In a final section, and in order to "extricate ourselves" from an issue whose ins and outs seem to have been exposed, it would be appropriate to take a step back and look at the ramifications of this fiduciary duty, particularly in environmental matters.
Unfortunately, this article is only intended to take a global view of a growing phenomenon (the “ESG” in particular, which is included as an objective for the 21st century in the Financial Initiative of the United Nations Environment Programme), an expansion whose details cannot, legitimately, out of intellectual honesty, be confined to the limited format of the article.

François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Banque de France, in a speech delivered in Paris on February 11, 2021, on "the role of central banks in the greening of the economy" described as imperative the consideration of climate change by the Eurosystem, an imperative "that we must pursue in the very name of our current mandate and to ensure the proper implementation of monetary policy".
This preoccupation with environmental questions, without judging their real effectiveness once they have been extracted from the presupposed theoretical framework, in matters whose initial principles seemed, at first glance, to be quite far removed from these considerations, is not new, however, and in fact began, among other things, with a broadening of the focus of "fiduciary duty", with the stated aim of "opening up" the axiology of the objective of profit and profit alone.

Mathieu Lindon pronounced this sentence, formidable in the way in which it suggests a vertiginous field of declension, a sentence pronounced in a context totally foreign to the subject that interests us since it was a question of paying homage to the friendship linking him to Hervé Guibert (a writer, like him, who died in 1991). This sentence "The more we love, the more we have the capacity to love" draws a rather intriguing parallel on our subject, a parallel that questions the way in which the sudden attraction of a notion that has long "lived" in isolation has, through the "domino effect", led, in one way or another, to the projection of these prerogatives to the forefront, to the point of influencing the policy of central banks, but also that of the central bank of central banks, the ECB.

The fiduciary duty, as stated above, has long been assimilated to the setting on a pedestal of financial objectives, a setting on a pedestal which, consequently, when the end justifies the means, leads only to a very incomplete consideration of other data, far removed conceptually from the sacrosanct gain. As progress has meant an evolution of the very "soil" of the matter, the 1988 decision in Martin v. City of Edinburgh District Council, without naming any extension to environmental considerations, extended the scope of possible duties relating to this fiduciary duty, stating "I cannot conceive of an absolute duty on trustees ... simply to invest trust funds in the most profitable investment".

This consecration of the trustee's lack of "ethical irresponsibility" in his or her investment mission has, through ideas, begun to sow the seeds for the idea that profit maximization no longer necessarily represents a linear obligation devoid of asperities, asperities that open the door to the consideration of broader objectives that potentially diminish the maximum gain for the sake of increased sustainability. Indeed, as Sandra Waddock and Samuel Graves so rightly point out in a 1997 article on the social performance of companies, certain social and environmental risks can affect shareholder value because of possible costly consequences such as litigation, negative consumer reactions or regulatory measures.

This "allocation" of value has, by way of consequence, led to the emergence of the SRI "Socially Responsible Investing", SRI defined by Professor John H. Langbein and Judge Richard A. Posner as "the exclusion from an investor's portfolio of securities of certain companies, otherwise attractive, because they are deemed socially irresponsible, and the inclusion of securities of certain companies, otherwise unattractive, because they are deemed to have socially commendable behaviour".
What thus emerges from this presentation is the idea that the duty of loyalty attached to the fiduciary duty might find its way out of the straitjacket of "maximum maximorum" by favouring the prospect of reasonable but lasting gain.

On this question of the absolute non-seeking of the "maximim maximorum", legal obstacles have not been the least, both in the United Kingdom, as attested by the case of “Cowan v. Scargill” dating from 1985 (ruling that trustees could take into account non-financial criteria in the construction of a portfolio on the sole condition that these alternative investments were also beneficial to the beneficiaries), and in the United States through the case of “Board of Trustees of Employee Retirement System of the City of Baltimore v. Scargill. City of Baltimore" in 1989 (ruling that if social investment produced competitive economic returns at a comparable level of risk, the investment should not be considered imprudent).

These considerations, although dated, were thus a perfect expression of the concern that existed regarding the magnification of fiduciary duty considerations and the financial loss that might be associated with them. However, it has to be said that the contours of the current landscape have radically changed and paint this type of preoccupation with a seemingly banal appearance. Indeed, according to a survey conducted in 2004 by the Natural Capital Institute, the screening and exception methods used by most SRI funds allow virtually all public companies to be considered as SRI portfolio companies. This removes almost all legal obstacles, since the controversial nature of the SRI no longer has to suffer from economic comparison with other investment products. As Benjamin J. Richardson notes, "The "SRI" market currently fits fairly well within the context of existing legal norms because it now often represents the idea of a status quo”.

Frederic Lordon through an article in “Le Monde diplomatique” wrote "People will only look for an 'elsewhere' outside when the institutional field has failed to create an 'elsewhere' inside". The introduction of the paper exposed the prominence of the idea of value, a value that is not absolute and therefore subject to change. This modification, this development of value from the "inside" has, in this case, and contrary to Frederic Lordon's rather pessimistic perspective of a continual passivity of the inertia of the "outside" (pessimism on a subject other than that of interest to us today), succeeded, if not in modifying, then at least in influencing, through several other factors, the management choices of public institutions. It is in this continuation of a non immutable character that such an evolution is thus inscribed, an evolution that comes to profoundly change the “reading grid” that was ours until then. More than ever, it seems obvious that a collective awareness at the institutional level requires a change in morals in the "private" sphere.
However, it is now through this force of impulse, whose relationship has certainly been reversed, the constriction now preceding the incentive, that a reading key, if not innovative but certainly worthy of being highlighted, comes to us, a reading key that could, according to the spirit of each one, promise us a future also conducive to hope (these institutions will not be transformed all the same, in spite of all the good will in the world, into paragons of virtue, the reader should not be mistaken) or give us an early look to a destiny where the absence of arkhe, of primary value, would leave it up to "private" initiative to set its own self-regulation.