Impact of Board Committee Characteristics on Social Sustainability Reporting in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Moderating Role of Institutional Ownership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corporate strategic planning of businesses in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) largely focuses on immediate financial performance with minimal credence to social sustainability. Thus, studies on the linkage between corporate governance (CG) and sustainability reporting have focused on developed economies. This study therefore investigated the role of institutional ownership in the impact of board committee characteristics on social sustainability reporting. This study involved strongly balanced panel data with 1969 observations of 275 publicly listed non-financial firms in SSA within the timeframe of 2012 to 2021. Data were analyzed using STATA 14.1. The hypotheses were tested using the two-step system of the generalized method of moment (GMM) using the Arellano–Bond dynamic panel data estimation method. The rate of social sustainability reporting was 39.4%. Relatively, Mauritian and South African firms had the most effective board committee characteristics and higher levels of social sustainability reporting. Although institutional ownership had no significant effect on social sustainability reporting, it moderated the effect of sustainability committee independence and sustainability committee gender diversity on social sustainability reporting. This paper presents a new perspective on the corporate governance and social sustainability literature by examining the effect of institutional ownership on board committee characteristics and social sustainability reporting in SSA. In terms of policy implication, there is the need for mandatory regulatory and legal CG framework that is regularly updated at national and regional levels in SSA to motivate listed firms to establish sustainability committees with efficient characteristics to promote social sustainability reporting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".