The Failure of ESG: Reconciling Capitalism with Conscience

Green is the Colour of Money: The Failure of ESG and the Myth of Sustainable Finance

Once a promising attempt to reconcile capitalism with conscience, ESG has become a moral laundromat; a way to cleanse reputation, not reform practice.

Trillions of dollars now sit in funds labelled “sustainable,” “responsible,” or “impact-driven.” Boards declare allegiance to the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Companies tout net-zero roadmaps and diversity dashboards. The language of virtue has become fluent in financial markets. And yet, the world continues to burn.

Yet behind the polished decks and glossy brochures lies a bitter truth: ESG is a failure. Not only has it failed to deliver planetary or social stability; it has actively served as a smokescreen for extractive, concentrated, and ultimately suicidal capital flows. As Grace Blakeley puts it in Vulture Capitalism, this isn’t reform; it’s branding.

We are not saving the world. We are paying to feel better while destroying it more efficiently.

The Hollow Centre

The promise of ESG was that capital could be a force for good. That investors could nudge companies toward a more ethical, accountable, and environmentally sane future. That returns and responsibility could co-exist. It is now clear that this promise was a myth.

On environmental grounds, ESG has made almost no measurable difference. Fossil fuel financing continues unabated. “Green” funds are routinely exposed as holding positions in carbon-intensive firms. Carbon offset markets; a cornerstone of many net-zero strategies; are plagued by double-counting, unverifiable claims, and in some cases, outright fraud. The planet is not being protected. It is being brokered.

On the social front, the situation is no better. The rise of the gig economy has eroded basic labour rights. Corporate pledges on pay equity and inclusion are rarely tied to meaningful change. Social scores are massaged for ratings agencies, not for workers. The modern economy has more in common with feudal hierarchy than modern meritocracy; a world where a handful of digital and financial landlords control the assets, data, and labour of billions.

And on governance, the failures are most farcical. Executives award themselves record bonuses while laying off workers in the name of efficiency. Boards remain stacked with insiders. Whistle-blowers are punished. Shareholder democracy is a fiction; in reality, a small number of institutional investors make decisions for half the planet’s capital. The G in ESG has become a fig leaf. No proxy voting framework can correct that.

ESG: A Moral Laundromat

The ESG industry has become a tool of reputational arbitrage; a place where corporations and asset managers go not to change, but to cleanse. What went wrong? In truth, ESG was never designed to challenge power. It was designed to redirect scrutiny. Like a corporate version of climate diplomacy, it substitutes process for progress. It allows firms to declare targets without delivering results. It creates the illusion of responsibility, while preserving the underlying logic of extraction.

At its worst, ESG enables what might be called reputational arbitrage: firms leverage vague frameworks to secure capital at lower cost, win government tenders, or enter new markets. But behind the metrics lies a business-as-usual model; slightly polished, not fundamentally changed.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals are a case in point. Nearly every global institution claims alignment with them. Yet there is no enforcement, no audit, and no penalty for failure. Signing up costs nothing. Delivering on them, apparently, also costs nothing.

The ESG industry; ratings firms, data providers, consultants; has become a self-reinforcing machine. Its growth is inversely related to its impact. The more it expands, the more diluted its meaning becomes. The more it promises, the less it delivers.

Truth, Not Transparency

The response from defenders of ESG is often to call for better data. More disclosure. Greater transparency. But the problem is not one of measurement. It is one of intent. To pretend ESG can be fixed with better metrics or new disclosure frameworks is like putting a biometric scanner on a guillotine and calling it ethical. 

We are not looking at a system that is underperforming. We are looking at one that is mis-designed; deliberately so. Its purpose is not to transform capital, but to insulate it. To make investors feel better while doing little to change the logic of profit maximisation at all costs. This is not a matter of bad faith actors. It is a systemic failure. A slow, polite betrayal of the future; committed not with malice, but with indifference and inertia. And that may be more dangerous.

If the role of capital is to allocate resources toward a better future, then the current system has failed. If the role of governance is to hold decision-makers accountable, then it has collapsed. And if the role of regulation is to prevent catastrophic harm, then it has been co-opted.

It’s time to stop talking about “reform” and start talking about accountability. We need the equivalent of South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission for sustainable finance; not to punish, but to expose. Not to tweak, but to reckon.

People are not just greenwashing portfolios; they are stealing the future of generations not yet born. And they are doing it for bonuses.

Toward a Reckoning

This is not a call to abandon the ambition behind ESG. It is a call to rebuild it; from the ground, up. To remove the incentives for hypocrisy. To confront the gap between what firms, say and what they do. And to recognise that some damage cannot be undone with disclosure; it must be addressed with justice.

Three principles must underpin any meaningful reform:

1. New Standards, Not Scorecards

ESG should be tied to hard law, not soft guidance. If a fund claims to be sustainable but invests in deforestation, it should face sanctions. ESG should not be a reporting function. It should be a fiduciary obligation. Climate risk must be priced as real risk. Social harm must be treated as a liability. Governance failures, even at government levels, must lead to sanctions and disqualification, not DEI seminars.

2. Divestment, not diplomacy.

If institutions continue to treat ESG as theatre, capital should walk. Asset owners; particularly sovereigns, endowments, and pension funds; have both the leverage and the responsibility to demand real change or exit. Coordinated shareholder revolt; especially from sovereigns and institutional LPs — can shift governance faster than any index can.

3. Regulation, not reporting.

Global regulators must stop outsourcing integrity to the market. ESG is not a marketing claim; it is a financial risk. Climate harm, social exploitation, and governance breakdowns have real economic consequences. They must be priced in and prosecuted when ignored.

The Real Question

At the heart of this is a more fundamental question: can a capitalist-run society be trusted to act in the long-term interests of society, or is capitalism itself structurally incapable of doing so?

Some argue that the market can be bent toward justice. Others believe it must be rebuilt entirely. But either way, we must first stop pretending that our current path is anything other than performative.

Firms are not just greenwashing their brands; they are also greenwashing their balance sheets. And in doing so, they are stealing from future generations; not metaphorically, but literally. What we emit now will be inherited by those with no say in today’s decisions. 

This is not about being anti-capitalism, it is about being anti-suicidal. The stakes are existential. Not because the system is broken; but because it is working exactly as designed. 

By Louay Aldoory

Louay Aldoory is the Founder 1648 Capital. 1648 Capital is a corporate advisory and private markets platform partnering with founders, shareholders, and investors on complex growth, restructuring, and capital structuring initiatives. We combine strategic insight with execution discipline, supporting businesses from transformation through to institutional capital alignment.

The strategies presented are thematic and do not constitute investment advice (or advice of any kind). No assurance can be given that the objectives of the investment above strategies will be achieved; the strategies involve risk (including, without limitation, illiquidity risk) and may incur a loss on some or all capital deployed. The opinions expressed, or indeed the information or assumptions that underpin them, may contain errors, mistakes, or omissions; no assurance or warranty can be made as to the accuracy or completeness of this information, and readers should not place any reliance on this content to execute investment decisions or for any other purpose. Readers accept full responsibility for using this content and are kindly requested to consult with their professional advisor before making any investment decision related to the same.

CHANGE BEGINS WITH A CONVERSATION