ESG-Investing Exam Dumps - Certificate in ESG Investing

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.

References:

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Materiality Map

CFA ESG Investing Principles

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

Avoiding long-term transition risk involves aligning investment strategies with the anticipated changes in regulations, market dynamics, and environmental sustainability goals. Transition risk refers to the financial risks associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy, which can impact the value of investments, particularly those in carbon-intensive industries.

Understanding Transition Risk: Transition risks are associated with the shift towards a low-carbon economy. These include changes in policy, technology, and market conditions that can affect the valuation of carbon-intensive assets.

Divesting Carbon-Intensive Investments: Divesting from highly carbon-intensive investments, particularly in the energy sector, is a key strategy to mitigate long-term transition risks. Carbon-intensive investments are likely to be adversely affected by stricter environmental regulations, carbon pricing, and shifts in consumer preferences towards more sustainable energy sources​​​​.

Examples and Case Studies: The urgency to respond to the climate crisis is driving both national and corporate commitments towards Paris-aligned net-zero carbon emissions targets. Reducing portfolio concentration in highly carbon-intensive sectors will decrease exposure to long-term transition risks. However, this may reduce the portfolio's income yield as the energy sector often provides above-market cash flow profiles and dividend income streams​​.

Strategic Asset Allocation: Effective asset allocation strategies involve reallocating investments to sectors with lower carbon footprints and higher resilience to transition risks. This approach ensures the sustainability of investment returns and aligns with long-term climate goals.

Therefore, the correct approach to avoiding long-term transition risk is divesting highly carbon-intensive investments in the energy sector.

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

ESG ratings can be noisy due to variations in methodology, data sources, and subjective judgments by rating agencies, leading to inconsistencies across ratings for the same company. (ESGTextBook[PallasCatFin], Chapter 7, Page 364)

A threshold assessment involves setting minimum criteria that companies must meet to be considered for investment. This often includes governance factors which are critical for evaluating the leadership and management effectiveness of a company.

Step 2: Focus Areas in Governance Assessment

Cost of Capital: More related to financial metrics and not directly linked to governance assessments.

Quality of Management: A key governance factor, assessing the capabilities, track record, and integrity of a company’s management team.

Level of Confidence about Future Earnings: While important, it is more related to financial forecasting than to governance assessments.

Step 3: Verification with ESG Investing References

Governance assessments in ESG investing place significant emphasis on evaluating the quality of management. This includes leadership practices, board effectiveness, executive compensation, and overall management competence: "Quality of management is a crucial aspect in governance assessments, determining the strategic direction and risk management practices of a company"​​​​.

Conclusion: When using a threshold assessment to integrate governance factors, fund managers most likely focus on the quality of management.

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

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.

References:

Stockholm Resilience Centre: Planetary Boundaries Report (2023)

IPCC Special Report on Climate and Biodiversity

UNEP Ozone Layer Recovery Updates

There is a relatively high correlation (Option C) between sovereign ESG scores and credit ratings because:

Countries with strong governance, environmental policies, and social stability tend to have higher credit ratings.

Weak ESG performance (e.g., corruption, political instability, climate risk) negatively affects sovereign creditworthiness.

Option A (Relatively low) is incorrect because major rating agencies (S&P, Moody’s, Fitch) integrate ESG factors into sovereign risk assessments.

Option B (Close to zero) is incorrect because ESG factors are material financial risks in sovereign credit ratings.

References:

Moody’s ESG Sovereign Credit Risk Report

S&P Global: ESG and Sovereign Credit Ratings

IMF: ESG Risks in Government Bonds

Greenwashing—misleading claims about a company's environmental efforts—directly leads to a loss of consumer trust (Option C).

Consumers become skeptical of sustainability claims, leading to brand damage and reduced sales.

Companies caught greenwashing (e.g., Volkswagen Dieselgate, H&M’s false sustainability claims) suffer reputational and financial losses.

Option A (Labor strikes) can occur due to ESG issues, but greenwashing itself does not directly trigger strikes.

Option B (Greater regulation) is a secondary consequence, but the direct impact is consumer trust erosion.

References:

OECD Greenwashing Report (2022)

EU Green Claims Directive

PRI Guide on Greenwashing in Sustainable Finance

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).

References:

PRI: ESG Screening Strategies (2023)

UN PRI’s Guide to Norms-Based Screening