CFA Institute Sustainable-Investing Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Fiduciary duty (Option A) is the primary driver for ESG investment in pension plans. Trustees are legally obligated to act in the best interests of beneficiaries, which includes considering ESG factors that affect long-term risk-adjusted returns.

Option B (Loss aversion) is a behavioral bias, but pension ESG investment is based on financial materiality rather than loss avoidance.

Option C (Personal ethics of members) may influence individual choices, but pension plans follow fiduciary principles rather than personal beliefs.

The correlation between ESG ratings of issuers by different ESG rating providers tends to be lower compared to the correlation between credit ratings of issuers by different credit rating providers.

1. ESG Ratings Variability: ESG rating providers often use different methodologies, criteria, and weightings to assess companies' ESG performance. This can lead to significant variations in the ratings assigned to the same issuer by different ESG rating providers. Factors such as the choice of indicators, data sources, and the subjective nature of some ESG criteria contribute to these differences.

2. Credit Ratings Consistency: In contrast, credit rating providers like Moody's, S&P, and Fitch use more standardized and widely accepted methodologies to assess credit risk. While there may still be some variation, the correlation between credit ratings from different providers is generally higher because they follow similar fundamental principles and financial metrics in their assessments.

3. Empirical Studies: Empirical studies have shown that the correlation between ESG ratings from different providers is lower compared to the correlation between credit ratings. This is due to the subjective and evolving nature of ESG criteria versus the more established and quantitative nature of credit risk assessment.

References from CFA ESG Investing:

ESG Ratings Methodologies: The CFA Institute discusses the differences in methodologies used by various ESG rating providers and the resulting variability in ratings. Understanding these differences is crucial for investors when interpreting and using ESG ratings.

Credit Rating Consistency: The CFA curriculum highlights the higher consistency and correlation between credit ratings from different providers, which is attributed to the standardized approaches used in credit risk assessment.

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

Evaluating Emission Reduction Commitments:

A company's emission reduction commitments can be evaluated using various methods, but science-based targets provide the most robust framework for assessing these commitments.

1. Scope 3 Emissions: Scope 3 emissions include all indirect emissions that occur in a company's value chain, such as emissions from purchased goods and services, business travel, and waste disposal. While important, focusing solely on Scope 3 emissions does not provide a complete picture of a company's overall emission reduction strategy.

2. Science-Based Targets: Science-based targets (SBTs) are emission reduction targets that are aligned with the level of decarbonization required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. SBTs provide a clear and scientifically validated pathway for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with global climate goals.

3. Financial Modelling of Material Environmental Factors: Financial modelling of material environmental factors can provide insights into the financial impacts of environmental risks and opportunities. However, it is not as directly linked to evaluating the specific commitments and pathways for emission reduction as science-based targets are.

References from CFA ESG Investing:

Science-Based Targets: The CFA Institute highlights the importance of science-based targets in providing a credible and transparent framework for companies to set and achieve their emission reduction commitments. SBTs ensure that companies' goals are aligned with global climate science and policy objectives.

Emission Reduction Strategies: Understanding and evaluating emission reduction strategies through the lens of science-based targets allows investors to assess the credibility and effectiveness of a company's commitments.

In conclusion, a company’s emission reduction commitments are best evaluated using science-based targets, making option B the verified answer.

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