UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED
MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

EXPLANATORY NOTE: On March 4, 2022, the undersigned registrant filed its Certified Shareholder Report on Form N-CSR for the annual period ended December 31, 2021. The registrant hereby amends the original Certified Shareholder Report on Form N-CSR by amending the response under Item 11(b) and replacing Exhibit 13(a)(2) as filed on March 4, 2022 with Exhibit 13(a)(2) attached hereto.

This amendment does not reflect events occurring after the filing of the original Certified Shareholder Report on Form N-CSR for the annual period ended December 31, 2021, and, other than amending the response under Item 11(b) and replacing Exhibit 13(a)(2), as stated above, does not modify or update the disclosures in the original Certified Shareholder Report on Form N-CSR in any way.

Form N-CSR is to be used by management investment companies to file reports with the Commission not later than 10 days after the transmission to stockholders of any report that is required to be transmitted to stockholders under Rule 30e-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (17 CFR 270.30e-1). The Commission may use the information provided on Form N-CSR in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles.

A registrant is required to disclose the information specified by Form N-CSR, and the Commission will make this information public. A registrant is not required to respond to the collection of information contained in Form N-CSR unless the Form displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number. Please direct comments concerning the accuracy of the information collection burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. The OMB has reviewed this collection of information under the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. §3507.

Blended Index for the Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund is composed of 60% S&P 500 Index and 40% Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index.

Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is a broad-based index, maintained by Bloomberg L.P. often used to represent investment grade bonds being traded in the United States.

FTSE Environmental Opportunities Index Series measures the performance of global companies that have significant involvement in environmental business activities, including renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency, water technology, waste and pollution control and food, agriculture and forestry. The FTSE Environmental Opportunities Index Series requires companies to have at least 20% of their business derived from environmental markets and technologies. The FTSE Environmental Opportunities Index Series is published by a joint venture of Impax Asset Management, Ltd. (“Impax”) with FTSE International. Impax is also the sub-adviser to the Pax Global Environmental Markets Fund.

ICE BofA Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield - Cash Pay - BB-B (Constrained 2%) Index tracks the performance of BB- and B rated fixed income securities publicly issued in the major domestic or Eurobond markets, with total index allocation to an individual issuer limited to 2%.

Impax Global Women’s Leadership Index is a customized market capitalization-weighted index created and licensed by Impax Asset Management (“IAM”) consisting of equity securities of issuers organized or operating in countries around the world that demonstrate a commitment to advancing and empowering women through gender diversity on their boards, in management and through other policies and programs, and an understanding of the potential business advantages associated with greater gender diversity, as rated by the IAM Gender Analytics team, with final approval by the IAM Women’s Index Committee. In addition, the companies comprising the Women’s Index meet certain environmental, social and governance (ESG) or sustainability thresholds, as rated by MSCI ESG Research.

Lipper Core Bond Funds Index tracks the results of the 30 largest mutual funds in the Lipper Core Bond Funds Index Average. The Lipper Core Bond Funds Index Average is a total return performance average of mutual funds tracked by Lipper, Inc. that invest at least 85% in domestic investment-grade debt issues (rated in the top four grades) with any remaining investment in non-benchmark sectors such as high-yield, global and emerging market debt. These funds maintain dollar-weighted average maturities of five to ten years.

Lipper Global Infrastructure Funds Index tracks the results of the 10 largest mutual funds in the Lipper Global Infrastructure Fund Index Average. The Lipper Global Infrastructure Funds Index Average is a total return performance average of mutual funds tracked by Lipper, Inc. that, by portfolio practice, invest predominantly across energy, industrials, utilities and materials sectors. Funds must contain a diverse mix of listed & liquid equities that reflect companies which engaged in core infrastructure activities. These generally include large geographic projects leading to the construction of energy supplies, utilities, education, health, social and transportation facilities.

Lipper Global Multi-Cap Core Funds Index tracks the results of the 30 largest mutual funds in the Global Multi-Cap Core Funds Index Average. The Global Multi-Cap Core Funds Index Average is a total return performance average of mutual funds tracked by Lipper, Inc. that, by portfolio practice, invest in a variety of market capitalization ranges without concentrating 75% of their equity assets in any one market capitalization range over an extended period of time. Global multi-cap core funds typically have average characteristics compared to the MSCI World Index.

Lipper Global Multi-Cap Growth Funds Index tracks the results of funds that invest in a variety of market capitalization ranges without concentrating 75% of their equity assets in any one market capitalization range over an extended period of time. Multi-cap funds typically have 25% to 75% of their assets invested in companies both inside and outside of the U.S. with market

capitalizations (on a three-year weighted basis) above 400% of the 75th market capitalization Glossary of Terms 3 percentile of the S&P/Citigroup World Broad Market Index. Multi-cap growth funds typically have an above-average price-to-cash flow ratio, price-to-book ratio, and three-year sales-per-share growth value compared to the S&P/Citigroup BMI. One cannot invest directly in an index.

Lipper High Yield Bond Funds Index tracks the results of the 30 largest mutual funds in the Lipper High Yield Bond Funds Average. The Lipper High Yield Bond Funds Average is a total return performance average of mutual funds tracked by Lipper, Inc. that aim at high (relative) current yield from fixed income securities, have no quality or maturity restrictions and tend to invest in lower grade debt issues.

Lipper International Large-Cap Core Funds Index tracks the results of funds that, by portfolio practice, invest at least 75% of their equity assets in companies strictly outside of the U.S. with market capitalizations (on a three-year weighted basis) above Lipper’s international large-cap floor. International large-cap core funds typically have an average price-to-cash flow ratio, price-to-book ratio and three-year sales-per-share growth value compared to the S&P/Citigroup World ex-U.S. BMI.

Lipper Large-Cap Core Funds Index tracks the results of the 30 largest mutual funds in the Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Index Average. The Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Index Average is a total return performance average of mutual funds tracked by Lipper, Inc. that invest at least 75% of their equity assets in companies with market capitalizations (on a three-year weighted basis) above Lipper’s USDE large-cap floor. Large-cap core funds have more latitude in the companies in which they invest. These funds typically have average characteristics compared to the S&P 500 Index.

Lipper Multi-Cap Core Funds Index tracks the results of the 30 largest mutual funds in the Lipper Multi-Cap Core Funds Index Average. The Lipper Multi-Cap Core Funds Index Average is a total return performance average of mutual funds tracked by Lipper, Inc. that invest in a variety of market capitalization ranges without concentrating 75% of their equity assets in any one market capitalization range over an extended period of time. These funds typically have average characteristics compared to the S&P SuperComposite 1500 Index.

Lipper Small-Cap Core Funds Index tracks the results of the 30 largest mutual funds in the Lipper Small-Cap Core Funds Average. The Lipper Small-Cap Core Funds Average is a total return performance average of the mutual funds tracked by Lipper, Inc. that, by portfolio practice, invest at least 75% of their equity assets in companies with market capitalizations (on a three-year weighted basis) below Lipper’s USDE small-cap ceiling. Small-cap core funds have more latitude in the companies in which they invest. These funds typically have an average price-to-earnings ratio, price-to-book ratio, and three-year sales-per-share growth value, compared to the S&P SmallCap 600 Index.

Morningstar Allocation – 50% to 70% Equity seeks to provide both capital appreciation and income by investing in three major areas: stocks, bonds and cash. These portfolios tend to hold larger positions in stocks than conservative-allocation portfolios. These portfolios typically have 50% to 70% of assets in equities and the remainder in fixed income and cash.

MSCI All-Country World Index (“ACWI”) Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed and emerging markets. The MSCI ACWI consists of 48 country indices comprising 23 developed and 25 emerging market country indices. The developed market country indices included are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States. The emerging market country indices included

are: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.

MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia, Far East) Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI EAFE (Net) Index consists of the following 21 developed market country indices: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom.

MSCI EAFE ESG Leaders Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index designed to measure the performance of equity securities of issuers organized or operating in developed market countries around the world excluding the U.S. and Canada that have high environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings relative to their sector and industry group peers, as rated by MSCI ESG Research annually. MSCI ESG Research evaluates companies’ ESG characteristics and derives corresponding ESG scores and ratings. Companies are ranked by ESG score against their sector peers to determine their eligibility for the MSCI ESG indices. MSCI ESG Research identifies the highest-rated companies in each peer group to meet the float-adjusted market capitalization sector targets. The rating system is based on general and industry-specific ESG criteria, assigning ratings on a 7-point scale from AAA (highest) to CCC (lowest).

MSCI World Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets. The MSCI World Index consists of the following 23 developed market country indices: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Russell 1000 Index measures the performance of the 1,000 largest U.S. companies, as measured by market capitalization. It is a subset of the Russell 3000 Index, which measures the largest 3,000 companies. The Russell 1000 Index is comprised of over 90% of the total market capitalization of all listed U.S stocks.

Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The Russell 2000 Index is a subset of the Russell 3000 Index representing approximately 10% of the total market capitalization of that index. It includes approximately 2,000 of the smallest securities based on a combination of their market cap and current index membership.

The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index of large capitalization common stocks.

The S&P Global Infrastructure Index is designed to track 75 companies from around the world chosen to represent the listed infrastructure industry while maintaining liquidity and tradability. To create diversified exposure, the index includes three distinct infrastructure clusters: energy, transportation, and utilities.

Performance for the MSCI ACWI Index, the MSCI EAFE Index, the MSCI EAFE ESG Leaders Index, the MSCI World Index, the S&P Global Infrastructure Index and the Impax Global Women’s Leadership Index are shown “net”, which includes dividend reinvestments after deduction of foreign withholding tax.

Securities Indices above assume reinvestment of all distributions and interest payments, have no policy of sustainable investing and do not take into account brokerage fees or expenses.

Lipper Indices above are not what are typically considered to be an “index” because they track the performance of other mutual funds rather than changes in the value of a group of securities, a securities index or some other traditional economic indicator.

Diversification does not eliminate the risk of experiencing investment losses.

One cannot invest directly in any index.

Dear fellow shareholders,

2021 began with a persisting global pandemic and the sacking of the US capitol — not a fortuitous start by any measure. The months that followed brought supply chain challenges, new virus variants, worsening inflation, deep societal divisions over masks, vaccines, and other issues, as well as continued gridlock in Washington, DC. Yet despite the ongoing disruptions, the stock market rose, with the S&P 500 gaining 26.9%,¹ the Russell 2000 Index gaining 13.7%² and the MSCI EAFE Index of non-U.S. developed market stocks returning 11.26 %.³

We also saw soaring demand for sustainable investment solutions in 2021. During the first quarter alone, inflows to sustainable funds reached $185 billion globally.⁴ Inflows to Pax World Funds reached all-time highs. 2021 also brought the fifth anniversary of the Pax Large Cap Fund and the 50^th anniversary — yes, 50^th — of the Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund, the first mutual fund in the United States to incorporate social and environmental criteria into its investment process.

More and more investors are realizing that environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors have financial relevance, or materiality, that could affect business outcomes and investment portfolio returns. A 2021 RBC Wealth Management survey of 1,000 clients revealed that 61% want to increase the amount of environmental, social and governance-focused holdings in their portfolios,⁵ suggesting that demand for sustainable solutions will continue to surge.

Meanwhile, there is continued evidence that sustainable funds can and often do deliver strong investment performance. At the end of 2021, seven of the 11 Pax World Funds had received four- or five-star ratings from Morningstar, including the Pax Global Environmental Markets Fund and Pax Large Cap Fund, both of which received overall 5-star ratings. Barron’s recently named the Pax Large Cap Fund together with our Pax US Sustainable Economy Fund to its list of the top-performing sustainable funds.⁶

Though 2021 brought much to celebrate as a firm, the ongoing pandemic and its ancillary “Great Resignation” also cast a spotlight on the persistent, systemic inequalities embedded in our economy and society, including the continuing challenges faced by women in the workforce. Moreover, we witnessed another year rife with climate-related weather disasters without meaningful government action to address climate change, a looming threat that only grows more serious each day.

While the public sector continues to dither on climate, we saw increased private sector involvement in 2021, culminating in the COP26 global climate summit in November, where organizations, including Impax, offered input and commitments, striving to fill the public policy void with innovative capital market solutions.

Heading into 2022, there are signs that the public policy environment may be more promising to those of us who are investing in the transition to more sustainable economy. For starters, the Biden-Harris administration released its National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, which is designed to address gender discrimination and systemic barriers to full participation that have held back women and girls. In November, the Department of Labor, reversing a hastily enacted and ill-advised rule of the previous presidential administration, proposed a new rule empowering ERISA⁷ fiduciaries to consider ESG factors when making investment decisions on behalf of plan participants and when voting corporate proxy ballots. This is good news. Environmental and social issues are increasingly relevant to how companies and investment portfolios perform, and careful consideration of ESG factors can help ERISA fiduciaries spotlight risks and opportunities that must be managed on behalf of retirement investors.

As I write in early February, we are anticipating new Securities and Exchange Commission rulemaking requiring companies operating in the US to make certain climate change-related disclosures on an annual basis. Such disclosure is critically important if we are to successfully transition to a more sustainable economy. At Impax, we are very much focused on the investment opportunities we believe will unfold. The transition from a fossil fuel-based economy that is overheating the planet to a sustainable economy powered by innovation, efficiency and clean energy is the great investment opportunity of our era; we must seize it.

On behalf of the entire team here at Impax and the Pax World Funds, I wish you and yours a safe and prosperous 2022.

Sincerely,

Joseph F. Keefe

President

Performance data quoted represents past performance, which does not guarantee future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted.

Investments involve risk, including potential loss of principal.

You should always consider Pax World Funds’ investment objectives, risks, and charges and expenses carefully before investing. For this and other important information, please download a fund prospectus at impaxam.com. Please read it carefully before investing.

The S&P 500 Stock Index is an unmanaged index of large capitalization common stocks. The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The Russell 2000 Index is a subset of the Russell 3000 Index representing approximately 10% of the total market capitalization of that index. It includes approximately 2,000 of the smallest securities based on a combination of their market cap and current index membership. The MSCI EAFE Index is designed to represent the performance of large and mid-cap securities across 21 developed markets, including countries in Europe, Australasia and the Far East, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The Index is available for a number of regions, market segments/sizes and covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in each of the 21 countries.

One cannot invest directly in any index.

The Morningstar Ratings™ shown are as of 12/31/2021. The Morningstar Rating for funds, or “star rating,” is calculated for managed products (including mutual funds, variable annuity and variable life subaccounts, exchange-traded funds, closed-end funds, and separate accounts) with at least a three-year history. Exchange-traded funds and open-ended mutual funds are considered a single population for comparative purposes. It is calculated based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a managed product’s monthly excess performance, placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The Morningstar Rating does not include any adjustments for sales loads. The top 10% of products in each product category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars the next 22.5% receive 2 stars, and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. The Overall Morningstar Rating for a managed product is derived from a weighted average of the performance figures associated with its three-, five- and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar Rating metrics. The weights are 100% three-year rating for 36-59 months of total returns, 60% five-year rating, 40% three-year rating for 60-119 months of total returns, and 50% 10-year rating, 30% five-year rating, 20% three-year rating for 120 or more months of total returns. While the 10-year overall rating formula seems to give the most weight to the 10-year period, the most recent three-year period actually has the greatest impact because it is included in all three rating periods.

©2022 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Morningstar, Inc. is an independent investment research firm that compiles and analyzes fund, stock and general market data.

Pax Large Cap Fund Investor Class (PAXLX) Morningstar ratings were five stars out of 1,244 funds overall, five stars out of 1,244 funds for three years, five stars out of 1,109 for five year. Pax Large Cap Fund Institutional Class (PXLIX) Morningstar ratings were five stars out of 1,244 funds overall, five stars out of 1,244 funds for three years, five stars out of 1,109 for five years.

Pax Global Environmental Markets Fund Investor Class (PGRNX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 283 funds overall, five stars out of 283 funds for three years, four stars out of 236 funds for five years, four stars out of 145 funds for 10 years. Pax Global Environmental Markets Fund Institutional Class (PGINX) Morningstar ratings were five stars out of 283 funds overall, five stars out of 283 funds for three years, four stars out of 236 funds for five years, five stars out of 145 funds for 10 years.

Pax Small Cap Fund Investor Class (PXSCX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 596 funds overall, four stars out of 596 funds for three years, three stars out of 528 funds for five years, four stars out of 352 funds for 10 years. Pax Small Cap Fund Institutional Class (PXSIX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 596 funds overall, four stars out of 596 funds for three years, three stars out of 528 funds for five years, four stars out of 352 funds for 10 years.

Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Leadership Fund Investor Class (PXWEX) Morningstar ratings were three stars out of 283 funds overall, three stars out of 283 funds for three years, three stars out of 236 funds for five years, three stars out of 145 funds for 10 years. Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Leadership Fund Institutional Class (PXWIX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 283 funds overall, three stars out of 283 funds for three years, three stars out of 236 funds for five years, four stars out of 145 funds for 10 years.

Pax International Sustainable Economy Fund (formerly the Pax MSCI EAFE ESG Leaders Index Fund) Investor Class (PXINX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 698 funds overall, four stars out of 698 funds for three years, four stars out of 601 funds for five years, three stars out of 409 funds for 10 years. Pax International Sustainable Economy Fund Institutional Class (PXNIX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 698 funds overall, four stars out of 698 funds for 3 years, four stars out of 601 funds for five years, four stars out of 409 funds for 10 years.

Pax High Yield Bond Fund Investor Class (PAXHX) Morningstar ratings were three stars out of 634 funds overall, four stars out of 634 funds for three years, four stars out of 558 funds for five years, two stars out of 370 funds for 10 years. Pax High Yield Bond Fund Institutional Class (PXHIX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 634 funds overall, four stars out of 634 funds for three years, four stars out of 558 funds for five years, three stars out of 370 funds for 10 years.

Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund Investor Class (PAXWX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 665 funds overall, four stars out of 665 funds for three years, four stars out of 601 funds for five years, four stars out of 433 funds for 10 years. Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund Institutional Class (PAXIX) Morningstar ratings were four stars out of 665 funds overall, five stars out of 665 funds for three years, four stars out of 601 funds for five years, four stars out of 433 funds for 10 years.

The investment techniques and decisions of the investment adviser and the Fund’s portfolio manager(s), including the investment adviser’s assessment of a company’s ESG profile when selecting investments for the Fund, may not produce the desired results and may adversely impact the Fund’s performance, including relative to other Funds that do not consider ESG factors or come to different conclusions regarding such factors.

Pax Large Cap Fund RISKS: Equity investments are subject to market fluctuations, the fund’s share price can fall because of weakness in the broad market, a particular industry, or specific holdings.

Pax Small Cap Fund RISKS: Equity investments are subject to market fluctuations, the fund’s share price can fall because of weakness in the broad market, a particular industry, or specific holdings. Funds that emphasize investments in smaller companies generally will experience greater price volatility.

Pax Global Environmental Markets Fund RISKS: Equity investments are subject to market fluctuations, the fund’s share price can fall because of weakness in the broad market, a particular industry, or specific holdings. Emerging market and international investments involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuations in currency values, differences in generally accepted accounting principles, economic or political instability in other nations or increased volatility and lower trading volume.

Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Leadership Fund RISKS: The Fund does not take defensive positions in declining markets. The Fund’s performance would likely be adversely affected by a decline in the Index. There is no guarantee that the objective will be met and diversification does not eliminate risk. Equity investments are subject to market fluctuations, the fund’s share price can fall because of weakness in the broad market, a particular industry, or specific holdings. Emerging market and international investments involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuations in currency values, differences in generally accepted accounting principles, economic or political instability in other nations or increased volatility and lower trading volume.

Pax International Sustainable Economy Fund RISKS: Equity investments are subject to market fluctuations, the fund’s share price can fall because of weakness in the broad market, a particular industry, or specific holdings. Emerging market and international investments involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuations in currency values, differences in generally accepted accounting principles, economic or political instability in other nations or increased volatility and lower trading volume.

Pax High Yield Bond Fund RISKS: The Fund can invest in “junk bonds” which are considered predominately speculative with respect to the issuer’s continuing ability to make principal and interest payments when due. Yield and share price will vary with changes in interest rates and market conditions. Investors should note that if interest rates rise significantly from current levels, bond fund total returns will decline and may even turn negative in the short term. Mortgage related securities tend to become more sensitive to interest rate changes as interest rates rise, increasing their volatility. There is also a chance that some of the fund’s holdings may have their credit rating downgraded or may default.

Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund RISKS: The Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund is a fund-of-funds. The funds’ allocations may change due to market fluctuations and other factors. Equity investments are subject to market fluctuations, the fund’s share price can fall because of weakness in the broad market, a particular industry, or specific holdings. Emerging market and international investments involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuations in currency values, differences in generally accepted accounting principles, economic or political instability in other nations or increased volatility and lower trading volume. Funds that emphasize investments in smaller companies generally will experience greater price volatility. Yield and share price will vary with changes in interest rates and market conditions. Investors should note that if interest rates rise significantly from current levels, bond fund total returns will decline and may even turn negative in the short term. Mortgage related securities tend to become more sensitive to interest rate changes as interest rates rise, increasing their volatility. There is also a chance that some of the fund’s holdings may have their credit rating downgraded or may default.

The World Meteorological Organization reported in 2021 that climate- and weather-related disasters have risen five-fold over the last half century, comprising 11,000 individual events, more than two million lives lost and $3.64 trillion in financial losses.¹

In 2021 alone, almost one in three Americans experienced a weather disaster.² In western Europe, two months’ worth of rain fell in two days, causing several flood-related deaths. In central China, a three-day downpour delivered a year’s worth of rain in one city. A “heat dome” that enveloped much of the Pacific Northwest and Canada during the summer of 2021 caused several hundred deaths and damaged transportation infrastructures and crops. Fires forced evacuations and damaged property and infrastructure in the American west, the Mediterranean and Russia.³

2021 was the year climate change topped the charts, not only in terms of disasters and costs but also awareness. More than ever, people, companies and governments are realizing that climate change is here today; it is taking lives; and it is perhaps the greatest threat to prosperity that humankind has ever faced.

We saw evidence of this in November, at the COP26 global climate summit. Though governmental commitments to phase out coal or correct carbon markets didn’t match up to pre-COP hopes — aside from India’s net-zero pledge — we saw businesses and NGOs (“non-governmental organizations”) make notable advances to stop deforestation and reduce methane emissions. The private sector is taking climate change seriously now, and that’s significant because the private sector has a huge role to play in preventing a climate catastrophe, especially as governments wring their hands. Impax was one of the organizations at COP26; you can read much more about how we were involved and what we observed on the COP26 page of our website: www.impaxam.com/cop26.

But it will take more than the private sector to avoid a climate disaster. Everyone — from private citizens to governments to NGOs to investors and companies — has a key role to play. Today’s climate change costs pale in comparison to what future costs and damages will be. Swiss Re estimates that climate change could cost the world 10% of its total economic value by 2050 if we stay on our current warming trajectory.⁴ We need governments to step up and take bold action. We need investors to do the same.

Investing now in low-carbon technologies and solutions is likely to be less expensive than coping with increasingly severe and frequent disasters and heat waves. The IPCC estimates⁵ that it will take $1.6 – 3.8 trillion every year to avoid surpassing 1.5°C in additional warming between now and 2050. That is a hefty price tag, but technology to stem the damages, costs and suffering caused by climate change exists, and by investing in it, we also create jobs and add to economic output. Investing in both mitigation of additional emissions and adaptation to the changes that are unavoidable will be a far less chaotic approach to the problem of climate change than simply awaiting the effects.

And investing in climate mitigation need not be expensive in terms of financial outcomes for both equity and fixed income investors. In fact, it should be profitable. As mounting evidence shows, investing in mitigation and low-carbon solutions, or at least incorporating climate risks into investment portfolios, can provide competitive, if not superior, financial results to investors.⁶

We can’t avoid all the costs of climate change, even if we succeed in limiting future warming to levels established by the Paris Agreement. We need to assess our vulnerability to heat, floods, droughts, sea level rise, hurricanes and cyclones, wildfires, and the expansion of diseases and pests from the tropics into temperate regions, and we need to take steps to manage and adapt to those risks. Our options are far more numerous when we prepare for a crisis rather than trying to cope in the middle of one. That’s why last year we conducted an extensive engagement with companies in the S&P 500 focusing on the physical risks of climate change.⁷ While we found a small number of companies that are preparing, most are not. Because of this, investors cannot accurately price climate physical risks, since much of the information we need to do that would have to come from companies.

At Impax we are doing the best we can to prepare for climate change. We do this through our research and investments, by managing our funds’ carbon intensity, by engaging with companies to help them understand the implications of not taking climate into account in their operations and the advantages of managing and mitigating their climate risks. More and more companies are beginning to pay attention, and more investors like you are proactively seeking climate-friendly investment solutions. The more the merrier: averting a climate disaster will take every person in our global village.

Commentary The portfolio manager commentaries in this report provide insight from the respective fund managers in an effort to help you examine your fund. The views expressed therein are those of the portfolio managers and are for the period covered by this report. Such commentary does not necessarily represent the views of the Board of Trustees of your fund. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time based upon market and/or other conditions and Impax Asset Management LLC and the funds disclaim any responsibility to update such views. The commentaries should not be relied upon as investment advice.

Historical performance Historical performance can be evaluated in several ways. Each fund’s portfolio highlights provide total and average annual total returns. A comparison of this historical data to an appropriate benchmark is also provided. These performance figures include changes in a fund’s share price, plus reinvestment of any dividends (generally income) and any capital gains (generally profits the fund earns when it sells securities that have grown in value). Past performance does not guarantee future results.

The Funds’ distributor, Foreside Financial Services, LLC, is not affiliated with Impax Asset Management LLC or Impax Asset Management, Ltd.

How did the Pax Large Cap Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Institutional Class and Investor Class of the Fund had total returns of 30.92% and 30.57%, respectively, compared to 28.71% for the S&P 500 Index and 26.04% for the Lipper Large-Cap Core Funds Index.

What factors contributed to the Fund’s performance?

The Fund outperformed the S&P 500 Index for calendar year 2021 and experienced broad-based contributions from nearly every sector. The sectors which contributed the most to performance were Communications Services, Information Technology, and Industrials, while the Health Care sector detracted from the Fund’s overall relative performance. In addition, the Fund is fossil fuel-free, which hurt relative performance during the period as the Energy sector bounced back from a difficult 2020 to outperform the broader market in 2021.

Can you discuss any significant changes to the Fund’s positioning throughout the period?

The Fund added to Industrials and Consumer Staples during the period, while trimming its weight in Consumer Discretionary stocks. As the market strengthened during the year, we proactively took action to moderate some of the risk in the portfolio. The Fund ended the year with a beta¹ of 0.93, an all-time low. We remain focused on companies with attractive prospects for earnings and cash flow growth looking out to 2022 and beyond.

What portfolio holdings contributed positively to performance?

Notable holdings that contributed positively to performance in 2021 were ViacomCBS, Applied Materials, and Fortinet. ViacomCBS had a volatile first half of the year, tripling in value through March before giving up most of those gains in a single week. We were able to take advantage of the volatility and lock in substantial gains. Even though the Fund sold its position in ViacomCBS by June of 2021, it still represents the single largest source of excess return for the full year.

Applied Materials has been a strong performer for the Fund since we purchased the security in early 2019, benefiting from secular and cyclical trends in the semiconductor capital equipment industry and we continue to like the positioning of the company. Fortinet performed well during the relatively short period that we owned the stock, as favorable cybersecurity trends and strong company execution combined to produce strong stock price gains. Based on our valuation discipline, we exited out of our position in Fortinet and redeployed the proceeds in Akamai, a more attractively priced cybersecurity stock.

What portfolio holdings detracted from performance?

Notably weak holdings were T-Mobile and Medtronic. T-Mobile has been a consistent market share gainer during our holding period, but the company encountered more resistance during 2021 as its large competitors focused on stabilizing their market share through aggressive pricing and promotions. We are focused on what we believe will be the likely growth of T-Mobile’s free cash flow over the next few years as the company is able to generate substantial cost savings from the integration of Sprint customers and by decommissioning Sprint’s network assets. A difficult period for Medtronic was characterized by delayed procedure volumes due to COVID-19, which was exacerbated by hospital labor shortages, and a quality control issue in one of their diabetes product facilities.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

How did the Pax Small Cap Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Investor Class, Class A and Institutional Class shares of the Fund had total returns of 30.26%, 30.29% and 30.54%, respectively, compared to 14.82% for the Russell 2000 Index and 25.55% for the Lipper Small Cap Core Funds Index.

Impax is pleased to announce that Diederik Basch and Curtis Kim have been named Impax Portfolio Managers and will serve as co-Portfolio Managers of the Pax Small Cap Fund as of January 1, 2022. Diederik and Curtis have been members of the Fund’s Portfolio Construction Team (PCT) for several years — Diederik since 2016 and Curtis since 2018. Both have made significant contributions to the Fund as analysts and have clearly demonstrated their capabilities and competence as members of the PCT. We are delighted to recognize their contributions and to support their career progression as Portfolio Managers at Impax. Nathan Moser continues in the role of Portfolio Manager for the Fund, and the investment process remains unchanged.

What factors contributed to the Fund’s performance?

Equity markets were strong during the period as the US economy grew rapidly. Corporations have managed through the COVID-19 pandemic well and reported robust earnings growth despite continued waves of infection. From a style perspective, investors rotated from highly valued growth stocks and favored more cyclically-oriented value stocks during the course of the year. Due to the Fund’s exposure to higher quality, growth stocks, this represented a modest headwind to performance.

Fund performance was driven by strong stock selection, particularly in the Healthcare, Financials and Technology sectors. With respect to sector allocation, an underweight to Healthcare and overweight to Financials were positive contributors. The Fund’s lack of exposure to Energy and its cash holdings detracted from performance.

Can you discuss any significant changes to the Fund’s positioning throughout the period?

Over the course of the year, we increased our relative allocation to Healthcare and Consumer Discretionary. These were offset by reductions to Industrials and Financials. We continue to focus our efforts on security selection, to reduce the magnitude of sector over and underweights.

What portfolio holdings contributed positively to performance?

Onto Innovation, the product of an October 2019 merger, has successfully leveraged its newfound scale in a dynamic semiconductor equipment market. The scale has allowed Onto to become a consultative partner as compared to just a point solutions provider. We believe the well-publicized need for more advanced semiconductor capacity continues to play to Onto’s competitive strengths. Shares advanced 113% during the year.

Meridian Bancorp, a Massachusetts-based community bank, increased 64% during the period. Strong economic growth and the prospects of higher interest rates created a positive tailwind for shares. In addition, shares were further buoyed by the bank’s sale to Independent Bank. We believe this combination is attractive as it increases scale and enhances profitability.

What portfolio holdings detracted from performance?

8x8 came into 2021 with heighted optimism as David Sipes, former COO at RingCentral, became CEO. Sipes has “right-sized” the business, sacrificing high churn and low margin for small and medium-sized business revenue. We believe this is the right strategic focus; however, the change in strategy has weighed on near-term revenue growth. As a result, shares decreased -51% for the period. Despite this weakness, we continue to find the valuation compelling and keenly look for continued success in the enterprise channel.

SI-Bone, a medical device company, declined -26%. The company has developed an innovative device that has proven to not only reduce lower back pain, but also significantly reduce the potential for opioid addiction. The company and broader industry have been negatively impacted by COVID and its impact on procedure volumes. This is due to hospitals focusing on COVID cases as well as prospective patients deferring procedures due to fears of infection. We remain positive on SI-Bone’s outlook and used the weakness in its share price as an opportunity to add to our holding.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

How did the Pax US Sustainable Economy Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Pax US Sustainable Economy Fund Investor Class, Class A, and Institutional Class shares had total returns of 30.02%, 29.99% and 30.35%, respectively, compared to 26.45% for the Russell 1000 Index and 23.28% for the Lipper Multi-Cap Core Funds Index.

What is the investment objective and strategy of the Fund?

The US Sustainable Economy Fund’s investment objective is to seek long-term growth of capital. The Fund uses a systematic strategy to invest in US companies that we believe are positioned to benefit from the transition to a more sustainable economy.

Effective March 31, 2021, the Pax ESG Beta Quality Fund was renamed the Pax US Sustainable Economy Fund to better reflect this core focus of investing in the transition to a more sustainable economy. The Fund’s investment process was also enhanced with the integration of the Impax Sustainability Lens into portfolio construction. The Impax Sustainability Lens, which is already used in several of our actively managed funds, is a tool that facilitates a systematic review of the economic opportunities and risks associated with the transition to a more sustainable economy. The Fund continues to integrate the Impax Systematic ESG Rating (formerly called the Impax Sustainability Score) and SmartCarbon™ discipline into its systematic process and we believe that the portfolio continues to be comprised of quality companies in US markets.

What contributed positively/negatively to performance?

The Fund outperformed the Russell 1000 Index in the first quarter as well as for the three quarters that followed the mandate change discussed above. The Fund has also produced strong results compared to peers under the new mandate. The Institutional Class shares of the Fund posted a top 10% ranking (out of 642 funds) for the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, based on average annual returns within the Lipper Multi-Cap Core category.¹

The main drivers of outperformance in the first quarter were the Fund’s overweight to earnings yield, and profitability factors used in the ESG Beta Quality strategy. Additionally, the Fund’s overweight to companies with high ESG scores that fell in the top two quartiles, as determined by the Impax Systematic ESG Rating, helped performance for the first quarter.

In the nine months since the mandate change and the incorporation of the Impax Sustainability Lens into the investment process, the Fund’s overweight exposure to high-opportunity sub-industries, as determined by the Lens, has been beneficial. These are the areas of the market where we see the potential for strong future growth driven by products and services facilitating advancements in spaces such as automation, environmental analysis and health and wellness. Examples of strong performing sub-industries for the year in this category include Healthcare Facilities, Semiconductors, Environmental and Facilities Management, Life Sciences Tools and Railroads. In addition, the Fund’s avoidance of some low-opportunity areas, where we see less opportunity in the transition to a more sustainable economy, such as Movies & Entertainment and Airlines, also helped Fund performance.

The Impax Systematic ESG Rating was particularly additive in selecting highly-rated ESG companies. NVIDIA and Zoetis were two notable, top performing names based on their strong ESG Ratings. The Fund’s underweight, relative to its benchmark, to companies with lower ESG Ratings, also contributed positively to performance over the course of the year.

Not owning Tesla, which is excluded from the Fund’s investable universe from both a Lens (considered low-opportunity and high risk) and ESG Rating (low ESG score) perspective, was a primary detractor from performance during the annual reporting period.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

How did the Pax Global Sustainable Infrastructure (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Fund’s Institutional Class and Investor Class shares had total returns of 14.27% and 13.98%, respectively. The Fund outperformed its primary benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index, in the first quarter of 2021, however, after changes to the Fund’s investment strategy in the second quarter, the Fund ended the year underperforming its new primary benchmark, the S&P Global Infrastructure Index.

The Fund’s investment strategy was modified at the beginning of the second quarter to focus primarily on stocks the Adviser defines as sustainable infrastructure offerings, and its primary performance benchmark thereby changed from the Russell 1000 Index to the S&P Global Infrastructure Index.

In the first quarter, the Fund’s Institutional Class and Investor Class shares had total returns of 7.81% and 7.76%, respectively, compared to 5.91% for the Russell 1000 Index. For the remaining nine months of the year, the Fund’s Institutional Class and Investor Class had total returns of 5.89% and 5.66%, respectively, compared to 8.01% for the S&P Global Infrastructure Index.

What is the investment objective of the Fund?

The Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund’s investment objective is capital appreciation and income. The Fund follows a sustainable investing approach, using a systematic process to invest in sectors, industries, and companies that the Adviser believes are positioned to provide infrastructure essential for the transition to a more sustainable global economy, integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) analysis and ratings into portfolio construction.

Effective March 31, 2021, the Pax ESG Beta Dividend Fund was renamed the Pax Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund. The Fund continues to seek both capital appreciation and income on behalf of shareholders by investing in companies that, in our view, are more likely to offer higher dividend yields. The Fund’s strategy was enhanced to better reflect a core focus on investing in the transition to a more sustainable economy. The Fund invests primarily in companies that support

“sustainable infrastructure” — companies that conserve, enable, or increase access to vital resources such as clean energy, water, food and agriculture, healthcare, education, finance, transportation and data and communications that advance well-being.

What contributed positively to performance?

The Fund outperformed the Russell 1000 Index benchmark in the first quarter. The main drivers of outperformance were the factors used in the ESG Beta Dividend Fund strategy. The portfolio’s tilt toward two dividend sustainability factors, profitability and earnings quality, contributed to relative performance. The tilt toward companies with higher dividend yields also had a positive impact on returns as companies with larger dividend payouts outperformed the broader market.

While the Fund did not outperform the S&P Global Infrastructure Index benchmark for the remainder of the year, the Fund’s tilt toward profitability and investment quality factors continued to have a positive impact. In addition, the Fund’s holdings in Water Infrastructure helped performance. The Water Utilities sub-sector performed strongly due to consolidation in the industry, which was reflected in Veolia’s purchase of Suez. The Fund benefitted from holding both companies involved in the merger. UK water utilities also contributed positively, partly due to government-backed cash flow.

Within the portion of the portfolio that we classify as Social and Economic Infrastructure, positive contributors included Building and Facilities, which continued to perform well amid a strong real estate market, and Healthcare infrastructure companies. The Fund’s exposure to sustainable REITs within both Building and Facilities and Healthcare infrastructure helped performance. The Fund also benefited from avoiding traditional transportation during this period.

What detracted from performance?

In the first quarter, industry exposures, which were driven by the ESG Beta Dividend strategy and its ESG tilts, modestly detracted from returns relative to the Russell 1000 Index. Notably, the portfolio’s underweight to the Energy and Financials sectors hurt relative performance.

For the remainder of the year, the main detractor from performance was an underweight in Energy exposure relative to the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Not owning traditional oil and gas transport and storage companies was a drag on Fund performance as oil prices rose during the reporting period. Portfolio holdings in New

Energy that are focused on renewable power generation and distribution also detracted from performance. We believe that the scale of the opportunity for companies within New Energy, and particularly in the Energy Generation & Distribution sub-sector, remains strong in the medium- to long-term as countries formulate Net Zero plans, power grids evolve and as clean electricity consumption increases.

Additionally, the Communications & Data sector, an exposure that is a significant differentiator for the Fund since it is not included in our traditional infrastructure benchmark, underperformed during the last three quarters of 2021. Despite the short-term underperformance in this sector, we remain optimistic that this sector’s access to information, communication, banking, education, and employment will be a growing and foundational component of the modern global sustainable economy.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

How did the Pax Global Opportunities Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Fund’s Institutional Class and Investor Class shares had total returns of 18.96% and 18.69%, respectively, compared to 18.54% for the MSCI All-Country World (Net) Index (“MSCI ACWI”) and 12.93% for the Lipper Global Multi-Cap Growth Funds Index.

What factors contributed to the Fund’s performance?

In 2021 the Fund modestly outperformed the MSCI ACWI, with contributions from both positive sector allocation and stock selection. The lack of exposure to the Energy sector was a headwind to portfolio performance, as Energy performed well during the reporting period. This was offset, however, by the Fund’s underweight positions in the Consumer Discretionary and the Communication Services sectors which underperformed the broader market. In Health Care, companies engaged in the outsourcing of drug discovery, development and manufacturing performed strongly, as did Life Science Tools companies. Materials stocks enabling the transition to biofuels, more nutritious ingredients and energy efficiency also benefitted the portfolio. In Industrials, a broad range of companies contributed to performance, including businesses with exposure to the sharing economy, software-as-a-service and water optimization. The Financials sector was the largest detractor from performance due to disruptions from COVID- 19, with Indian Financials experiencing temporary business disruptions and Asian insurance names impacted by delays to reopening the Hong Kong/China border.

Can you discuss any significant changes to the Fund’s positioning throughout the period?

While there have been some changes to the sizing of the positions, the overall positioning of the Fund relative to the MSCI ACWI Index has not changed significantly over the year. The Fund has maintained overweight positions in Health Care, Materials and Information Technology and underweight positions in Consumer Discretionary, Communication Services, and Energy. The notable

changes were a decrease in Consumer Staples from a benchmark neutral allocation to an underweight allocation and an increase in Industrials from a neutral allocation, to an overweight allocation. In the case of Consumer Staples, the portfolio exited names which had been negatively impacted by COVID-19 restrictions and where there was lower conviction. In the case of Industrials, the Fund increased exposure to companies with strong secular growth drivers that benefitted from a return to more normal economic activity as well as quality names which, in our view, had been overlooked by the market and had been exhibiting stable growth and more defensive characteristics.

What portfolio holdings contributed positively to performance relative to the MSCI ACWI?

Information Technology names have continued to benefit from investment in digitalization and in growth in demand for semiconductors. Microsoft (Systems Software, US) performed well on the back of strong quarterly results indicating significant momentum behind the company’s Azure cloud computing segment. In addition, the stock has benefited from the emergence of newer growth drivers such as LinkedIn and Teams.

ASML (Semiconductor Equipment, Netherlands) has benefitted from rapid growth in demand for the company’s leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing equipment from TSMC and Intel, both of which announced large increases in capital expenditure plans, as well as rising demand for legacy products as semiconductor chip shortages widen.

In Health Care, IQVIA (Life Sciences Tools & Services, US) has performed well after producing a series of positive results showing revenue acceleration across its business divisions. Most recently, the company announced good Q3 results with a third guidance raise for the full year, followed by a Capital Markets Day where the company indicated stronger than expected mid-term growth prospects. The company has seen an acceleration to top-line growth, driven by strong demand in its core Clinical Research Organization (CRO) business and Technology & Analytics Solutions division.

What portfolio holdings detracted from performance relative to the MSCI ACWI?

Portfolio holdings that detracted from performance during the period tended to be affected by stock specific factors.

Bandhan Bank (Regional Banks, India) underperformed earlier in the year as they adopted a more conservative approach to provisioning for non-performing loans ahead of regional elections. However, these levels of provisioning proved appropriate, as the stock faced headwinds from strict local lockdowns and movement restrictions during India’s second COVID wave, resulting in lower collection efficiency and an increase in non-performing loans. Recently the name has been negatively impacted by fears about the impact of the new COVID-19 variant Omicron on business activity, despite the progress in the national vaccination program. The investment team continues to monitor the situation.

TeamViewer’s (Application Software, Germany) share price declined as the market discounted an increase in advertising spending, aimed at increasing brand awareness with both personal and enterprises users. The stock also reacted negatively to cautious comments by management which highlighted a reduction in average contract values as customers re-evaluated their needs one year on from the start of the pandemic. The company disclosed higher churn in the Enterprise business, which crystallized lower conviction, and the stock was exited during the third quarter.

AIA Group’s (Insurance, Hong Kong) share price has struggled amid industry wide weak new business growth in the China market, negative sentiment due to COVID-19-related delays of re-opening the Hong Kong-China border and generally weaker sentiment toward insurance names.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

How did the Pax Global Environmental Markets Fund perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Investor Class, Class A, and Institutional Class of the Fund had total returns of 21.95%, 21.89%, and 22.23%, respectively, versus 18.54% for the MSCI All-Country World (Net) Index (“MSCI ACWI”) and 20.46% for the FTSE Environmental Opportunities Index Series (“FTSE EOAS”).

What factors contributed to the Fund’s performance?

Global equity markets delivered strong performance in 2021 despite ongoing concerns over new variants of COVID-19. Supportive fiscal and monetary policies, lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, and rapid progress of vaccination programs resulted in an acceleration in economic activity. Earnings growth by companies in the portfolio continued to surprise on the upside, driven by pent up demand, rising consumer and business confidence, supportive policy, and strong demand for environmental solutions. Economic pace, coupled with supply chain disruptions and low base effects, also brought a rise in inflation, resulting in central banks taking action to tighten monetary policy. Swift sector and style rotations followed, as market participants balanced COVID and inflation risks. The rally was tempered by the emergence of the Omicron variant in mid-November, which led to heightened volatility during the last six weeks of the year.

Environmental markets saw tailwinds from several sources in 2021. The 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference widened the ranks of countries adopting Net Zero pledges. The emergence of coalitions of key actors around issues such as reducing coal power, deforestation, and methane emissions was a notable success. Business and finance drove ambitious commitments alongside governments, while various global policy efforts to ‘build back better’ continued with positive momentum.

Within Environmental Markets, the Water Infrastructure & Technologies and Energy Efficiency themes, particularly Industrial Energy Efficiency, contributed the most to returns. Renewable energy stocks closed lower during the period after posting large gains in 2020, as companies in this subsector were negatively affected by rising supply chain costs and logistical challenges.

Can you discuss any significant changes to the Fund’s positioning throughout the period?

The overall number of portfolio holdings remained relatively steady at 49 names, with low turnover around 14%. From a GICS¹ sector perspective, we added to holdings within Information Technology as the role of both hardware and software solutions continue to increase for areas such as resource and energy efficiency. One such addition was Microsoft, whose use of highly energy efficient and often renewable energy-powered cloud datacenters plays an important role in resource efficiency. New technology names in the portfolio translated into increased Industrials Energy Efficiency exposure by environmental markets sector. Given some larger market capitalizations, the weighted average market cap for the Fund rose from around $45 billion to just over $100 billion. Regionally, North American holdings exposure rose slightly, primarily due to the strong performance of the US equity market. Overall, the investment team deems the portfolio well positioned, with roughly half of the holdings representing more defensive business models, and half more cyclical. On a relative basis, the portfolio is less cyclically oriented, and more defensively positioned compared to MSCI ACWI, as we expect the market is entering a more volatile period in anticipation of higher US interest rates.

What portfolio holdings contributed positively to performance relative to the MSCI ACWI?

Positive effects from stock selection continue to be an important driver of outperformance compared to MSCI ACWI. This was particularly evident for Industrials holdings in the portfolio, which generated much higher returns than their peers in the broader index, but good stock selection was also evident in Health Care, Materials, and Consumer Discretionary portfolio holdings. Holdings in these sectors are active in businesses as varied as food preparation resource efficiency, waste management, climate equipment for buildings, water infrastructure, the resiliency of the electrical grid, environmental testing, and green data centers.

What portfolio holdings detracted from performance relative to the MSCI ACWI?

Information Technology and Utilities were GICS sectors in which the strategy lagged the broader market on a comparative basis. This was partly a result of specific headwinds or challenges at the company level – such as for a number of holdings in software technology, but also because during a strong sector rotation, the overall market rotated out of higher growth names and toward more value-oriented parts of the market. In addition, several mega cap technology stocks notched strong performance for the year, and while these names are in the Fund’s benchmark, they are not included in the environmental markets universe. Within Utilities, Orsted A/S, a Danish renewable energy company, posted negative returns during the period and detracted from relative performance in this sector.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

Geographical Diversification

How did the Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Leadership Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Investor and Institutional Class had total returns of 17.27% and 17.56%, respectively, compared to 19.46% for the Impax Global Women’s Leadership Index (Women’s Index), 21.82% for the MSCI World (Net) Index (World Index) and 18.11% for the Lipper Global Multi-Cap Core Funds Index.

Global equity markets, as measured by the World Index, increased by 21.82% during the year. Momentum and high beta stocks dominated global market performance, creating a headwind given the Fund’s lower risk and higher quality profile.

What is the investment objective of the Fund?

The Fund seeks investment returns that closely correspond to or exceed the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Women’s Index. The Fund pursues a systematic strategy, investing in the companies comprising the Women’s Index, the first index of the highest-rated companies in the world for gender-diverse leadership, as rated by Impax Gender Analytics.¹

The Fund’s systematic investment process overweights the portfolio toward Women’s Index companies with the most favorable gender leadership characteristics seeking to capture the increased investment returns we believe gender-diverse leadership will deliver over time. The Fund exceeds global markets on key gender characteristics including greater representation of women on boards and in senior management. Women hold 42% of the board seats and 35% of senior management positions in companies in the Fund, compared to 32% and 24%, respectively, within the World Index. In addition, 97% percent of companies in the Fund have three or more women on the board and 99% have two or more women on the board, compared with 60% and 80%, respectively, for companies in the World Index. 39% of companies in the Fund have a woman CEO or CFO, compared with 17% of companies in the World Index. In addition, 53% of companies in the Fund have disclosed pay equity analysis, an increase of 12% year-over-year from constituents within our gender leadership universe.

What contributed positively to performance?

The Fund benefited from strong results from several higher-rated companies across multiple sectors. Principal Financial, Microsoft, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase within Financials and Technology outperformed. Within Heath Care, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk in Pharmaceuticals added to performance, along with Quest Diagnostics and Anthem in Health Care Providers & Services. In addition, Estee Lauder and L’Oréal within Consumer Staples outperformed.

What detracted from performance?

During the year, the highest-rated quartile of companies within the World Index, based on the Impax Gender Score, trailed performance of the second and third quartiles, creating a headwind to Fund performance. However, the Fund’s avoidance of companies ranked in the bottom quartile, the worst performing segment, helped performance.

Not owning a few high performing stocks that fall outside the Fund’s universe, like Apple², NVIDIA, Alphabet and Tesla hurt relative performance. In addition, several highly rated gender leadership companies based on the Impax Gender Score, across a few sectors underperformed. Within Industrials, Sunrun detracted, along with DocuSign, Autodesk and Pinterest within Technology. Additionally, the Fund’s lack of exposure to the Energy sector, due to being fossil fuel free, detracted from relative performance as the Energy sector posted robust returns, due to the continued rise in oil prices throughout the year.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

Geographical Diversification

How did the Pax International Sustainable Economy Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Institutional Class and Investor Class had total returns of 11.19% and 10.88%, respectively, compared to 11.26% for the MSCI EAFE (Net) Index (EAFE Index), 11.29% for the MSCI EAFE ESG Leaders (Net) Index and 12.16% for the Lipper International Large-Cap Core Funds Index.

During the period, the Fund modestly underperformed the EAFE Index, with strong relative performance during the second half of the year bringing returns for the year just shy of the benchmark.

During the period, the Fund crossed its ten-year since inception milestone. The Fund has outperformed the EAFE Index over the 3-year, 5-year, 10-year and since inception periods ending December 31, 2021. Specifically, over its since inception period (10 years and 11 months, ended December 31, 2021), the Fund’s Institutional Class shares and Investor Class shares have returned 6.17% and 5.90%, respectively, versus the EAFE Index return of 5.72%. We believe that this result, combined with the Fund’s lower risk¹ profile, demonstrates the Fund’s long-term risk-adjusted advantage relative to the EAFE Index.

In addition, the Fund has produced strong long-term results compared with its peers. The Institutional Class shares of the Fund (PXNIX) has posted a top 35% ranking (out of 117 funds) over the three-year period, top 22% ranking (out of 101 funds) over the five-year period, top 25% ranking (out of 87 funds) over the ten-year period, and top 16% ranking (out of 71 funds) since inception for the period ended December 31, 2021, based on average annual returns within the Lipper International Large-Cap Core category.²

What is the investment objective of the Fund?

The International Sustainable Economy Fund’s investment objective is to seek long-term growth of capital. The Fund uses a systematic strategy to invest in non-US developed markets companies that we believe are positioned to benefit from the transition to a more sustainable economy.

Effective March 31, 2021, the Pax MSCI EAFE ESG Leaders Index Fund was renamed the Pax International Sustainable Economy Fund to better reflect this core focus of investing in the transition to a more sustainable economy. The Fund’s investment process was also enhanced with the integration of the Impax Sustainability Lens (Lens) into portfolio construction. The Lens, which is already used in several of our actively managed funds, is a tool that facilitates a systematic review of the economic opportunities and risks associated with the transition to a more sustainable economy. The Fund continues to integrate SmartCarbon^TM into its systematic process and we believe that the Fund continues to be a well-diversified portfolio, comprised of companies in non-US developed markets that we feel are ESG leaders.

What contributed positively to performance?

Stock selection of companies with higher ESG ratings as well as those companies within high-opportunity sub-industries was the largest contributor to relative performance. Straumann, Lonza, RELX and CNP Assurance within the Health Care Equipment, Life Sciences Tools & Services, Research & Consulting Services and Life & Health Insurance sub-industries, respectively, were standout relative performers for the year.

Companies with higher ESG ratings outperformed average and lower ESG rated companies during the year. The Fund’s overweight positioning towards top tier MSCI ESG Rating³ companies along with its underweight allocation to lower-rated ESG companies, significantly helped performance.

The Fund utilizes SmartCarbon^TM, a proprietary tool that replaces energy sector holdings with energy efficiency stocks. During the period, the Fund’s SmartCarbon^TM approach added to relative return. The overweight allocation to energy efficiency companies had a positive impact on performance, with ASML, Schneider Electric and Tokyo Electron posting strong stock specific results. The Fund’s avoidance of the Energy sector detracted from returns due to rising oil prices throughout the year, partially offsetting positive results from the energy efficiency allocation.

In addition, over the period since the SmartCarbon™ approach was integrated into the investment process, it has added 2.39% of relative annualized return compared to the EAFE Index (27-month period: 9/30/2019 – 12/31/2021). Both the Fund’s overweight toward energy efficiency companies and avoidance of the Energy sector have benefited performance.

What detracted from performance?

During the period, the Fund modestly underperformed the EAFE Index, with strong relative performance during the second half of the year bringing returns for the year just shy of the benchmark. Overall Lens positioning was a slight detractor from performance, as low-opportunity and high-risk sub-industries outperformed high-opportunity sub-industries.

The Fund’s avoidance of high-risk low-opportunity sub-industries detracted, as many of these sub-industries outperformed during the year. Apparel Accessories & Luxury Goods was the largest relative detractor in this group. We believe companies in this sub-industry do not have meaningful alignment with opportunities associated with the transition to a sustainable economy and exhibit higher risk due to environmental and social issues within their supply chains. In addition, Fund holdings in the Utilities sector detracted, driven by poor results from Orsted, Iberdrola and Enel, three electric utility companies focused on renewable energy production and goals to reduce GHG emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

of the Predecessor Fund. Total return figures include reinvested dividends and capital gains distributions, and changes in principal value, and do not reflect the taxes that a shareholder might pay on Fund distributions or on the redemption of Fund shares.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

Geographical Diversification

How did the Pax Core Bond Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Institutional Class and Investor Class shares of the Fund had total returns of -1.38% and -1.63%, respectively, compared to -1.54% for the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index and -1.17% for the Lipper Core Bond Funds Index.

What factors contributed to the Fund’s performance?

During the period, the Fund benefited from both security selection and allocation across multiple sectors. The primary contributors were Treasury holdings and asset-backed securities (ABS).

The Fund was underweight Treasuries for the period which helped performance in a rising rate environment. Additionally, the Fund’s allocation to Treasury Inflation Protection Securities (TIPS) performed well as inflation expectations have risen.

The Fund’s ABS holdings benefited from shorter duration positioning. In addition, most ABS experienced strong collateral performance in the year due to monetary and fiscal stimulus programs.

Can you discuss any significant changes to the Fund’s positioning throughout the period?

Since the beginning of the year, we positioned the portfolio for continued improvement in the economy and slightly rising interest rates. Our approach is to maintain a duration-neutral portfolio and, as such, we do not try to predict interest rate movements.

Our strategy to blunt the potential rise in rates is to overweight credit sectors, including corporate bonds and ABS. Both corporate bonds and ABS have benefited in this fixed income environment, and we believe should continue to benefit from the monetary and fiscal stimulus programs and the re-opening of global economies.

As we head into 2022, while the Fund remains overweight corporate bonds, we have trimmed some of the positions we feel were fully valued. We plan to allocate more resources to the ABS sector given current valuations.

What portfolio holdings contributed positively to performance?

A number of our holdings within the Corporate and ABS sectors were positive contributors. Holdings such as American Museum of Natural History, USAA Capital Corp and Tesla Auto Lease Trust were among top contributors.

What portfolio holdings detracted from performance?

The Fund’s long-dated Treasury holdings with maturities in 2040, 2050 and 2051 detracted from performance. These securities did not perform well in the rising interest rate environment during the period. We manage a duration-neutral portfolio and we believe that our Treasury holdings help offset shorter-duration positions in other sectors.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Fixed Income Sector Diversification

Credit Quality*

How did the Pax High Yield Bond Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Investor Class, Class A, and Institutional Class shares of the Fund had total returns of 2.96%, 3.11%, and 3.36% respectively, compared to 4.58% for the ICE BofA Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield—Cash Pay—BB-B (Constrained 2%) Index (the Index) and 5.85% for the Lipper High Yield Bond Funds Index.

What factors contributed to the Fund’s performance?

During the period, high yield asset class returns were relatively strong at 5.36% as represented by the ICE BofA US High Yield Index.¹ Credit spreads declined by -71 basis points during 2021 due to subsiding COVID concerns and robust global equity market performance. The high yield market absorbed meaningfully higher interest rates and performed well, relative to most fixed income asset classes.

The Fund’s underweight in the Energy sector, which notably outperformed during the reporting period, was the primary driver of the Fund’s underperformance. We finalized the implementation of the Fund’s fossil fuel free approach earlier in the year and continue to believe the high yield Energy sector’s longer-term fundamentals remain challenged despite the recent improvement in commodity prices.

In addition, several of the sectors that we consider as being well positioned for the transition to a more sustainable economy, did not rebound as strongly as we anticipated from COVID-induced weakness in 2020. We believe that these sectors tend to be more stable and durable and remain core to our long-term approach. The Fund’s overweights in Media, Healthcare and Telecommunications detracted as these sectors lagged.

Credit selection was a positive contributor, slightly offsetting the sector allocation drag mentioned previously. Media, Consumer Goods and Utilities were three areas of strong credit selection during the period.

In aggregate, during a period of significantly higher commodity prices and a preference for lower quality credits, our emphasis on more durable sectors and credits with strong environmental, social and governance (ESG) profiles detracted from performance.

Can you discuss any significant changes to the Fund’s positioning throughout the period?

During the period, the Fund divested from fossil fuels. The decision to limit exposure to fossil fuels reflects our concern about the high yield energy sector’s challenging future fundamentals and poor return prospects, as well as our explicit alignment with the transition to a more sustainable economy. By reducing exposure to fossil fuel companies, we aim to build a more resilient portfolio for our investors, to mitigate climate-related risks and accelerate the low carbon energy transition. We recognize there may be short-term periods of underperformance if the Energy sector performs well, as it did during 2021; however, we believe this will also be accompanied by periods of outperformance when Energy lags. In aggregate, we believe that avoiding the Energy sector in the high yield asset class will result in higher returns and lower volatility over medium- and long-term horizons.

In terms of other sector allocations, the Fund increased exposure to the Services, Technology and Utility sectors while reducing exposure to Basic Industry, Telecommunications and Financial Services.

The Fund’s credit rating exposure changed modestly in 2021. We reduced allocations to BBB and BB rated bonds and added B rated bonds where we found strong relative value. CCC rated bonds ended the year at approximately 9% of the portfolio, down slightly from the end of 2020. Over the course of the year, BB rated bonds decreased to 41.5% from 42.8%, and B rated bonds increased to 42.5% from 38.9%. As of December 31, 2021, the average credit quality of the Fund as measured by S&P was unchanged at B+. We continue to manage the Fund’s duration to be generally in-line with its benchmark. The effective duration of the Fund at year-end was 3.84 years versus the benchmark effective duration of 4.05 years.

What portfolio holdings contributed positively to performance?

Avantor, a healthcare and life sciences company, performed well as they experienced strong organic growth and have a rapidly improving debt profile.

Land O’Lakes, a leading dairy and animal feed producer, had a strong year and, in our view, is executing its farmer-cooperative owned strategy well.

Michaels Stores, a leading retailer of arts and craft products, performed strongly under new ownership and pandemic-induced demand.

Lastly, our underweight in Bausch Health contributed to relative performance as this large index constituent underperformed.

What portfolio holdings detracted from performance?

Altice USA, a cable and broadband provider, had a challenging year due to growing competitive pressures. As a relatively large core holding, the modest underperformance presented a headwind.

Emergent BioSolutions, a specialty biopharmaceutical company, experienced a number of operational challenges and underperformed.

Endo International, a generic drug maker, is facing several legal challenges and growing competition for one of their larger products, which resulted in a difficult year.

Finally, not owning Occidental Petroleum and our underweight to Bath & Body Works detracted as both companies performed well.

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Top Ten Holdings

Ten largest holdings do not include money market securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper or cash and equivalents, if applicable.

Holdings are subject to change.

Credit Quality*

Fixed Income Sector Diversification

May include companies representing multiple industries within a single “Sector”.

How did the Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund (the Fund) perform for the period?

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2021, the Investor Class and Institutional Class of the Fund had total returns of 15.31% and 15.64%, respectively, compared to 28.71% for the S&P 500 Index, 15.86% for the 60% S&P 500/40% Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index blend (the Blended Index), and 13.89% for the Morningstar Allocation – 50% to 70% Equity category average.

Relative to peers in the Morningstar Allocation – 50% to 70% Equity category, the Fund’s Institutional Class ranked in the 32nd percentile for the annual reporting period. The Fund’s Institutional Class performance ranked in the 12th percentile (out of 665 funds) for the 3-year and in the 16th percentile (out of 601 funds) for the 5-year period ending December 31, 2021¹ in the Morningstar Allocation – 50% to 70% Equity category. During the reporting period, the Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund reached a significant milestone and celebrated its 50th anniversary. Having launched in August 1971, the Fund was the first publicly available mutual fund in the US to use social and environmental as well as financial criteria in the investment process.

What factors contributed to the Fund’s performance?

Global equity markets delivered a robust performance in 2021, despite ongoing concerns over new COVID variants. At the start of the reporting period, global economic activity was accelerated by supportive fiscal and monetary policies, the lifting of COVID restrictions and the rapid progress of vaccination programs. Corporate earnings growth continued to surprise to the upside, driven by pent up demand and rising consumer and business confidence. Growth in demand, coupled with supply chain disruptions and low base effects have resulted in a continuing rise in inflation throughout the year, which resulted in central banks taking action to tighten monetary policy.

US large capitalization stocks delivered strong performance for the annual reporting period, with the S&P 500 Index returning 28.7%, considerably outperforming international stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index which returned 11.2%. Fixed income returns finished the year in negative territory, as measured by the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index, which was down -1.5%. In this environment, the Fund’s slight overweight to stocks and underweight to bonds was a significant positive contributor to performance relative to the Blended Index. However, the Fund’s allocation to international stocks detracted from relative performance as non-US stocks underperformed their US counterparts and international stocks are not included in the 60% S&P 500/40% Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Blended Index. The Fund’s small allocation to cash also detracted from performance.

Can you discuss any significant changes to the Fund’s positioning throughout the period?

Throughout 2021, the Fund remained modestly overweight equities and underweight fixed income. The Fund established initial positions in the Pax High Yield Bond Fund and the Pax Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund (GSI Fund) to provide enhanced diversification and potentially new sources of alpha. Equity valuations remain stretched, but interest rates remain low relative to historical levels and low rates combined with very tight spreads limit the upside to bond returns. In this environment, the Fund continues to be slightly overweight equity, with an underweight to fixed income and a modest allocation to cash.

What portfolio holdings contributed positively and negatively to performance?

The Pax Large Cap Fund, the Fund’s largest equity holding, was also the largest contributor to return as it outperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, returning 30.9% (Institutional Class) versus 28.7%. The Fund’s allocation to the Pax Small Cap Fund was also a positive contributor as it meaningfully outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index, returning 30.5% (Institutional Class) versus 14.8%, in a year where small cap stocks significantly lagged the performance of large cap stocks. The GSI Fund detracted from performance as conventionally more defensive infrastructure companies lagged the performance of the broader US and global markets. Additionally, traditionally more carbon intensive energy companies outperformed the GSI Fund’s allocation to companies engaged in more sustainable energy practices.

out of 433 (29th percentile). The Pax Sustainable Allocation Fund’s Investor Class performance for the 1-year period ranked 204 out of 710 (34th percentile), for the 3-year period ranked 96 out of 665 (17th percentile), for the 5-year period ranked 102 out of 601 (21st percentile), and for the 10-year period 154 out of 433 (36th percentile).

Portfolio Highlights (Unaudited)

Since Inception Total Return—Historical Growth of $10,000

Returns—Period ended December 31, 2021

See ‘Glossary of Terms’ for descriptions of benchmarks.

These figures represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Total returns for periods of less than one year have not been annualized. For most recent month-end performance data, please visit www.impaxam.com or call 800.767.1729.

Manager Allocations

Examples As a shareholder of the Funds, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees, distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees, and other Fund expenses. The examples on the next page are intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in each of the Funds and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. For more information, see the relevant Fund’s prospectus or talk to your financial adviser.

The examples are based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period beginning on July 1, 2021 and ending on December 31, 2021.

Please note that Individual Retirement Account (IRA), Coverdell Education Savings, Roth IRA, SEP-IRA, SIMPLE IRA, and 403(b)(7) accounts are charged an annual custodial fee of fifteen dollars. If you are invested in one of these account types, you should add an additional $7.50 to the estimated expenses paid during the period.

Actual Expenses For each Fund, the first table on the next page provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this table, together with the amount you invested, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. For the Fund, simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Examples for Comparison Purposes For each Fund, the second table on the following pages provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on each Fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not each Fund’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Funds and other funds. To do so, compare these 5% hypothetical examples with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the tables are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any transactional costs. Therefore, the second table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these transactional costs were included, our costs would have been higher.