Pass the CFA Institute Sustainable Investing Certificate Sustainable-Investing Questions and answers with CertsForce

When a company rotates auditors but has non-audit contracts with two other Big Four firms, there is a reduced level of competition for audit services. This is because the remaining firms may be restricted from taking the audit role due to conflicts of interest. As a result, the selection process may not be fully competitive, leading to a "sub-optimal level of competition."

Regulatory frameworks, such as the EU Audit Reform and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, encourage audit firm rotation to enhance independence and objectivity. However, conflicts from existing advisory relationships can limit viable audit candidates.

Pre-emption rightsgiveexisting shareholders priority when new shares are issued, preventingdilutionof their ownership stakes. This isa key protection for minority shareholders.

Dual-class shares (A) and double voting rights (C) favor controlling shareholders, reducing minority shareholder influence.

Double materialitymeans a company must reportnot only how ESG risks impact financial performancebut alsohow the company’s activities impact society and the environment.

For example, under theEU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), companies must disclose:

Financial materiality(how ESG issues affect financial performance)

Impact materiality(how the company affects the environment and society)

TheOECD COPE 2015 reportfound that therichest 10% earned about 9 times more than the poorest 10%across OECD countries, highlightingincome inequality as a major social issue.

In some developing nations, the gap can be even wider (14x or more), but across OECD countries,9x is the average disparity.

Conduct-based exclusionary screeningspecifically targets companies thatviolate internationally accepted normsor ethical standards. Child labor infractions directly contravene widely acceptedinternational labor and human rights principles, making them a frequent and high-priorityexclusion criterionin ESG mandates. By contrast, industries like gambling or alcohol may be excluded based onvalues-basedscreens or religious/ethical preferences, but they are not inherently conduct-related violations of global norms.

The CFA Institute confirms thatESG indices have been developed for both equity and fixed income asset classes, providing investors with performance and risk data. While the specific criteria and weightings of these indices can vary widely (so option A is incorrect), and comprehensive back-testing across multiple cycles is often limited (option C is also not uniformly true), these indices do consistently extend acrossboth equities and bondsto enable portfolio-level ESG integration and benchmark comparisons.

In scenario analysis, dynamic asset allocation offers themost flexibilitybecause it allows investors tocontinuously rebalancetheir portfolios based on changing ESG-related factors. Unlike total portfolio analysis—which tends to be static—or regime-switching models—which primarily identify broad shifts—dynamic asset allocation continuouslyadapts to evolving risks and opportunities. This flexibility enables investors to bettercapture potential winners(sectors or companies benefiting from ESG trends) and avoidpotential losers(those exposed to ESG-related risks).

TheEU’s taxonomy for sustainable activitiesis a prominent example of apublic policy framework—it sets criteria and definitions for sustainable economic activities, guiding investors, companies, and governments in aligning with climate and environmental objectives.

Option A is incorrect becauseboth asset owners and managerscan integrate ESG factors into strategic asset allocation.

Option C is incorrect becauseshareholder engagementextends far beyond the annual general meeting, encompassing ongoing dialogue and stewardship activities.

CFA guidance notes thatquantitative ESG analysisinvolvesstatistical or numerical methodsto measure ESG factors—such astilting a portfolio’s weightstoward high-ESG-rated companies in an index strategy. Options B and C involvequalitative assessments(governance policy linkages and disclosure compliance), not quantitative measurement of ESG exposures.

When investors worry about a company’scapital structure or financial sustainability, they often scrutinizedividend policies(option A). Excessive dividend payouts can weaken a company’s capital base and impair its ability to reinvest or meet debt obligations. Auditor compensation (B) and board elections (C) are governance considerations but don’t directly address financial viability or leverage concerns.

Alinear economyfollows the “take–make–dispose” model: resources are extracted, manufactured into products, and ultimately discarded asnon-recyclable waste. In contrast, acircular economy(not described here) seeks to reuse, recycle, and recover materials. Only in a circular system (option A or C) are materials recycled or reused, whereas linear systems produce waste with minimal resource recapture.

Top-down engagementtypically occurs at amacro level, such as throughcollaborative initiativesorindustry-level policy dialogues. This approach is most suited tobroadly diversified portfolioswhere investors cannot engage deeply with every individual company but can influencesystem-level issues(like climate policy, supply chain labor standards) across many holdings.

PRI’s minimum requirements state that each signatory must haveformal senior-level oversight and accountability mechanismsin place for responsible investment policies and their implementation. This requirement ensures governance structures are aligned with ESG commitments.

Asset owners must ensure clarity of purpose: portfolio managers shouldestablish a clear rationale for ESG assessment, such as value creation, risk reduction, or client alignment. This rationale forms the policy's basis. Selective disclosure (option B) may breach transparency principles, and segregating ESG risk from overall risk management (option C) is generally discouraged. Instead, ESG risk should be integrated holistically with traditional financial risk into the overall risk framework.

The concept described isclimate sensitivity, formally defined as the change in Earth's surface temperature resulting from adoubling of atmospheric CO₂compared to pre-industrial levels. This encompassesequilibrium climate sensitivity(long-term warming after all feedback loops settle) andtransient climate response(shorter-term warming before full equilibrium). While transient climate response is a specific short-term measure, the broader principle of warming after CO₂ doubling is referred to as climate sensitivity.