Sustainable-Investing CFA Institute Sustainable Investing Certificate (CFA-SIC) Exam Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

All else being equal, a company with higher climate-related risk than the industry average would most likely have a lower price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio. This is because higher climate-related risks can affect a company's future profitability and stability, leading investors to apply a higher discount rate to its future earnings, thus lowering its valuation.

Higher climate-related risk (B): Companies facing significant climate-related risks may encounter regulatory costs, physical damage to assets, and shifts in market demand, which can adversely impact their financial performance. Investors might anticipate these potential negative impacts and thus assign a lower P/E ratio to such companies.

Lower employee turnover (A) and higher employee satisfaction (C): These factors generally indicate better management practices and a more engaged workforce, which are often viewed positively by investors and may lead to a higher P/E ratio, reflecting confidence in the company's stability and growth potential.

The Stockholm Resilience Centre has identified several planetary boundaries that have already been crossed due to human activity. These boundaries define the safe operating space for humanity, and crossing them increases the risk of triggering large-scale environmental changes. Examples include biodiversity loss and biochemical flows.ESG Reference: Chapter 3, Page 166 - Environmental Factors in the ESG textbook.

Corporate disclosure is a primary focus of ESG regulation. Requiring companies to disclose their ESG practices ensures transparency and allows investors to make informed decisions. Regulations around stewardship and asset owners often complement these disclosure requirements but are not the main enforcement mechanism for ESG integration.ESG Reference: Chapter 7, Page 364 - ESG Analysis, Valuation & Integration in the ESG textbook.

In Japan, shareholders appoint additional statutory auditors. This ensures that the auditors are independent from management and aligned with shareholder interests, which is crucial for maintaining effective corporate governance and transparency.ESG Reference: Chapter 5, Page 231 - Governance Factors in the ESG textbook.

Analyzing a portfolio's social impact exposure involves understanding the broader social context before drilling down to individual company specifics. The best approach is to first understand the material social topics at the country and sector levels, then the company level.

Country and sector levels, then the company level (B): Starting at the country level provides insight into the social issues prevalent in the region, influenced by local laws, regulations, and cultural norms. Next, analyzing at the sector level helps to identify sector-specific social risksand opportunities. Finally, understanding these issues at the company level allows for a more detailed analysis of how individual companies manage these social impacts.

Company and country levels, then the sector level (A): This approach might miss out on sector-specific social issues that are critical for a comprehensive analysis.

Company and sector levels, then the country level (C): This approach overlooks the broader country-level social context, which can significantly influence sector and company-level social impacts.

The earliest source of the dispersal of opinions between different ESG rating agencies is most likely the identification of ESG factors.

Identification of ESG factors (A): Different rating agencies may prioritize and identify different ESG factors based on their proprietary methodologies, resulting in variation from the outset. This initial step influences the entire rating process as it determines which aspects of ESG will be assessed.

Determination of weighting and scoring methodologies (B): Although critical, discrepancies in weighting and scoring methodologies come after the identification of ESG factors. These methodologies vary based on the initial set of factors considered important by each agency.

Gathering of a set of data points for the identified ESG indicators (C): This step involves data collection based on the previously identified factors and methodologies. Differences in data sources and quality further contribute to variation, but the foundational divergence starts with factor identification.

Integrated Research: This involves combining ESG data with traditional financial analysis to form comprehensive insights that support investment decisions. Integrated research considers both qualitative and quantitative ESG factors and their potential impact on financial performance.

Purpose: The goal of integrated research is to provide a nuanced, data-informed perspective that helps investors identify risks and opportunities associated with ESG issues, thereby enhancing the decision-making process.

ESG Screening and Voting Advice: ESG screening (A) is the process of filtering investments based on ESG criteria, and voting and governance advice (C) involves guidance on shareholder voting and governance practices. While these are important, they do not encompass the full scope of analytical opinion provided by integrated research.

CFA ESG Investing References:

The CFA Institute’s ESG Integration Framework emphasizes the role of integrated research in incorporating ESG factors into investment analysis, providing a holistic view that informs better investment decisions​​​​.

======

Third-party assessments that highlight events, behaviors, and practices that may lead to reputational and business risks and opportunities are best classified as ESG news and controversy alerts.

Purpose of Alerts: ESG news and controversy alerts provide real-time information on incidents that could affect a company’s reputation and financial performance. These alerts help investors stay informed about potential risks and opportunities arising from a company’s ESG practices.

Types of Information: These alerts often cover a wide range of issues, including environmental incidents, labor disputes, governance failures, and other controversial activities.

Risk Management: By monitoring ESG news and controversies, investors can respond promptly to emerging risks and adjust their investment strategies accordingly.

CFA ESG Investing References:

The CFA Institute’s ESG Integration Framework includes the use of third-party ESG news and controversy alerts as a vital tool for monitoring ongoing developments and assessing the potential impact on investment portfolios​​​​.

======

Technological innovation, especially concerning big social media companies, has sparked debates around human rights, such as free speech, privacy, and censorship. These issues have created tensions between these companies and sovereign nations, suggesting shifts in societal power.ESG Reference: Chapter 4, Page 192 - Social Factors in the ESG textbook.

As a percentage of the overall materiality threshold reported in enhanced audit reports, performance materiality is typically 50%.

Performance Materiality: Performance materiality is set to reduce the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds the materiality threshold for the financial statements as a whole. It is typically set at a lower level than the overall materiality.

Common Percentage: The standard practice is to set performance materiality at approximately 50% of the overall materiality threshold. This conservative approach helps ensure that the risk of material misstatements is minimized.

CFA ESG Investing References:

The CFA Institute’s materials on audit and assurance practices discuss performance materiality and its role in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of financial reporting. The typical percentage used for performance materiality aligns with industry standards to safeguard against material misstatements​​​​.

======

Both Enron and WeWork faced governance failures due to excessive control and influence by their CEOs (Jeffrey Skilling for Enron, Adam Neumann for WeWork).

Why C (CEO dominance) is correct:

Enron’s CEO misled investors through fraudulent accounting practices.

WeWork’s CEO (Adam Neumann) had unchecked authority, leading to unethical corporate decisions that ultimately resulted in a failed IPO.

Why not A or B?

A (Auditor lapses) is relevant for Enron (Arthur Andersen scandal) but not a key factor in WeWork’s collapse.

B (Related-party deals) occurred at WeWork (e.g., CEO leasing buildings to his own company) but was not a central issue in Enron’s collapse.

Impact investing involves investments aimed at generating a measurable positive social or environmental impact alongside financial returns, such as funding low-cost community housing. (ESGTextBook[PallasCatFin], Chapter 8, Page 451)

Scope 2 emissions refer to indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the company’s consumption of purchased electricity, steam, heat, and cooling. (ESGTextBook[PallasCatFin], Chapter 3, Page 133)

One of the biggest challenges in ESG integration is the subjective nature of ESG analysis due to varying methodologies, inconsistent reporting, and differing interpretations of materiality.

ESG factors are qualitative and require judgment to assess their financial impact.

Different ESG rating agencies (e.g., MSCI, Sustainalytics, Refinitiv) use different scoring models, leading to low correlation among ESG scores (not high correlation).

There is no single standardized ESG dataset, making it difficult for managers to compare companies objectively.

Climate change (Option A) is a material financial risk that pension fund trustees must consider under their fiduciary duty. Failing to assess climate risks can lead to:

Legal liabilities and lawsuits from beneficiaries.

Financial losses due to stranded assets and regulatory shifts.

Option B (Choice of benchmarks) is relevant, but not the primary fiduciary risk.

Option C (Lack of ESG signals) affects engagement but does not constitute a direct legal risk.

ESG factors can impact credit risk at both issuer and industry levels by influencing financial stability, regulatory compliance, and reputational risks.

Issuer level: A company's ESG risk exposure (e.g., environmental violations, governance scandals) can lead to downgrades or higher borrowing costs.

Industry level: Sectors like coal mining, oil & gas, and tobacco face systemic ESG risks (e.g., climate regulations, social opposition).

Credit rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s, S&P, Fitch) integrate ESG risks into credit assessments.

Active ownership refers to investors using their rights (voting, engagement, resolutions) to influence corporate behavior.

Why C (Proxy voting with an agenda) is correct:

Active owners use proxy voting to push ESG policies (e.g., climate risk disclosures, executive compensation reforms).

Example: BlackRock and Vanguard vote on shareholder resolutions to demand climate risk reporting.

Why not A or B?

A (Negative screening) is a passive strategy, not active ownership.

B (Disinvestment) is sometimes used but is not the main strategy of active ownership.

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.

Quantitative ESG analysis involves numerical, measurable data that can be compared across companies and time periods.

Why A (Issuer-reported carbon emissions) is correct:

Carbon emissions data (Scope 1, 2, and 3) is measurable and numeric, often reported in metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (MTCO₂e).

This data can be used in financial models to assess climate risk.

Why not B or C?

B (Executive compensation policies) are qualitative, as linking pay to ESG goals involves policy assessments rather than hard data.

C (Investments and policies credibility) involves subjective judgment rather than numerical data.

The SASB Materiality Map (Option C) is designed to identify material ESG issues for specific industries and companies, helping investors:

Understand which ESG issues impact financial performance.

Assess and compare ESG risks across sectors.

Option A (Only covers equities) is incorrect because SASB standards apply to multiple asset classes.

Option B (Portfolio-level exposure) is more relevant to ESG rating agencies rather than SASB’s framework.

Regulatory-backed stewardship codes are designed to enforce stronger accountability and escalation processes for investors engaging with companies.

Why C (escalation activities) is correct:

Regulatory codes emphasize escalation strategies (e.g., proxy voting, shareholder resolutions, and engagement letters).

Example: UK Stewardship Code 2020 requires investors to engage forcefully when companies fail to address material ESG risks.

Why not A or B?

A (Voting disclosure) is important but not the primary distinction between voluntary and regulatory-backed codes.

B (Conflicts of interest) is addressed in both types of stewardship codes but is not the main emphasis of regulatory-backed codes.

Many Japanese companies use a statutory auditor system (Option B) instead of board committees for oversight. In this approach:

A statutory board of auditors (kansayaku) monitors management rather than a traditional audit or governance committee.

This structure is legally permitted in Japan and is different from Western corporate governance models that require independent board committees.

Option A (cross-shareholding practice) refers to companies holding each other’s shares to maintain business stability but does not directly explain the lack of board committees.

Option C is incorrect because Japan’s Corporate Governance Code allows the statutory auditor model.

A lower terminal growth rate due to ESG risks (Option A) results in:

A lower valuation in a discounted cash flow (DCF) model.

Higher expected regulatory costs, operational risks, or reputational issues reducing future cash flows.

Option B (Same valuation) is incorrect because ESG risks impact long-term growth assumptions.

Option C (Higher valuation) is incorrect—ESG risks increase discount rates, lowering present value.

Engagement (Option B) is the active process of fund managers interacting with investee companies to:

Encourage ESG improvements.

Address material risks impacting long-term value.

Option A (Monitoring) is passive observation, not action.

Option C (Corporate sustainability) applies to company policies, not investor actions.

Many climate-conscious pension funds employ fossil fuel exclusion strategies to align with low-carbon investment goals.

Why B (Exclude fossil fuel investments) is correct:

Many pension funds divest from coal, oil, and gas due to regulatory, reputational, and financial risks.

Example: Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund and CalPERS have divested from coal companies.

Why not A or C?

A (Accept lower returns) is incorrect—climate-focused funds aim for competitive risk-adjusted returns.

C (Investing in high-risk sovereign debt) is unlikely, as these countries face climate risks that could weaken financial stability.

The Corporate Governance Committee (Option C) ensures the board:

Has diverse, skilled, and independent directors.

Follows best practices in governance, ethics, and oversight.

Option A (Audit committee) focuses on financial reporting and risk management.

Option B (Compensation committee) oversees executive pay and incentives.

Fixed income (Option B) is the most sensitive to climate-related transition risk because:

Bondholders have limited upside potential but full downside risk—meaning climate policy changes, carbon pricing, and regulatory shifts can significantly affect credit risk and yield spreads.

Stranded asset risk affects sectors like coal, oil & gas, leading to downgrades in corporate and sovereign bonds.

Option A (Equity) also faces transition risks but tends to be more adaptable, as companies can pivot strategies.

Option C (Alternative investments) (e.g., real estate, infrastructure) are less liquid but not as directly affected by short-term policy changes.

Impact investing seeks to generate positive, measurable social or environmental outcomes alongside financial returns.

Why A (impact investing) is correct:

Impact investors explicitly aim for measurable ESG outcomes, such as reducing carbon emissions or improving social equity.

Example: Funds investing in affordable housing, renewable energy, or microfinance.

Why not B or C?

B (Best-in-class) refers to selecting the top ESG performers, not necessarily requiring measurable ESG outcomes.

C (Exclusions-based) avoids certain sectors but does not actively generate ESG impact.

The ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) aims to standardize sustainability reporting by aligning it with financial reporting timelines.

Why B (published with financial statements) is correct:

ISSB requires sustainability disclosures to be integrated with financial reporting to improve transparency.

Why not A?

Sustainability disclosures are not yet universally required to be audited—this remains an evolving requirement, unlike financial statements, which must be audited.