American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR)

e-ISSN :2378-703X
Volume-5, Issue-7, pp-179-187
www.ajhssr.com
Research Paper Open Access

GREEN ACCOUNTING REPORTING AND FINANCIAL

PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN
NIGERIA
Eze Emmanuel
Department of Accounting Rhema University, Nigeria

ABSTRACT: This study examined green accounting disclosure and its effect on financial performance of listed
manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Particularly, the study examined the effect of green accounting disclosure on
ROA, ROE and share price of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The ex-post facto research design was employed.
Data from the annual reports of forty out of the sixty-six manufacturing companies listed in the Nigerian Stock
Exchange as at 31st December 2019 for the period spanning 2010 – 2019 were used. The descriptive statistics
and the panel regression methods were employed for the data analysis. The Arellano and Bond (1991) GMM
estimator which controls for potential endogeneity problem was employed to ensure robustness of the
parameter. The study findings revealed that green accounting disclosure had a positive significant effect each on
ROA and ROE. However, a negative effect subsists between green accounting disclosure and share price of
manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The findings recommend that manufacturing firms are encouraged to increase
the extent of their green accounting activities for ease of assessment by stakeholders for investment decision
making. Furthermore, the government should strictly enforce green accounting disclosure practice by ensuring
that firms that are going public should comply with this practice in line with the GRI benchmark so as to obviate
the skewed spirit of free-market individualism.
Key words: Green accounting, financial performance, Return on asset, Return on Equity, GRI.

I. INTRODUCTION
The spate of environmental disruption or environmental footprint grows by the day and could be traced
to a leap in industrial revolution of late 18 th century when the use of mechanized system or technology began to
take over from the traditional approach of doing things in organizations. Firms report the economic or financial
results of their operations but fail to recognize the effect of their economic actions on the environment. Green
accounting is a type of accounting which attempts to integrate environmental costs into the financial operations
of public interest entities, showing the ability to make money and also improve people’s lives and the planet.
Financial performance communicates the financial health of an organization measured from the purview of
liquidity, gearing, growth opportunity, Profitability, particularly, return on total assets and return on equity.
Performance is therefore considered from efficient resource allocation which integrates environmental costs and
profitability.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

In Nigeria, green accounting is not a mandatory requirement for firms that are listed in the nation’s
stock market. Despite the voluntary disclosure, Studies have shown the existence of a positive link between
green accounting disclosures and profitability of firms (Ogoun & Ekpulu, 2020; Menike, 2020). However, quite
a few other studies maintain that a negative or mixed association exists between green accounting and financial
performance of entities ( Azzam & Alqudah, 2020; Dibia & Onwuchekwa, 2015) .Discrepancies in findings and
submissions from majority of these studies could partly be attributed to contemporary developments and partly
to different statistical test techniques employed by the researchers. These mixed and inconclusive findings
elicited the researcher to conduct this study as an addition to the existing body of knowledge.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Green accounting is a subset of sustainability reporting. In research and accounting literature, green
accounting is often and variously used as sustainability report, corporate social and environmental disclosure,
corporate environmental report among others (Ogoun & Ekpulu, 2020). Despite the differences in taxonomy,
green accounting is viewed from the prism of all inclusive or full costing as the practice of providing accurate
AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 179
 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

information in organisations’ annual reports and accounts for the probable social costs arising from
neighbourhood effect upon the environment. According to Makori and Jagongo (2013), this is a deliberate
intervention cost incurred in order to bridge the gap between marginal social cost and private costs. It is a
method by which information covering the degree of environmental activities of firms is reported to different
stakeholders including employees, shareholders, consumers, local communities, government and environmental
groups or concerned NGOs (GRI, 2011). Green accounting reporting is all encompassing and forms an integral
part of sustainable development goals set to be achieved by members of the United Nations in 2030.

Return on Equity
This ratio measures the overall performance of an entity; it shows the earning power of investors’ book
value, often used in comparing two or more entities in an industry. A high return on equity is an indication that
an entity accepts a strong investment opportunities and employs effective expense management. Return on
equity is net profit after tax and preference dividend scaled by the number of shares. Studies have shown that
green accounting practices increased earnings of firms. Uadiale and Fagbemi (2012) in their study revealed that
corporate social spending improves the return on equity of firms. Yusoff and Adamu (2016) reported a positive
relationship existing between corporate responsibility and return on equity. However, the empirical review
shows varying results on the relationship between environmental accounting and firm performance. It can thus
be hypothesized as follows:
HO1 : There is no significant relationship between green accounting reporting and return on equities of
manufacturing firms quoted on the Nigerian Stock Exchange Markets.

Return on Assets
As one of the traditional accounting and profitability measures employed to measure financial
performance, return on assets shows whether a company is able to generate an adequate return on the assets
employed. In a study on environmental disclosure and financial performance of food and beverage companies in
Nigeria by Ezeagba, John-Akamelu and Umeoduagu (2017), it was revealed that there is a significant
relationship between environmental accounting disclosure and return on assets. Thus the second hypothesis can
be stated as follows:
H02: There is no significant relationship between green accounting reporting and return on assets of listed
manufacturing firms on the Nigerian Stock Exchange Market.

Share Price
Share price is the value attached to a unit of a share which can be nominal or market value. It is on this
share price movement that the investors expect their returns in the form of dividend representing the proportion
of residual income attributable to investors as returns on their investment. Studies have shown that dividend
payment influences value of firms (Habumugisha & Mulyungi, 2018; Akinkoye & Akinadewo, 2018;
Yustisiana, 2017). In line with the VDT theory, it has been argued that firms would make higher and more
objective environmental or green accounting and social disclosures, in order to benefit from higher share prices
despite the associated proprietary costs (Verrecchia, 1983, 2001). However, in another study by Adediran and
Alade (2013) to ascertain if there is any significant relationship between environmental accounting disclosure
and financial performance in Nigeria using earnings per share as proxy for performance, the result showed a
significant negative relationship between environmental accounting disclosures and earnings per share.
Based on the preceding argument, the third hypothesis would be:
HO3: Green accounting disclosure does not have a positive and significant effect on share price of manufacturing
firms.

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical foundation of this work rests on the ‘stakeholders’ theory’ which holds that
organizations should take into account, the interest of the society and environment while pursuing their primary
economic objective of profitability. The stakeholders’ theory was gleaned from two theories and opines that
there is a correlation ship between corporate environmental performance and corporate financial performance.
The instrumental theory is an economic theory that predicts and establishes a linearity effect as a consequence of
management decision (Jones, 1998). The ethical or descriptive theory proposes that managers should put the
interest of the stakeholders first than increasing the value of the firm. The aim of this paper is to investigate the
effect of green accounting disclosure indicator or environmental disclosure and financial performance using
return on asset, return on equity and share price of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. ‘

Empirical Review

AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 180

 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

Ogoun and Ekpulu (2020) conducted an investigation on how environmental reporting by firms
operating within the manufacturing sector in Nigeria affects their operational performance. The study employed
the panel research design and the Hausman test to select the appropriate model for the ten years study, covering
2009 to 2018. The result showed the existence of a positive effect between environmental reporting and firms’
operational or financial performance.
Yang and Yi Li (2020) carried out a study on the impact of environmental information disclosure on
the firm value of listed manufacturing firms in China between 2006 and 2016. The dataset were analysed using
the difference- in–differences (DID) model and the propensity score matching method (PSM) and the result
showed that Environmental Information Disclosure Measure for Trial Implementation (EIDMT) exerts a
significant impact on the listed manufacturing firms’ value
Solomon (2020) carried out a literature review on environmental disclosure and financial performance
of listed oil and gas companies in Nigeria. Performance was proxied by return on asset, return on equity,
earnings per share, cash flow and profit margin. The findings revealed a mixed outcome of a negative and
positive relationship.
Okafor (2018) conducted a study on oil and gas companies quoted in Nigerian stock Exchange to
ascertain the effect of environmental cost on firm performance from 2006 to 2015. Return on asset was used as a
measure of performance and regression analysis was used with the aid of special package for social sciences
(SPSS) to carry out the statistical analysis. The result showed that better environmental performance influences
organizations positively.
Egbunike and Okoro (2018) carried out an investigation on whether green accounting matters to the
profitability of Nigerian firms or not. Secondary data were extracted from the annual reports and accounts of
non-consumer goods firms listed on the Nigeria Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2016. The data were analysed
using canonical correlation and the result revealed green accounting has significant effect on profitability
among non-consumer goods firms.
Nnamani, Onyekwelu and Ugwu (2017), used the brewery sector to conduct a study on the effect of
sustainability accounting on the financial performance of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Secondary data
for the study were obtained from the annual reports and accounts of three brewery firms quoted on the Nigerian
Stock Exchange for the total asset, return on equity, the total personnel cost to turnover and return on assets.
The data set obtained was analyzed by using the ordinary least square estimation technique. The result showed
that green accounting disclosure or environmental disclosure has a positive and significant effect on the firms’
performance financial.
Jero and Okoro (2016) evaluated the effect of environmental and dismantling costs on a firm’s
performance among selected firms in the oil and gas companies. The result of the application of the ordinary
least square in the data analysis showed that environmental and dismantling costs show a positive influence on
the financial performance of the firm. The control variable and the firm’s size were found to have a negative and
significant effect on the performance of the firm.

III. METHODOLOGY
This paper explored the effect of green accounting on the financial performance of manufacturing firms
in Nigeria. In a bid to achieve this, the expo-facto research design was employed on the condition that the data
already exist and the researcher has no control as to manipulate the variables. A sample size of forty
manufacturing firms were purposively chosen out of a population of sixty-six listed manufacturing firms in
Nigerian stock Exchange as at 31st December, 2019 (NSE Fact Book, 2020). The figures for return on assets,
return on equity, share price, leverage and firm size, being proxies for financial performance and control
variables were calculated from the data extracted from the Annual Reports and Financial Statements (2010-
2019) of the companies under investigation. Data on environmental disclosure were obtained using the content
analysis disclosure index approach with a focus on environmental policies; raw materials, conservation and
recycling; environmental protection program; awards of environmental protection and support for public/private
action designed to protect the environment.

Model Specification
The model used a single independent variable, green accounting disclosure or environmental disclosure
and three dependent variables; return on asset, return on equity and share price as proxies for financial
performance while firm size and leverage were introduced as control variables. The models examine the effect
of environmental disclosure on corporate financial performance and are presented below;
CFPit = f(ENVit,) ..................................................................................................... (i)
The linear form specification is presented below where corporate financial performance is measured using
return on assets (ROA), Return on equity (ROE) and share price as shown below.
ROEit = βoit + β1ENVit + β2FSIZEit + LEV3it +µit------------------------------------------ (ii)

AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 181

 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

ROAit = βoit + β1ENVit + β2FSIZEit + LEV3it +µit------------------------------------------ (iii)

SPit = βoit + β1ENVit + β2FSIZEit + LEV3it +µit--------------------------------------------- (iv)
Where: ROE = Return on equity; ROA= Return on asset; SP= Share price; ENV= Environmental accounting
disclosure; FSIZE= Firm size; LEV= LEVERAGE; βoit= Intercept; βo1-3 = Coefficients; µit = Error term
Results and Discussion of Findings

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

Mean Max Min Std. Dev. Jarque-Bera Prob
SP 34.48802 1555.99 0.5 115.0286 183895.3 0.000
ENVD 0.181373 1 0 0.385642 292.7556 0.000
LEV 0.586373 2.03 0 0.236074 492.81 0.000
FSIZE 7.059722 9.22 5.09 0.781306 7.541791 0.023
ROE 0.239651 2.5496 0.04 0.283278 2265.714 0.000
ROA 0.493801 2.966 0.006 0.302815 1856.99 0.000
Source: Researcher’s compilation (2020) using Eviews 10.0.

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the variables and is observed as follows: the mean for the
share price is 34.124, with a standard deviation of 126.20, an indication of the presence of volatility in the share
price behaviour of the distribution of companies. The price of the shares ranges from the minimum of 0.5 to a
maximum of 1555.99. The maximum and minimum values stood between 2.549 and 0. The mean for
environmental disclosure is 0.1813 which implies that a very small number of firms about 18.13% in the
distribution disclose on environmental related matters in their annual reports. The mean for ROE is 0.2396 with
a standard deviation of 0.282. The mean for firm size (FSIZE) as measured using the log of total assets is 7.057,
with a standard deviation of 0.781. The average value for leverage is 0.586, with a standard deviation of 0.236.

Table 2: Pearson Correlation

ENVD ROE ROA SP LEV FSIZE
ENVD 1
ROE 0.0418 1
p-value 0.2979

ROA -0.04775 -0.0396 1

p-value 0.2352 0.324

SP 0.2761* -0.1212* -0.00536 1

p-value 0.000 0.0025 0.8941

LEV 0.0061 -0.0178 -0.01167 0.073505 1

p-value 0.8781 0.6581 0.7719 0.0674

FSIZE 0.2279* -0.157* 0.050545 0.3331* 0.1053* 1

p-value 0.000 0.0001 0.2088 0.000 0.0087
Source: Researcher’s compilation (2020) using Eviews 10.0

The Pearson correlation result examines the relationship between CSR dimensions and corporate
financial performance measures and shows that ENVD is positively correlated with ROE (r= 0.0418) though not
significant at 5% (p=0.2979), negatively correlated with ROA (r=-0.04775) though not significant at 5%
(p=0.2352). ENVD is positively correlated with SP (r=0.2761) and significant at 5% (p=0.000) and negatively
correlated with EPS (-0.0288) though not significant at 5% (p=0.4746). The correlation analysis provides insight
into the direction and degree of the relationship between the variables. However, it is limited in its inferential
capacity as it does necessarily imply functional dependence between the variables. Regression estimations are
more suited for this purpose.

AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 182

 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

Table 3: Variance Inflation Factor Test

Variable VIF
ENVD 2.207941
FSIZE 2.144613
LEV 1.619738
Source: Researcher’s compilation (2020)

The variance inflation factor (VIF) explains how much of the variance of a coefficient estimate of a
regressor has been inflated, as a result of collinearity with the other regressors. Essentially, VIFs above 10 are
seen as a cause of concern. As observed, none of the variables have VIF’s values more than 10 and hence none
gave serious indication of multicollinearity.

Regression Analysis
The regression analysis was conducted to identify the relationship between the dependent and
independent variables and to provide the relevant statistics for assessing the performance of the specified model
in the previous chapter and for the testing of the hypotheses raised in the study.
The panel regression estimation is employed in this study and the fixed and random effects estimates are
presented and based on the hausman test, the suitable estimates was selected and utilized in the inferential
analysis. The Arellano and Bond (1991) GMM estimator which controls for potential endogeneity problem is
also employed and thus providing a more robust estimation parameter.

Table 4: Environmental Disclosure and Share Price Results

Variable Aprori FE RE Arrelano and Bond
Sign Estimates Estimates GMM
Estimates
C -178.47* -255.59* -127.0343
(9.699) (46.590) (19.486)
{0.000) {0.000} {0.000}
ENVD 2.1591 3.7832 17.5513*
+ (0.5609) (8.4226) (9.2354)
{0.000} {0.6535} {0.0080}
LEV 4.7501* 5.6542 21.1603*
+ (0.7864) (13.0538) (10.2831)
{0.000} {0.6651} {0.0402}
FSIZE 29.907* 37.9588* 18.41752*
+ (1.3218) (5.9718) (2.3896)
{0.000} {0.000} {0.0000}
Model Parameters
R2 0.6424 0.0739 0.2976
Adjusted R2 0.6111 0.066 0.2896
F-statistic 26.862 9.929
Prob(F-stat) 0.000 0.00
Durbin-Watson 1.7 1.926
Model Diagnostics
Hausman 0.042
Ramsey Reset test 0.425
Period Hetero.Test 0.209
Cross-section 0.120
Hetero.Test
Pesaran CD for 0.106
serial correlation
Instrument Rank 10
j-statistics 5.8395
Prob-j-stat 0.21146
AR(1) 0.0491
AR(2) 0.8165
Source: Researcher’s compilation (2020). * sig @ 5%, **sig@10%

AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 183

 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

Table 4. Shows the regression results examining the impact of environmental disclosures on SP. The
Hausman test statistic p-value = 0.042 indicates that the FE is the preferred model to the random effects and
hence the FE estimation results are reported for the analysis in the study. The white adjusted standard errors
were employed to control for potential heteroskedasticity in the estimation and hence the estimation results are
free from heteroskedasticity. Both panel period heteroskedasticity [p=0.209] and cross-sectional
heteroskedasticity [p=0.120] was examined and the estimations were found to be free from such. The Peseran
cross-dependence test [p=0.106] was employed to confirm the threat of the serial correlation in the errors and
the statistic reveals the absence of cross-section dependence in the residuals. The FE estimates shows that R2 is
0.6424 with a degree of freedom adjusted the R2 of 61.1%. The F-stat is 26.862 (p-value = 0.00) is significant at
5% and suggest that the hypothesis of a significant linear relationship between the dependent and independent
variables cannot be rejected. It is also indicative of the joint statistical significance of the model.
The analysis of coefficients reveals ENVD has a positive (2.1591) effect on SP and statistically
significant at 5% (p=0.000). Looking at the control variables, FSIZE has a positive beta (29.907) and
statistically significant (p=0.000) and LEV also shows a positive coefficient (4.7501) and significant at 5%. .
The Arellano and bond estimation results show that the coefficient for ENVD is higher (17.5513) significant
effect (p=0.058) on SP at 5%, One point to be emphasised for the GMM estimation results is the J-stat test of
over-identifying restrictions and the Arellano-Bond test for autocorrelation error. The J-stat tests yield all p-
values above 0.10, which means that a null hypothesis could not be rejected. Hence, over identification
restrictions are valid. The AR (1) tests indicate that the residuals in first differences are correlated as expected,
while the AR(2) tests give p-values above 0.10, which means that a null hypothesis of no second-order serial
correlation could not be rejected. Therefore, all results of the GMM model are valid. The Ramsey Reset Test
for model specification confirms the absence of misspecification errors [p=0.425].

Table 5: ENVD and ROA Results

Variable Aprori FE RE GMM
Sign Estimates Estimates Estimates
C 0.41592* 0.4566* -0.80587*
(0.07241) (0.4536) (0.09233)
{0.000) {0.0023} {0.000}
ENVD 0.02516* 0.0030 -0.2769*
+ (0.0112) (0.0107) (0.0416)
{0.0051} {0.7772} {0.000}
LEV -0.0105 -0.01603 -0.0026
+ (0.0065) (0.0270) (0.0333)
{0.1063} {0.5540} {0.9378}
FSIZE 0.0075 -0.0039 0.0758*
+ (0.0071) (0.0177) (0.0187)
{0.2928} {0.8263} {0.0001}
Model Parameters
R2 0.6936 0.0734 0.358
Adjusted R2 0.6901 0.066 0.112
F-statistic 195.12 9.895
Prob(F-stat) 0.000 0.00 0.000
Durbin-Watson 2.1 1.97 2.071
Model Diagnostics
Hausman 0.006
Ramsey Reset test 0.410
Period Hetero.Test 0.81
Cross-section 0.431
Hetero.Test
Pesaran CD for 0.571
serial correlation
Instrument Rank 8
j-statistics 3.0344
Prob-j-stat 0.2193
AR(1) 0.0023
AR(2) 0.274
Source: Researcher’s compilation (2020) using Eviews 10.0. * sig @ 5%, **sig@10%

AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 184

 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

Table 5 shows the regression results examining the impact of CSR on Return on assets (ROA). From
the Hausman test statistic p-value = 0.006, the FE is the preferred model estimates between the fixed and
random effect estimations. Both panel period heteroskedasticity [p=0.81] and cross-sectional heteroskedasticity
[p=0.431] was examined and the estimations were found to be free from such. The Peseran cross-dependence
test [p=0.571] was employed to confirm the threat of the serial correlation in the errors and the statistic reveals
the absence of cross-section dependence in the residuals. The FE estimates shows that R2 is 0.6936 with a degree
of freedom adjusted the R2 of 0.6901 which explains the extent to which the explanatory variable are able to
account for systematic variations in the dependent variables. The F-stat is 195.12 (p-value = 0.00) is significant
at 5% and suggest that the hypothesis of a significant linear relationship between the dependent and independent
variables cannot be rejected. It is also indicative of the joint statistical significance of the model. The analysis of
coefficients reveals Environmental disclosures has a positive (0.0251) impact on ROA and also significant
(p=0.0051) at 5%.
Looking at the control variables, none of FSIZE and LEV showed any statistical significance in their
effects. Though the FE models mainly control for unobserved heterogeneity, they do not account for the
endogeneity problem (Cameron & Trivedi 2005). To deal with this issue the Arellano and Bond (1991) GMM
estimator controls for potential endogeneity problem. The arrelano and bond estimation results show substantial
difference from the FE estimations which stronger beta’s and confirming that the arrelano and bond estimations
results after correcting for endogeneity are more impressive. The result reveals that ENVD has a positive impact
(0.6625) on ROA which is significant (p=0.00) at 5% The J-stat test of over-identifying restrictions and the
Arellano-Bond test for autocorrelation error are examined. The J-stat tests yield all p-values above 0.10, which
means that a null hypothesis could not be rejected. Hence, over identification restrictions are valid. The AR(1)
tests indicate that the residuals in first differences are correlated as expectation, while the AR(2) tests give p-
values above 0.10, which means that a null hypothesis of no second-order serial correlation could not be
rejected. Therefore, all results of the GMM model are valid.

Table 6: ENVD and ROE Results

Variable Aprori FE RE GMM
Sign Estimates Estimates Estimates
C 0.26889* 0.5455* 0.33201*
(0.0173) (0.1134) (0.1139)
{0.0000) {0.000} {0.0039)
ENVD 0.02226* 0.07414** 0.1061*
+ (0.0097) (0.0408) (0.0326)
{0.0221} {0.0696} {0.0013}
LEV -0.00486 0.00208 0.04811*
+ (0.00354) (0.02327) (0.0433)
{0.1706} {0.9288} {0.2682}
FSIZE -0.0042* -0.03699* -0.0837*
+ (0.00117) (0.01360) (0.008)
{0.0003} {0.0067} {0.000}
AR(1) 0.1273* -0.0693 0.22573*
+ (0.0467) (0.0500) (0.0282)
{0.0066} {0.1666} {0.0000}
Model Parameters
R2 0.669 0.0238 0.537
Adjusted R2 0.663 0.0159 0.5215
F-statistic 161.852 3.0318
Prob(F-stat) 0.000 0.0103
Durbin-Watson 1.9 1.46
Model Diagnostics
Hausman 0.0119
Ramsey Reset test 0.04
Period Hetero.Test 0.738
Cross-section 0.265
Hetero.Test
Pesaran CD for 0.381
serial correlation
Instrument Rank 8

AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 185

 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

j-statistics 4.4427
Prob-j-stat 0.731
AR(1) 0.392
AR(2) 0.681
Source: Researcher’s compilation (2020) using Eviews 10.0 * sig @ 5%, **sig@10%

Table 4.6 show the regression results examining the impact of CSR on Return on equity (ROE). From
the Hausman test statistic p-value = 0.0119, the FE is the preferred model estimates between the fixed and
random effect estimations. Both panel period heteroskedasticity [p=0.738] and cross-sectional heteroskedasticity
[p=0.265] was examined and the estimations were found to be free from such. The Peseran cross-dependence
test [p=0.381] was employed to confirm the threat of the serial correlation in the errors and the statistic reveals
the absence of cross-section dependence in the residuals. The FE estimates shows that R2 is 0.669 with a degree
of freedom adjusted the R2 of 0.663 which explains the extent to which the explanatory variable are able to
account for systematic variations in the dependent variables. The F-stat is 161.852 (p-value = 0.00) is
significant at 5% and suggest that the hypothesis of a significant linear relationship between the dependent and
independent variables cannot be rejected. It is also indicative of the joint statistical significance of the model.
The analysis of coefficients reveals EVD has a positive (0.0251) impact on ROE and also significant (p=0.0221)
at 5%. Looking at the control variables, FSIZE showed statistical significance. The arrelano and bond estimation
results show that ENVD has a positive beta (0.1061) and significant (p=0.000) at 5%. The J-stat test for over-
identifying restrictions and the Arellano-Bond test for autocorrelation error are examined. The J-stat tests yield
all p-values above 0.10, which means that a null hypothesis could not be rejected. Hence, over identification
restrictions are valid. The AR (1) tests indicate that the residuals in first differences are correlated as
expectation, while the AR(2) tests give p-values above 0.10, which means that a null hypothesis of no second-
order serial correlation could not be rejected. Therefore, all results of the GMM model are valid.
Hypotheses Testing
From the results in table 4, the analysis of coefficients reveals Environmental disclosure impact on SP
is not significant at 5% though with a negative (-1.5786) coefficient. Furthermore, the Arrelano and bond
estimation results reveals that the coefficient for ENVD is higher (17.5513) significant effect (p=0.058) on SP at
5%. Consequently, on the basis of the arrelano and bond GMM estimation, the null hypothesis that
environmental disclosure has no significant effect on share price rejected.
Table 5 shows the regression results examining the impact of environmental disclosures on Return on assets
(ROA). The analysis of Fixed effects coefficients reveals that Environmental disclosures has a positive (0.0251)
impact on ROA and significant (p=0.0251) at 5%. The analysis of the coefficients reveals Environmental
disclosure has a negative beta (-0.2769) and significant (p=0.000) at 5%. Consequently, on the basis of the
arrelano and bond GMM estimation, the null hypothesis that environmental disclosures has no significant effect
on Return on assets (ROA) is rejected.
Finally, Table 6 shows the regression results examining the effect environmental disclosure has a positive
(0.0251) impact on ROE and also significant (p=0.0221) at 5%. The arrelano and bond GMM estimation results
show reveals Environmental disclosure has a positive beta (0.1061) and significant (p=0.000) at 5%.
Consequently, the null hypothesis that Environmental disclosure has no significant effect on Return on Equity
(ROE) is rejected.
Discussion of Findings
This study examined the effect of green accounting disclosure on the financial performance of
manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The study analysis revealed that green accounting was found to have a positive
reggressor for ROA and ROE respectively. These findings agree with the study of Ekpulu and Ogoun (2020);
Yang and Yi Li (2020) who examined the impact of environmental information disclosure on the firm value of
listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria and China respectively and found a positive relationship. However, the
study findings is not in tandem with the findings of Solomon (2020) who examined the effect of environmental
disclosure on financial performance of listed oil and gas companies in Nigeria and found a negative
relationship. The inconsistency in findings is attributed to the different sectors under which the studies were
conducted.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In the recent times, green accounting report was not popular among firms which may be attributed to
the low level of awareness of its advantage to the firms and the host communities’ docility towards the
neighbourhood effect being orchestrated by the activities of the firms. However, findings from this study show a
positive correlation ship between green accounting and financial performance of firms because of their
engagement in environmental activities. According to the Global initiative (2011), there has been a paradigm
shift in financial reporting of firms by the integration of green accounting to balance their reportage. Green
accounting is known to have developed rather voluntarily in the recent past and this implies that a firm can
AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 186
 American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2021

decide what to report or may decide not to. This practice calls for a reporting benchmark so that decision makers
and other users of financial statements of firms would be able to make valid decisions.
Based on our findings, we recommend that manufacturing firms in Nigeria should increase the extent
of their green accounting activities and that there should be need for effective regulation of green accounting
practices in Nigeria to obviate the system of skewed spirit of free-market individualism. Government can
enforce uniformity in green accounting reporting by making GRI a mandatory requirement for firms wishing to
go public.
For further studies, researchers should adopt the modern performance methods such as economic value added,
market value added and tobins q ratio as proxy for performance.

REFERENCES
[1] Adediran, S.A. Alade S. O., & Adediran, S.A(2013). The Impact Of Environmental Accounting on
Corporate Performance In Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management. 5(23), 141-
151.
[2] Akinkoye, E. Y. & Akinadewo, I. S. (2018). Retained earnings and firm market value: Nigeria
Experience. The Business and Management Review 9(3):482-496.
Andreas,L.(2019). Conceptual Framework of Green Accounting
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333384989.
[3] Azzam, M., Alaa, A., Haija, A. A., & Shakhatreh, M. (2020). The Association Between Sustainability
Disclosures and the Financial Performance of Jordanian Firm.Cogent Business & Management, 7(1),
1-13
[4] Dibia, N. O., & Onwuchekwa, J. C. (2015). Determinants of environmental disclosures in Nigeria: A
case study of oil and gas companies. International Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(3), 145-
152.
[5] Egbunike & Okoro (2018). Does green accounting matter to the profitability of firms? A Canonical
Assessment. Ekonomski Horizonti, 20(1), 17-26.
[6] Ezeagbea, C. E., John-Akamelu, C. R., & Umeoduagu, C. (2017). Environmental accounting disclosures
and financial performance: A study of selected food and beverage companies in Nigeria.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(9), 162-174.
[7] GRI( 2011). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Version 3.1., Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.
[8] Habumugisha T & Mulyungi P (2018). Effect of corporate dividend policyon performance of stock
prices in Rwanda Stock Exchange. Case study of Bank of Kigali as listed on
[9] Rwanda Stock Exchange (2011-2016).International Journal of Research in Management, Economics
and Commerce, 8(5):183-193.
[10] Jeroh, E., & Okoro, G. E. (2016). Effect of environmental and dismantling costs on firm performance
among selected oil and gas companies in Nigeria. Sahel Analyst: Journal of Management
Sciences, 14(5), 14-26.
[11] Jones T. M. (1998). Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics". The
Corporation and Its Stakeholders, edited by Max Clarkson, Toronto: University of Toronto
(2016). Press, 205-242. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442673496-012
[12] Makori, D. M., & Jagongo, A. (2013). Environmental accounting and firm profitability: An empirical
analysis of selected firms listed in Bombay Stock Exchange, India. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 3(18), 248-256.
[13] Menike L. (2020). Impact of Environmental Disclosure on Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis of
Food, Beverage and Tobacco Sector Companies Listed in Colombo Stock Exchange, Sri
Lanka,L. (2020). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences.
10(10),518-536
[14] Nnamani, J. N., Onyekwelu, U. L., & Ugwu, O. K. (2017). Effect of sustainability accounting and
reporting on financial performance of firms in Nigeria brewery sector. European Journal of Business
and Innovation Research, 5(1), 1-15.
[15] Okafor, G. O. (2018). Environmental Costs Accounting and Reporting on Firm Financial Performance:
A Survey of Quoted Nigerian Oil Companies. International Journal of Finance and
Accounting, 7(1), 1-6. on sustainable development in Nigeria. Research Journal of Finance and
Accounting, 3(7).
[16] Ogoun1 S. Ekpulu G. A. (2020). Environmental Reporting and Operational Performance: A Study of
Listed Manufacturing Firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Intellectual Discourse, 3(1), 381-
396.

AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 187