Sustainable-Investing Exam Dumps - Sustainable Investing Certificate(CFA-SIC) Exam

One of the biggest challenges in ESG integration is the subjective nature of ESG analysis due to varying methodologies, inconsistent reporting, and differing interpretations of materiality.

ESG factors are qualitative and require judgment to assess their financial impact.

Different ESG rating agencies (e.g., MSCI, Sustainalytics, Refinitiv) use different scoring models, leading to low correlation among ESG scores (not high correlation).

There is no single standardized ESG dataset, making it difficult for managers to compare companies objectively.

Climate change (Option A) is a material financial risk that pension fund trustees must consider under their fiduciary duty. Failing to assess climate risks can lead to:

Legal liabilities and lawsuits from beneficiaries.

Financial losses due to stranded assets and regulatory shifts.

Option B (Choice of benchmarks) is relevant, but not the primary fiduciary risk.

Option C (Lack of ESG signals) affects engagement but does not constitute a direct legal risk.

Land-system change (Option B) has been breached due to deforestation, agriculture expansion, and urbanization, which have led to:

Loss of biodiversity.

Disruption of ecosystems and carbon sequestration processes.

Option A (Ocean acidification) is a major concern but is approaching, not yet fully breaching, planetary boundaries.

Option C (Stratospheric ozone depletion) has improved due to international regulations like the Montreal Protocol.

Scopewashing (Option C) occurs when a company highlights progress in one ESG area while underreporting or neglecting negative impacts in another. Example:

A company boasts about renewable energy investments but continues to expand fossil fuel projects without full disclosure.

A firm promotes diversity hiring but has poor labor practices in its supply chain.

Option A (Using hyperbole) refers more to greenwashing rather than scopewashing.

Option B (Keeping quiet) is not scopewashing, but rather a lack of transparency.

ESG portfolio optimization involves setting upper and lower bounds for ESG-related variables (Option C) to balance financial performance with ESG impact. For example:

Carbon footprint constraints: Ensuring portfolio emissions stay within a target range.

Sector exposure limits: Avoiding excessive concentration in high-emission industries.

Option A is incorrect because optimization is dynamic and does not apply rigid decisions.

Option B is incorrect because ESG optimization does not necessarily accept lower active risk—it depends on investor preferences.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) (Option C) are based on the "Protect, Respect, and Remedy" framework, which outlines:

State duty to protect human rights.

Corporate responsibility to respect human rights.

Access to remedies for victims of human rights violations.

Option A (CHRB) assesses company performance but is not the foundation of this framework.

Option B (OECD MNE Guidelines) also address corporate responsibility but are broader than human rights.

One of the primary challenges for asset managers integrating ESG issues is the lack of suitable benchmarks that adequately reflect ESG criteria, making it harder to measure performance accurately. (ESGTextBook[PallasCatFin], Chapter 8, Page 451)

Independence from previous boards is critical to ensuring that new boards can bring fresh perspectives and avoid entrenchment of outdated or ineffective policies, thus improving governance practices. (ESGTextBook[PallasCatFin], Chapter 5, Page 236)