S. S., Jamali, D., & Ahmed, A. (2023). Director reputation and sustainability accountability.

Corporate Governance: An International Review, 31(6), 1021–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12407

28. Sundarasen, S. (2024). Board diversity and ESG disclosure: A global synthesis. Sustainability

Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(2), 215–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-2023-

0121

29. Tham, J., Cheung, A., & Lo, K. (2025). Board multiple directorships and carbon reduction initiatives.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 402, 136927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.136927

30. Urban, B. (2019). Corporate governance frameworks and stakeholder protection. Journal of Governance

and Regulation, 8(3), 58–67.

31. Xu, X., Magnan, M., & André, P. (2024). Stakeholder theory and ESG disclosure quality. Accounting

Perspectives, 23(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12309

32. Yahaya, K. A., & Alkasim, A. (2022). Sustainability performance and profitability of insurance firms in

Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 14(1), 1–12.

33. Zvinowanda, L., Nyide, C., & Moyo, V. (2024). Board nationality diversity and shareholder value

creation. South African Journal of Business Management, 55(1), a4212.

https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v55i1.4212