ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA

Copyright © Author(s) 2025. All Rights Reserved. Published by GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal Applied Science ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA By: AKANINYENE AKPAN ARTHUR1 M.SC STUDENT DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING, AKWA IBOM STATE UNIVERSITY [email protected], +2347031214790 EMMANUEL O. EMENYI (PhD) DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING, AKWA IBOM STATE UNIVERSITY emen[email protected] and emmanuelemen[email protected],ng SUNDAY A. OKPO (PhD) DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING, AKWA IBOM STATE UNIVERSITY Abstract: Oil spills, gas flaring, and poor waste management have resulted in severe environmental damage, leading to increased operational expenses for companies as they struggle to comply with environmental regulations, this study examined the effect of environmental degradation cost and financial performance of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. Environmental degradation cost is the independent variable proxied by oil spill cost, environmental fines and penalties cost, carbon emission cost, waste management cost and environmental restoration cost and financial performance is the dependent variable proxied by return on assets. Ex-post facto research design was used and panel data covering ten (10) years (2015-2024) across nine (9) listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis via E-views 10.0 statistical package. The study findings revealed that oil spill cost has a significant positive effect {Coeff = 6.6475 (0.0028)} on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria, environmental fines and penalties have non-significant negative effect {Coeff = -0.5802 (0.6408)} on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria while carbon emissions cost has a significant negative effect {Coeff = -174.4241 (0.0000)} on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. It also revealed that waste management cost has non-significant negative effect {Coeff = - 1.4233 (0.7954)} on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria while environmental restoration cost has a nonsignificant positive effect {Coeff = 1.3290 (0.0853)} on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. It was thus concluded that environmental degradation cost has a significant effect on financial performance of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The recommendations made included that policymakers and regulators should strengthen environmental regulations and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that oil and gas firms comply with environmental standards, thereby reducing environmental fines and penalties Keywords: Environmental degradation cost, financial performance, oil spill, return on assets. How to cite: ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 Page 12 of 26 ARTICLE ID: #02146 10.5281/ZENODO.17500441 e-ISSN 3050-9653 p-ISSN 2805-4364 VOL. 08 ISSUE 09 SEPT. - 2025 Page 23 of 66 ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science 1.0 INTRODUCTION Environmental degradation has become a critical concern globally, particularly in industries with significant ecological footprints, such as the oil and gas sector. In Nigeria, the oil and gas industry are a cornerstone of the economy, contributing substantially to the nation’s GDP and export earnings. However, the environmental costs associated with oil and gas operations have raised serious concerns. These costs, often overlooked in financial reporting, have begun to influence the financial performance of listed oil and gas firms. This study is motivated by the need to understand how environmental degradation costs, such as oil spill clean-ups, environmental fines, and penalties, carbon emissions, environmental waste management and environmental restoration cost, impact the financial health of these firms. Recent studies have highlighted the growing pressure on corporations to adopt sustainable practices, yet the financial implications of environmental degradation remain underexplored in the Nigerian context (Adegbite et al., 2019). Environmental degradation costs refer to the economic burdens incurred due to the negative impact of industrial activities on the environment. These costs arise from the depletion of natural resources, pollution, and the destruction of ecosystems. According to Okonkwo and Eze (2021), these costs can be direct, such as expenses for cleaning up oil spills, or indirect, such as reputational damage and regulatory fines. The variables of environmental degradation costs in the oil and gas industry include oil spill costs, environmental fines and penalties, environmental restoration, waste management cost and carbon emissions costs. Oil spill costs encompass the expenses related to cleaning up spills, compensating affected communities, and restoring damaged ecosystems. These costs can be substantial, as seen in the case of the 2011 Bonga oil spill in Nigeria, which cost Shell Nigeria millions of dollars in clean-up and compensation (Udoh & Ekpo, 2020). Environmental fines and penalties are imposed by regulatory bodies for non-compliance with environmental laws and standards. These fines not only affect a firm’s financial statements but also its reputation and stakeholder relationships. Carbon emissions costs, on the other hand, are associated with the release of greenhouse gases during oil and gas extraction and processing (Okafor & Adeleye, 2022). Waste management cost Financial performance in the context of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria refers to the ability of these firms to generate profits and create value for shareholders. It is commonly measured using metrics such as return on assets (ROA), which indicates how efficiently a firm utilizes its assets to generate earnings. ROA is a critical indicator of financial health, as it reflects both operational efficiency and profitability. For oil and gas firms, financial performance is influenced by various factors, including oil prices, production levels, and operational costs. However, environmental degradation costs have emerged as a significant factor that can erode profitability. For instance, firms with high environmental liabilities may experience reduced ROA due to increased operational expenses and potential legal liabilities (Lu & Guo (2024). Understanding the impact of these costs on financial performance is essential for stakeholders seeking to assess the long-term viability of oil and gas investments in Nigeria. The link between environmental degradation costs and the financial performance of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria is increasingly evident. As global awareness of environmental issues grows, firms are facing greater scrutiny and higher costs associated with environmental compliance and remediation. These costs can directly affect profitability by increasing operational expenses and reducing net income. Additionally, environmental incidents such as oil spills can lead to reputational damage, resulting in lost revenue and reduced investor confidence. Studies have shown that firms with poor environmental performance often experience lower financial returns, as investors and stakeholders increasingly prioritize sustainability (Okafor et al., 2021). Page No. 24 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as 1.2 Statement of the problem The current situation in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry is characterized by escalating environmental degradation costs that significantly impact the financial performance of listed firms. Oil spills, gas flaring, and poor waste management have resulted in severe environmental damage, leading to increased operational expenses for companies as they struggle to comply with environmental regulations. Despite the existence of regulatory frameworks, enforcement remains weak, allowing firms to prioritize short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability. As a result, many oil and gas companies face frequent legal penalties, fines, and compensation claims from affected communities, which erode their profitability. Additionally, the rising costs associated with carbon emissions management and environmental remediation efforts have placed further financial burdens on these firms. The persistent financial burden caused by environmental degradation costs diminishes corporate profitability, reducing returns to shareholders and discouraging new investments in the sector. The reputational damage suffered by oil and gas companies due to environmental infractions further limits their ability to attract international partnerships and funding opportunities, placing them at a competitive disadvantage in the global energy market. If these issues remain unresolved, the long-term financial viability of many listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria will be threatened, potentially leading to business closures, job losses, and reduced contributions to national revenue. 1.3 Objectives of the study The main objective of this study was to examine the effect of environmental degradation cost and financial performance of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. The specific objectives of this study were to: 1 Assess the effect of oil spill cost on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. 2 Ascertain the impact of environmental fines and penalties on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. 3 Investigate the effect of carbon emissions cost on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. 4 Examine the effect of waste management cost on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. 5 Determine the effect of environmental restoration cost on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. 1.4 Research questions In order to give answer to the research problems, the following questions was formulated for the study; 1 What effect does oil spill cost has on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria? 2 What effect does environmental fines and penalties cost have on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria? 3 To what extent does carbon emissions cost affect return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria? 4 To what extent does waste management cost affect return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria? 5 What effect does environmental restoration cost has on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria? ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Conceptual framework The conceptual review covers the concept of environmental degradation cost with five dimensions as it relates to financial performance as depicted in the diagram below. Independent variable Dependent variable Environmental Degradation Cost Financial performance Fig 2.1: Conceptual framework of variables Source: Researcher’s compilation (2025 2.1.2 Environmental degradation costs Al-Mawali, H. (2021) Environmental cost accounting is the process of calculating and measuring the cost of environmental goods and services as well as the information utilized to guide decisions about environmental management. Environmental expenditures, in their opinion, are expenses related to the incidence, identification, mitigation, and prevention of environmental harm. According to Bucior and Szadziewska (2021), environmental cost refers to the environmental accounting principles of an organization that aims to achieve sustainable growth, maintain positive relationships with the community, and pursue successful environmental conservation projects. The researcher claims that this type of accounting provides the best tools for quantitative measurement and results communication, helps a company determine the benefits and gains from these activities, and calculates the cost of environmental protection while conducting routine business operations. According to AlMawali, H. (2021), environmental accounting is a comprehensive topic in environmental fines and penalties associated with oil spills, accounting for carbon emissions, waste management, environmental restoration, and return on assets. The financial community and the general public may find environmental data interesting and useful in deciding on capital budgeting, pricing, and overhead control, they add, adding that environmental accounting offers reports for both internal and external usage. Al-Mawali, H. (2021) define environmental costs as the costs associated with causing, comprehending, treating, and preventing environmental damage. Bucior and Szadziewska (2021) described environmental costs as having been expanded to include factors such as worker training, research and development, recycling, and product design for sustainability. The authors go on to say that environmental management systems (EMS) have developed as a way to systematically apply business management to environmental costs in order to improve a firm's long-term financial performance by creating procedures and goods that boost both competitive and environmental performance. Effiong, and Inyang, (2022) described environmental expenses as environmental measurements and environmental losses, such as clean-up expenses, costs associated with resource recycling or energy conservation, closure costs, capital expenditures, and development expenditures. Return on Assets Oil spill cost Environmental fines and penalties cost Carbon emission cost Waste management cost Environmental restoration cost Page No. 26 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as According to Gola et al (2022), environmental accounting is also referred to as "green accounting," which has to do with the present generation's capacity to meet its demands without necessarily compromising or impeding the ability of future generations to do the same. He continued by stating that it is an art or science to assess organizational performance in relation to the objective, disclose it to internal and external stakeholders, and be responsible for its sustainable development. According to Effiong, and Inyang (2022), environmental accounting can help communities preserve their relationships with one another while also achieving sustainable growth and development. They go on to say that it is an essential component of accounting that is growing and developing because societal forms are becoming more environmentally conscious, which raises the bar for monitoring the environment. They continued by pointing out that the International Organization for Standardization (IOS) had introduced the IOS 14,000 series of standards, which cover a variety of environmental management-related topics. This gave businesses useful tools to improve their environmental performance, which in turn increased productivity and success. 2.1.3 Oil spill cost Ahmed et al. (2019) defined oil spill cost as the financial burden incurred in the containment, cleanup, and remediation of oil spills, as well as the economic losses suffered by affected communities and ecosystems. They stated that oil spill costs include direct expenses such as emergency response efforts, fines, and legal fees, along with indirect costs like loss of biodiversity and damage to fisheries. Eze (2020) referred to oil spill cost as an economic consequence of environmental pollution that affects both corporate entities and society, emphasizing that it involves compensation for affected individuals, restoration of damaged ecosystems, and loss of revenue in industries dependent on marine and land resources. El Moussaoui and Idelhakkar (2023) described oil spill cost as an essential aspect of environmental management that provides financial insights into the shortand long-term impacts of oil spills. They noted that these costs are categorized into regulatory compliance expenses, compensation claims, and mitigation expenditures aimed at restoring the affected environment. The authors further asserted that oil spill cost analysis is crucial in formulating policies that promote sustainable oil exploration and production, ensuring that financial and environmental risks are adequately managed. Emenyi and Okpo (2023) stated that the costs associated with oil spills include expenditures on emergency response, remediation technologies, and liability settlements disclosure. They highlighted that oil spill costs often extend beyond immediate cleanup efforts, affecting local economies by disrupting agricultural activities, contaminating water sources, and leading to long-term health consequences for exposed populations. Agbadiba and Patricks (2024) investigated oil spill costs have expanded to include socio-economic damages such as displacement of communities, loss of employment, and degradation of natural resources essential for economic activities. They emphasized that environmental impact assessments (EIA) have become crucial tools in evaluating the financial implications of oil spills and developing strategies to minimize future occurrences. Olatunji and Emeka (2019) described oil spill costs as comprising legal penalties, operational disruptions, and reputational damage that negatively impact companies and investors. They argued that the rising financial burden associated with oil spills has led to increased corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, with firms investing in preventive measures such as spill containment technologies and improved safety protocols. According to Abubakar (2021), oil spill cost analysis is a growing aspect of environmental accounting, driven by rising global awareness of ecological degradation and ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science the need for sustainable business practices. The author noted that oil companies are increasingly required to disclose spill-related expenditures in their financial reports, enhancing transparency and accountability in the energy sector. He further highlighted those international regulations, such as the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Cooperation (OPRC), have been instrumental in guiding corporate responses to oil spills, ensuring that financial and environmental risks are effectively mitigated. Hassan et al. (2022) stated that the financial burden of oil spills extends beyond immediate cleanup costs, impacting national economies through declining tourism revenues, reduced agricultural output, and increased healthcare expenditures due to pollution-related illnesses. They pointed out that a robust environmental management framework is essential to minimizing oil spill costs, as well as ensuring that oil companies adopt sustainable practices that protect both economic and environmental interests. 2.1.3 Environmental fines and penalties Johnson et al. (2021) defined environmental fines and penalties as monetary charges imposed on individuals, businesses, or organizations for violating environmental laws and regulations. They stated that these fines serve as a deterrent against harmful environmental practices and are often imposed by government agencies to ensure compliance with environmental standards. Furthermore, they noted that environmental fines are structured to encourage organizations to adopt environmentally sustainable practices while penalizing those that contribute to pollution, habitat destruction, and other forms of environmental degradation. Okonkwo (2022) referred to environmental fines and penalties as regulatory enforcement mechanisms designed to hold corporations accountable for environmental misconduct. The researcher further explained that these penalties are essential in reinforcing environmental policies, promoting corporate social responsibility, and encouraging industries to invest in eco-friendly technologies to mitigate regulatory risks. Adeyemi et al. (2020) described environmental fines and penalties as essential legal tools used to safeguard natural ecosystems and public health. They noted that these costs arise from regulatory breaches such as illegal waste disposal, excessive emissions, deforestation, and failure to comply with environmental impact assessments. The authors further asserted that the severity of fines depends on the extent of environmental damage caused, the duration of non-compliance, and the responsible entity’s willingness to rectify the violation. Uchenna and Bello (2019) stated that environmental fines and penalties include direct financial charges, mandatory remediation costs, and reputational damages that affect a company's market value. They highlighted that industries with poor environmental compliance records often experience reduced investor confidence, increased operational costs, and long-term economic instability due to recurring fines and legal battles. According to Gola et al (2022), explained that environmental fines and penalties have expanded to include both monetary sanctions and legal restrictions on business activities, such as license revocations and operational suspensions. They emphasized that strict enforcement of environmental regulations compels organizations to prioritize compliance in their strategic planning and risk management frameworks. The authors further noted that firms operating in highly regulated industries, such as oil and gas, manufacturing, and mining, face significant financial consequences if they fail to adhere to environmental standards. Olagunju amd Nweke (2023) described environmental fines and penalties as encompassing legal liabilities that can lead to substantial financial losses, including compensatory damages to affected communities and restoration expenses. They argued that corporations that fail to implement sustainable environmental management practices are likely to incur higher regulatory costs and litigation risks. Page No. 28 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as According to Ibrahim (2023), environmental fines and penalties are increasingly being used as revenue-generating tools by governments while simultaneously promoting environmental conservation. The author noted that many countries have strengthened their regulatory frameworks by increasing the financial penalties for non-compliance, making it more costly for businesses to disregard environmental laws. He further highlighted that the integration of technology, such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence, has improved environmental monitoring, leading to a higher detection rate of regulatory violations and an increase in imposed fines. Hassan et al. (2021) stated that environmental fines and penalties not only affect individual businesses but also have macroeconomic implications, influencing national investment climates, industrial competitiveness, and long-term sustainability goals. They pointed out that regulatory agencies must balance the enforcement of environmental laws with economic growth objectives, ensuring that penalties do not disproportionately burden businesses while still achieving environmental protection goals. 2.1.4 Carbon emissions cost Williams et al. (2020) defined carbon emissions cost as the financial burden associated with the release of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere due to industrial activities, transportation, and energy production. They stated that these costs include regulatory penalties, carbon taxes, and expenditures related to emissions reduction strategies. Okonkwo (2021) referred to carbon emissions cost as the economic impact of carbon pollution on businesses and governments, which involves direct compliance costs, mitigation investments, and the social costs of climate change. The researcher further explained that carbon emissions accounting allows firms to assess their financial obligations under environmental regulations, estimate the long-term impact of emissions on economic performance, and integrate sustainable practices into their business models. Adeyemi et al. (2019) described carbon emissions cost as an essential element of environmental sustainability that influences both corporate strategies and national economic policies. They noted that these costs arise from emissions trading schemes, carbon offset programs, and investments in cleaner energy technologies. The authors further asserted that carbon pricing mechanisms, such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems, are designed to internalize the environmental externalities of industrial activities, ensuring that businesses take responsibility for their contributions to climate change. Zhang and Zhang (2025) stated that carbon emissions costs include expenditures on regulatory compliance, technological upgrades, and sustainability reporting. They highlighted that these costs are not only borne by corporations but also impact economies through inflationary pressures, reduced industrial output, and shifts in consumer demand towards eco-friendly alternatives. Wang et al (2020) evaluated the industry's emission reduction effects across 30 provinces of China. Then, the emission reduction paths of “lagging regions,” which fail to meet the 2030 industrial carbon emission reduction target, are optimized based on the twodimensional perspective of carbon emission efficiency and emission reduction cost. This study found that China has exceeded its 2020 industrial carbon emission reduction target. Olagunju and Nweke (2022) described carbon emissions costs as comprising financial penalties, operational adjustments, and reputational risks associated with excessive carbon footprints. They argued that as environmental regulations tighten, companies are increasingly investing in renewable energy sources and carbon capture technologies to minimize their exposure to emissions-related costs. According to Ibrahim (2023), carbon emissions cost analysis has become a fundamental aspect of environmental economics, driven by global efforts to combat climate ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science change and achieve carbon neutrality. The author noted that businesses are now required to disclose their carbon emissions-related expenditures in financial reports, improving transparency and accountability in corporate sustainability practices. He further highlighted those international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, have played a significant role in shaping policies that encourage firms to adopt cost-effective carbon reduction strategies. Hassan et al. (2022) stated that the financial burden of carbon emissions extends beyond corporate expenses, impacting national economies through increased energy costs, disruptions in global trade, and heightened financial risks associated with extreme weather events. They pointed out that a well-structured carbon pricing system is essential to mitigating carbon emissions costs while ensuring that economic growth and environmental sustainability remain aligned. 2.1.5 Waste management cost Waste management cost refers to all the expenses a company incurs to handle waste throughout its lifecycle, from generation to final disposal or recycling. It is the practice of disclosing information related to the management, handling, and disposal of waste generated by an organization or industry. It involves providing detailed information on waste reduction initiatives, recycling efforts, waste disposal methods, and overall waste management practices. Waste management disclosure can take various forms, including narrative descriptions in corporate social responsibility reports or sustainability reports, quantitative metrics showing waste reduction targets and achievements. Adopting standardized reporting frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) ensures consistency and comparability in waste management disclosure practices (Osuagwu & Okoyeuzu, 2020). Both the owner of the facility where hazardous substances are discharged and the generator of those pollutants are subject to environmental liability. 2.1.6 Environmental restoration cost Environmental restoration cost plays a crucial role in shaping stakeholder perceptions and influencing investment decisions. Shareholders, customers, regulators, and the broader community are increasingly demanding greater transparency from companies regarding their environmental performance and restoration efforts. By disclosing information on environmental projects, expenditures, outcomes, and long-term sustainability goals, firms can enhance their reputation, build trust with stakeholders, and differentiate themselves in the marketplace. However, the effectiveness of environmental restoration cost depends on the quality of data provided, the accuracy of reporting methodologies, and the comparability of information across different companies and industries. Without clear guidelines and benchmarks for assessing the credibility of environmental restoration disclosures, there is a risk of inconsistency, misinterpretation, and manipulation of information that could undermine the trust and confidence of stakeholders as stated by Johnson and Jumoke (2022). 2.1.7 Financial performance Anderson et al. (2022) defined financial performance as the measure of a firm’s overall financial health over a specified period, evaluated through key indicators such as profitability, liquidity, efficiency, and solvency. They stated that financial performance reflects an organization’s ability to generate revenue, manage costs, and achieve financial stability while maintaining operational efficiency. Additionally, they noted that financial performance serves as a critical benchmark for investors, stakeholders, and regulatory bodies in assessing a firm’s sustainability and long-term viability. Okonkwo (2021) described financial performance as the evaluation of a company's financial position using financial Page No. 30 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as statements, return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), and earnings per share (EPS). The researcher further explained that strong financial performance enables firms to expand their operations, attract investments, and maintain competitiveness in dynamic business environments. Adeyemi et al. (2020) described financial performance as a multidimensional concept encompassing profitability, revenue generation, and cost management efficiency. They emphasized that an organization’s financial health is influenced by internal management strategies and external macroeconomic factors, such as inflation, interest rates, and market competition. The authors further asserted that companies with sound financial performance exhibit higher resilience to economic downturns and maintain a stable capital structure that supports growth. Uchenna and Bello (2019) stated that financial performance is assessed using financial ratios, cash flow analysis, and profitability metrics. They highlighted that firms with strong financial performance attract higher investor confidence and have greater access to financing, allowing them to sustain growth and innovation. Chukwuemeka et al. (2018) explained that financial performance has evolved to include both traditional accounting measures and modern performance metrics, such as economic value added (EVA) and market value added (MVA). They emphasized that financial performance is not solely dependent on revenue generation but also on effective risk management and corporate governance. The authors further noted that firms that integrate sustainable financial practices achieve long-term profitability and mitigate financial distress. Olagunju and Nweke (2023) described financial performance as a determinant of corporate success, influenced by both internal operational efficiencies and external economic conditions. They argued that companies that effectively manage their financial resources achieve superior performance outcomes, resulting in higher shareholder value and sustainable business growth. According to Ibrahim (2023), financial performance is a key driver of corporate decision-making, influencing investment strategies, resource allocation, and business expansion.. Hassan et al. (2021) stated that financial performance plays a crucial role in determining an organization's ability to meet its short-term and long-term obligations. They pointed out that maintaining financial stability enhances a firm's reputation, fosters stakeholder trust, and supports sustainable development objectives. 2.1.8 Return on assets Johnson et al. (2022) defined return on assets (ROA) as a financial performance metric that measures the profitability of an organization relative to its total assets. They explained that ROA provides insight into how effectively a company utilizes its assets to generate earnings and is widely used by investors and financial analysts to assess operational efficiency. The authors further noted that a higher ROA indicates a firm’s ability to convert investments in assets into profits, reflecting strong management efficiency and financial sustainability. Olatunji (2021) described ROA as a key profitability ratio that evaluates how well a company leverages its assets to generate net income. He stated that firms with high ROA ratios tend to have effective asset management strategies, leading to improved financial stability and long-term growth. Adegbite et al. (2020) explained that ROA is a critical measure of corporate profitability, as it quantifies the relationship between net earnings and total assets employed. They emphasized that ROA is influenced by factors such as capital structure, operational efficiency, and industry-specific dynamics. The authors argued that organizations with optimal asset utilization strategies tend to achieve higher returns, positioning them for sustainable financial performance. Nwosu and Ahmed (2019) stated that ROA serves as a fundamental indicator of financial health, providing valuable insights into a firm’s ability to generate profits from its asset base. They highlighted that an increasing ROA suggests improved financial management, while a declining ROA may indicate inefficiencies in asset utilization or excessive financial leverage. ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science Compensation Obligation has no significant relationship with market value of oil and gas companies in Nigeria. Based on this, this study recommends that oil and gas companies in Nigeria should spend significant amount on remediation to measure up to the damages caused to the environment and to individuals affected by the activities of their operation. Chen et al., (2024) researched on environmental penalties and financing punishment: Evidence from incremental bank loans. This study examines the impact of environmental penalties on corporate incremental bank loans. The results show that both the frequency and degree of environmental penalties significantly reduce corporate incremental bank loans, indicating that corporate environmental penalties lead to “financing punishment” by damaging corporate reputation and increasing risks. This financing punishment can be alleviated by good CSR performance and CSR assurance, indicating that exemplary CSR performance and assurance can provide an “insurance” effect to influence bank loans when a firm has a negative event. We also find that this financing punishment has intra-industry peer effects, suggesting that the environmental penalties incurred by one firm can influence the broader credit decisions of commercial banks within the same industry. Wu and Xu (2024) examined environmental regulation, agency costs, and financial performance: Based on the release of “The New Environmental Protection Law.” The urgency of protecting our planet cannot be overstated. This paper employs Agency Cost Theory, utilizing "the new EPA" as a case study and the difference-in-difference (DID) model to analyze A-share-listed companies in heavily polluting sectors (2012–2018). The research demonstrates that the implementation of the new EPA leads to a sustained enhancement in the financial performance (UnEBIT) of heavily polluting enterprises. Furthermore, the analysis of the mediating effect from a principal-agent perspective reveals that agency costs play a partially mediating role in the relationship between the new EPA and financial performance. The adoption of the new EPA reduces information asymmetry between shareholders and executives, thereby contributing to the improvement in financial performance. Additionally, when examining the diversity among economic regions and the nature of property rights, it is observed that agency costs have a partially mediating role in the three major economic regions. Notably, heavily polluting state-owned enterprises display heightened sensitivity to the implications of the new EPA, indicating a proactive leadership role. These findings have significant implications for enhancing the financial performance of listed companies operating in heavily polluting industries, as well as for contributing to the attainment of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality objectives while advancing the development of China's legal framework. Guedhami (2024) carried out a research on do environmental penalties matter to corporate innovation? Environmental penalties play a crucial role in enforcing corporate environmental compliance and performance. In this paper, we examine whether and how government environmental violation penalties influence corporate innovation. Using a large sample of Chinese-listed firms, we find that firms subjected to environmental penalties tend to reduce their investment in R&D, resulting in a reduction in both patent applications and granted patents. These adverse effects intensify with the severity of the penalties and contribute to raising the cost of capital for penalized firms. However, our analysis also reveals that the number of green patent applications tends to increase post-penalty imposition. These results indicate that companies that are subject to environmental penalties may shift their long-term investment strategy from general innovation towards environmental initiatives. Chen et al., (2024) assessed environmental penalties and analyst recommendations: Based on the perspective of negative environmental governance performance. This paper Page No. 38 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as aims to test the influence of environmental penalties on analyst recommendations from the perspective of negative environmental governance performance, and further tests the influence of environmental penalties on corporate environmental governance. We subdivide environmental penalties into two dimensions: environmental penalty frequency and environmental penalty intensity based on the breadth and depth of environmental penalties. Then we take listed firms in heavy pollution industries in China from 2015 to 2021 as research samples, and use OLS regression analysis to test the impact of environmental penalty frequency and environmental penalty intensity on analyst recommendations. We find that both environmental penalty frequency and environmental penalty degree are significantly and negatively correlated with analyst recommendations. The heterogeneity analysis finds that the negative impacts of corporate environmental penalties on analyst recommendations are mainly reflected in the group with larger firm size and the group with greater industry competition degree. Further analysis shows that both environmental penalty frequency and environmental penalty degree can promote corporate environmental governance. The results show that environmental penalties bring lower analyst recommendations and reputation loss to enterprises. Under the deterrent effect of environmental penalties and the negative impact of analyst recommendations, enterprises have the motivation to improve environmental governance. This paper finds that corporate negative environmental governance performance is truthfully embedded in analyst recommendation decisions, providing evidence for the mechanism and path for China's environmental governance system to play its role. These findings are conducive to providing new evidence for analysts to play the role of capital market information intermediary. This study expands the literature on the economic consequences of corporate environmental penalties and enriches the literature on the factors affecting analyst recommendations from the new perspective of corporate negative environmental performance. Zhou et al., (2024) carried out an investigation on environmental administrative penalties and corporate greenwashing. We develop a method that identifies corporate greenwashing adopting a deep learning algorithm and find a robust positive association between environmental administrative penalties and corporate greenwashing. We also find that opportunistic management tendencies and heightened external pressures motivate firms to greenwash after such penalties. Additionally, firms with weak internal control quality, operating within fiercely competitive industries, or located in regions of severe environmental pollution are more inclined to greenwash to mitigate losses stemming from administrative penalties. Our work provides theoretical insights into the effectiveness of environmental penalties and contributes to the ongoing regulation and disclosure debate. Li and Ramanathan (2024) examined the interactive effect of environmental penalties and environmental subsidies on corporate environmental innovation: Is more better or worse? Most previous studies fail to investigate the interactive effects of different environmental instruments. Whether adopting more environmental instruments is better or worse for corporate environmental innovation (CEI) remains unclear. In this study, we distinguish between regulatory pressures as punitive pressures (environmental penalties, EP) and incentive pressures (environmental subsidies, ES) and focus on investigating whether EP and ES act as complements or substitutes on CEI. The results reveal that the interactive effect of EP and ES can act as substitutes rather than complements in promoting CEI. The results remain unchanged after a series of robustness tests. Further heterogeneity analysis reveals that the substitutive effect of EP and ES on CEI is more pronounced for state-owned firms and for firms operating in regions characterized by higher environmental quality and greater marketization. Our results provide valuable insights for the government on achieving an optimal outcome by mixing environmental instruments to promote CEI. ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science Zhao et al., (2024) carried out an investigation on analysis of the moderating effects of environmental regulations on green accounting information disclosure and financial performance of heavily polluting enterprises. This study focuses on the heavy pollution industry of A-share listed companies in China, spanning the period from 2012 to 2022. It meticulously examines the current state of green accounting information disclosure within this sector and delves into the implications of such disclosure on the financial performance of these enterprises. The findings reveal a compelling correlation: the more extensive and transparent the green accounting information disclosed by a company, the more favorable its financial performance tends to be. Furthermore, the study identifies green innovation as a pivotal moderating factor, positively influencing the relationship between disclosure and financial outcomes. 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design This study adopted ex-post facto research design. This design was suitable because the data for the analysis had already existed, leaving no room for the researcher to manipulate the variables under study. 3.2 Population of the study The population of this study was made up of all the nine (9) oil and gas firms that are listed on the floor of the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) for the period between 2015 and 2024. 3.3 Sample size determination and sampling procedure The nine (9) oil and gas firms which constitute the entire population was used as the sample size. The sample size for this study was nine publicly listed oil and gas firms which are RAK Unity, Capital Oil Plc, Conoil Plc, Eterna Plc, Japaul Gold & Ventures Plc, Mrs. Oil Nigeria Plc, Oando Plc, Seplat Energy Plc, and Totalenergies Marketing Nigeria Plc. Data was gathered from the published financial statements of the nine NGX listed oil and gas over a ten-year period from 2015 to 2024. 3.4 Sampling Technique Census sampling method was used to determine the sample size because the entire population of nine (9) oil and gas firms was used. 3.5 Sources and method of data collection The data for the dependent and independent variables were extracted from the financial report. The panel data methodology was suitable for the study. 3.6 Method of data analysis The study adopted panel least squares regression in analyzing the data via E-views 10.0. The data conformed to the standardized regression assumptions, that is, linearity, homoscedasticity, normality and independence of data. 3.7 Model specification To achieve the stated objectives of the study, as well as testing the study hypotheses, the researcher adopted and modified the model of Enekwe, et al., (2023) and modified thus; ROAit = β0 + β1OSCit + β2EFPit + β3CECit + β4WMCit + β5ERCit + µit. Where; Page No. 40 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as ROAit = Return on Assets OSCit = Oil Spill Cost EFPit = Environmental Fines and Penalties CECit = Carbon Emissions Cost WMCit = Waste Management Cost ERCit = Environmental restoration Cost β0 = Intercept or regression constant β1 – β3 = Regression coefficients to be estimated for firm i in period t µ = Stochastic error term. 3.8 Measurement/operationalization of variables Table 3.1 Operationalization of variables S/N Variable Measurement Sources Apriori sign 1 Return on Assets Profit after tax/Total Assets Enekwe, et al., (2023) 2 Oil spill cost Log of Oil spill cost Orajekwe and Ogbodo (2023) + 3 Environmental fines and penalties Log of Environmental fines and penalties Sari and Adi (2024) + 4 5 6 Carbon emissions cost Waste Mgt Cost Environmental Restoration cost Log of Carbon emissions cost Log of Waste Mgt cost Log of Environmental Restoration cost Ogunmodede et al. (2024) Ogunmodede et at (2024) Ogunmodede et at (2024) + + + Source: Researchers operationalization (2025) 3.9 Decision rule The decision was based on 5% level of significance. Accept null hypothesis (Ho) if probability value (i.e. P-value or Sig.) is greater than or equals to (≥) stated 5% level of significance (α); otherwise, reject and accept alternate hypothesis (H1), if p-value or sig. calculated is less than 5% level of significance. 4.0 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 4.1 Data presentation The data for this study is presented in table 4.1 in Appendix I. The data comprise a panel data of ninety (90) pooled observations across nine (9) listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria for ten (10)-year period (2015-2024). The data include the independent variable being environmental degradation cost were proxied by oil spill cost, environmental fines and penalties, carbon emissions cost, waste management cost and environmental restoration cost and the dependent variable (financial performance) proxied by return on assets. ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science 4.2 Data analysis Various statistical techniques were utilized in the analysis of data presented in table 4.1 (see Appendix II). These include descriptive statistics, regression assumption tests and panel multiple regression analysis. The results from the panel multiple regression analysis were used in the testing of the research hypotheses which had been stated in the first section of this work. 4.2.1 Descriptive statistics This was conducted to understand the behaviour of the data using various statistics including mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. The result for the descriptive statistics analysis is as presented in table 4.2 below; Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics results ROA OSC EFP CEC WMC ERC Mean 12.84083 2.831798 2.049971 2.602806 2.914854 2.833036 Median 0.025712 3.510587 2.360387 3.489556 3.667591 3.645735 Maximum 722.1271 6.691056 7.406070 5.729501 6.848059 5.920122 Minimum -0.471715 -4.871743 -2.615599 -4.242774 -4.714740 -4.052153 Std. Dev. 79.11538 2.581134 2.366880 2.218322 2.633932 2.121424 Skewness 8.242561 -0.886294 0.096585 -1.266829 -0.797986 -1.177786 Kurtosis 73.56876 3.011574 1.861866 3.847714 2.738613 3.600384 Jarque-Bera 19693.91 11.78327 4.997489 26.76764 9.807945 22.15942 Probability 0.000000 0.002762 0.082188 0.000002 0.007417 0.000015 Sum 1155.674 254.8619 184.4974 234.2526 262.3368 254.9732 Sum Sq. Dev. 557072.7 592.9405 498.5888 437.9647 617.4463 400.5393 Observations 90 90 90 90 90 90 Source: Researcher’s computation (2025) using E-views 10.0 The results in table 4.2 above indicates that the dependent variablereturn on assets and the independent variables which were oil spill cost, environmental fines and penalties, carbon emissions cost, waste management cost and environmental restoration cost of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria had mean scores of approximately 12.8408, 2.8317, 2.0499, 2.6028, 2.9148 and 2.8330 respectively. The median values obtained for these variables were approximately 0.0257, 3.5105, 2.3604, 3.4895, 3.6675 and 3.6457 respectively. These constitute the middle values for the distributions of these variables under the period covered in this study (2015-2024). In terms of the level of variability and dispersion in the distribution of these variables, the standard deviations obtained for return on asset, oil spill cost, environmental fines and penalties, carbon emissions cost, waste management cost and environmental restoration cost of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria were approximately 79.115, 2.5811, 2.3668, 2.2183, 2.6339 and 2.1214 respectively. This indicates varying levels of variability in the distribution with oil spill cost indicating high variations over the years under study. 4.2.2 Model evaluation Residual and coefficient diagnostics were however conducted to assess the suitability of the model as stated in the previous section. These include normality test, multicollinearity test, heteroscedasticity test and autocorrelation assessment. Page No. 42 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as 4.2.2.1 Normality test 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Series: Residuals Sample 1 90 Observations 90 Mean 2.75e-14 Median 0.019644 Maximum 150.5217 Minimum -31.96432 Std. Dev. 20.04116 Skewness 4.934148 Kurtosis 37.02877 Jarque-Bera 4707.527 Probability 0.000000 Fig. 4.1 Jarque-Bera Normality test results Source: E-views 10.0 Output (2025) The essence of a normality test is to determine if a dataset or sample follows a normal distribution. This is important because many statistical models assume normality, and deviations from normality can affect the validity of statistical inference. The Jarque-Bera test was employed in this case. As applied, if the p-value associated with the Jarque-Bera test is below a predetermined significance level (p<0.05), then we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the data do not follow a normal distribution. With a p-value of 0.000000, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the data were not normally distributed. 4.2.2.2 Multicollinearity test In examining the association among the variables, the study employed the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (correlation matrix), and the results are as presented in table 4.3 below. Table 4.3 Correlation matrix of the effect of environmental degradation cost on financial performance ROA OSC EFP CEC WMC ERC ROA 1.000000 0.011368 -0.028556 -0.089198 0.014710 -0.081255 OSC 0.011368 1.000000 0.152325 0.513712 0.199193 0.520534 EFP -0.028556 0.152325 1.000000 0.590651 0.150244 0.590092 CEC -0.089198 0.513712 0.590651 1.000000 0.513951 0.297880 WMC 0.014710 0.199193 0.150244 0.513951 1.000000 0.520757 ERC -0.081255 0.520534 0.590092 0.297880 0.520757 1.000000 Source: Researcher’s computation (2025) using E-views 10.0 Table 4.3 above shows the association between two pairs of the variables of the study. Of particular interest is the relationship existing between each pair of the independent variables. As highlighted, no pair of the independent variables have correlation coefficient greater than 0.80 suggesting the absence of multicollinearity issues in the series. 4.2.2.3 Heteroscedasticity test Table 4.4 Heteroscedasticity test Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test: F-statistic 0.622451 Prob. F(5,84) 0.6830 Obs*R-squared 3.215427 Prob. Chi-Square(5) 0.6668 Source: Researcher’s computation (2025) using E-views 10.0 ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science The statistics and probability value associated with the Breusch-Pagan LM test otherwise known as the Breusch-Pagan Godfrey test help determine whether there is evidence of heteroscedasticity in the regression model. A low p-value (p<0.05) suggests evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of the alternate hypothesis which indicates the presence of heteroscedasticity in the regression model. With a p-value of 0.6830 (p>0.05), there is sufficient evidence to accept the null hypothesis, thus, conclude that the predictor variables in the regression model were homoscedastic. 4.2.2.4 Autocorrelation Autocorrelation, also known as serial correlation, occurs when there is a correlation between the residual errors of a time series or panel data over time. Autocorrelation tests examine whether the residuals are independently distributed or if there is a systematic pattern of dependence. The Durbin-Watson statistic is commonly used to test for autocorrelation, with values close to 2 indicating no significant autocorrelation. The Durbin-Watson statistic as obtained from the panel regression results (see Appendix II) was utilized in this case. The Durbin-Watson statistic value of 1.3539 suggests that there is no evidence of autocorrelation in the residuals of the model. 4.3 Test of hypotheses Each of the hypotheses in this study was tested based on the result obtained from the panel multiple regression analysis. The result that relates to these hypotheses is summarized in table 4.5 below; Table 4.5 Panel multiple regression results of the effect of environmental degradation cost on financial performance Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. C -19.48838 4.048850 -4.813313 0.0000 OSC 6.647595 5.651152 3.176326 0.0028 EFP -0.580181 1.238939 -0.468289 0.6408 CEC -174.4241 5.501478 -31.70495 0.0000 WMC -1.423376 5.470741 -0.260180 0.7954 ERC 1.329004 5.974171 1.093700 0.0853 R-squared 0.935831 Mean dependent var 12.84083 Adjusted R-squared 0.932012 S.D. dependent var 79.11538 S.E. of regression 20.62900 Akaike info criterion 8.955614 Sum squared resid 35746.69 Schwarz criterion 9.122268 Log likelihood -397.0026 Hannan-Quinn criter. 9.022818 F-statistic 245.0095 Durbin-Watson stat 1.353927 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 Source: Researcher’s computation (2025) using E-views 10.0 The multiple regression line is as written below: ROA = -19.4883829504 + 6.64759485813*OSC - 0.580181405109*EFP - 174.424083827*CEC - 1.42337553099*WMC + 1.3290042694*ERC + μ The regression line represents the relationship between Return on Assets (ROA) and various environmental degradation costs in the Nigerian oil and gas industry. According to Page No. 44 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as the equation, ROA is negatively related to environmental fines and penalties (EFP), carbon emissions cost (CEC), and waste management cost (WMC), indicating that increases in these costs are associated with decreases in ROA. In contrast, ROA is positively related to oil spill cost (OSC) and environmental restoration cost (ERC), suggesting that increases in these costs are associated with increases in ROA. 4.3.1 Hypothesis one Ho: Oil spill cost has no significant effect on return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. H1: Oil spill cost has significant effect on return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. By way of testing whether the variations in return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria caused by oil spillage cost is significant. The T test was carried out at .05 significance level and Tcal = 3.1763, compared with Ttab of 2.262, given at T0.05,9, So far, the Tcal is greater than Ttab. Hence, the null hypothesis which states that Oil spill cost has no significant effect on return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria fails to hold, thus rejected, and the alternative hypothesis accepted. The null hypothesis is further accepted given that its probability value (p-value = 0.0028) is less than 0.05 (p<0.05). 4.3.2 Hypothesis two Ho: Environmental fines and penalties have no significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. H1: Environmental fines and penalties have significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. For Environmental fines and penalties, the T test was carried out at .05 significance level and Tcal = 0.4682, compared with Ttab of 2.262, given at T0.05,9, So far, the Tcal is less than Ttab. Hence, the null hypothesis which states that environmental fines and penalties has no significant effect on return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria holds, thus accepted, and the alternative hypothesis rejected. The null hypothesis is further accepted given that its probability value (p-value = 0.6408) is greater than 0.05 (p>0.05). 4.3.3 Hypothesis three Ho: Carbon emissions cost has no significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. H1: Carbon emissions cost has significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. For Carbon emissions cost, the T test was carried out at .05 significance level and Tcal = -31.7049, compared with Ttab of 2.262, given at T0.05,9, So far, the Tcal is less than Ttab. Hence, the null hypothesis which states that Carbon emissions cost has no significant effect on return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria fails to hold, thus rejected, and the alternative hypothesis accepted. The null hypothesis is further rejected given that its probability value (p-value = 0.0000) is less than 0.05 (p<0.05). 4.3.4 Hypothesis four Ho: Waste management cost has no significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. H1: Waste management cost has significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms on Nigeria. For waste management cost, the T test was carried out at .05 significance level and Tcal = 0.2601, compared with Ttab of 2.262, given at T0.05,9, So far, the Tcal is less than Ttab. ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science Hence, the null hypothesis which states that Waste management cost has no significant effect on return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria holds, thus accepted, and the alternative hypothesis rejected. The null hypothesis is further accepted given that its probability value (p-value = 0.7954) is greater than 0.05 (p>0.05). 4.3.5 Hypothesis five Ho: Environmental restoration cost has no significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. H1: Environmental restoration cost has significant effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. For environmental restoration cost, the T test was carried out at .05 significance level and Tcal = 1.093, compared with Ttab of 2.262, given at T0.05, 9, So far, the Tcal is less than Ttab. Hence, the null hypothesis which states that environmental restoration cost has no significant effect on return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria fail to holds, thus rejected, and the alternative hypothesis accepted. The null hypothesis is further accepted given that its probability value (p-value = 0.0853) is greater than 0.05 (p>0.05). 4.4 Discussion of findings 4.4.1 Oil spill cost and return on assets The study's finding shows that oil spill cost has a significant positive effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria is intriguing. This result suggests that an increase in oil spill cost is associated with an increase in financial performance, as measured by return on assets. One possible explanation for this finding is that oil spill costs might be accounted for as part of operational expenses, and companies that incur higher oil spill costs might be more likely to invest in measures to mitigate future spills, leading to improved operational efficiency and financial performance. However, this finding contradicts the conventional wisdom that environmental degradation costs, such as oil spills, would have a negative impact on financial performance. This result is consistent with the findings of Okezie et al. (2019), who found a positive but insignificant relationship between environmental costs and financial performance of listed companies in Nigeria. Similarly, Okafor (2018) found that environmental remediation and pollution control have a positive but negligible impact on the return on assets of Nigeria's listed oil and gas companies. These studies suggest that environmental costs, including oil spill costs, may have a positive impact on financial performance, possibly due to increased investment in safety measures or reputational benefits. 4.4.2 Environmental fines and penalties and return on assets The study's finding shows that environmental fines and penalties have a nonsignificant negative effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria suggests that these costs do not have a substantial impact on financial performance. The negative coefficient of -0.5802 indicates that an increase in environmental fines and penalties is associated with a decrease in return on assets, but the relationship is not statistically significant. This finding might be attributed to the fact that environmental fines and penalties are typically accounted for as exceptional items or one-time expenses, which might not have a significant impact on overall financial performance. The non-significant relationship between environmental fines and penalties and financial performance highlights the need for companies to prioritize environmental sustainability and compliance with regulations to avoid reputational damage and potential financial losses. Companies should focus on implementing effective environmental management systems to minimize the risk of incurring fines and penalties. This result is Page No. 46 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as consistent with the findings of Nwaimo (2020), who found that environmental costs, including waste management and community development costs, have a negative impact on financial performance in some African countries. Similarly, Falack et al. (2020) found that environmental protection, development, and safety costs have a negative but significant relationship with return on assets. These studies suggest that environmental fines and penalties can have a negative impact on financial performance, possibly due to the additional costs imposed on firms. 4.4.3 Carbon emissions cost and penalties and return on assets The study's finding shows that carbon emissions cost has a significant negative effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria is consistent with expectations. The negative coefficient of -174.4241 indicates that an increase in carbon emissions cost is associated with a substantial decrease in return on assets. This finding suggests that companies that incur higher carbon emissions costs might experience reduced financial performance due to the increased costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The significant negative impact of carbon emissions cost on financial performance highlights the need for companies to prioritize sustainability and reduce their carbon footprint. This result is consistent with the findings of Orajekwe and Ogbodo (2023), who found that firm size and profitability are significant factors that influence environmental disclosure, but carbon emissions cost is not. Similarly, Dorathy et al (2024) examined the effect of environmental disclosure on the cost of equity of listed consumer goods firms in Nigeria. The study findings revealed environmental risk disclosure and waste management disclosure have significant negative relationships on cost of equity (COE) of listed consumer goods firms in Nigeria while greenhouse gas emission disclosure (GGED) has an insignificant negative effect on cost of equity (COE) of listed consumer goods firms in Nigeria. It was thus concluded that environmental accounting disclosure plays a crucial and significant role in shaping the cost of equity of listed consumer goods firms in Nigeria. 4.4.4 Waste management cost and return on assets The study's finding that waste management cost has a non-significant negative effect on the return on assets of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria suggests that these costs do not have a substantial impact on financial performance. The negative coefficient of -1.4233 indicates that an increase in waste management cost is associated with a decrease in return on assets, but the relationship is not statistically significant. This finding might be attributed to the fact that waste management costs are typically accounted for as part of operational expenses, and companies might be able to absorb these costs without significant impacts on financial performance. The non-significant relationship between waste management cost and financial performance highlights the need for companies to prioritize effective waste management practices to minimize environmental impacts and potential financial losses. Similarly, Okpo et al. (2024) investigated the relationship between environmental policies information disclosure and investors’ confidence. The results of analysis indicate that the environmental replenishment policy disclosure, waste management policy disclosure and carbon emission management policy disclosure exhibited significant positive relationship with the market capitalisation of the firms. The study therefore concludes that the disclosure of information on environmental policies enhances investor’s confidence on firms in the capital market. The studies by Chen et al. (2024) and Guedhami (2024) both examined the impact of environmental penalties on corporate outcomes. Chen et al. (2024) investigated how environmental penalties affect corporate incremental bank loans, finding that both the frequency and degree of environmental penalties significantly reduce corporate incremental ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science Hassan, I., Lawal, M., & Usman, T. (2022). The financial burden of oil spills on national economies. Global Journal of Environmental and Resource Management, 20(1), 45-62. Horsfall, K., & Womenazu, H. (2022). Environmental degradation cost and financial performance of oil and gas companies in Nigeria. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(2), 112-121 Ibeanu, I., R., Okwo, I, M., & Nkwagu, L. C. (2023). Impact of environmental cost on corporate, Ibrahim, A. (2023). Regulatory penalties and corporate environmental responsibility. International Journal of Environmental Finance, 22(1), 145-162. Idowu, A. & Agboola, O.S. (2021). Environmental costs and financial performance in Nigeria’s Ifurueze, M., Lyndon, M. & Bingilar, P. (2013). The impact of environmental cost on corporate performance: A study of oil companies in Niger Delta States of Nigeria. Journal of Business and Management, 12(2), 39-47. Iheduru, N. & Chukwuma, I.R. (2019). Effect of environmental and social costs on performance of manufacturing companies in Nigeria. International Journal of Accounting and Finance Review, 4(2), 1-7. Ikpor, I. M., Ituma, E. & Okezie, B. N (2019). Environmental accounting and sustainable financial performance: Evidence from the Nigerian petroleum industry. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, 14(1), 85-93 Ilelaboye, C. S. & Alade, M. E. (2022). Environmental accounting and financial performance of listed Family-Owned companies in Nigeria. International Review of Business and Economics, 1(18). Iliemena, R. O. (2020). Environmental accounting practices and corporate performance. European Journal of Business and Management 12(22), 2-10 Iqbal, M. A., Shaheen, W. A., Shabir, S., Ullah, U., Ionel-Alin, I., Mihut, M.-I., Raposo, A., & Han, H. (2025). Towards a green economy: Investigating the impact of sustainable finance, green technologies, and environmental policies on environmental degradation. Journal of Environmental Management, 3(2), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124047 Jensen, M. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8-21. Johnson, R., Adepoju, L., & Ojo, M. (2022). The economic consequences of environmental non-compliance. Journal of Climate Policy and Business Strategy, 15(4), 287-305. Kaakeh, M., & Gokmenoglu, K. K. (2022). Environmental performance and financial performance during the COVID-19 outbreak: Insight from Chinese firms. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, Article 975924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.975924 Kansilembo F., Aliamutu, A., & Sachin, S. (2023). The impact of environmental costs on financial performance of listed firms in Nigeria: Oil and gas industry experience. Journal of Academic research in Economics, 12(2), 358-369 Page No. 54 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as Kelly, A. M., & Nembot N. L., (2025). Understanding the nexus: Economic complexity and environmental degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 27(20), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024-02885-0 Lawrence, K. & Bernard, T. (2023). Carbon emissions and corporate profitability: A study of Nigeria’s oil and gas sector. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 14(3), 309-326. Lu, J., Li, H., & Guo, F. (2024). Low-carbon mergers and acquisitions as a driver for higher energy efficiency: Evidence from China's high energy-consuming companies. Energy, 290, 130-160 Li, R., Ramanathan, R., & Xu, G. (2023). The impact of penalties for environmental violations on corporate environmental responsibility. Sustainable Development, 31(3), 1343–1363. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2452 Ma, R., Ji, Q., Zhai, P., & Yang, R. (2022). Environmental violations, refinancing risk, and the corporate bond cost in China. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 33(3), 480–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12154 Majekobaje, J. A. (2024). Environmental liability and financial performance: A study of listed oil Mekpor, B., Owusu-Antwi, G., & Adusei, M. (2023). Environmental performance and financial performance: The moderating role of green resources. Journal of Cleaner Production, 389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136127 Ndalu, E., Okonkwo, J., & Adetunji, M. (2021). Board characteristics and environmental disclosure in Nigerian oil and gas firms: The moderating role of firm size. Journal of Energy and Environmental Accounting, 25(3), 189-207. Nguyen, L. T. X. (2023). The relationship between environmental performance and financial performance: Evidence from an emerging East Asian economy. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 20(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-022-001526. Nguyen, T. H., & Tran, M. D. (2021). Environmental management capability, green innovation, and firm financial performance: A resource-based perspective. Sustainability, 13(4), 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042021 Nkanga E. N., Akpan D. C., Nsentip E. B. & Isaac N. E. (2023). Voluntary disclosures and market value of deposit money banks in Nigeria. International Journal of Management Technology, 10(1), 38-58. Nsair, R., & Alzubi, A. B. (2025). Globalization, financial risk, and environmental degradation in China: The role of human capital and renewable energy use. Sustainability, 17(15), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156810 Ntui, P. (2024). Corporate governance frameworks and environmental disclosure in Tanzania’s extractive industry. Journal of Business and Environmental Studies, 45(2), 112-130. ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science Nwaimo, S. C. (2020). Effect of environmental cost on performances of quoted firms in subsaharan Africa. European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Research 8(7), 97-120 Nwosu, K., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Financial performance analysis using return on assets. International Journal of Financial Management Studies, 16(3), 142-159. Ogunmodede, A., Adegbite, O., & Akinbami, F. (2024). Firm attributes and sustainability disclosure: A comparative analysis in Nigeria’s less environmentally sensitive sector. Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Journal, 39(1), 87-105. Ojeka, S., & Anichebe, A. (2019). Impact of environmental regulation on the financial performance of firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research, 12(2), 89-101. Okafor, C. & Adeleye, B. (2022). Carbon emissions and financial performance: Evidence from Nigerian oil and gas firms. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 24(1), 45-62. Okafor, C., Udoh, E. & Ekpo, A. (2021). Environmental liabilities and firm performance: Evidence from Nigeria’s oil and gas sector. Journal of Environmental Management, 280, 111-120. Okezie, B. N., Ibe, S. U. & Kanu, C. I. (2019). Environmental costs and financial performance of listed firms in Nigeria. AE-FUNAI Journal of Accounting Business and Finance (FJABAF), 5(1), 98-112. Okonkwo, C. (2021). Financial performance evaluation: A framework for sustainable growth. Sustainable Business and Economic Development, 21(2), 174-190. Okonkwo, C. (2022). The effectiveness of environmental fines in promoting sustainability. Sustainable Development and Environmental Economics, 21(2), 174-190. Okonkwo, C., & Eze, P. (2021). Environmental degradation costs and corporate financial performance: A review of the oil and gas industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1123. Okoye, E., & Modebe, N. (2020). Effect of environmental costs on the profitability of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management, 8(3), 150-165. Okpo, S. A., Umoren, A. O., & Simeon, U. J. (2024). Gaining investors’ confidence through environmental information disclosures in annual reports of companies in Nigeria. International Journal of Advances in management and Economics, 13(2), 113. Olagunju, A., & Nweke, J. (2022). Carbon footprint costs and corporate responsibility: A financial perspective. Journal of Business and Environmental Research, 19(2), 301319. Page No. 56 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as Olagunju, A., & Nweke, J. (2023). Corporate financial performance and economic conditions. Journal of Business and Financial Research, 20(1), 311-328. Olagunju, A., & Nweke, J. (2023). Environmental fines and corporate risk management: A financial perspective. Journal of Business and Environmental Research, 20(1), 311328. Olatunji, A., & Emeka, J. (2019). The role of corporate responsibility in mitigating oil spill costs. Journal of Business and Environmental Research, 14(2), 275-290. Olatunji, C. (2021). Return on assets as a financial performance metric. Sustainable Business and Economic Development, 21(2), 174-190. Onipe, I. (2018). Green accounting and sustainable business practices: An empirical review. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 10(3), 78-92. Orajekwe, T. & Ogbodo, U. (2023). Firm-specific characteristics and environmental disclosure practices in sub-Saharan Africa’s energy sector. African Journal of Business and Sustainability, 32(4), 201-220. Oraka, A. (2021). Environmental Costs and Financial Performance of Oil and Gas Companies in Nigeria. Research Journal of Management Practice, 1(5), 1-18. Oraka, A. O. (2021). Environmental costs and financial performance of oil and gas companies in Nigeria, European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Research, 12( 4), 16-32. Oraka, C. (2021). Oil pollution and financial distress among oil and gas firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 13(3), 125-140. Oshiole, S., Elamah, A. F. & Ndubuisi, A. N. (2020). Effect of environmental cost disclosure on profitability of oil and gas in Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 10(2), 157-165. Prot, J., Mbwambo, K. & Nyoni, C. (2021). Firm characteristics and environmental disclosure in Tanzania’s extractive industry. Tanzania Journal of Corporate Accountability, 22(2), 74-92. Rahmatika, A. (2021). The effect of environmental disclosure on environmental performance, firm characteristics, and industry type. Journal of Environmental and Corporate Responsibility, 16(3), 98-115. Rania, P., & Dahlan, M. (2023). The effect of environmental performance and leverage on financial performance. Journal of Business Management, 9(4). Samuel, O., Aruna, Fatai, E., & Amahalu, N. (2020). Effect of environmental cost disclosure in Nigeria. Research Journal of Management Practice 1(5), 1-18 Sari, N. & Adi, T. (2024). Firm characteristics and environmental disclosures in Nigerian oil and gas marketing companies. International Journal of Environmental Accounting, 28(3), 144-162. Saputra, K. A. K., & Dharmawan, N. A. S. (2025). The Role of Environmental Accounting in Preserving Cultural Heritage: A Case Study in Tenganan Pegringsingan Village, Bali, ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science Indonesia. International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social Science, 6(1), 127-133. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374. Suganthi, L. (2023). Green innovation and competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2023.100125 Uchenna, K., & Bello, S. (2019). Environmental penalties and their impact on industrial compliance. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Studies, 16(3), 142159. Udoh, E. & Ekpo, A. (2020). Oil spill incidents and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of African Business, 21(4), 543-558. Udosen, I. & Enoidem, P. (2022). Corporate attributes and environmental disclosure among Nigerian breweries. Journal of Accounting and Environmental Studies, 21(4), 132-148. Ugochukwu, K., & Nwosu, C. (2017). Oil spill costs and their implications for environmental management. International Journal of Environmental Finance, 11(2), 156-172. Wahyuningrum, R., Susanto, D. & Kartika, S. (2021). Factors influencing environmental disclosure in Singaporean industrial firms. Journal of Business Ethics and Sustainability, 27(1), 65-83. Wang, A., Si, L., & Hu, S. (2023). Can the penalty mechanism of mandatory environmental regulations promote green innovation? Evidence from China's enterprise data. Energy Economics, 125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106856 Wang, Y., Yang, H., & Sun, R. (2020). Effectiveness of China's provincial industrial carbon emission reduction and optimization of carbon emission reduction paths in “lagging regions”: Efficiency-cost analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 275, 111221. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207 Williams, R., Adepoju, L. & Ojo, M. (2020). Financial implications of carbon emissions regulations. Journal of Climate Policy and Business Strategy, 14(3), 275-290. Wu, M., & Xu, Y. (2024). Environmental regulation, agency costs, and financial performance: Based on the release of “The New Environmental Protection Law.” Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-02304303-9 Xie, Y., Fang, Y., & Zhang, D. (2022). How environmental performance affects financial performance in the food industry: A global outlook. Sustainability, 14(4), https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042127 Xin, C., Hao, X., & Cheng, L. (2022). Do environmental administrative penalties affect audit fees? Results from multiple econometric models. Sustainability, 14(7), https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074268 Page No. 58 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as Yusuf, A., Olabisi, A., & Agboola, A. (2021). Relationship between environmental performance and financial performance of listed firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(5), 430-444. Zhang, L., Song, Y., & Zhang, M. (2025). The impact of carbon emissions trading policy on employment: Evidence from enterprises and cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 520, 146-176. Zhao, R., Mou, Y., & Yu, X. (2024). Analysis of the moderating effects of environmental regulations on green accounting information disclosure and financial performance of heavily polluting enterprises. Finance Research Letters, 72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106493 Zhou, K., Qu, Z., Liang, J., Tao, Y., & Zhu, M. (2024). Threat or shield: Environmental administrative penalties and corporate greenwashing. Finance Research Letters, 61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105031 APPENDICES: DATASET EMPLOYED Table 4.1 Dataset employed COMPANIES YEAR S ROA OSC(N’B ) EFP(N’B ) CEC(N’B ) WMC(N’ B) ERC(N’B ) TOTAL OIL PLC 2015 0.0672 62.0261 56.1231 79.4036 72.5705 96.0783 TOTAL OIL PLC 2016 0.0463 76.6036 70.3336 95.5124 89.6262 115.5700 TOTAL OIL PLC 2017 0.0484 63.9499 56.1264 83.6536 74.8214 101.2208 TOTAL OIL PLC 2018 0.1081 113.1129 106.7707 136.9282 132.3420 165.6831 TOTAL OIL PLC 2019 0.0743 76.9389 722.1271 107.9819 90.0185 130.6581 TOTAL OIL PLC 2020 0.0601 95.9841 89.9124 132.5208 112.3013 160.3501 TOTAL OIL PLC 2021 0.0169 101.1394 88.0085 135.0309 118.3330 163.3874 TOTAL OIL PLC 2022 0.0144 109.8183 96.3127 143.6129 128.4874 173.7716 TOTAL OIL PLC 2023 0.0808 159.4408 159.1787 118.6230 186.5458 143.5338 TOTAL OIL PLC 2024 0.0524 247.9603 255.8337 307.8157 290.1136 372.4570 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2015 0.0062 6.4853 10.2738 38.7766 7.5878 46.9197 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2016 -0.0682 9.0045 0.0000 38.6864 10.5352 46.8106 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2017 -0.2372 8.1052 0.0000 33.8896 9.4831 41.0064 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2018 -0.2638 10.8355 0.0000 29.9482 12.6776 36.2373 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2019 -0.4717 11.6765 0.0000 28.0016 13.6615 33.8819 ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science JAPAUL OIL PLC 2020 -0.2743 13.3572 2.5360 24.0384 15.6279 31.4620 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2021 0.1762 12.6417 10.9264 23.3721 14.7908 28.2802 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2022 -0.0639 7.1737 4.9303 15.6064 0.0000 18.8837 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2023 -0.2373 8.7640 3.8474 13.0892 0.0000 15.8380 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2024 0.0118 7.7159 4.4099 13.1971 0.0000 14.4526 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2015 -0.2556 256.6146 557.0011 36.5815 300.2391 32.6256 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2016 -0.0772 161.6232 463.2445 14.1099 189.0991 17.0730 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2017 -0.0376 154.7233 1645.944 7 20.4634 181.0262 24.7607 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2018 -0.2604 152.4186 0.0000 31.6338 178.3298 38.2769 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2019 0.0746 141.2008 0.0000 39.3002 165.2049 47.5533 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2020 0.0670 161.2693 16.0351 40.0683 188.6850 48.4827 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2021 722.127 1 208.7290 20.8250 0.0169 244.2129 0.0000 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2022 89.9124 307.8157 21.6604 0.0144 360.1444 0.0174 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2023 88.0085 38.7766 24.7101 0.0808 45.3686 0.0977 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2024 96.3127 38.6864 0.1027 0.0524 45.2631 0.0634 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2015 159.178 7 33.8896 0.0000 18.2531 39.6509 22.0863 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2016 0.0695 29.9482 0.0000 18.5669 35.0393 22.4659 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2017 0.0447 17.7747 22.1596 28.5654 20.7964 34.5641 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2018 0.0466 18.3043 25.0579 31.6901 21.4160 38.3450 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2019 0.0417 33.6770 39.7642 48.0457 39.4021 58.1353 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2020 0.0190 36.5815 43.3190 53.1365 42.8004 64.2951 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2021 -0.0051 14.1099 0.0000 28.5334 16.5086 34.5254 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2022 0.0263 20.4634 21.6773 35.7676 23.9422 43.2787 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2023 -0.0239 31.6338 30.9261 46.0823 37.0116 55.7596 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2024 0.0187 39.3002 39.3489 53.9910 45.9813 65.3291 MRS OIL PLC 2015 0.0097 40.0683 0.0000 65.6946 46.8799 79.4905 MRS OIL PLC 2016 0.0129 32.0903 37.2778 57.8466 37.5456 69.9944 MRS OIL PLC 2017 0.0140 40.5917 47.4834 66.8937 47.4923 80.9414 MRS OIL PLC 2018 0.0180 54.0702 62.0064 81.3648 63.2621 98.4514 Page No. 60 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as MRS OIL PLC 2019 0.0237 33.2601 0.0000 58.5363 38.9143 70.8289 MRS OIL PLC 2020 -0.0233 32.2331 36.7157 54.2832 37.7128 65.6827 MRS OIL PLC 2021 -0.0365 23.6843 26.8518 44.2096 27.7107 53.4937 MRS OIL PLC 2022 -0.0618 18.8723 0.0000 36.6591 22.0806 44.3575 MRS OIL PLC 2023 0.0091 19.8624 21.6604 37.2053 23.2390 45.0184 MRS OIL PLC 2024 0.0325 21.2092 24.7101 40.5261 24.8147 49.0366 SEPLAT ENERGY 2015 0.4216 0.0658 0.1027 0.2026 0.0770 0.2452 SEPLAT ENERGY 2016 0.0968 0.1368 0.0000 0.4183 0.1601 0.5061 SEPLAT ENERGY 2017 0.0238 0.1278 0.3482 0.5452 0.1495 0.6597 SEPLAT ENERGY 2018 -0.0683 0.1531 0.4043 0.6647 0.1791 0.8043 SEPLAT ENERGY 2019 0.1014 0.2178 0.4748 0.7996 0.2549 0.9675 SEPLAT ENERGY 2020 0.0578 0.1434 0.5141 0.7757 0.1678 0.9385 SEPLAT ENERGY 2021 0.0847 0.2469 0.5394 1.0042 0.2888 1.2151 SEPLAT ENERGY 2022 -0.0234 0.2011 0.0731 1.3108 0.2352 1.5861 SEPLAT ENERGY 2023 0.0360 0.7760 0.5989 1.3031 0.9080 1.5767 SEPLAT ENERGY 2024 0.0281 1.0321 0.7917 1.5816 1.2075 1.9138 CONOIL PLC 2015 0.0373 63.4576 0.0000 82.3730 74.2454 99.6714 CONOIL PLC 2016 0.0096 69.9666 0.0000 86.5935 81.8609 104.7781 CONOIL PLC 2017 0.0333 50.4443 0.0000 69.3874 59.0198 83.9587 CONOIL PLC 2018 0.0406 50.3841 64.0708 69.8335 58.9494 84.4985 CONOIL PLC 2019 0.0251 44.0451 57.3720 62.8551 51.5328 76.0547 CONOIL PLC 2020 0.0295 41.4617 54.9085 60.8972 48.5102 73.6857 CONOIL PLC 2021 0.0310 42.8235 57.5274 63.5849 50.1035 76.9377 CONOIL PLC 2022 0.0295 28.3799 43.9288 48.8647 33.2044 59.1262 CONOIL PLC 2023 0.0571 31.4006 49.6766 53.9813 36.7387 65.3174 CONOIL PLC 2024 0.0752 40.1452 62.2174 65.9092 46.9698 79.7502 OANDO PLC 2015 -0.0080 93.5434 188.4143 36.5815 109.4458 44.2637 OANDO PLC 2016 -0.2016 326.0022 195.9075 14.1099 381.4225 17.0730 OANDO PLC 2017 -0.0526 365.5831 106.2396 20.4634 427.7322 24.7607 OANDO PLC 2018 0.0039 404.4212 140.6611 31.6338 473.1728 38.2769 OANDO PLC 2019 0.0190 400.0636 106.9401 39.3002 468.0744 47.5533 OANDO PLC 2020 0.0268 448.6028 130.1185 40.0683 524.8653 48.4827 OANDO PLC 2021 -0.2162 621.4758 0.0000 247.9603 727.1267 300.0320 OANDO PLC 2022 -0.1013 648.6308 0.0000 6.4853 758.8980 7.8473 OANDO PLC 2023 0.0348 805.1718 0.0000 9.0045 942.0509 10.8954 OANDO PLC 2024 0.2743 583.9344 2.9357 8.1052 683.2032 9.8073 RAK UNITY 2015 0.0048 0.0077 0.3292 10.8355 0.0090 13.1110 RAK UNITY 2016 0.0454 0.8024 0.0000 11.6765 0.9389 14.1285 RAK UNITY 2017 0.1289 0.2217 0.5863 0.6961 0.2594 0.8423 ARTHUR, A. A., EMENYI, E. O., & OKPO, S. A. (2025). ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA. GPH-International Journal of Applied Science, 8(9), 23-66. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17500441 © 2025 GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE | International Journal of Applied Science RAK UNITY 2018 0.0304 0.8274 1.2552 1.3843 0.9681 1.6750 RAK UNITY 2019 0.0227 0.7553 0.0000 1.3363 0.8836 1.6169 RAK UNITY 2020 0.0149 1.3879 1.8381 1.9938 1.6239 2.4125 RAK UNITY 2021 -0.0196 1.4807 1.8765 2.0339 1.7325 2.4610 RAK UNITY 2022 -0.1117 0.1368 0.4748 0.5749 0.1601 0.6957 RAK UNITY 2023 0.1825 0.1278 0.0000 0.2178 0.1495 0.2636 RAK UNITY 2024 0.0373 0.1531 0.0000 0.1434 0.1791 0.1735 Source: Annual reports of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria (2015-2024) COMPANIES YEARS ROA OSC EFP CEO WMC ERC TOTAL OIL PLC 2015 0.0672 4.1276 4.0275 4.3745 4.2846 4.5652 TOTAL OIL PLC 2016 0.0463 4.3386 4.2532 4.5593 4.4956 4.7499 TOTAL OIL PLC 2017 0.0484 4.1581 4.0276 4.4267 4.3151 4.6173 TOTAL OIL PLC 2018 0.1081 4.7284 4.6707 4.9195 4.8854 5.1101 TOTAL OIL PLC 2019 0.0743 4.3430 6.5822 4.6820 4.5000 4.8726 TOTAL OIL PLC 2020 0.0601 4.5642 4.4988 4.8867 4.7212 5.0774 TOTAL OIL PLC 2021 0.0169 4.6165 4.4774 4.9055 4.7735 5.0961 TOTAL OIL PLC 2022 0.0144 4.6988 4.5676 4.9671 4.8558 5.1577 TOTAL OIL PLC 2023 0.0808 5.0717 5.0700 4.7760 5.2287 4.9666 TOTAL OIL PLC 2024 0.0524 5.5133 5.5445 5.7295 5.6703 5.9201 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2015 0.0062 1.8695 2.3296 3.6578 2.0265 3.8484 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2016 -0.0682 2.1977 0.0000 3.6555 2.3547 3.8461 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2017 -0.2372 2.0925 0.0000 3.5231 2.2495 3.7137 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2018 -0.2638 2.3828 0.0000 3.3995 2.5398 3.5901 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2019 -0.4717 2.4576 0.0000 3.3323 2.6146 3.5229 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2020 -0.2743 2.5921 0.9306 3.1797 2.7491 3.4488 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2021 0.1762 2.5370 2.3912 3.1515 2.6940 3.3422 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2022 -0.0639 1.9704 1.5954 2.7477 0.0000 2.9383 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2023 -0.2373 2.1707 1.3474 2.5718 0.0000 2.7624 JAPAUL OIL PLC 2024 0.0118 2.0433 1.4839 2.5800 0.0000 2.6709 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2015 -0.2556 5.5476 6.3226 3.5995 5.7046 3.4851 CAPITAL OIL 2016 -0.0772 5.0853 6.1383 2.6469 5.2423 2. 8375 Page No. 62 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION COST AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LISTED OIL AND GAS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Volume 08 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/as PLC CAPITAL OIL PLC 2017 -0.0376 5.0416 7.4061 3.0186 5.1986 3.2093 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2018 -0.2604 5.0266 0.0000 3.4542 5.1836 3.6448 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2019 0.0746 4.9502 0.0000 3.6712 5.1072 3.8619 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2020 0.0670 5.0831 2.7748 3.6906 5.2401 3.8812 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2021 722.1271 5.3410 3.0362 -4.0818 5.4980 0.0000 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2022 89.9124 5.7295 3.0755 -4.2428 5.8865 -4.0522 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2023 88.0085 3.6578 3.2072 -2.5160 3.8148 -2.3253 CAPITAL OIL PLC 2024 96.3127 3.6555 -2.2761 -2.9495 3.8125 -2.7589 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2015 159.1787 3.5231 0.0000 2.9043 3.6801 3.0950 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2016 0.0695 3.3995 0.0000 2.9214 3.5565 3.1120 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2017 0.0447 2.8778 3.0983 3.3522 3.0348 3.5428 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2018 0.0466 2.9071 3.2212 3.4560 3.0641 3.6466 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2019 0.0417 3.5168 3.6830 3.8722 3.6738 4.0628 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2020 0.0190 3.5995 3.7686 3.9729 3.7565 4.1635 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2021 -0.0051 2.6469 0.0000 3.3511 2.8039 3.5417 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2022 0.0263 3.0186 3.0763 3.5770 3.1756 3.7677 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2023 -0.0239 3.4542 3.4316 3.8304 3.6112 4.0210 ETERNAL OIL PLC 2024 0.0187 3.6712 3.6725 3.9888 3.8282 4.1794 MRS OIL PLC 2015 0.0097 3.6906 0.0000 4.1850 3.8476 4.3756 MRS OIL PLC 2016 0.0129 3.4686 3.6184 4.0578 3.6256 4.2484 MRS OIL PLC 2017 0.0140 3.7036 3.8604 4.2031 3.8606 4.3937 MRS OIL PLC 2018 0.0180 3.9903 4.1272 4.3989 4.1473 4.5896 MRS OIL PLC 2019 0.0237 3.5044 0.0000 4.0696 3.6614 4.2603 MRS OIL PLC 2020 -0.0233 3.4730 3.6032 3.9942 3.6300 4.1848 MRS OIL PLC 2021 -0.0365 3.1648 3.2903 3.7889 3.3218 3.9796 MRS OIL PLC 2022 -0.0618 2.9377 0.0000 3.6017 3.0947 3.7923 MRS OIL PLC 2023 0.0091 2.9888 3.0755 3.6165 3.1458 3.8071 MRS OIL PLC 2024 0.0325 3.0544 3.2072 3.7019 3.2114 3.8926 SEPLAT ENERGY 2015 0.4216 -2.7213 -2.2761 -1.5964 -2.5643 -1.4058 SEPLAT ENERGY 2016 0.0968 -1.9891 0.0000 -0.8715 -1.8321 -0.6809 SEPLAT ENERGY 2017 0.0238 -2.0575 -1.0550 -0.6066 -1.9005 -0.4160