Full Access CFA Institute Sustainable-Investing Tutorials

Themanagement gaprefers torisks that are known but not yet actively managed. This could includeESG risks that companies acknowledge but have not integrated into their governance or risk management processes.

Unrated credit positions (B) are a separate riskrelated to credit ratings.

All risks (A) can technically be managed, but some may beneglected due to lack of prioritization or resources.

TheEU Green Taxonomyprovides aclassification system that defines which economic activities are environmentally sustainable, ensuringinvestors and companies align with EU climate goals.

It does not classify all businesses by ESG scores (A).

It does not mandate investment in climate solutions (C), but encourages it.

One of the challenges in quantitative ESG investing is thatESG scores and ratings often overlap or correlate with traditional risk factorslikevalue and momentum. This makes it more difficult toisolate the unique impact of ESGin statistical models, leading to potential “double counting” or confounding of factors. While data quality (options A and B) is also a concern, it’s thefactor correlationthat most directly impacts the reliability of ESG-based quantitative models.

The CFA Institute highlights that thetrue measure of engagement successlies in theactual performance improvements or changes achieved—such as better ESG disclosures, strengthened governance practices, or reduced environmental footprint. Merely counting votes or milestones does not demonstrate if engagement effortsresulted in meaningful changein the investee company’s practices.