How social initiatives affect the value of manufacturing companies in Nigeria

  • 56 Views
  • 7 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Eighty percent of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria (4 out of 5 firms) had negative and fluctuating returns on equity eighty-three percent of the time (5 out of 6 years), while inexplicable fluctuations in philanthropic expenditures, labor costs, and creditor days correspondingly occurred during the 6-year period under review (2018–2023). This study looks at how social initiatives affect the value of listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Its specific goal was to determine whether a firm’s value (measured as return on equity) is influenced by the cost of corporate giving, the cost of employee well-being, and the time taken to settle creditors. Data were obtained from the financial reports of 5 companies. the sample of which was judgmentally drawn from 16 listed companies using a quantitative method of research. EViews statistical package was used to analyze data. It was found that investments in social initiatives as supported by corporate giving {B1 = 0.010162, P = .2691 or P > .05}, employee well-being {B2 = .012285, P = .3836 or P > .05}, and obligations to creditors {B3 = .012018, P = .8327 or P > .05} are not value-enhancing in Nigeria’s manufacturing sector. In light of the above, it was concluded that listed companies in the manufacturing sector in Nigeria are not legitimately and strategically investing their resources in social initiatives, and corporate value is consequently not enhanced and maximized.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Test of variables and residuals done before performing regression analysis
    • Table 2. Test of residuals’ stationarity done before performing regression analysis
    • Table 3. Test of residuals’ cross-section dependence done before regression analysis
    • Table 4. Panel data regression results – model 1
    • Table 5. Hausman test results – model 1
    • Table 6. Panel data regression results – model 2
    • Table 7. Hausman test results – model 2
    • Table 8. Panel data regression results of – model 3
    • Table 9. Hausman test results – model 3
    • Conceptualization
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Eme Efiong, Peter Bessong
    • Data curation
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Abosede Usoro, Essien Oden
    • Formal Analysis
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Eme Efiong, Ije Ubi
    • Investigation
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Abosede Usoro, Peter Bessong
    • Methodology
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Essien Oden, Ije Ubi
    • Project administration
      William Inyang, Abosede Usoro, Eme Efiong, Peter Bessong
    • Resources
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Peter Bessong, Essien Oden
    • Software
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Eme Efiong, Ije Ubi
    • Supervision
      William Inyang, Abosede Usoro, Eme Efiong, Peter Bessong, Essien Oden
    • Validation
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Eme Efiong, Essien Oden, Ije Ubi
    • Writing – original draft
      William Inyang, Charles Effiong, Eme Efiong, Peter Bessong
    • Writing – review & editing
      William Inyang, Abosede Usoro, Essien Oden, Ije Ubi