Purpose This study aims to address a strategic leadership dilemma by asking when profitability translates into credible sustainability reporting. It examines whether board governance conditions the relationship between financial capacity and higher levels of sustainability-reporting credibility among manufacturing firms in Africa. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a balanced panel of 201 firms observed from 2014 to 2023, yielding 2,010 firm-year observations. Sustainability reporting credibility (SRC) is hand-coded as an ordinal ladder ranging from no identifiable disclosure to board-governed and externally assured reporting. Correlated random-effects ordered-logit models with firm-clustered standard errors are used, supplemented by linear-panel and measurement sensitivity tests. Findings Board size and average director tenure are positively associated with higher credibility stages, whereas female board representation and the non-executive director ratio are not statistically significant. Return on equity is not independently significant in the direct-effects ordinal model, whereas its association with SRC becomes more positive at higher levels of board size and average director tenure. Practical implications Senior leaders should treat sustainability-reporting credibility as a strategic governance and control architecture rather than merely as a communication exercise. Financial capacity is more likely to support credible reporting when boards possess sufficient scale, accumulated firm knowledge and oversight capacity to direct resources toward accountability and verification. Originality/value The study reframes sustainability-reporting credibility as a strategic governance outcome and identifies board governance as a condition that helps convert financial capacity into stronger accountability and verification commitments. It therefore explains not simply whether profitable firms report credibly, but when profitability is more likely to translate into credible sustainability reporting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prince Gyimah (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: