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

Debt (bondholders) and equity (shareholders) investors generally have different priorities, but their interests align in times of financial distress.

Why A (Insolvency risk) is correct:

If a company faces insolvency, both debt and equity investors want stability and restructuring to avoid losses.

Both groups engage with management to push for financial recovery.

Why not B or C?

B (Capital restructuring) may benefit one group over the other.

C (High credit rating) means fewer financial concerns, reducing the need for alignment.

A fund that excludes the worst ESG performers relative to their peers is using both negative and norms-based screening.

Why C (both negative and norms-based) is correct:

Negative screening removes poor ESG performers outright.

Norms-based screening excludes companies that violate international ESG standards (e.g., UN Global Compact).

Why not A or B?

A (Negative screening only) is incomplete—norms-based screening also plays a role.

B (Norms-based only) is incorrect—some exclusions go beyond norms (e.g., fossil fuel bans).

A management gap occurs when a company has the ability to manage ESG risks but has not yet implemented the necessary policies or controls.

Why C (Manageable but unaddressed risks) is correct:

Example: A company exposed to water scarcity risk but failing to implement water efficiency measures.

Why not A or B?

A (Diversity gap) is a related but different concept.

B (Unmanageable risks) refers to systemic risks that companies cannot directly control.

Secondary ESG data refers to information collected from sources other than official company disclosures, often from external third-party sources.

Primary ESG data: Directly provided by companies in sustainability reports, regulatory filings, or financial statements.

Secondary ESG data: Derived from third-party sources such as news articles, employee reviews, external surveys, or social media analysis.

Why is B correct?

Glassdoor employee satisfaction surveys provide insights into workplace culture, labor rights, and social issues—all key ESG aspects.

This is not direct company disclosure but rather third-party, externally collected data.

Why not A or C?

A (Bloomberg ESG Score) is primary data because Bloomberg compiles ESG disclosures directly from companies.

C (Interview transcript with CFO) is primary data because it comes directly from company leadership.

Under the CICERO "Shades of Green" framework, a Yellow rating (Option A) indicates:

Lack of sufficient data to determine climate impact.

Potential misalignment with long-term sustainability goals.

Option B (Light Green) means the project supports climate-friendly solutions but is not transformational.

Option C (Medium Green) means the project is aligned with long-term climate goals but has areas for improvement.

The discount rate adjustment for ESG risks (Option A) depends on:

The severity of company-specific ESG risks, such as exposure to climate risk, governance failures, or social controversies.

Higher ESG risks → Higher discount rate → Lower valuation.

Option B (Cash flow magnitude) does not determine risk-adjusted discount rates.

Option C (Risk management effectiveness) matters but is secondary to the company’s inherent ESG risk exposure.

ESG indexes (e.g., MSCI ESG Leaders Index, FTSE4Good Index, S&P ESG Index) offer investors structured, rules-based exposure to companies that meet specific ESG criteria.

Why C is correct:

ESG indexes follow clear methodologies that determine which companies are included or excluded.

Transparency is a key feature—investors can access index construction rules, ESG scoring criteria, and weightings.

Why not A?

ESG scoring methods vary across index providers (MSCI, S&P, FTSE, etc.), meaning there is no universal “standardized” approach.

Why not B?

ESG indexes do not directly "identify" firms prioritizing sustainability—they include firms based on ESG ratings and predefined metrics, but inclusion does not necessarily mean a company prioritizes sustainability over profits.

Growing income inequality is associated with reduced social mobility (Option A), meaning that individuals from lower-income backgrounds face greater challenges in moving up the economic ladder. This happens because:

Lower-income families often have limited access to quality education, healthcare, and job opportunities, making it harder for individuals to improve their economic status.

Wealth concentration among the elite leads to a decline in broad-based economic opportunity.

More educational opportunities (Option B) is incorrect because education tends to become more expensive and less accessible as income inequality increases.

Higher purchasing power among the middle class (Option C) is incorrect because growing inequality usually means that the middle class shrinks, and wealth is concentrated among the wealthy, reducing overall purchasing power.

France is the only major economy that mandates joint audits for public interest entities (PIEs), requiring two independent auditing firms to perform the audit.

Why France?

The French Commercial Code (Article L. 823-1) enforces mandatory joint audits to enhance audit quality and reduce financial risks.

Why not Germany or the UK?

Germany and the UK do not require joint audits.

While the UK considered joint audits, they remain voluntary rather than mandatory.

Green investment focuses on funding projects and companies that contribute to environmental sustainability, such as renewable energy, carbon capture, and energy efficiency.

Why C (Thematic investment) is correct:

Thematic investing targets specific themes or trends, such as climate action, clean energy, or water conservation—all of which align with green investment.

Why not A or B?

A (Philanthropy) is incorrect—green investment seeks financial returns, whereas philanthropy is primarily donation-based.

B (Ethical investment) is broader—ethical investing includes social and governance factors, while green investment focuses specifically on environmental factors.

Weitzman’s Dismal Theorem (Option C) argues that:

Extreme climate risks cannot be properly captured by traditional cost-benefit analysis.

High-impact, low-probability climate events (e.g., runaway warming, tipping points) mean economic models underestimate catastrophic risks.

Option A (Low discount rate for moral reasons) is incorrect because Weitzman focused on uncertainty, not ethics.

Option B (Economic value for biodiversity) is relevant but not the core of the dismal theorem.

Income inequality is a major economic issue, with the richest 10% earning significantly more than the poorest 10%.

Why C (14 times) is correct:

The OECD 2015 report found that, on average, the wealthiest 10% earn 14 times more than the bottom 10% across OECD countries.

Inequality varies by country—Nordic nations have lower disparities, while the US and UK have higher income gaps.

Why not A or B?

A (4 times) significantly underestimates the disparity.

B (9 times) is closer but still lower than the reported figure.

As populations age, older individuals generally spend less on consumer goods (Option A) because:

They shift spending toward healthcare, services, and retirement-related expenses.

They buy fewer durable goods (e.g., cars, electronics).

Option B is incorrect because the ratio of active to inactive workers decreases as the proportion of retirees grows.

Option C is incorrect because older people typically have higher accumulated savings than younger individuals.

Adjusting financial model inputs based on an evaluation of a company’s ESG risk factors is an example of a quantitative approach. Here’s why:

Quantitative Approach:

This involves the use of numerical data and mathematical models to assess ESG risks and incorporate them into financial models. Adjusting financial inputs like revenue forecasts, cost projections, or discount rates based on ESG factors quantifies the impact of these factors on financial performance.

By integrating ESG risk factors into financial metrics, investors can better understand the potential financial implications of ESG issues and make more informed investment decisions .

Qualitative vs. Hybrid Approaches:

A qualitative approach relies more on subjective judgment and narrative assessments, such as analyst opinions or case studies, without necessarily converting these insights into numerical data.

A hybrid approach combines both qualitative and quantitative methods, using narrative assessments alongside numerical data. However, directly adjusting financial model inputs is a clear application of quantitative analysis .

CFA ESG Investing References:

The CFA Institute’s ESG curriculum emphasizes the importance of integrating ESG factors into financial models quantitatively to provide a comprehensive view of a company’s financial health and potential risks .