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

Corporate governance analysisserves as arisk assessment tool, helping investors gauge a company’slong-term stability and earnings reliability. Companies withstrong governance (e.g., transparent reporting, independent oversight, ethical management)tend to havemore predictable earningsand lower financial risk.

Poor governance, by contrast,increases earnings volatilityand raises concerns aboutfraud or mismanagement, making future earningsless predictableandriskier.

TheNet Zero Asset Managers Initiativefocuses onengagement strategiesto encourage companies to transition tonet zero emissionsrather than forcingimmediate alignment of all assets (B).

Achieving net zero by 2025 (A) is unrealistic; most targets are 2040-2050.

TheUK Stewardship Code 2020requiresservice providers(such as proxy advisors and ESG data providers) to conductreview and assuranceof their stewardship activities. This ensuresaccuracy, transparency, and accountabilityinengagement and proxy voting recommendations.

Escalation (A)applies to investors increasing engagement pressure on companies.

Collaboration (B)relates to joint investor efforts rather than service provider responsibilities.

TheInternational Corporate Governance Network (ICGN)requirescomprehensive engagement reporting, which goes beyond justvoting activity. Investors must discloseengagement outcomes, stewardship efforts, and ESG considerations in investment decisions.

PRI signatories (A)must submitmandatoryESG reports, not voluntary ones.

Disaggregating ESG drivers (C)is actuallymore difficult, as ESG factors are deeply interconnected.

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.

Anenvironmental litigation costis afirm-specificrisk that increases uncertainty in a company’s cashflows, thereby raising itscost of capital (discount rate)in a DCF model.Higher discount rates reflect higher risk perceptions, reducing the present value of future earnings.

In contrast, asector-wide carbon tax (B)affects all firms in the industry and is often incorporated into pricing structures, reducing itsfirm-specific impact on discount rates.Launching a sustainable product (A)might lower risk perception, potentially reducing the discount rate instead.

TheJevons paradoxoccurs whenincreased efficiency in using a resource leads to a higher overall consumption of that resourcerather than a decrease.

Example:As fuel efficiency improves in cars, people maydrive more, increasing overall fuel consumption.

This effect can reduce the expected benefits of energy efficiency measures.

Option A relates to climate economics but does not describe the Jevons paradox.

Option C describes the albedo effect, not Jevons paradox.

Berg, Koelbel, and Rigobon (2022) found thatESG ratings from different providers (e.g., MSCI, Sustainalytics, FTSE) have low correlation, makingcomparisons difficult. This inconsistencyhinders empirical researchandleads to investor confusion.

Competence greenwashingoccurs when a companymisrepresents its ESG knowledge or expertise, such asoverstating the board’s sustainability qualifications.

Option C describes “selective disclosure” greenwashingrather than competence greenwashing.

Formal corporate governance codes are now found in all major world markets. These codes establish guidelines and best practices for corporate governance, aiming to enhance transparency, accountability, and overall governance standards within companies. While the specifics can vary by country, the presence of these codes globally reflects a widespread commitment to improving corporate governance​​​​​​.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

======

Exclusionary screening, also known as negative screening, is a responsible investment strategy where certain companies, sectors, or practices are excluded from an investment portfolio based on specific ethical guidelines or criteria. It is widely regarded as the oldest and simplest approach within the realm of responsible and sustainable investing.

1. Oldest and Simplest Approach: Exclusionary screening is indeed the oldest and simplest approach within responsible investment. This method has been used for decades, with early examples including the exclusion of companies involved in controversial activities such as tobacco, alcohol, or weapons production. The simplicity of this approach lies in its straightforward criteria: if a company or sector falls within the excluded category, it is not considered for investment.

2. Reducing Portfolio Tracking Error and Active Share: Contrary to option A, exclusionary screening does not necessarily reduce portfolio tracking error and active share. In fact, it can increase tracking error and active share by deviating from the benchmark index. This is because excluding certain companies or sectors means that the portfolio may differ significantly from the benchmark, potentially increasing both tracking error and active share.

3. ESG Rating Methodology: Option C describes a different approach known as positive or best-in-class screening, where a given ESG rating methodology is employed to identify and invest in companies with better ESG performance relative to their industry peers. This is distinct from exclusionary screening, which is based on predefined ethical or moral criteria rather than relative ESG performance.

References from CFA ESG Investing:

Exclusionary Screening: The CFA Institute describes exclusionary screening as the process of excluding certain sectors, companies, or practices from a portfolio based on specific ethical, moral, or religious criteria. This method has historical roots and is considered the simplest and most traditional form of responsible investment.

Positive/Best-in-Class Screening: The CFA curriculum differentiates exclusionary screening from positive screening, where investments are made in companies with superior ESG performance within their sectors, using ESG rating methodologies to guide the selection process.

In conclusion, exclusionary screening is correctly identified as the oldest and simplest approach within responsible investment, making option B the verified answer.

======