Sustainable-Investing Exam Dumps - CFA Institute Sustainable Investing Certificate Questions and Answers

The OTM provides the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol definitions:

“Scope 2 emissionsareindirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy(electricity, steam, heating, or cooling) consumed by the reporting company.”

These emissions occur at the facility where the energy is produced but are attributed to the consuming company. Scope 1 represents direct emissions, while Scope 3 covers “all other indirect emissions” across upstream and downstream value chains.

Therefore, Scope 2 emissions areindirect but limited to purchased energy use, a critical metric for ESG analysis and carbon accounting. OptionCcaptures this definition accurately and completely.

????Reference:2021-Final-Book.pdf, Chapter 3 — Environmental Factors (Carbon Footprinting and Emission Scopes section).

Thematic investinginvolves targeting investments that align with specific ESG-related themes, such as clean energy, climate resilience, or sustainable infrastructure. When investors allocate capital towardwaste and water infrastructure, they are aligning with environmental themes likeresource efficiencyandclimate adaptation.

“Investment in infrastructure projects such as water and waste… with high environmental impact aligns with thematic strategies, particularly under the environmental factor category of resource use and pollution control.”

Impact investing goes further by requiringintentional and measurable social or environmental outcomes, which isn't a requirement in this case. Best-in-class investing focuses on selecting top ESG performers within each industry, which is not the theme here.

The manual notes:

“ESG integration can lead tonew investable universes(such as green bonds, social bonds, or renewable infrastructure) that behave differently from conventional asset classes. Hence, they canadd new sub-asset classesto traditional portfolio optimization frameworks.”

This aligns with optionC, as ESG factors may alter the efficient frontier by introducing differentiated risk/return characteristics.

????Reference:2021-Final-Book.pdf, Chapter 8, Portfolio Optimization and ESG Integration Section.

One of the main challenges incollective engagementis ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory boundaries, particularly rules around"acting in concert"ormarket abuse regulations. Investors working together risk being seen as trying to influence control over a company, which can triggerregulatory scrutinyor require disclosures.

“Many investors see such market abuse rules as limiting their ability to carry out collective engagement effectively.”

Organizations like theInvestor Forumin the UK have created frameworks to facilitate engagement without breaching these regulations, underscoring the seriousness of this issue.

Most companies, particularly those operating under strong corporate governance frameworks (e.g., UK Corporate Governance Code), are expected to maintainthree principal board committees: audit, nomination, and remuneration. These committees serve critical governance functions—financial oversight, board composition, and executive pay.

“Expectations and duties of the three principal board committees that almost all major companies have in place: the audit committee… the nominations committee… and the remuneration committee.”

While sustainability or risk committees may exist in some firms, they are not as universally established as the three mentioned above.

In theGovernance Factorschapter, the Official Training Manual (OTM) explicitly explains:

“Pre-emption rightsprotect existing shareholders by giving them the right to maintain their proportional ownership when new shares are issued.”

This ensures minority shareholders can avoid dilution of their holdings when the company raises capital. The OTM further notes that such rights are a “cornerstone of good governancein most developed markets, ensuring equitable treatment of all shareholders.”

In contrast,dual-class share structuresconcentrate power among a select group of owners, whilegeneral mandate resolutionsallow management broad discretion to issue new shares without pre-emption—both increasing governance risk for minority shareholders.

Hence,option Cis the correct and verified choice, as it is directly supported by the governance standards section.

????Reference:2021-Final-Book.pdf, Chapter 5 — Governance Factors (Shareholder Rights and Minority Shareholder Protection section).

The manual distinguishes firm-specific (idiosyncratic) risk from systematic (market/sector) risk: “Risk also appears as either idiosyncratic or systematic risk:▶Idiosyncratic risk describes firm- or stock-specific risk.”

It also notes sector-wide environmental risks “may affect the discount rate used,” showing that systematic (sector/market) risks can be reflected in the discount rate.

For company-specific assessments, the manual’s DCF case study explains the team “prefers DCF and explicit model scenarios for sales, margins and asset turns … rather than an adjustment to a discount rate … for a company specific assessment.”

Together, these extracts support that company-specific (idiosyncratic) ESG risk is not well suited to be embedded in the discount rate, whereas sector- or market-wide risks are.

TheBlue Economy and Natural Resourcessection of the OTM cites the OECD’s “Ocean Economy in 2030” report:

“The OECD estimates thatocean-based industriessuch as shipping, offshore wind, and aquaculture couldoutperform global GDP growth rates by 2030, contributing strongly toboth value added and employment.”

This dual benefit arises from technological innovation, renewable energy expansion, and sustainable fisheries management. The manual highlights that marine sectors not only drive economic productivity but also generate millions of jobs globally, aligning with SDG 14 (“Life Below Water”).

Therefore,option Cis correct, as the OECD’s analysis explicitly references both economic (value added) and social (employment) dimensions.

????Reference:2021-Final-Book.pdf, Chapter 3 — Environmental Factors (Ocean Economy and Resource Sustainability section).

The OTM discusses fixed-income integration extensively, stating:

“Credit rating agencies increasingly considercontingent liabilities such as environmental remediation, pension deficits, and sovereign guaranteesin their rating methodologies.”

These liabilities represent ESG-related risks that can affect a sovereign’s debt-servicing capacity. The manual clarifies that while equity investors emphasize profitability and growth,credit analysts focus on downside protection, balance sheet strength, and cash flow resilience—making ESG particularly relevant in sovereign ratings.

Municipal bonds (option A) are, in fact, widely used in ESG integration (especially green and social bonds), while option C reverses the emphasis between asset classes. Thus,option Baccurately reflects the OTM guidance.

????Reference:2021-Final-Book.pdf, Chapter 8 — Fixed Income ESG Integration (Credit Risk and Sovereign Ratings section).

According to theOfficial Training Manual (OTM), private debt fund managers lack the direct shareholder rights (like voting) available to equity investors. Instead, their influence derives fromrelationship management and lending covenants. The manual explicitly states:

“Private debt investors typically integrate ESG throughengagement in the lending process, which includesongoing dialogue with borrowerson risk mitigation, governance practices, and sustainability-linked covenants.”

This process often extends throughout the loan’s duration, ensuring compliance and continuous improvement. Board representation is rare in debt arrangements, making “board seats” (option B) inaccurate. Hence, optionCcorrectly identifies “ongoing dialogue” as the primary engagement mechanism.

????Reference:2021-Final-Book.pdf, Chapter 8 — ESG Integration Across Asset Classes (Private Debt section).

When ESG is integrated into portfolio optimization, it does not typically follow a fixed or rigid process for individual securities. Instead, portfolios areorganized based on the ESG characteristics of individual securities, which are then used to construct an efficient portfolio under aspecific ESG optimization approach. This may include aligning portfolios with particular sustainability goals, managing ESG-related risks, or maximizing ESG scores within acceptable levels of risk and return.

“Much of the research focuses on the correlation between a particular ESG criterion and individual securities… ESG integration should not be seen as detrimental to the risk–return dynamic of portfolio optimisation. Rather, it should be understood as simply another factor that potentially may enhance the risk and return profile.”

This approach leverages ESG as anadditional factor in the optimizationprocess, not merely as a constraint.

Step 1:Calculate Company A's carbon intensity:

Step 2:Portfolio weight of Company A:

Step 3:Weighted average carbon intensity:

One of the most cited issues in ESG data is thelow correlationbetween ESG ratings from different providers. This inconsistency arises from differing methodologies, weightings, and data sources.

“ESG ratings from different providers often show low correlation… making it difficult for investors to compare ratings and for companies to respond to a unified set of ESG expectations.”

Thus,option A is least accurate, while B and C reflect common observations.

“There are many types of diversity needed for a board to be successful,though the most important is diversity of thought. The other types include diversity of gender, race, age, culture, nationality and experience….”

Sovereign bond ESG data remainsinconsistent, especially when compared across different jurisdictions. This is due to varying levels of public transparency, reporting standards, and national ESG frameworks. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) highlight this as akey data limitationin ESG investing.

“The PRI notes that ESG data for sovereign bond issuers is less available and often inconsistent, making cross-country comparisons and assessments of sovereign ESG risk more difficult.”

This variability poses challenges to fixed income investors seeking to align sovereign debt portfolios with ESG principles.