Tradable Parameters

151

Estimators (BLUE). Moreover, the coefficient may be overestimated, standard errors underestimated and t-statistics overestimated. The Breusch-Godfrey Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test for higher order autocorrelation reveals that the hypotheses of zero autocorrelation in the residuals were not rejected. This was because the probabilities (Prob. F, Prob. Chi-Square) were greater than 0.05 and hence the LM test did not therefore reveal serial correlation problems for the model.

The test for Heteroscedasticity which is the absence of homoscedasticity or the constant variance assumption of the Ordinary Least Square estimator is also conducted. It implies the absence of non-constant variance leading to the breakdown of the BLUE properties in which the efficiency and consistency property are lost. Using the Autoregressive conditional Heteroskedasticity (Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey) test, decision rule is to conclude that there is no heteroscedasticity if the F-statistic values are respectively greater than the critical values at 5% level. In the absence of this (i.e if the critical values at 5% is greater than the F-statistic and observed R-square value), we conclude that there is homoscedasticity. From the second part of table 4.3, the results show the absence of heteroscedasticity, meaning that the residuals of the three models are homoskedastic (which is desirable) because the entire p-values are more than 5%.

152

less than 2.0, or reversely we accept the alternative (i.e. if the probability (p-value) value becomes less than 0.05 and or the t-statistics is ≥ 2.

4.2.1 Test of hypothesis one

Ho: Corporate social sustainability reporting does not significantly affect Return on Assets (ROA) of Oil and Gas Companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Table 4.3 Test summary for hypothesis one

Dependent Variable(s)

Independent Variable

t-statistics p-value (Sig.)

Significant or not

Decision Ho Return on Assets

(ROA)

Social sustainability reporting

-0.952838 0.3431 NSig Accept null

Source: Researchers Compilation (2018) NSig = Not significant

*.Significant at 5% (95%) level of confidence

Interpretation: The above test result shows that the effect of social sustainability reporting on return on assets (ROA) is not significant and the p-value of 0.3431 is greater than 0.05. This led to the acceptance of the null hypotheses (Ho). Thus, we conclude that

"corporate social sustainability reporting does not significantly affect Return on Assets (ROA) of Oil and Gas Companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange".

4.2.2 Test of hypothesis two

Ho: Corporate social sustainability reporting does not have a significant effect on Return on Equity (ROE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Table 4.4 Test summary for hypothesis two

Dependent Variable(s)

Independent Variable

t-statistics p-value (Sig.)

Significant or not

Decision Ho Return on Equity

(ROE)

Social sustainability reporting

-2.552775 0.0123* Sig Reject null

Source: Researchers Compilation (2018) NSig = Not significant

*.Significant at 5% (95%) level of confidence

Interpretation: The above test result shows that the effect of social sustainability reporting on return on equity (ROE) is significant and the p-value of 0.0123 is less than

153

0.05. This led to the rejection of the null hypotheses (Ho) and acceptance of the alternative hypothesis (H_I). Thus, we conclude that "Corporate social sustainability reporting has a significant effect on the Return on Equity (ROE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange".

4.2.3 Test of hypothesis three

Ho: Corporate social sustainability reporting does not have a significant effect on Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Table 4.5 Test summary for hypothesis three

Dependent Variable(s)

Independent Variable

t-statistics p-value (Sig.)

Significant or not

Decision

Ho Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)

Social sustainability reporting

-0.502204 0.6167 NSig Accept null

Source: Researchers Compilation (2018) NSig = Not significant

*.Significant at 5% (95%) level of confidence

Interpretation: The above test result shows that the effect of social sustainability reporting on return of capital employed (ROCE) is not significant and the p-value of 0.6167 is greater than 0.05. This led to the acceptance of the null hypotheses (Ho). Thus, we conclude that

"Corporate social sustainability reporting does not have a significant effect on Return of Capital Employed (ROCE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange"

154

4.2.4 Test of hypothesis four

Ho: Corporate environmental sustainability reporting does not significantly affect Return on Assets (ROA) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Table 4.6 Test summary for hypothesis four

Dependent Variable(s)

Independent Variable

t-statistics p-value (Sig.)

Significant or not

Decision

Ho Return on Assets (ROA)

Environmental sustainability reporting

0.151454 0.8799 NSig Accept null

Source: Researchers Compilation (2018) NSig = Not significant

*.Significant at 5% (95%) level of confidence

Interpretation: The above test result shows that the effect of environment sustainability reporting on return on asset (ROA) is not significant and the p-value of 0.8799 is greater than 0.05. This led to the acceptance of the null hypotheses (Ho). Thus, we conclude that

"Corporate environmental sustainability reporting does not significantly affect Return on Assets (ROA) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange".

4.2.5 Test of hypothesis five

Ho: Corporate environmental sustainability reporting does not have a significant effect on Return on Equity (ROE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Table 4.7 Test summary for hypothesis five

Dependent Variable(s)

Independent Variable

t-statistics p-value (Sig.)

Significant or not

Decision Ho Return on Equity

(ROE)

Environmental sustainability reporting

0.116562 0.9075 NSig Accept null

Source: Researchers Compilation (2018) NSig = Not significant

*.Significant at 5% (95%) level of confidence

155

Interpretation: The above test result shows that the effect of environment sustainability reporting on return on equity (ROE) is not significant and the p-value of 0.9075 is greater than 0.05. This led to the acceptance of the null hypotheses (Ho). Thus, we conclude that

"Corporate environmental sustainability reporting does not have a significant effect on Return on Equity (ROE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange".

4.2.6 Test of hypothesis six

Ho: Corporate environmental sustainability reporting does not have a significant effect on Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Table 4.8 Test summary for hypothesis six

Dependent Variable(s)

Independent Variable

t-statistics p-value (Sig.)

Significant or not

Decision Ho Return on Equity

(ROE)

Environmental sustainability reporting

1.219258 0.2258 NSig Accept null

Source: Researchers Compilation (2018) NSig = Not significant

*.Significant at 5% (95%) level of confidence

Interpretation: The above test result shows that the effect of environment sustainability reporting on return on capital employed (ROCE) is not significant and the p-value of 0.2258 is greater than 0.05. This led to the acceptance of the null hypotheses (Ho). Thus, we conclude that "Corporate environmental sustainability reporting does not have a significant effect on Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) of Oil and Gas companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange"

156