In this article, Richard Hoyle considers a range of recent English cases which examine fiduciary duties relating to investment or divestment where fiduciaries were either motivated by, or, in contrast, downplayed ESG and climate change issues. In doing so he highlights the potential for fragmented outcomes when comparing different types of fiduciary relationship, including charitable trustees, pension trustees and directors, noting that for the time being, courts appear to be deferential to the approach which different fiduciaries choose to adopt to ESG and climate change issues.