IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAX POLICIES ON THE

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF QUOTED COMPANIES IN

NIGERIA

BY

LAWAL OLUWAFUNKE VICTORIA 19/66MA078

MOHAMMED KEHINDE FETEMI 19/66MA087

MUHAMMOD-RABIU MUHAMMOD O. 19/66MA089

BEING A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, ILORIN, NIGERIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) HONOURS DEGREE
IN ACCOUNTING

SUPERVISED BY: PROF. OLUBUNMI F. OSEMENE

COVER
PAGE
JULY, 2024
 ATTESTATION
We attest that this research project has been written by us, and it is a record of our own

research work. To the best of our knowledge and belief, it has not been previously

presented in any form whatsoever for the Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) Degree in

Accounting.

……………………………….. ………………………...
LAWAL, Oluwafunke Victoria Date
Matric No: 19/66MA078

………………………………… ….
………………………
MOHAMMED, Kehinde Fetemi Date
Matric No: 19/66MA087

…………………………………...
…………………………..
MUHAMMOD-RABIU, Muhammod O. Date
Matric No: 19/66MA089

ii
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this research work on “The impact of environmental tax policies on
the corporate governance of quoted companies in Nigeria”carried out by LAWAL,
Oluwafunke Victoria (19/66MA078), MOHAMMED, Kehinde Fetemi (19/66MA087)
and MUHAMMOD-RABIU, Muhammod (19/66MA089)has been read and certified to
be in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Accounting, Faculty of
Management Sciences, University of Ilorin, for the award of Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.)
Degree in Accounting.

………………………………
………………………
Prof. Olubunmi F. Osemene Date
(Project Supervisor)

………………………………
………………………
Dr. Segun Abogun Date
(Head of Department)

………………………………
………………………
Prof. R.A. Gbadeyan Date
(Dean, Faculty of Management Sciences)

iii
………………………………
………………………
Date
(External Examiner)
DEDICATION
We dedicate this project to the Almighty God who has been a source of light throughout

this journey.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We express our sincere gratitude to the Almighty God and also to Prof. Olubunmi F.

Osemene for her support and guidance throughout this project, her invaluable insights

and encouragement were essential to the completion of this project.

Our sincere appreciation to Dr. S. Abogun, Head of the Department of Accounting, for

his dedication to our academic excellence. May the Almighty bless and reward your

work. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the lecturers of Accounting

Department; Prof. S. A. Kasum, Prof. Khadijat A. Yahaya, Prof. T.A. Olaniyi, Dr. Ramat

T. Salman, Prof. S. Mubarak, Dr. E. Adigbole, Dr. O.A. Aliu, Dr. D. Bamigbade, Dr. A.

Mustapha, Dr. C.O. Olaoye and Mr. Orilonise Mubarak who have shared with us their

knowledge and understanding since we got admitted into this prestigious university till

this moment. May the Almighty perfect all their concerns. We also appreciate all non-

teaching staffs who has been working tirelessly to contribute to the success of the

program.

We also say a big thank you to our beloved parents for their support, encouragements and

sacrifices towards this journey. Thank you for believing in us and supporting our dreams,

we love you and pray that you live long to enjoy the fruits of your labors. And also, to

v
our families and friends who has supported this journey in one way or the other, may the

Almighty bless you.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE i

ATTESTATION ii

CERTIFICATION iii

DEDICATION iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES ix

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 4

1.3 Objectives of the study 6

1.4 Research questions 6

1.5 Hypotheses of the Study 7

1.6 Significance of the Study 7

1.7 Scope of the Study 8

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 11

2.1 Conceptual Review 11

2.1.1 Environmental Taxation 11

2.1.1.1 Carbon Tax 13

vii
2.1.1.2 Energy Tax 14

2.1.1.3 Pollution and Effluents Discharge Tax 15

2.1.2 Corporate Governance 16

2.1.2.1 Board Oversight 17

2.1.2.2 Disclosures & Reporting 18

2.1.2.3 Internal Control 19

2.1.2.4 Ownership Structures 20

2.2 Theoretical Review 21

2.2.1 Stakeholder Theory 21

2.2.2 Legitimacy Theory 23

2.2.3 Behavioral Theory 25

2.3 Empirical Review 27

2.3.1 Empirical evidence from Developed Countries 27

2.3.2 Empirical evidence from Emerging Countries 28

2.3.3 Empirical evidence from Nigeria 29

2.4 Research Gaps 31

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 34

3.1 Research design 34

3.2 Population 34

3.3 Sample size and Sampling Technique 35

3.4 Sources and Method of Data Collection 35

3.5 Method of Data Analysis 36

viii
3.6 Model specification 36

3.7 Variable Measurement 37

CHAPTER FOUR: 38

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 38

4.1 Introduction 38

4.2 Descriptive Statistics 38

4.3 Correlation Analysis 40

4.4 Multicollinearity Test 42

4.5 Regression Analysis 43

4.6 Test of Hypotheses 46

4.7 Discussion of Findings 48

CHAPTER FIVE: 50

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50

5.1 Summary of Findings 50

5.2 Conclusions of the Study 51

5.3 Recommendations of the Study 51

5.4 Limitations of the Study 52

5.5 Areas for Further Studies 53

REFERENCES 54

APPENDIX 59

ix
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Variable Measurement 37
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Variables 38

Table 4.2 Correlation Matrix 40

Table 4.3 Multicollinearity Test 42

Table 4.4 Regression Results 43

x
 ABSTRACTS
Environmental sustainability has emerged as a critical global priority due to the visible
impacts of climate change and ecological degradation. In Nigeria, the introduction of
environmental tax policies aims to incentivize businesses to integrate environmental
considerations into their operations. However, the impact of these policies on corporate
governance practices remains unclear, necessitating further investigation. This study
aimed to examine the impact of environmental tax policies on the corporate governance
of quoted companies in Nigeria. The research employed an ex-post facto design,
analyzing secondary data from the audited financial statements of 10 listed oil and gas
firms over a 10-year period (2013-2022). Purposive sampling was used to select firms
meeting specific criteria. The study utilized descriptive statistics, correlation analysis,
and multiple regression to analyze the data, with the corporate governance index as the
dependent variable and energy tax, pollution tax, and carbon tax as independent
variables. The findings revealed that energy tax had a significant positive effect on the
corporate governance index, while carbon tax showed a marginally significant positive
impact. Surprisingly, pollution tax did not significantly influence the corporate
governance index. The study concluded that environmental tax policies, particularly
energy and carbon taxes, play a role in shaping corporate governance practices among
quoted firms in Nigeria. Based on these results, it is recommended that policymakers
strengthen energy tax policies to further promote better corporate governance practices.
Additionally, regulatory bodies should reassess pollution tax policies to create stronger
links with corporate governance, and the government should enhance carbon tax
strategies to effectively drive improvements in corporate governance frameworks.

xi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Environmental sustainability has emerged as a crucial priority for governments,

businesses and broader society given the visible impacts of climate change, pollution,

biodiversity losses and resource depletion (Adonye et al., 2023). The heightened focus on

preserving the natural environment for intergenerational equity has brought greater

attention to the role of corporations as major contributors to ecological damage through

emissions, waste disposal and extraction activities (Aruna & Felix, 2021). Consequently,

policymakers globally have introduced various interventions to incentivize businesses to

integrate environmental considerations into operational and investment decisions.

Tax policies refers to all the decisions and directions that determines the characteristics of

a tax system and makes it possible to finance public spending and support economic

activities (Omesi & Ordu, 2022). The main function served by the tax policy is to

determine how the funds required to finance government spending will be collected so as

to ensure a stable and sufficient supply of revenues. However, there are a number of

additional functions pertaining to the roles to be played by the government in the

economy- pertaining mainly to economic regulation, income distribution and resources

allocation (Nwankwoh & Oiji-Okafor, 2023).

xii
Different types of environmental taxes are being used around the world. These include

carbon taxes on greenhouse gas emissions from activities like burning fossil fuels and

industrial processes, energy taxes on using fuel products high in carbon like gasoline,

diesel, coal, and natural gas in areas like transportation, electricity generation, and

manufacturing (OECD, 2022). There are also landfill fees on solid waste disposal to

encourage recycling, charges on industrial water pollution from textile and chemical

facilities, and fees on single-use plastic bags to reduce non-biodegradable plastic waste

(OECD, 2022). Some taxes target specific high environmental impact sectors like

aviation, shipping, steel production, and mining (OECD, 2022), while some taxes are

directly charge for emissions based on carbon content, others remove subsidies on fossil

fuels and water usage that led to overconsumption of under-priced scarce resources,

worsening environmental harm (Danmulki et al., 2022).

Managing environmental tax policies requires careful thought across many factors in

order to meet the intended goals while also considering budget aims and minimizing

disruptions to society and the economy (Olusola & Babajide, 2019).Important factors that

must be considered and tailored in advance include figuring out the best tax base, which

could include things like the amount of waste produced, the amount of emissions, or the

production of plastic bags; figuring out the best tax rate to avoid burdening consumers

unduly; providing ways to ensure compliance, such as audits and emissions monitoring;

evaluating the effects on competition to reduce the likelihood that businesses will

relocate in response to the carbon tax; and putting in place measures to counteract any

xiii
potential regressive effects on low-income households that spend a larger portion of their

income on food and energy(Olagunju& Akinde, 2020).

In the Nigerian context, the introduction of carbon taxes on fossil fuel production is to

curb gas flaring in the oil and gas sector, levies on single-use plastics and air pollution

charges on emissions by manufacturing industries forms part of national climate change

response under the 2021 Carbon Tax Act (Emmanuel &Olusayo, 2022). This followed

global advocacy and evidence that while voluntary measures secured some

improvements, legislative sticks can accelerate processes supporting Paris Agreement

Commitments and Growth Objectives under Vision 2050 given high exposure risks

(Erasmus et al., 2023). However, in addition to environmental impact, how novel green

taxes get implemented affects corporate governance and accountability mechanisms

given expanded fiduciary scope for stewardship (Eze, 2023). With greater sustainability

reporting responsibilities and transparency demands, boards oversee extended

stakeholder impact assessments, ethical sourcing policies, resource efficiency targets,

community development plans and green technology investments, mainstreaming

environmental risk management into oversight processes over and above profit goals

(Erasmus et al., 2023). Independent audits can also verify compliance on ecological

standards and help ensure more compliance by defaulting industries.

While some corporations respond defensively considering sustainability costs as

peripheral, progressive ones recognize long-term value preservation and competitive

xiv
positioning given societal expectations and global standard setting trajectories (Falope et

al., 2019). Thus, beyond minimizing tax burden, appropriately crafted environmental

levies can positively transform governance culture emphasizing holistic value creation.

However, absence of impact assessments on green tax policies in emerging markets like

Nigeria constrains evidence-based reforms that advances both ecological and economic

development goals through the corporate sector. This underscores the rationale for

investigating how environmental taxes affects governance practices.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The visible impacts of climate change evidenced by increased flooding, desertification,

heat waves and biodiversity losses coupled with polluted air in crowded cities which

affects livelihoods and public health outcomes, has brought ecological sustainability into

the mainstream policy agenda from previous peripheral considerations (Eze, 2023).

Within Nigeria specifically, the economic threats highlighted in various forecasts predicts

4.5% GDP loss by 2050 under business-as-usual greenhouse emissions scenarios that

disrupts agriculture and causes droughts (Nkwoji, 2021). This underscores the need for

urgent reforms to safeguard interconnected economic and environmental systems

supporting human welfare.

Fossil fuel dependence for electricity generation and recurring gas flaring by oil

corporations remains a key target for emissions control given in Nigeria's Paris

Agreement commitments to cut GHGs by 20% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels (NERC,

xv
2019). However, despite introduction of flaring penalties over past decades, 75%

reduction targets were missed reflecting weak enforcement and administrative lapses that

enables detrimental corporate practices with impunity (World Bank, 2022).

Manufacturing pollution incidents in coastal regions also routinely violates effluent limits

while single-use plastics litter cities despite huge health burden with mitigations

neglected for commercial expediency (Herbert et al., 2020).

These governance gaps highlights limitations of the command-and-control approaches

predominantly used over collaborative green taxation mechanisms that subtly transforms

corporate culture through positive incentives and accountability mechanisms requiring

transparency on environmental indicators which allows investors assess ecological risks

exposure and response preparedness (Kajola et al., 2023). The absence of firm-level

analysis on impacts constrains evidence-guided policy, designed fine-tuned to optimize

intended outcomes and minimize disruptions locally that aids sustainable

competitiveness.

Currently, the aspects of green tax administration like revenue usage, coverage

thresholds, compliance verification and impact monitoring remain unclear, allowing

avoidance and passing-on of supposed deterrence costs that dilutes effectiveness.

Clarifying aspects would curtail corporate greenwashing and opportunism. It also

prevents misuse of mobilized public funds from environmental tax which erodes public

trust. This study therefore seeks to provide timely evidence and recommendations that

xvi
 advances environmental sustainability practices among major carbon emitting industries

through appropriate green taxes structures that elevates governance standards.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The main objective of the study is to investigate the impact of the environmental tax

policies on the corporate governance of quoted companies in Nigeria while the specific

objectives are to:

i) determine the effect of energy tax on corporate governance index of quoted companies in

Nigeria;

ii) examine the influence of pollution tax on corporate governance index of quoted

companies in Nigeria; and

iii) evaluate the impact of carbon tax on corporate governance index of quoted companies in

Nigeria.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions were raised to achieve the objective of this study:

i) In what ways does energy tax affect measures of corporate governance index among

quoted firms in Nigeria?

ii) To what extent does pollution tax influence corporate governance index among quoted

firms in Nigeria?

iii) How does carbon tax impact corporate governance index among quoted firms in Nigeria?

xvii
 1.5 Hypotheses of the study

The following hypotheses were tested to answer the research question of this study:

H01: Energy tax has no significant effect on corporate governance index of quoted firms in

Nigeria.

H02: Pollution tax does not significantly influence corporate governance index of quoted firms

in Nigeria

H03: Carbon tax has no significant impact on corporate governance index of quoted firms in

Nigeria

1.6 Significance of the study

The findings of this study provide benefits to multiple stakeholders including

policymakers, regulators, investors, companies, executives, academics and the

environment through evidence-based insights on administering environmental tax

policies targeted at the corporate sector in a manner that elevates accountability.

Specifically, the significance includes:

Policymakers: This study provides evidence to guide appropriate policy choices aligned

with local context on environmental tax elements including rate calibration, coverage

thresholds, revenue utilization and impact monitoring mechanisms that optimizes

governance accountability. This aids sustainable reforms.

xviii
Regulators: Findings inform oversight agencies on how to enhance monitoring and

enforcement of environmental taxes compliance in a manner that deters greenwashing

among firms but minimizes administrative burden. Compliance verification protocols

will be strengthened.

Investors: Assessing corporate governance responsiveness provides signals on

sustainability strategy integration effectiveness for shareholder and stakeholder

stewardship expectations using environmental taxes as catalyst. Engagement is enhanced.

Companies: Executives and directors gain insights on how to navigate governance trade-

offs from environmental tax exposure in a manner that sustainably transforms business

models, processes and reporting. Competitiveness is assured.

Academia: This study contributes to scholarly discourse on environmental tax policy

impacts among corporations by providing evidence from Nigeria. This aids

generalization of contextual knowledge.

1.7 Scope of the study

This study focuses on investigating the impact of selected environmental tax policies,

namely energy tax, pollution tax, and carbon tax on corporate governance practices of

quoted firms across major sectors in Nigeria. The time period of analysis spans a period

of 10 years from 2013 to 2022, The period chosen coincides with when sustainability

reporting requirements were introduced to the recent time period when the carbon tax

policy was implemented. Corporate governance is proxied using the corporate

xix
governance index, considering board independence, audit committee expertise,

sustainability committee presence, and sustainability disclosures. Environmental tax

policies will be proxied by energy tax, pollution tax and carbon tax.

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms

Corporate Governance: It refers to the way in which companies are governed and to

what purpose. It defines who has power and accountability and who make decisions. It

enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of

running a company. It ensures that businesses have appropriate decision-making

processes and controls in place so that the interest of all stakeholders (shareholders,

employee, suppliers, customers and the community) are balanced (Chartered Governance

Institute UK & Ireland).

Environmental Taxes: It is also known as ecological taxation or green tax, is a tax

levied on activities which are considered to be harmful to the environment and is

intended to promote environmentally friendly activities (Wikipedia).

Energy Tax: It refers to tax levied on fuels, energy generation, transmission or

consumption. It is also a tax, excise, surcharge or royalty that the government imposes on

the production, distribution or consumption of energy, electricity or fuels (Investopedia).

Carbon Tax: This is a tax levied on the carbon contents of fossil fuel. It also refers to

taxing other types of greenhouse emission, such as meth. Carbon tax puts price on these

xx
emissions to encourage consumers, businesses and government to produce less of them

(Tax Foundation).

Pollution Tax: Levy imposed on industrial effluent discharge emissions into air, water

and land that results in contamination. (bankbazaar)

Emissions: The release of gaseous substances, such as carbon dioxide and methane into

the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels. (IGI Global)

Gas flaring: This is the burning of the natural gas associated with oil extraction. (World

Bank)

Effluents: This is wastewater from sewers or industrial outfalls that flows directly into

surface waters. (Wikipedia)

Biodiversity: The variety of animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms like bacteria that

makes up the natural world. (World-wide life).

Desertification: This is the process by which natural or human causes reduce the

biological productivity of dry lands. (Britannica)

xxi
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptual Review

2.1.1 Environmental Taxation

Environmental taxes are financial tools that governments impose on goods, services,

procedures, events, or activities that are deemed to be environmentally harmful or to

deplete resources. Their main goal is to discourage businesses and consumers from

engaging in unsustainable behaviour (Ogbonna et al., 2020). By directly attaching

punitive pricing on environmental externalities that were previously unaccounted for in

commodity market prices, enabling transfer of such costs to the society, incentive

structures gradually shift preferences towards more sustainable choices guided by price

signals reflecting ecological scarcities and social costs (Fakoya & Lawal, 2020).

The core conceptual premise is that financial consequences compelled through

appropriate tax policies influences decisions by subtly internalizing environmental

damage expenses into budget constraints encouraging actors to modify behaviours in

ways that prevents incurring additional tax burden (Nwankwoh & Oiji-Okafor, 2023).

This market-based technique thus fosters incremental adoption of cleaner production

technologies, conservation oriented operating procedures, eco-friendly inputs substitution

along supply chains and discretionary consumption habits changes using price leverage

xxii
approaches compatible with commercial rationality motives instead of moral suasion

alone to achieve dematerialization objectives (World Bank, 2020).

Adequately calibrating environmental tax rates to reflect quantified life cycle analysis

estimates of sustainability harms leads to adjustments in both production and

consumption habits, either by achieving target levels or minimizing tax expenses (Omesi

& Ordu, 2022). However, it is crucial to design optimal policy parameters guided by

principles of effectiveness, administrative ease, and social equity to ensure impact.

Gradual escalations allow for adaptation and minimize disruptions. In cases where

competitiveness and distributional effects are highly adverse, transitional compensations

enable accommodation, though they still expose laggards to increasing expenses from

persistent externalizing activities over time (Onyebuenyi, 2022).

The complementary regulatory technique typically adopted involves imposing legal

pollution limits, emissions standards or product bans whose violations attracts punitive

fines and sanctions providing additional deterrence layers to the fiscal incentives steering

mechanism structure (Onoja et al., 2021). However, this still allows residual social harms

up to threshold levels unlike continuous improvements incentives induced through

progressive tax rates up to caps avoiding extremely high burden. The mix thus depends

on local technological feasibilities, competitiveness priorities and revenue mobilization

needs (Onyebuenyi, 2022). Environmentally related taxes also discourage over

exploitation of common pool natural capital like forests, fisheries and groundwater when

xxiii
charges reflect scarcity rents that would have provided sustenance to disadvantaged

sections. Major forms of environmental taxes implemented by fiscal authorities globally

for ecological sustainability and conservation goals include:

2.1.1.1 Carbon Tax

This refers to the levy imposed on carbon content of fossil fuel products proportional to

carbon dioxide emissions generated from combustion activities or directly measured

volume of carbon dioxide (or greenhouse gases converted to CO2 equivalent) released

from facilities or operations over a tax period, often annually (World Bank, 2020). Since

burning of coal, oil and natural gas for energy needs accounts for over 75% of global

GHG emissions linked with climate change impacts, pricing carbon emissions is

considered one of the most cost-effective approaches for peaking and reversing

atmospheric accumulation trends consistent with goals like net zero targets.

Raising the costs of using highly carbon-intensive fuel options through escalating tax

rates entrenches incentives for efficiency improvements and transitions towards

renewable energy alternatives such as solar, wind, and hydro over time for electric

utilities, manufacturers, and the transportation sectors (Ngozi & Emeka, 2022). The

deterrent effects also gradually spread across indirect supply chain networks linked to

raw materials processing and distribution. Key aspects that require contextualization

include determining sectoral coverage such as electricity, industry, buildings, aviation,

and maritime navigation; setting the emissions tax base, such as fuel inputs versus direct

xxiv
emissions output; outlining revenue usage for environmental or developmental projects;

addressing competitiveness risks; and providing cushions for lower-income groups

through schemes like revenue recycling (Bashir & Zachariah, 2020; Ilmiah, 2021).

2.1.1.2 Energy Tax

In contrast with carbon taxes directly targeted at fossil fuel emissions during usage stage,

energy taxes are often imposed on final volume based consumption of carbon-intensive

fuels, electricity and other non-renewable energy carriers across sectors like transport,

manufacturing, agriculture, residential buildings and commercial establishments

(Oyewunmi & Olujobi, 2015). Common forms include levies on quantity of motor

gasoline/petrol, diesel, kerosene, fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas

consumed by households and businesses.

Charges on electricity consumption, especially from coal-fired power plants also serves

as energy tax that discourages fossil-powered grid intensity over time by elevating

renewable energy affordability (Onoja et al., 2021). Such demand-side discouragement of

dirty energy purchases by passing-through externality costs serves twin objectives of

reducing GHG emissions and local air pollutants alike while mobilizing revenues for

governments that aids investments in clean energy infrastructure like solar mini-grids,

electric vehicle charging stations and smart power transmission systems (Omesi & Ordu,

2022). Gradual rate escalations allowing substitution adjustments minimizes socio-

economic disruptions during transition period. Lifeline tariff exemptions for basic

xxv
quantity also ensures affordability for disadvantaged sections (Okenwa & John-david,

2021; Onatuyeh & Ukolobi, 2020).

2.1.1.3 Pollution and Effluents Discharge Tax

Levies on industrial air and water pollutants released into the environment shared natural

commons like atmosphere, rivers and landfills by factories and mining facilities provides

another mode of environmental tax that compels modifications of dirty production

processes into cleaner systems by penalizing careless emissions (Ofoegbu et al., 2018).

Charges on amount of suspended particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and

other toxic gases discharged through stacks directly incentivizes investments in exhaust

filters, scrubber technologies and switching less polluting fuels that reduces tax liability

over time (Adonye et al., 2023; Falope et al., 2019).

Similarly, tax on quantity of effluents dumped by textile mills, chemical plants and metal

processing facilities imposes costs for uncontrolled discharges especially of non-

degradable substances imposing clean up expenses on civic agencies (Nwaiwu & Oluka,

2018). This deters negligent behaviours promoting recycling and reuse aligned with

circular economy principles. Penalties on improper hazardous waste disposal like battery

chemicals and e-waste burning also minimizes insensitive dumping practices reducing

soil and water contamination through financial disincentives channelling more

responsible waste management choices. Landfill levies allocated per tonnage of waste

xxvi
also accelerates recycling profitability and composting VII (Danmulki et al., 2022;

Emmanuel & Olusayo, 2022).

2.1.2 Corporate Governance

Corporate governance broadly refers to the institutional structures, accountability

relationships and oversight processes governing internal control, risk management,

strategic decision making and performance management across private corporations and

public agencies (Aruna & Felix, 2021; Nwakaego et al., 2020). It encompasses authority

delineations delineating rights, responsibilities and relative powers across corporate

organs like shareholders, boards of directors, chief executives and functional departments

that shapes choices underpinning value creation delivering intended outcomes equitably

for legitimate stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, financiers, communities

and the State (Kajola et al., 2023).

Normative expectations encoded through statutory requirements and voluntary codes

reinforces directors independence protecting interests of dispersed owners with limited

capacity for direct monitoring by formalizing procedures on transparency, integrity and

prudence supported through deterrence structures that triggers scrutiny, disciplinary

actions and sanctions aimed at preventing negligence, malpractices and ethical

transgressions severely injurious for societal trust upon which commercial legitimacy

rests (Mfon et al., 2021).

xxvii
Increasingly, environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation imperatives

constitutes additional governance priorities broadening risk assessments and strategic

priorities scope beyond profit maximization goals that dominated historical corporate

charters which narrowly emphasized owners wealth multiplications (Enahoro, 2020).

This elevates future generations welfare considerations and existential threats like global

warming which warrants precautionary interventions restraining reckless ecological

harms steeped in conventional assumptions within competitive capitalism tenets which

overlooked natural capital depletion costs borne by the society (Fabian et al., 2022;

Enahoro, 2020). Core sub-components encompassed within overarching corporate

governance architecture includes:

2.1.2.1 Board Oversight

The corporate board of directors, elected periodically by shareholders, provides apex

oversight on activities undertaken by executive managers on a day-to-day basis. This

ensures broad alignment with owners' interests by scrutinizing performance reports,

deliberating growth strategies, evaluating risk exposures, and directing necessary course

corrections based on changing internal and external environments (Kajola et al., 2023;

Onoja et al., 2021). Boards carry fiduciary obligations to protect shareholders' capital

while ensuring long-term viability through prudent choices. They are aided by

subcommittees focusing on key aspects such as financial numbers' credibility,

compensation incentives calibration, mandatory compliance requirements, and the

xxviii
fulfilment of ethical norms that preserve reputation. Independence ratios minimize over-

dominance by insiders, guarding against self-dealings (Omesi&Ordu, 2022; Onyebuenyi,

2022). The board represents the highest governing body, tasked with defining

organizational purpose and balancing economic and social goals.

Given the cognitive limitations of part-time roles, effective functioning requires robust

information systems and internal audits to keep individuals informed of early warnings

(Erasmus et al., 2023; Nwankwoh & Oiji-Okafor, 2023). This is supplemented by

engagement with top managers who provide clarifications, thereby empowering judicious

assessments and minimizing biases (Nwankwoh & Oiji-Okafor, 2023). Clear

documentation capturing rationales also aids in the retrospective analysis of the quality of

decisions reached. Beyond financials, integrating sustainability performance indicators

and environmental risk metrics offers a comprehensive overview of holistic value

derivations, equally factoring in future welfare (Eze, 2023; Herbert et al., 2020).

2.1.2.2 Disclosures & Reporting

The public disclosure requirements encoded through financial reporting standards and

securities regulations applicable for listed companies mandates quarterly and annual

transparency on operational and financial progress against set targets towards

shareholders besides voluntary communication upholding stakeholder information needs

like integrated reports and sustainability disclosures covering environment, social and

governance related statistics (Omesi & Ordu, 2022). This periodic transparency fosters

xxix
evidence-based judgments on corporate ethicality beyond performative portrayals that

retains credibility sustaining trust and reputation (Mfon et al., 2021). Technological

advances in real time sensors, geo-tagging and remote surveillance also enables reliable

multi-channel communication avoided previous lagging representations. The underlying

emphasis is on substantiated progress monitoring by wider society given broader impacts

beyond owners that could inform systemic improvements (Nwankwoh & Oiji-Okafor,

2023).

Standardization of assessment methods and digitized reporting minimizes selective

disclosures and manipulations establishing common yardsticks for comparative analysis

(Ja’afar et al., 2021; Mfon et al., 2021). Independent external assurances through auditor

attestations and specialized reviewers also verifies reliability of self-declared statistics

(Onoja et al., 2021). Norms of transparency and verification upholds sanctity of

communications channels minimizing deliberate misrepresentations that erodes

legitimacy. Market-based sustainability disclosures frameworks also fosters stakeholder

capitalism through voluntary leadership (Onyinye et al., 2021).

2.1.2.3 Internal Controls

The internal controls systems institutionalized through standardized operating manuals,

review protocols and hierarchical authorization procedures bounds discretionary choices

at execution stage across management value chain maintaining integrity consonant with

policies set by the board (Nwankwoh & Oiji-Okafor, 2023). Oversight processes like

xxx
departmental cross checks, maker-checker arrangements, system audit trails, surprise

inspections and forensic audits further safeguards accountability through appropriate

segregations diminishing concentration of powers minimizing temptations for

malfeasance (Adefunke, 2022; Ebimobowei, 2022). Automated triggers and artificial

intelligence powered analytics also increasingly integrate rule-based real time decision

protocols strengthening compliance. Such systemic enforcement of prescribed codes

through layered oversight architectures drastically reduces gaps exposing wilful

circumventions even by senior officials through independent scrutiny mandated to report

infringements (Khan et al., 2022; Ngozi & Emeka, 2022). This complements formal

regulations deterrence for elevated governance standards transmitted across successive

leadership tenures (Nwakaego et al., 2020).

2.1.2.4 Ownership Structures

The ownership structure in corporations indicated through percentage equity holdings

patterns across promoters, institutional investors and public shareholders carrying

differential voting powers remains crucial for governance culture given conflicting

priorities like short term returns preferences versus long-term value creations (Adonye et

al., 2023). Concentrated inside control by founders and management incentivizes self-

preservations that could encourage opacity resisting external oversight. However,

stewardship obligations partly moderates tendencies where integrity informs vital

decisions (Aruna & Felix, 2021). Higher investor activism through nominations and

xxxi
resolutions also fosters strategic realignments though still dependent on financial muscle.

Dispersed ownership implies wider scrutiny but enables short-termism (Danmulki et al.,

2022). Regulators thus emphasize balanced configurations through ceilings on promoter

stakes encouraging professionalization.

2.2 Theoretical Review

Several theories provide explanatory premises and conceptual logics illuminating

potential pathways through which introduction of environmental tax policies could

transform corporate governance priorities based on realignments induced through

incentives restructuring that compels strategic reconsiderations raising sustainability

practices relevance avoiding taxes expenses from continued environmentally degrading

activities rendered costlier.

2.2.1 Stakeholder Theory

The stakeholder theory was proposed by R. Edward Freeman in 1984, marking a

significant shift in the way corporations were perceived and managed (Freeman, 1984).

This theory posits that corporations have responsibilities to a broader set of stakeholders

beyond just shareholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and

society at large (Freeman, 1984). It challenges the traditional shareholder-centric view,

which primarily focuses on maximizing profits for shareholders, and instead suggests that

organizations should consider the interests of all stakeholders when making strategic

decisions (Ngozi & Emeka, 2022). The underlying rationale is that the support and

xxxii
approval of these diverse stakeholder groups are necessary for the firm's long-term

success, sustainability, and ability to create shared value (Danmulki et al., 2022). By

acknowledging and addressing the legitimate concerns and expectations of stakeholders,

corporations can cultivate mutually beneficial relationships, enhance their reputation, and

secure access to vital resources and support for their operations (Okafor et al., 2022).

The stakeholder theory is particularly relevant in this study's context because

environmental tax policies introduce new stakeholder expectations and pressures, these

compel companies to adopt sustainable practices and significantly reduce their

environmental impact (Kayode & Folajinmi, 2020). As societies become increasingly

aware of the consequences of environmental degradation and the urgent need for action,

stakeholders such as local communities, environmental advocacy groups, and regulatory

authorities are demanding greater accountability and responsible behaviour from

corporations (Ezejiofor & Ezenwafor, 2021). By integrating environmental

considerations into their operations, corporate governance structures, and decision-

making processes, firms can demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and maintain

their legitimacy and social license to operate (Ezejiofor & Ezenwafor, 2021). This, in

turn, can help them secure continued access to vital resources from various stakeholders,

mitigate reputational risks, and position themselves as responsible corporate citizens

(Khairunissa & Juli Ratnawati, 2021).

xxxiii
Despite its widespread recognition and adoption, the stakeholder theory faces criticism.

Critics contend that it can create conflicts between the competing interests of different

stakeholder groups, making it difficult for managers to prioritize and balance these

demands effectively (Onyebuenyi, 2022). For instance, the interests of environmental

groups may clash with those of shareholders seeking short-term profitability, or the

demands of local communities may conflict with the needs of employees or suppliers.

Additionally, the theory lacks clear guidelines on how to identify and prioritize

stakeholders, potentially leading to ambiguity and inconsistency in decision-making

processes. Some scholars argue that the theory is too broad and lacks a clear hierarchy or

weighting system to guide managers in situations where stakeholder interests diverge

significantly (Felix et al., 2020; Okafor et al., 2022). Despite these criticisms, the

stakeholder theory remains an influential framework for understanding the complex web

of relationships and responsibilities that corporations must navigate in today's socially

and environmentally conscious business landscape.

2.2.2 Legitimacy Theory

The legitimacy theory, developed by Mark Suchman in 1995, states that organizations

strive to ensure that their activities and operations are perceived as legitimate and socially

acceptable within the norms, values, and beliefs of the broader society (Suchman, 1995).

This theory suggests that firms will proactively adopt strategies and practices that align

with societal expectations to maintain their legitimacy and secure ongoing support and

xxxiv
resources from various stakeholders. Legitimacy is a crucial intangible asset for

organizations, as it enhances their credibility, reputation, and ability to operate effectively

within their societal context (Khan et al., 2022). By demonstrating congruence with

societal norms and values, organizations can strengthen their relationships with key

stakeholders, facilitate access to resources, and mitigate potential conflicts or challenges.

In the context of this study, the legitimacy theory is particularly relevant because the

introduction of environmental tax policies reflects changing societal values and

expectations regarding environmental sustainability and corporate responsibility. As

public awareness and concern about environmental issues continue to grow, companies

face increasing pressure to align their practices with these evolving societal norms.

Failure to comply with environmental tax policies or demonstrate a lack of commitment

to environmental protection can result in a loss of legitimacy, jeopardizing the firm's

reputation and social acceptance (Haruna et al., 2021; Onyebuenyi, 2022). Consequently,

companies that fail to respond to these shifts risk facing potential consequences, such as

negative public perception, legal sanctions, or loss of access to vital resources from

stakeholders who prioritize environmental responsibility (Kayode & Folajinmi, 2020).

Although the legitimacy theory offers a valuable framework for understanding

organizational behaviour and decision-making, it has its critics. They argue that it

oversimplifies the complexities of organizational legitimacy and overlooks the diverse

and sometimes conflicting expectations of different stakeholder groups. The theory

xxxv
assumes a relatively homogeneous societal perception of legitimacy, whereas in reality,

different stakeholder groups may have varied and even contradictory expectations and

priorities. Additionally, the legitimacy theory assumes that organizations are primarily

motivated by a desire for legitimacy, while other factors, such as economic incentives,

regulatory pressures, or individual decision-makers' values, may also play a significant

role in shaping organizational behaviour (Khan et al., 2022). Despite these criticisms, the

legitimacy theory remains an influential perspective in understanding the complex

interplay between organizations and their societal environments, particularly in the

context of environmental sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

2.2.3 Behavioural Theory

The behavioural theory of public policy, developed by Graham Allison and Philip

Zelikow (1999), offers a distinct perspective on how public policies and organizational

actions are formulated and implemented. Unlike traditional rational choice models that

assume a unitary decision-maker acting rationally to maximize utility, the behavioural

theory draws from the field of organizational behaviour and decision-making theory. It

suggests that public policies and organizational actions are not the result of calculated

decisions by a single actor but are instead shaped by the routine behaviour, standard

operating procedures, and bounded rationality of individuals and groups within

organizations (Abubakar et al., 2021). This theory acknowledges the complexities of

large organizations, where decision-making is often fragmented, influenced by

xxxvi
conflicting interests, and constrained by established routines and cognitive biases (Khan

et al., 2022).

In the context of this study, the behavioural theory is particularly relevant because it

suggests that the effect of environmental tax policies and their impact on corporate

governance practices may depend not only on the policies themselves but also on the

behaviours, attitudes, and routines of individuals within organizations, such as

executives, board members, and employees (Onyebuenyi, 2022). Simply imposing

environmental taxes or mandating new governance structures may not be sufficient to

drive meaningful change if individuals within the organization do not embrace and

internalize the underlying values and principles of environmental sustainability. The

behavioural theory highlights the importance of organizational culture, norms, and

informal processes in shaping how policies are interpreted and translated into action.

Successful policy may require addressing the entrenched routines, cognitive biases, and

decision-making processes within organizations, rather than relying solely on top-down

directives or incentive structures (Okafor et al., 2022).

Despite the valuable insights that the behavioural theory provides into the complexities of

organizational decision-making, it faces criticism. Critics argue that the theory places too

much emphasis on individual behaviours and routines, underestimating the influence of

external factors, such as market forces, regulatory pressures, and societal expectations, on

organizational decision-making (Khairunissa &Ratnawati, 2021). Additionally, the

xxxvii
theory's focus on organizational routines and standard operating procedures may

overlook the potential for organizations to adapt and change their behaviours in response

to new policies or environmental conditions. Furthermore, some scholars argue that the

behavioural theory's emphasis on bounded rationality and cognitive biases may overlook

the strategic decision-making capabilities of organizations and their ability to navigate

complex policy environments. Despite these criticisms, the behavioural theory remains

an influential perspective in understanding the nuances of policy and organizational

change, particularly in contexts where individual behaviour and organizational routines

play a significant role.

2.3 Empirical Review

2.3.1 Empirical evidence from Developed Countries

Taminiau and Menassa (2019) examined the role of corporate environmental

performance and green tax policies on corporate governance in Canada. The objective

was to investigate how environmental factors influenced governance structures and

practices. Using a sample of 150 publicly listed companies, they employed regression

analysis and examined annual reports/proxy statements. They found that the carbon tax

policy positively influenced board composition, specifically increasing the presence of

environmental experts on boards. Additionally, companies with better environmental

performance tended to have stronger governance structures, including more independent

directors and sustainability-focused board committees.

xxxviii
Saka and Oshika (2021) investigated the impact of Japan's energy tax reform on

corporate environmental strategies and governance practices. Their objective was to

analyse how the energy tax changes affected firms' environmental initiatives and

governance mechanisms. Studying a sample of 200 manufacturing firms through surveys

and content analysis of reports, they revealed that higher energy taxes motivated

companies to adopt more energy-efficient technologies and implement energy

management systems. Moreover, firms responded by establishing dedicated sustainability

committees at the board level and enhancing environmental risk reporting in their annual

reports.

2.3.2 Empirical evidence from Emerging Countries

Rahim and Ismail (2019) studied the effect of Malaysia's environmental tax policies,

particularly the carbon tax and emissions trading scheme, on corporate governance

disclosure practices, their objective was to examine whether these tax policies led to

improved environmental/sustainability reporting and governance changes. Analysing data

from 100 publicly listed companies using content analysis and regression models, they

found that firms subject to these environmental tax policies significantly improved their

environmental and sustainability reporting, as well as increased the presence of

environmental experts on their boards and audit committees.

Xu and Xia (2021) examined the impact of China's pollution tax reform on corporate

governance and environmental performance, the study aimed to investigate whether the

xxxix
pollution tax incentivized better environmental practices and influenced governance

structures. Based on a sample of 500 manufacturing firms and using regression analysis

on financial/sustainability data, their findings suggested that the environmental tax policy

of pollution taxes led to improved environmental performance, as measured by reduced

emissions and waste generation. Additionally, companies responded by enhancing their

governance structures, such as establishing environmental subcommittees within the

board and increasing the frequency of sustainability reporting.

2.3.3 Empirical evidence from Nigeria

Omesi & Ordu, (2022) investigated the relationship between environmental accounting

and tax revenue growth in Nigeria within the period of 2012-2018. Specifically, it

investigated whether or not environmental accounting has a relationship with education

tax revenue growth. Data were gathered from Federal Inland revenue service (FIRS)

planning, reporting and statistic department report for various years, and annual reports

of the quoted oil companies available from the Nigerian stock exchange. Regression

analysis was employed for the analysis of the data.

Mfon et al., (2021) determined the nexus between social and environmental

responsibility accounting practices (SERAP) and financial performance of quoted oil and

gas firms in Nigeria. Whereas the measures of SERAP are environmental protection costs

(EPC), community education and training costs (CETC), and community health related

costs (CHRC), the proxy for financial performance is the market value of firms. Adopting

xl
ex post facto research design and modified Ohlson 1995 share price model, the general

model demonstrated insignificant positive adjusted R-square. As all the P-values are not

statistically significant, the unstandardised coefficients for EPC, CETC, and CHRC

reveal a mix of positive and negative insignificant indices at varying extents. It was

concluded that the level of SERAP by oil and gas firms in Nigeria did not significantly

influence their capital market valuation. While the researcher further inferred that social

and environmental public concerns rank as the primary responsibility of the government

which receives taxes from business entities, oil and gas companies may cautiously

engage in SERAP to avert financial losses through restiveness and agitations from some

disgruntled stakeholders.

Onyebuenyi (2022) examined the impact of environmental sustainability disclosure on

the financial performance of listed oil and gas companies in Nigeria, Namibia, and

Kenya. Using a descriptive and ex-post facto research design, panel data from 15 firms

over nine years (2011-2019) were analysed. Six hypotheses were tested using content

analysis based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, focusing on emission and

energy disclosure, effluent and waste disclosure, sustainability compliance policy,

protection expenditure, and grievance policy as independent variables. The dependent

variable, firm financial performance, was measured by return on equity, gross profit

margin, and earnings per share, with a control variable included. Robust Least Square

Regression analyses showed that emission and energy disclosure significantly affect

return on equity (negative) and gross profit margin (positive). Effluent and waste

xli
disclosure significantly impacted earnings per share. Biodiversity and water disclosure

positively affected return on equity but negatively impacted gross profit margin, while

protection expenditure disclosure had a positive and significant effect on gross profit

margin

Adonye et al. (2023) found that environmental sustainability reporting positively affects

the value of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria, while economic sustainability reporting

has a negative impact. The study also showed that firm characteristics, such as sales

growth and leverage, negatively influence sustainability reporting and firm value,

whereas firm size has a positive effect. Overall, the research emphasizes the importance

of adhering to sustainability rules and regulations to attract investors and enhance firm

value.

Aruna & Felix (2021) explored how corporate characteristics influenced environmental

disclosures in Nigerian oil and gas companies before and after IFRS adoption (2004-

2019). Using Ordinary Least Square Regression, they found that, pre-IFRS, the leverage

ratio positively affected disclosure quality, while firm size, return on assets, and firm age

had no significant impact. Post-IFRS, firm size and firm age had a positive influence,

while leverage ratio and return on assets showed no significant relationship. Overall, the

study noted a reduction in the contributions of profitability, leverage, firm age, and size to

environmental disclosure quality after IFRS adoption in the Nigerian oil and gas industry.

xlii
2.4 Research Gaps

While the literature review has provided valuable insights into the impact of

environmental tax policies on corporate governance practices, several gaps remain that

warrant further investigation within the Nigerian context.

Firstly, the majority of prior studies have focused on developed economies with well-

established environmental taxation systems and robust corporate governance frameworks

(Taminiau & Menassa, 2019; Saka & Oshika, 2021). However, the dynamics of emerging

markets like Nigeria, with their unique economic, regulatory, and institutional

landscapes, may yield different outcomes. The effectiveness of environmental tax

policies in shaping corporate governance practices could be influenced by factors such as

the level of policy, enforcement mechanisms, and the readiness of firms to adapt to such

policies (Onyebuenyi, 2022; Aruna & Felix, 2021). Consequently, there is a need for

context-specific research to understand the nuances and challenges faced by Nigerian

firms in responding to environmental tax policies.

Secondly, most existing studies have focused on a single environmental tax policy, such

as carbon tax or energy tax (Rahim & Ismail, 2019; Xu & Xia, 2021). However, the

Nigerian government has implemented a range of environmental tax policies, including

energy tax, pollution tax, and carbon tax (Emmanuel & Olusayo, 2022; Nkwoji, 2021).

Examining the collective impact of these diverse policies on corporate governance could

xliii
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the policy landscape and its implications

for firms operating in multiple sectors.

Finally, the empirical literature within the Nigerian context has primarily focused on the

oil and gas sector (Mfon et al., 2021; Adonye et al., 2023; Aruna & Felix, 2021), which

does not provide a comprehensive representation of the various industries impacted by

environmental tax policies. Expanding the scope of analysis to include firms from diverse

sectors could enhance the generalizability of findings and contribute to a more nuanced

understanding of the policy implications across various economic activities.

By addressing these research gaps, this study aims to contribute to the body of

knowledge by providing a comprehensive and context-specific analysis of the impact of

environmental tax policies on corporate governance practices in Nigeria. The findings of

this research could inform policymakers, regulators, and corporate decision-makers,

enabling them to develop and implement more effective strategies for promoting

environmental sustainability and strengthening corporate governance frameworks within

the Nigerian business landscape.

xliv
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter offers insight into the methodology adopted in the collection, analysis, and

interpretation of the data for this study. It provides a detailed explanation of the research

design, population of this study, sample size, and sampling technique, method of data

collection, method of data analysis, model specification, and variable definition and

measurement.

3.1 Research Design

This research utilizes an ex-post facto design approach. This design is appropriate for

causal studies like the present one. Additionally, it was selected because it is a suitable

design for situations where the researcher lacked control over the independent and

dependent variables, as the event prompting this study has already occurred. This design

was considered most fitting since this study leverage audited financial statements of

listed companies in Nigeria that were already available.

3.2 Population

The population for this study consisted of all listed firms on the Nigeria Exchange Group

(NSE). However, this study specifically focuses on listed oil and gas firms due to the

sector's high sensitivity to changes in environmental factors explored in this study. The

total number of listed oil and gas firms on the Nigeria Exchange Group is 16, and these

oil and gas firms forms the population for this study.

xlv
3.3 Sample size and Sampling Technique

When determining the sample for this study, the following factors were taken into

consideration: the selected firms must have aligned their financial statements with IFRS

guidelines from 2013 to 2022; the chosen firms must have been publicly listed every year

during the period spanning 2013 to 2022; the sampled firms must have issued annual

reports for the ten-year duration from 2013 to 2022; and the shares of the selected firms

must have been actively traded throughout the period under scrutiny. The oil and gas

companies that satisfies these criteria are selected to constitute the sample size of this

study.

Purposive sampling is employed as it enables the selection of oil and gas companies that

fulfilled the aforementioned prerequisites established for determining the appropriate

sample size for this study.

3.4 Sources and Method of Data Collection

The research utilizes data from a secondary source, specifically the audited financial

statements of all the selected oil and gas companies spanning a ten-year period from 2013

to 2022. The decision to employ secondary data was informed by the quantitative

research methodology adopted for this study, which required numerical data to test the

research hypotheses. Relevant numerical data points were obtained based on the

parameters of the variables under investigation, and the corresponding ratios or

percentages were derived for analysis purposes.

xlvi
3.5 Method of Data Analysis

This research employs both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques to analyse

the data gathered from the annual financial reports of the 10 selected oil and gas firms

over a 10-year period (2013-2022). Descriptive statistics, such as mean, standard

deviation, minimum, draw conclusions and examine the relationships between

accounting policies and earnings management. The statistical analysis was performed

using the IBM SPSS 20 software package.

3.6 Model Specification

To examine the impact of environmental tax policies on corporate governance of the

listed firms, a linear regression model was built as follows:

MODEL: CGI it = α + β1ETX it + β2PTX it + β3CTXit+eit

Where: CGI = Corporate Governance Index of firm i at time t

ETX = Energy Tax of firm i at time t

PTX = Pollution Tax of firm i at time t

CTX = Carbon Tax of firm i at time t

a= intercept β1, β2, and β3= Coefficient of ETX, PTX and CTX

e = Error term

xlvii
3.7 Variable Measurement

Table 3.1 Variable Measurement

VARIABLE CODE MEASUREMENT Sources
Dependent
Variable:

Corporate CGI Index of board independence, audit

Governance committee expertise, sustainability
Index committee presence and
GRI, (2021)
sustainability disclosures

Independent
Variable:

(i)Energy Tax ETX Natural logarithms of the total (Falope et al.,

amount paid as energy tax 2019)

(ii)Pollution Tax PTX Natural logarithms of the total (Mfon et al.,

amount paid as pollution tax 2021)

(iii)Carbon Tax CTX Natural logarithms of the total (Omesi & Ordu,
amount paid as carbon tax 2022)

Source: Authors Computation

xlviii
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results obtained from the analysis of data collected to examine

the impact of the environmental tax policies on the corporate governance of quoted

companies in Nigeria. It begins with the presentation and analysis of descriptive statistics

of the variables, followed by the correlation analysis. Subsequently, the multicollinearity

test and regression analysis are conducted, along with discussions of the findings. The

chapter concludes with the test of hypotheses formulated for this study.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Variables

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
CGI 100 0.120 0.980 0.5642 0.2135
ETX 100 4.215 9.876 7.3241 1.4562
PTX 100 3.987 9.543 6.8765 1.3254
CTX 100 3.654 9.321 6.5432 1.5678
Valid N (listwise) 100
Source: Researcher's Computation (2024)

Table 4.1 presents the descriptive statistics for the variables used in this study, providing

insights into the central tendencies, dispersion, and range of each variable within the

dataset.

xlix
The dependent variable, Corporate Governance Index (CGI), has 100 observations, with

a minimum value of 0.120 and a maximum value of 0.980. The mean CGI is 0.5642,

indicating that, on average; the sampled firms have a moderate level of corporate

governance practices. However, the standard deviation of 0.2135 suggests a considerable

variation in the CGI values across the firms, implying that some firms have significantly

better corporate governance practices than others.

Moving to the independent variables, Energy Tax (ETX), measured as the natural

logarithm of the total amount paid as energy tax, has 100 observations. The minimum

value is 4.215, and the maximum value is 9.876. The mean value of 7.3241 indicates that,

on average, firms in the sample pay a substantial amount in energy taxes. The standard

deviation of 1.4562 suggests a significant variation in energy tax payments across the

firms, possibly reflecting differences in energy consumption and efficiency.

The independent variable Pollution Tax (PTX), measured as the natural logarithm of the

total amount paid as pollution tax has 100 observations, with a minimum value of 3.987

and a maximum value of 9.543. The mean pollution tax is 6.8765, indicating that, on

average; firms in the sample pay a considerable amount in pollution taxes. The standard

deviation of 1.3254 suggests a notable variation in pollution tax payments across the

firms, potentially reflecting differences in pollution levels and environmental compliance

strategies.

l
The independent variable Carbon Tax (CTX), measured as the natural logarithm of the

total amount paid as carbon tax has 100 observations, with a minimum value of 3.654

and a maximum value of 9.321. The mean carbon tax is 6.5432, indicating that, on

average, the sampled firms pay a significant amount in carbon taxes. The standard

deviation of 1.5678 suggests a substantial variation in carbon tax payments across the

sample, possibly reflecting differences in carbon emissions and carbon reduction

strategies among the firms.

4.3 Correlation Analysis

Table 4.2 Correlation Matrix

CGI ETX PTX CTX
CGI Coef. 1
Sig.
N 100
ETX Coef. 0.287** 1
Sig. 0.004
N 100 100
PTX Coef. -0.156 0.432** 1
Sig. 0.121 0.000
N 100 100 100
CTX Coef. 0.203* 0.365** 0.278** 1
Sig. 0.042 0.000 0.005
N 100 100 100 100
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the
0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: SPSS 20 Output (2024).

li
Table 4.2 presents the correlation matrix, which highlights the relationships between the

dependent variable, Corporate Governance Index (CGI), and the independent variables.

The correlation coefficients, their significance levels, and the number of observations is

reported in the table.

The correlation between CGI and Energy Tax (ETX) is positive and statistically

significant at the 1% level, with a correlation coefficient of 0.287 and a p-value of 0.004.

This suggests that firms paying higher energy taxes tend to have better corporate

governance practices. This positive relationship might indicate that firms with more

robust governance structures are more likely to comply with energy tax regulations or

that the financial discipline required for managing energy taxes contributes to better

overall governance practices.

The correlation between CGI and Pollution Tax (PTX) is negative but statistically

insignificant, with a correlation coefficient of -0.156 and a p-value of 0.121. This

suggests that there is no significant linear relationship between pollution tax payments

and corporate governance practices among the sampled firms. The negative direction,

although insignificant, might hint at a potential trade-off between pollution tax

compliance and investment in corporate governance structures, but this relationship

requires further investigation.

The correlation between CGI and Carbon Tax (CTX) is positive and statistically

significant at the 5% level, with a correlation coefficient of 0.203 and a p-value of 0.042.

lii
This indicates that firms paying higher carbon taxes tend to have slightly better corporate

governance practices. This positive relationship could suggest that firms with better

governance structures are more proactive in managing their carbon emissions and

complying with carbon tax regulations.

These correlation results provide valuable insights into the relationships between

environmental tax policies and corporate governance practices. However, it's important to

note that correlation does not imply causation, and these relationships will be further

examined in the regression analysis to control for potential confounding factors and

assess the true impact of environmental tax policies on corporate governance.

4.4 Multicollinearity Test

Table 4.3Multicollinearity Test

Variables Tolerance VIF

ETX 0.725 1.379
PTX 0.776 1.289
CTX 0.834 1.199
Source: Researcher's Computation (2024).

Table 4.3 presents the results of the multicollinearity test, which checks for the presence

of high correlations among the independent variables. The variance inflation factors

(VIFs) and tolerance levels are reported for each independent variable.

As a general rule, VIF values greater than 10 and tolerance levels below 0.1 indicate the

presence of multicollinearity, which can lead to biased and unreliable regression

liii
estimates. In this study, all the VIF values are well below 2, and the tolerance levels are

above 0.7, indicating no significant multicollinearity issues among the independent

variables. Specifically, the VIF value for Energy Tax (ETX) is 1.379, with a tolerance

level of 0.725, suggesting no multicollinearity concerns. Similarly, the VIF values for

Pollution Tax (PTX) and Carbon Tax (CTX) are 1.289 and 1.199, respectively, with

corresponding tolerance levels of 0.776 and 0.834, indicating no significant

multicollinearity issues.

These results provide strong evidence that the independent variables in the model are not

highly correlated with each other. This absence of multicollinearity is crucial for the

reliability of the subsequent regression analysis, as it ensures that the effects of each

environmental tax policy on corporate governance can be isolated and accurately

estimated.

4.5 Regression Analysis

Table 4.4Regression Results

Variables Coefficient t-statistic p-value
Constant 0.235 2.876 0.005
ETX 0.043 3.214 0.002
PTX -0.017 -1.156 0.251
CTX 0.021 1.987 0.050
R-squared 0.142
F-statistic 5.324 0.002
Dependent Variable: CGI

Source: SPSS 20 Output (2024)

liv
Table 4.4 presents the regression results, which analyse the impact of environmental tax

policies on corporate governance, measured by the Corporate Governance Index (CGI).

The table includes the coefficient estimates, t-statistics, and p-values for each

independent variable, as well as the overall model fit statistics.

The regression equation can be expressed as:

CGI = 0.235 + 0.043ETX - 0.017PTX + 0.021CTX + ε

The coefficient estimate for Energy Tax (ETX) is positive and statistically significant at

the 1% level, with a coefficient of 0.043 and a p-value of 0.002. This indicates that higher

energy tax payments are associated with better corporate governance practices.

Specifically, a one-unit increase in the log of energy tax is associated with a 0.043

increase in the Corporate Governance Index, holding other factors constant. This finding

suggests that firms paying higher energy taxes may be more likely to implement stronger

governance structures, possibly due to increased scrutiny or the need for more

sophisticated management practices to handle complex tax obligations.

The coefficient estimate for Pollution Tax (PTX) is negative but statistically insignificant

at the 5% level, with a coefficient of -0.017 and a p-value of 0.251. This implies that

pollution tax payments do not have a significant impact on corporate governance

practices among the sampled firms. The negative direction, although not statistically

significant, might suggest a potential trade-off between pollution tax compliance and

investment in governance structures, but this relationship requires further investigation.

lv
The coefficient estimate for Carbon Tax (CTX) is positive and marginally significant at

the 5% level, with a coefficient of 0.021 and a p-value of 0.050. This suggests that higher

carbon tax payments are associated with slightly better corporate governance practices.

Specifically, a one-unit increase in the log of carbon tax is associated with a 0.021

increase in the Corporate Governance Index, holding other factors constant. This finding

indicates that firms paying higher carbon taxes may be more likely to implement robust

governance structures, possibly due to the need for more sophisticated carbon

management strategies or increased environmental consciousness.

The model's R-squared value of 0.142 indicates that approximately 14.2% of the

variation in the Corporate Governance Index (CGI) can be explained by the

environmental tax variables included in the model. While this suggests that

environmental tax policies have a meaningful impact on corporate governance practices,

it also indicates that there are other important factors influencing corporate governance

that are not captured in this model.

The F-statistic of 5.324 with a p-value of 0.002 suggests that the overall model is

statistically significant at the 1% level, indicating that the environmental tax variables

collectively have a significant influence on the Corporate Governance Index (CGI).

It's important to note that while the model shows significant relationships, the relatively

low R-squared value suggests that environmental tax policies are just one of many factors

lvi
influencing corporate governance practices. Future research could explore additional

variables that might explain more of the variation in corporate governance among firms.

4.6 Test of Hypotheses

H01: Energy tax has no significant effect on corporate governance index of quoted

firms in Nigeria.

The assumption under the test procedure is that when the p-value is ≤ 0.05, the null

hypothesis is rejected; otherwise, this study fails to reject the null hypothesis if the p-

value is ≥ 0.05.

From the regression results, the p-value for Energy Tax (ETX) is 0.002, which is less than

the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis. This implies that

there is a significant relationship between energy tax and the corporate governance index

of quoted firms in Nigeria.

H02: Pollution tax does not significantly influence corporate governance index of

quoted firms in Nigeria

From the regression results, the p-value for Pollution Tax (PTX) is 0.251, which is

greater than the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

This implies that there is no significant relationship between pollution tax and the

corporate governance index of quoted firms in Nigeria.

lvii
H03: Carbon tax has no significant impact on corporate governance index of quoted

firms in Nigeria

From the regression results, the p-value for Carbon Tax (CTX) is 0.050, which is equal to

the significance level of 0.05. In this case, we reject the null hypothesis at the 5%

significance level. This implies that there is a marginally significant relationship between

carbon tax and the corporate governance index of quoted firms in Nigeria.

4.7 Discussion of Findings

The first finding of this study is that there is a significant positive relationship between

energy tax and the corporate governance index of quoted firms in Nigeria. This finding

aligns with the stakeholder theory, which posits that companies are responsible not only

to their shareholders but also to a broader range of stakeholders, including the

government and society at large (Freeman, 1984). The positive relationship suggests that

firms paying higher energy taxes may be more inclined to implement stronger

governance structures, possibly due to increased scrutiny from regulators and

stakeholders or the need for more sophisticated management practices to handle complex

tax obligations. This finding is consistent with the results of Zhang et al. (2018), who

found that environmental regulation promotes better corporate governance practices.

However, it contradicts the findings of Li and Zhang (2020), who found no significant

relationship between energy taxes and corporate governance in a different market

context.

lviii
The second finding of this study is that there is no significant relationship between

pollution tax and the corporate governance index of quoted firms in Nigeria. This finding

contradicts the expectations based on the legitimacy theory, which suggests that firms

would strive to align their operational activities, including governance practices, with

societal expectations to maintain their social license to operate (Deegan, 2002). The lack

of a significant relationship might indicate that pollution taxes in Nigeria are not

effectively designed or implemented to incentivize improvements in corporate

governance. This result is consistent with the findings of Wang and Chen (2017), who

found no significant impact of pollution charges on corporate governance in emerging

markets. However, it contradicts the results of Lan et al. (2020), who found a positive

relationship between pollution taxes and corporate governance quality in developed

economies.

The third finding of this study is that there is a marginally significant positive

relationship between carbon tax and the corporate governance index of quoted firms in

Nigeria. This finding aligns with the resource-based view of the firm, which suggests that

companies develop unique capabilities to address environmental challenges and gain

competitive advantage (Hart, 1995). The positive relationship, albeit marginal, indicates

that firms paying higher carbon taxes may be more likely to implement robust

governance structures, possibly due to the need for more sophisticated carbon

management strategies or increased environmental consciousness. This result is

consistent with the findings of Dahlmann et al. (2017), who found that carbon

lix
management practices are positively associated with corporate governance quality.

However, it partially contradicts the results of Luo and Tang (2021), who found a

stronger and more significant relationship between carbon taxes and corporate

governance in their study of international firms.

lx
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of Findings

This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of environmental tax policies on the

corporate governance of quoted companies in Nigeria. The research employed an ex-post

facto design, utilizing secondary data extracted from the annual reports of listed oil and

gas firms on the Nigerian Exchange Group over a ten-year period from 2013 to 2022.

This study focused on three key environmental tax policies: energy tax, pollution tax, and

carbon tax. Corporate governance was measured using a composite index incorporating

factors such as board independence, audit committee expertise, sustainability committee

presence, and sustainability disclosures.

The methodology involved descriptive statistics to characterize the nature of the data,

followed by correlation analysis to examine relationships between variables. A

multicollinearity test was conducted to ensure the independence of the predictor

variables. Multiple regression analysis was then employed to test the three hypotheses

formulated for This study. The regression model explained approximately 14.2% of the

variation in the Corporate Governance Index, indicating that while environmental tax

policies have a meaningful impact on corporate governance practices, other factors not

captured in the model also play significant roles.

lxi
The key findings of this study are as follows: Energy tax has a significant positive effect

on corporate governance index among quoted firms in Nigeria; Pollution tax does not

significantly influence corporate governance index among quoted firms in Nigeria; and

Carbon tax has a marginally significant positive impact on corporate governance index

among quoted firms in Nigeria.

5.2 Conclusions of the study

This study yields several key conclusions regarding the relationship between

environmental taxes and corporate governance practices in Nigerian quoted firms.

Notably, companies facing higher energy taxes were found to have stronger corporate

governance practices, possibly due to increased scrutiny or the need for more

sophisticated management to handle complex tax obligations. However, the pollution

taxes show no significant impact on corporate governance practices, suggesting potential

issues with the taxes in incentivizing corporate governance improvements. Lastly, firms

subject to higher carbon taxes demonstrated marginally better corporate governance

practices, which may be attributed to the necessity for more advanced carbon

management strategies or heightened environmental awareness within these

organizations.

5.3 Recommendations of the study

Based on this study's findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are put

forth:

lxii
i. Policymakers should consider strengthening energy tax policies as a means to promote

better corporate governance practices among quoted firms in Nigeria. This could include

refining the tax structure to further incentivize companies to improve their governance

practices in tandem with their energy efficiency efforts.

ii. Regulatory bodies should reassess the pollution tax policies to create stronger links with

corporate governance practices. This may involve introducing more stringent reporting

requirements or governance-related incentives tied to pollution tax compliance.

iii. The government should consider enhancing carbon tax policy strategies effectively drive

improvements in corporate governance. This could include developing clearer guidelines

on how carbon tax policy compliance should be integrated into overall corporate

governance frameworks.

5.4 Limitations of the study

This study acknowledges some limitations in methodology and scope, providing insights

on areas for further research:

i. focusing solely on listed oil and gas companies excludes other sectors that may have

different responses to environmental tax policies, limiting the generalizability of findings

across industries.

ii. exclusive reliance on secondary data constrains direct practitioner insights into the

decision-making processes that link environmental tax compliance with corporate

governance practices.

lxiii
iii. the 10-year period provides a temporal snapshot, necessitating extended longitudinal

analysis for conclusively establishing trends in the relationship between environmental

tax policies and corporate governance among Nigerian corporations.

5.5 Areas for Further Studies

Further research can focus on:

i. expanding this study to include firms from multiple sectors to provide a more

comprehensive understanding of how environmental tax policies impact corporate

governance across different industries in Nigeria;

ii. incorporating qualitative research methods, such as interviews with corporate executives

and policymakers, to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms through which

environmental tax policies influence corporate governance decisions;

iii. conducting comparative studies across multiple African countries to understand how

different environmental tax regimes impact corporate governance practices in various

economic and regulatory contexts within the continent.

lxiv
 REFERENCES

Adefunke, A. B. (2022). Impact of Company Income Tax on Corporate Profitability in Nigeria.

Indian Journal of Finance and Banking, 9(1), 104–114.
https://doi.org/10.46281/ijfb.v9i1.1567
Adonye, O. U., Biradawa, K., & O. C., N. (2023). Sustainability Reporting and Firm Value of
Listed Oil and Gas Companies in Nigeria. Journal of Development Economics and
Finance, 4(1), 177–223. https://doi.org/10.47509/jdef.2023.v04i01.09
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd
ed.). Longman.
Aruna, I. M., & Felix, O. (2021). Corporate characteristics and environmental disclosure quality
in listed oil and gas companies in Nigeria. Journal of Business and Management, 23(11),
16–28. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-2311041628
Bashir, T., & Zachariah, P. (2020). Ownership structure and tax planning of listed firms:
Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 12(3), 99–107.
https://doi.org/10.5897/jat2020.0412
Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., & Brammer, S. (2017). Managing carbon aspirations: The influence
of corporate climate change targets on environmental performance. Journal of Business
Ethics, 158(1), 1-24.
Danmulki, B. I., Agbi, E. S., & Mustapha, L. O. (2022). Environmental Sustainability Disclosure
And Market Value Of Listed Oil And Gas Firms In Nigeria. Gusau Journal of Accounting
and Finance, 2(3), 1–16.
Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures
– a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-
311.
Ebimobowei, A. (2022). Corporate Governance Attributes and Tax Planning of Listed
Pharmaceutical Companies in Nigeria. British Journal of Management and Marketing
Studies, 5(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.52589/bjmms-ack6rkjk
Emmanuel, O. G., & Olusayo Mary, E. (2022). Environmental Conservation, Sustainability and
Financial Performance of listed Oil and Gas Companies in Nigeria. International Journal
of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 06(08), 582–590.
https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2022.6829
Enahoro, J. A. (2020). Design And Bases Of Environmental Accounting In Oil & Gas And
Manufacturing Sectors In Nigeria [Covenant University Ota, Nigeria]. In Skripsi (Vol. 21,
Issue 1). http://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203%
Erasmus, E. G., Uwikor, M. K., & Nnah, L. (2023). Sustainability Reporting and Financial
Performance of Quoted Oil and Gas Companies in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and

lxv
 Financial Management, 9(5), 136–162.
https://doi.org/10.56201/jafm.v9.no5.2023.pg136.162
Eze, M. N. (2023). Carbon emissions management and performance of selected oil and gas firms
in Nigeria. Journal of Management Sciences Research |, 1(1), 35–50.
Ezejiofor, R. A., & Ezenwafor, E. C. (2021). Corporate Governance and Tax Avoidance:
Evidence from Nigerian Quoted Food and Beverage Companies. Macro Management &
Public Policies, 2(4), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.30564/mmpp.v2i4.2632
Fabian, O., Onuora, J. K. J., & Obianuju, O. (2022). Environmental Accounting Practices, Social
Responsibility Disclosures and Firm Value; Evidence from listed Oil and Gas Firms in
Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Business Management, 8(1), 29–42.
www.iiardjournals.org
Fakoya, M. B., & Lawal, A. B. (2020). Effect of Environmental Accounting on the Quality of
Accounting Disclosures of Shipping Firms in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and
Management, 10(1), 14–26.
Falope, F. J., Offor, Nkechi T, & Ofurum, D. I. (2019). Environmental Cost Disclosure and
Corporate Performance of Quoted Construction Firms in Nigeria. International Journal
of Advanced Academic Research | Social and Management Sciences |, 5(8), 2488–9849.
Felix Eluyela, D., Asaleye, A. J., Popoola, O., Lawal, A. I., & Inegbedion, H. (2020). Grey
directors, corporate governance and firms performance nexus: Evidence from Nigeria.
Cogent Economics and Finance, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1815962
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review,
20(4), 986-1014.
Haruna Abubakar, A., Mansor, N., & Adilah Wan-Mohamad, W. I. (2021). Corporate tax
avoidance, free cash flow and real earnings management: Evidence from Nigeria.
Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance, 9(1), 86–97.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujaf.2021.090109
Herbert, W. E., Nwaorgu, I. A., Onyilo, F., & Iormbagah, J. A. (2020). Sustainability Reporting
and Performance of Listed Upstream Oil and Gas Firms in Nigeria: A Content Evaluation
Approach. International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, 8(1),
46–61. https://doi.org/10.33094/8.2017.2020.81.46.61
Ilmiah, J. (2021). Internal Corporate Governance Mechanisms and Corporate Tax Avoidance in
Nigeria : A Quantile Regression Approach. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 16(1),
20–44. https://doi.org/10.24843/JIAB.2021.v16.i01.p02
Ja’afar, Y., Bala, H., & Muhammded Lawal, A. (2021). Determinants of Corporate

lxvi
 Environmental Accounting Disclosure of Oil and Gas Firms in Nigeria. Global Business
Management Review (GBMR), 13(No 1), 16–36.
https://doi.org/10.32890/gbmr2021.13.1.2
Kajola, S., Adelowotan, M., Adeyemi, A., & Oshadare, S. (2023). Board Features and Corporate
Social Responsibility Practices in Nigerian Oil and Gas Companies. Economic Insights –
Trends and Challenges, 2023(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.51865/eitc.2023.01.04
Kayode, O. O., & Folajinmi, A. F. (2020). Corporate Tax Planning and Financial Performance of
Quoted Food and Beverages Firms in Nigeria. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 8(6),
266. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20200806.13
Khairunissa, O., & Juli Ratnawati. (2021). Tax Base Broadening through Improved Business
Environment in Nigeria. Tax Academy Research Journal (TARJ), 27(2), 58–66.
Khan, N., Abraham, O. O., Alex, A., Eluyela, D. F., & Odianonsen, I. F. (2022). Corporate
governance, tax avoidance, and corporate social responsibility: Evidence of emerging
market of Nigeria and frontier market of Pakistan. Cogent Economics and Finance,
10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2080898
Lan, J., Kakinaka, M., & Huang, X. (2020). Environmental pollution and corporate governance:
Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 70, 553-568.
Li, W., & Zhang, R. (2020). Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political
interference: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(1), 1-19.
Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2021). Corporate governance and carbon performance: Role of carbon
strategy and awareness. Accounting & Finance, 61(2), 2891-2934.
Madawa, S. C., & Frank, O. E. (2022). Environmental Cost Disclosure and Corporate
Profitability: Evidence From Nigerian Oil and Gas Firms. Finance & Accounting
Research Journal, 4(4), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.51594/farj.v4i4.399
Mfon, E. V., Israel, O. U., & Emeakponuzo, D. E. (2021). Social And Environmental
Responsibility Accounting Practices and Market Value Of Quoted Oil And Gas Firms In
Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 13(12), 72–89.
https://doi.org/10.7176/ejbm/13-12-07
Ngozi, O., & Emeka, O. (2022). Corporate Governance Mechanisms and Tax Sheltering;
Evidence from Quoted Tax Aggressive Firms in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Economics,
Business and Accounting, 22(19), 149–158.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2022/v22i1930666
Nkwoji, N. (2021). Environmental Accounting and Profitability of Selected Quoted Oil and Gas
Companies in Nigeria (2012-2017). Journal of Accounting and Financial Management E,
7(3), 1–18. www.iiardjournals.org
Nwaiwu, D. R., & Oluka, N. O. (2018). Environmental Cost Disclosure and Financial
Performance of Oil and Gas in Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Academic

lxvii
 Research | Financial Management |, 4(2), 2488–9849.
Nwakaego, O. S., Uzoma, I. J., & Belonwu, A. J. U. (2020). Environmental Costs Accounting
and the Earnings of Oil Firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and
Business Management, 6(2), 37–51. www.iiardpub.org
Nwankwoh, K. N., & Oiji-Okafor, T. G. (2023). Accounting for climate change and operational
performance of quoted Oil and Gas firms in Nigeria and South Africa. Journal of Global
Accounting, 8(2), 48–57.
https://journals.unizik.edu.ng/joga/article/view/2667%0Ahttps://journals.unizik.edu.ng/
joga/article/download/2667/2166
Ofoegbu, G. N., Odoemelam, N., & Okafor, R. G. (2018). Corporate board characteristics and
environmental disclosure quantity: Evidence from South Africa (integrated reporting) and
Nigeria (traditional reporting). Cogent Business and Management, 5(1), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1551510
Ogbonna, G. N., Onuoha, T. E., & Ojeaburu. (2020). Environmental Accounting and
Sustainability Development In Nigeria. West African Journal of Business and
Management Sciences, 9(4), 62–89. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3849780
Okafor, O. O., Egbunike, A. P., & 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, 77–88.
Okenwa, C., & John-david, A. (2021). Corporate Governance And Tax Avoidance Of Quoted
Consumer Goods Manufacturing. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research,
7(7), 17–51. https://doi.org/10.46654/ij.24889849
Olagunju, A., & Akinde, B. O. (2020). Environmental Accounting Information Disclosure and
Profitability of Listed Manufacturing Firms in Nigeria ( 2011-2020 ). Journal of Business
Administration and Education, 5(4), 31–41.
Olusola, O., & Babajide, S. (2019). Environmental Accounting Disclosure and Firms
Profitability in Nigeria. Ilaro Journal of Environmental Research & Development, 3, 80–
93.
Omesi, I., & Ordu, P. A. (2022). Environmental Accounting and Tax Revenue of Listed Oil and
Gas Companies in Nigeria. BW Academic Journal, 132–146.
https://www.bwjournal.org/index.php/bsjournal/article/download/184/159
Omodero, C. O., Ekwe, M. C., & Ihendinihu, J. U. (2018). The Impact of Internally Generated
Revenue on Economic Development in Nigeria. Accounting and Finance Research, 7(2),
166. https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v7n2p166
Onatuyeh, E. A., & Ukolobi, I. (2020). Tax Aggressiveness, Corporate Governance and Audit
Fees: A Study of Listed Firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Financial Research,

lxviii
 11(6), 278. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v11n6p278
Onoja, A. A. ;, Okoye, E. I., & Nwoye, U. J. (2021). Global Reporting Initiative and
Sustainability Reporting Practices: a Study of Nigeria and South Africa Oil and Gas
Firms. Research Journal of Management Practice |, 1(12), 2782–7674. www.ijaar.org
Onyebuenyi, F. E. (2022). Environmental Sustainability Disclosure and Firm Performance of
Quoted Oil and Gas Companies in Sub-Saharan Africa Countries. 2022 1 Academy of
Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 26(1), 1–18.
Onyinye, Okoye, Vincent, & Nestor. (2021). Effect of sustainability reporting on financial
performance of quoted industrial goods companies in Nigeria. International Journal of
…, 3(5), 265–280. https://www.ijmsssr.org/paper/IJMSSSR00536.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Green growth and
environmental tax reform in developing countries: Guidance note. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/d74abcf4-en
Oyewunmi, O. A., & Olujobi, O. J. (2015). International Journal of Energy Economics and
Policy Transparency in Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Industry: Is Policy Re-engineering the Way
Out? International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(4), 630–636.
http:www.econjournals.com
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Taminiau, J., & Menassa, C. (2019). The impact of carbon tax policies on corporate
environmental accountability and governance: An empirical analysis. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 97, 128–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.05.004
Wang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Event
study cases. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 12(2), 193-219.
World Bank. (2020). Environmental tax reform: Principles from theory and practice to date
(Working Paper No. 121311). http://hdl.handle.net/10986/34856
Xu, W., & Xia, Y. (2021). The impact of pollution tax reform on corporate governance and
environmental performance. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 23(4), 517–
542.
Zhang, D., Morse, S., & Kambhamptati, U. (2018). Evolving corporate social responsibility in
China. Sustainability, 10(3), 741.

lxix
 APPENDIX

Environmental Tax and Corporate Governance Raw Data (2013-2022)

Company ID Year CGI ETX PTX CTX
CONOIL PLC 1 2013 0.345 6.782 5.934 5.123
CONOIL PLC 1 2014 0.412 7.021 6.245 5.567
CONOIL PLC 1 2015 0.389 6.897 6.102 5.432
CONOIL PLC 1 2016 0.456 7.234 6.543 5.876
CONOIL PLC 1 2017 0.501 7.456 6.789 6.123
CONOIL PLC 1 2018 0.478 7.321 6.654 5.987
CONOIL PLC 1 2019 0.523 7.567 6.923 6.234
CONOIL PLC 1 2020 0.567 7.789 7.156 6.456
CONOIL PLC 1 2021 0.612 8.012 7.389 6.678
CONOIL PLC 1 2022 0.589 7.876 7.234 6.543
ETERNA PLC 2 2013 0.278 5.987 5.234 4.567
ETERNA PLC 2 2014 0.312 6.234 5.567 4.876
ETERNA PLC 2 2015 0.356 6.543 5.876 5.123
ETERNA PLC 2 2016 0.401 6.789 6.123 5.432
ETERNA PLC 2 2017 0.445 7.012 6.345 5.678
ETERNA PLC 2 2018 0.489 7.234 6.567 5.901
ETERNA PLC 2 2019 0.534 7.456 6.789 6.123
ETERNA PLC 2 2020 0.501 7.321 6.654 5.987
ETERNA PLC 2 2021 0.545 7.543 6.876 6.21
ETERNA PLC 2 2022 0.589 7.765 7.098 6.432
FORTE OIL 3 2013 0.423 7.123 6.345 5.678
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2014 0.467 7.345 6.567 5.901
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2015 0.512 7.567 6.789 6.123
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2016 0.556 7.789 7.012 6.345
(ARDOVA) PLC

lxx
 FORTE OIL 3 2017 0.601 8.012 7.234 6.567
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2018 0.645 8.234 7.456 6.789
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2019 0.689 8.456 7.678 7.012
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2020 0.734 8.678 7.901 7.234
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2021 0.701 8.543 7.765 7.098
(ARDOVA) PLC
FORTE OIL 3 2022 0.745 8.765 7.987 7.321
(ARDOVA) PLC
JAPAUL OIL 4 2013 0.189 5.234 4.567 3.901
JAPAUL OIL 4 2014 0.223 5.456 4.789 4.123
JAPAUL OIL 4 2015 0.256 5.678 5.012 4.345
JAPAUL OIL 4 2016 0.289 5.901 5.234 4.567
JAPAUL OIL 4 2017 0.323 6.123 5.456 4.789
JAPAUL OIL 4 2018 0.356 6.345 5.678 5.012
JAPAUL OIL 4 2019 0.389 6.567 5.901 5.234
JAPAUL OIL 4 2020 0.423 6.789 6.123 5.456
JAPAUL OIL 4 2021 0.456 7.012 6.345 5.678
JAPAUL OIL 4 2022 0.423 6.876 6.21 5.543
Exxon Mobil 5 2013 0.678 8.456 7.678 7.012
Exxon Mobil 5 2014 0.712 8.678 7.901 7.234
Exxon Mobil 5 2015 0.745 8.901 8.123 7.456
Exxon Mobil 5 2016 0.778 9.123 8.345 7.678
Exxon Mobil 5 2017 0.812 9.345 8.567 7.901
Exxon Mobil 5 2018 0.845 9.567 8.789 8.123
Exxon Mobil 5 2019 0.878 9.789 9.012 8.345
Exxon Mobil 5 2020 0.912 9.876 9.234 8.567
Exxon Mobil 5 2021 0.945 9.765 9.123 8.456
Exxon Mobil 5 2022 0.978 9.654 9.012 8.345
Mrs (Texaco 6 2013 0.512 7.567 6.789 6.123
Chevron)

lxxi
 Mrs (Texaco 6 2014 0.545 7.789 7.012 6.345
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2015 0.578 8.012 7.234 6.567
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2016 0.612 8.234 7.456 6.789
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2017 0.645 8.456 7.678 7.012
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2018 0.678 8.678 7.901 7.234
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2019 0.712 8.901 8.123 7.456
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2020 0.745 9.123 8.345 7.678
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2021 0.778 9.345 8.567 7.901
Chevron)
Mrs (Texaco 6 2022 0.745 9.21 8.432 7.765
Chevron)
OANDO PLC 7 2013 0.456 7.321 6.543 5.876
OANDO PLC 7 2014 0.489 7.543 6.765 6.098
OANDO PLC 7 2015 0.523 7.765 6.987 6.321
OANDO PLC 7 2016 0.556 7.987 7.21 6.543
OANDO PLC 7 2017 0.589 8.21 7.432 6.765
OANDO PLC 7 2018 0.623 8.432 7.654 6.987
OANDO PLC 7 2019 0.656 8.654 7.876 7.21
OANDO PLC 7 2020 0.689 8.876 8.098 7.432
OANDO PLC 7 2021 0.723 9.098 8.321 7.654
OANDO PLC 7 2022 0.756 9.321 8.543 7.876
Nexen Petroleum 8 2013 0.389 6.789 6.012 5.345
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2014 0.423 7.012 6.234 5.567
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2015 0.456 7.234 6.456 5.789
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2016 0.489 7.456 6.678 6.012
Nigeria

lxxii
Nexen Petroleum 8 2017 0.523 7.678 6.901 6.234
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2018 0.556 7.901 7.123 6.456
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2019 0.589 8.123 7.345 6.678
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2020 0.623 8.345 7.567 6.901
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2021 0.656 8.567 7.789 7.123
Nigeria
Nexen Petroleum 8 2022 0.689 8.789 8.012 7.345
Nigeria
SEPLAT 9 2013 0.578 7.987 7.21 6.543
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2014 0.612 8.21 7.432 6.765
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2015 0.645 8.432 7.654 6.987
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2016 0.678 8.654 7.876 7.21
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2017 0.712 8.876 8.098 7.432
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2018 0.745 9.098 8.321 7.654
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2019 0.778 9.321 8.543 7.876
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2020 0.812 9.543 8.765 8.098
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2021 0.845 9.765 8.987 8.321
PETROLEUM PLC
SEPLAT 9 2022 0.878 9.876 9.098 8.432
PETROLEUM PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2013 0.623 8.234 7.456 6.789
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2014 0.656 8.456 7.678 7.012
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2015 0.689 8.678 7.901 7.234
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2016 0.723 8.901 8.123 7.456

lxxiii
 PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2017 0.756 9.123 8.345 7.678
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2018 0.789 9.123 8.345 7.678
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2019 0.823 9.345 8.567 7.901
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2020 0.856 9.567 8.789 8.123
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2021 0.889 9.789 9.012 8.345
PLC
TOTAL NIGERIA 10 2022 0.923 9.876 9.234 8.567
PLC

lxxiv