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

According to the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) materiality map, certain ESG issues are deemed material for specific industries. For healthcare companies, customer welfare is a significant material ESG risk. This includes aspects such as patient safety, quality of care, access to healthcare, and patient privacy. These factors are critical in the healthcare sector due to the direct impact on patients' well-being and regulatory scrutiny.

Customer welfare (A): This is a core material issue for healthcare companies as it directly impacts patient safety and quality of care, which are critical aspects of healthcare services.

Competitive behavior (B): While competitive behavior can be material in many industries, it is not the primary material ESG risk for healthcare companies according to SASB's materiality map.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (C): GHG emissions are more material for industries with significant energy consumption and environmental impact, such as utilities and manufacturing. While healthcare companies do have environmental impacts, customer welfare is more directly relevant to their core operations.

Globalization has contributed to a reduction in social structural inequality. By integrating economies and increasing access to global markets, globalization has created opportunities for economic growth and development in many regions, helping to reduce poverty and inequality.

Reduction in social structural inequality (C): Globalization has enabled the transfer of technology, capital, and skills across borders, leading to job creation and economic development in less developed regions. This has helped to reduce structural inequalities by providing more equal opportunities for people in different parts of the world.

Regulation (A): Globalization has often led to an increase in regulation, particularly in areas such as trade, finance, and environmental standards, as countries cooperate to manage global issues.

Market efficiency (B): Globalization typically enhances market efficiency by increasing competition, improving resource allocation, and fostering innovation.

As policies on ESG issues and financial regulation across countries reach maturity, the least likely occurrence is moving away from “comply and explain” regulation to “comply or explain” regulation.

Current Trend: The current trend in ESG policies and regulations is toward more stringent requirements, often moving from voluntary to mandatory disclosures (A) and from policy formulation to implementation and reporting (B).

Regulatory Frameworks: "Comply or explain" regulation typically requires companies to either comply with the set regulations or explain why they have not done so. This approach is generally seen as a flexible yet accountable method, encouraging adherence to ESG standards while allowing for some flexibility.

“Comply and Explain” Approach: Moving away from “comply and explain” to “comply or explain” would reduce this flexibility. As regulations mature, the trend is towards ensuring more stringent compliance rather than offering more leniency, making it unlikely that there would be a shift away from the more rigorous “comply or explain” approach.

CFA ESG Investing References:

The CFA Institute's discussions on regulatory developments highlight the evolution of ESG regulations towards more accountability and transparency. The trend is towards enhancing compliance mechanisms rather than loosening them​​​​.

=================

Collective engagement can be seen as controversial because it involves multiple investors working together to influence a company, which may raise concerns about coordinated actions and their regulatory implications. However, it is an important tool in addressing significant ESG issues across industries.ESG Reference: Chapter 6, Page 280 - Engagement and Stewardship in the ESG textbook.

When evaluating an asset manager against an ESG investment mandate, several factors can cause concern. According to the Brunel Asset Management Accord, the following points are evaluated for adherence to ESG principles:

Change in investment style (A): A change in investment style can significantly alter the risk and return profile of the portfolio and potentially misalign it with the ESG mandate initially set by the client. This is a critical factor as consistency in investment style ensures that the ESG objectives are continuously met.

Loss of key personnel in the organization (B): Key personnel often drive the ESG integration within investment processes. Their departure could disrupt the consistency and quality of ESG analysis and integration, which is crucial for maintaining the standards of the ESG mandate.

Short term underperformance compared to benchmark (C): Short-term underperformance is not typically a major concern when evaluating an asset manager against an ESG mandate. ESG investing often focuses on long-term outcomes and sustainability. The performance of ESG strategies may fluctuate in the short term due to various factors, including market conditions and the inherent characteristics of ESG investments, which might not always align with short-term market movements. The emphasis is usually placed on long-term performance and the consistency of ESG integration rather than short-term results.

In the context of the Brunel Asset Management Accord and CFA ESG Investing principles, maintaining a long-term perspective and adhering to the agreed-upon ESG criteria are paramount. The primary focus is on the systematic and ongoing application of ESG principles rather than short-term performance metrics.

ESG ratings in the credit area can be influenced by various factors, and one of the most significant is geographical bias.

Geographical bias towards companies in regions with high reporting standards (B): Companies in regions with stringent and well-established reporting standards are more likely to receive higher ESG ratings. This is because these companies are required to provide more comprehensive and transparent disclosures, which can positively impact their ESG scores. This bias can disadvantage companies in regions with less rigorous reporting requirements, even if their ESG practices are sound.

Overcomplication of industry weighting and company alignment (A): While the process of determining industry weighting and company alignment can be complex, this statement does not address the main issue of geographical bias in ESG ratings.

Smaller companies obtaining higher ratings due to non-financial disclosures (C): Smaller companies often lack the resources to dedicate to comprehensive non-financial disclosures compared to larger companies. Therefore, this statement is less accurate than the geographical bias issue.

A challenge for the positive alignment ESG approach is the diversity of ESG ratings methodologies.

Diversity of ESG ratings methodologies (B): Different ESG rating agencies use various methodologies, criteria, and weightings to assess and score companies. This diversity can lead to inconsistent ratings for the same company, making it challenging for investors to align their portfolios positively based on ESG criteria. The lack of standardization in ESG ratings methodologies can create confusion and difficulty in accurately comparing ESG performance across companies.

Relative complexity of implementation (A): While implementing a positive alignment approach can be complex, it is the diversity in ratings methodologies that poses a more significant challenge.

Reliance on stewardship and engagement activities (C): Although important, stewardship and engagement activities are not the primary challenge compared to the variability in ESG ratings.

In Sweden, the nominations committee is drawn from shareholders rather than being a committee of the board.

Sweden (B): In Sweden, the nominations committee is typically composed of representatives of the largest shareholders and is responsible for proposing board members. This approach ensures that shareholder interests are directly reflected in the selection of board candidates.

Italy (A): In Italy, the nominations committee is generally a committee of the board rather than being drawn from shareholders.

The Netherlands (C): In the Netherlands, the nominations committee is also generally a committee of the board.