Die ESG-Krise: Warum nachhaltiges Investieren scheitert

Die vollständige Wahrheit über die ESG-Krise: Verluste, Illusionen und die neue Ära — Echte Energie ohne Kompromisse

ESG is dying. And it’s not about the idea of sustainable development, but about the fact that „green“ rhetoric often concealed losses, greenwashing and political pressure. This post is not an accusation, but an instruction: how we reached the ESG crisis and who is capable of overcoming it.

The Problem: ESG Crisis in Investment, Myths and Consequences

Recent years have been marked by massive capital outflows from ESG funds. In Q1 2025 alone, global sustainable funds lost $8.6 billion — a record figure in the history of observations. Europe showed outflows of $1.2 billion for the first time since 2018, while the US experienced its tenth consecutive quarter of decline with $6.1 billion. Performance indicators of most ESG funds are below traditional ones: median returns of sustainable funds — only 0.4% versus 1.7% for analogues.

Governments investing billions in stimulating „green“ solutions faced rising budget expenses and low returns: according to NVDE calculations, interest rate increases alone added more than €163 billion in systemic costs for Europe’s energy transition through 2050. Over 25 new regulatory acts have been adopted, tightening requirements for reporting, verification and assessment of real „green“ results.

Problem Analysis: Funds, Strategies and Real Damage

The ESG crisis is not a fluctuation, but a structural market problem. Strategy division is evident from official analytics:

Long-term funds („commitment funds“) invest in projects for years, accompany companies in business model transformation, strive for genuine sustainability improvement — but today are forced to hold positions in unprofitable assets, hoping for qualitative shift.
Cosmetic funds, reacting to hype or public pressure, massively sell „green“ assets, patch portfolio holes, exiting projects due to new regulatory and reputational risks.

According to ESMA data, focus shifts in fund names and criteria led to significant investment redistributions, with effects including liquidity reduction and closure of dozens of strategies. More than a third of European ESG funds invested €123 billion in companies engaged in expanding fossil fuel extraction, showing the scale of greenwashing problems.

Financial Losses: Funds and Governments

Losses for funds and investors are objective:

$8.6 billion outflow from ESG funds
Losses from inefficient strategies — from reduced returns to actual closure of individual funds and directions
Subsidies aimed at supporting „green“ industries often don’t pay off: rising CAPEX, complex infrastructure, risks of unstable supply chains
Governments lose budget control — for example, additional expenses for ESG stimulation in energy amount to €163 billion through 2050 and pose threats to taxpayers

In the US, 16 states introduced ESG investment restrictions to reduce regulatory risks. This is not just an optics change — it’s a transformation of the financing and public-private partnership paradigm itself.

How „Solutions“ Failed to Meet Expectations: Technical and Environmental Analysis

Promises of lithium, hydrogen, bioethanol as universal „green“ solutions failed verification:

Hydrogen: Chain efficiency — only 25%. Production involves CO₂ emissions, storage and transportation are expensive.
Lithium: Producing one ton requires 500,000 liters of water, leading to water poisoning and ecosystem loss.
Bioethanol: Real emission savings — less than 3% when mixed with gasoline, logistics and infrastructure costs don’t offset benefits.

Mass greenwashing became a systemic problem: ESG funds invest in projects contradicting their own essence.

New Reality: Requirements for „Truly“ Green Projects

Markets and regulators are forming new success criteria:

Autonomy from subsidies and grants
Energy independence
Fast unit economics
Verifiability (TRL, patents, audits)
Minimization of logistics, emissions and CAPEX

Exactly such projects become capital attraction points for remaining long-term funds and systemic investors. But amid tightening norms, fund closures and declining risk appetite, attracting investments has become much more difficult — venture and hype money is leaving the market or freezing.

Solution: VENDOR — Energy Without Compromises

The VENDOR project is a new standard emerging at the intersection of old ESG crisis and new economy expectations.

Autonomous: operates without batteries, fuel and centralized logistics, regardless of weather and environment.
Truly sustainable: unit economics is transparent and verifiable, technology is patent-protected, undergoes auditing by international standards.
Social and environmental impact: one autonomous VENDOR unit can support 12,000+ critical medical procedures, save up to €95,760 over 7 years and avoid 33.6 tons of CO₂ emissions.

VENDOR is the only project fully complying with new strict ESG market requirements.

This is not hype, not greenwashing, not a short-term growth option for reporting purposes. This is — technology that withstood testing and is ready for real implementation in the most complex scenarios: medicine, military missions, autonomous infrastructure, lost corners of the planet.

Today, anyone investing „the old way“ risks repeating ESG fund mistakes of recent years. And those ready to enter the new reality of autonomous energy will be not just investors, but authors of the future.

Time to Choose: Stay in the Tail of ESG Crisis or Enter New Energy — Together with VENDOR

We’re creating not just a generator. We’re creating a precedent: ESG without compromises. If you’re someone who doesn’t seek hype but seeks results — you’ll find us.