Author Archives: TBR Team

FIRST PLACE: Ireland: From Greenwashing to Green Growth 

Posted on by Leave a comment

Chloé Asconi-Feldman

Introduction 

Although the term has been thrown around in recent years as a new buzzword, greenwashing was coined in the 1980s and has prevailed since the 1960s.1 Yet, it is finally due to the Climate Crisis and the ongoing trends of implementing ‘green’ laws, that companies that are guilty of greenwashing are finally being held accountable. Although each country has their own set of standards regarding regulating corporate practices and sustainability, this article will focus mostly on Ireland and the EU. Since many sets of regulations that Ireland follows regarding sustainability are from the EU, it is critical to assess where Ireland stands compared to other countries in the Union, and what this means for the future of corporations in Ireland. 

Greenwashing in an EU Context 

Considered to have one of the most ambitious decarbonisation plans of any country in the world, many companies find Ireland an attractive country to expand and invest in. Yet recent studies have shown that the majority of Irish firms do not meet EU requirements regarding sustainable investments. With few regulations regarding greenwashing until recent years, a survey of 125 financial service firms in Ireland found that fewer than one-third of the companies were fully complying with EU rules around ‘green investments’. In the context of the entire EU, a 2021 report found that around half of the companies audited by the EU were found to have been engaging in greenwashing. Where countries in the EU rank in terms of environmental claims, Ireland does not seem to be paving the way. Countries such as France have seen the most success, implementing seemingly radical laws which could place parties who are found guilty of greenwashing to face prison sentences. France’s Climate and Resilience Law which came into effect in 2021 sets out clear definitions of language relating to the Climate Crisis and enforces strict requirements. In terms of the green bond market, despite its growth, Ireland’s is relatively

small at €28.8bn in October 2022, whereas other EU member states such as the Netherlands reported a green bond market share of €91.5bn. 2 

Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation 

The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) was introduced by the European Commission and holds the aim of making it easier for investors to learn about a fund’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials.3 The Financial Services Commissioner Mairead McGuinness considered the SFDR as the first regulation to set rules on how financial market participants must disclose sustainability-related information.4 Since it is considered the first set of standards, the requirements pose a challenge to the industry and regulators, having the Compliance Institute, a Dublin-based body for regulatory and compliance professionals, state that there is still significant unease around the SFDR.5It has caused hundreds of funds to downgrade their ranking in terms of sustainability, notably from having an Article 9 ranking, which are funds that have sustainable investment as their objective, to an Article 8 ranking, which are funds that promote environmental or social characteristics.6 

New EU Laws 

In 2024, there has already been improvement in the EU, with Parliament approving new directives that will combat greenwashing, setting higher standards to improve product labelling and banning the use of misleading environmental claims.7 Regulating sustainability labels will mean that corporations will have to go through an official certification scheme by public authorities in order to use labels such as “environmentally friendly” or “climate neutral”. 8 Alongside this, there will be a ban on claiming that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment due to emissions offsetting schemes.9 What this means for Irish companies is the need to emphasise clarity in their advertising, and remove false claims. It also enforces a standard of transparency that is not currently present within Irish companies. A global study conducted by PwC found that the majority of investors in Irish companies believed that reports regarding sustainability performances tend to contain unsupported claims and contain greenwashing.10 

Green Growth in Ireland 

With the increasing level of importance that the EU has been placing on sustainability and greenwashing, Irish boards of directors have started prioritising potential greenwashing risks and

determining how to eliminate these risks. The Central Bank of Ireland claimed that ESG was one of their main regulatory priorities in 2023, emphasising the country’s quick reaction to the SFDR. Considering the Irish government’s Climate Action Plan aims to halve their national emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050, many firms are stating that investing sustainably is not only important to comply with the new regulations, but also in order to achieve these national goals.11 The Big Four have all published articles relating to the importance of ESG investing in Ireland, as well as many other firms alike. It seems that despite its past in greenwashing and false environmental claims, there is genuine concern for green growth among companies. Dublin has recently hosted sustainability-oriented events such as the Sustainable Aviation Fuel and Carbon Finance Day, which is one of the largest meeting places for participants in the aviation industry.12 Philip Lee, an Irish law firm, has recently advised different organisations on one of the world’s first Article 6 projects, which is a project that is able to transfer carbon credits earned from the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to help one or more countries meet their climate targets.13 This example shows initiatives from Irish firms to take on roles where there is green growth and step out of the greenwashing stereotypes that companies and firms once held. 

Conclusion 

Irish companies need to address climate and sustainability issues authentically for several reasons. According to numerous surveys, investors want to know companies’ sustainability strategies and can guarantee that the information provided is reliable.14 Social influence, the EU’s

new regulations, and investors’ needs are all reasons why Irish companies need to prioritise green growth if they want to prosper in the future. So far, Ireland seems to be moving in a positive direction, yet since we are in the early days of this new legislation, it is difficult to come to a fair conclusion. Yet one conclusion that we can make is that the days of greenwashing practices are coming to an end in Ireland, for the better.

Trinity Entrepreneurial Society: Dragons’ Den Recap

Posted on by Leave a comment

Rhea Singhal

In modern society, entrepreneurs serve as catalysts for evolution, driving change through boundless creativity and innovation. They actively seek out opportunities within untapped markets, pioneering products, services, and initiatives. The impact of entrepreneurship extends beyond business; it can reshape perspectives and foster meaningful connections.  

Trinity Entrepreneurial Society’s Flagship event the “Dragons’ Den” competition encourages this very spirit of innovation. The event, held on 29th February 2024, garnered over 250 attendees and also included an intermission pitching competition. The ‘Den’ boasted outstanding prizes up for grabs:

Inside the Den

The overwhelming number of entries are a testament to not only its popularity and continued success, but also to the resilience, creativity, and ambition of Irish innovators. At the event, finalists pitch their ideas to a panel of esteemed judges, “ dragons”,  who are leaders in the business community. The dragons this year were Heather Morris (MD, Founder Talent Accelerator at Dogpatch Labs), Orla Dunbar (Director at Deloitte Consulting), Keavy Ryan and Darren Nagle (Corporate and M & A partners at A & L Goodbody) and Conor Joyce (TES President). Mastering the art of pitching is an indispensable skill for every entrepreneur to be able to present a compelling and convincing case for their venture. It is a dynamic and strategic journey which is an eclectic mix of passion, clarity, and persuasion. 

This year’s contestants brought to the table a diverse array of concepts ranging from ways to simplify business to enhancing social media connections to early detection of life-changing diseases. They had to demonstrate, within a strict time limit, a suave ability for technical integration of their concept with data and convince the dragons that their idea was worth investing in. The pitches this year were exceptional in their data driven presentations highlighting meticulously researched strategies and astute business acumen. In the current business landscape, data serves as a cornerstone for credibility and provides concrete evidence of market potential and feasibility. 

The electric atmosphere and motivated pitchers set the stage for a riveting entrepreneurial battleground. The tension was palpable as the contestants faced the intense scrutiny and relentless questioning by the dragons.

Finalists included:

  1. Saor Water: Saor was born with a clear vision- to challenge the status quo and redefine the way brands connect with people. They offer free recyclable, branded water at events and on the go. Their customers include Mercedes, Roots health foods etc. https://saorwater.ie/?trk=public_post-text
  2. Kish: A digital receipt app which aimed at revolutionising receipt management and organisation. 
  3. SkinAware: An AI based wellness app that aims to integrate personalised care insights to wellness. 
  4. Peak Predict: An app that tracks every aspect of your fitness, catering to sports enthusiasts and athletes.
  5. Tribe: Tribe is modernising the way people drink whiskey with the first of its kind canned whiskey cocktail in Ireland. https://lnkd.in/eEfVBH8S?trk=public_post-text
  6. Rentilia: A service which proposes to be an intermediary for renting equipment. Contact rentiliaofficial@gmail.com
  7. Neurosonic:  A smart device designed to aid in the prevention of strokes through early detection at home. https://www.neuro-sonic.com
  8. Common Ground: An app enhancing social media connections fostering meaningful interactions in the digital sphere. 

NeuroSonic took the win, with Tribe and Saor Water securing second and third place respectively. While the winners went home with prizes, everyone from the competitors to the audience gained inspiration and insights into the nuances of pitching, the inherent obstacles faced by start-ups, and the indispensable art of navigating market forces.

Amazon’s Unfair Play: Exploring the FTC Lawsuit and Exclusive Insights from Dr. Christopher Gopal 

Posted on by Leave a comment

Mariia Kashirina 

Introduction: 

Amazon Inc. is an American multinational technology company ranked the fifth largest in the world by market capitalisation. It positions itself as an online marketplace and is known globally not only for its wide variety of products, quick delivery, and low prices but also for its innovative technology,  efficient supply chains, and data-driven strategies. The company claims to be guided by four principles: a passion for invention, commitment to operational excellence, long-term thinking, and customer obsession rather than competitor focus.

However, when examining the company’s fourth principle,  is Amazon truthfully customer-obsessed rather than competitor-focused? According to the Federal Trade Commission, it is not. 

On 26 September 2023, The Federal Trade Commission, led by Chair Lina Khan alongside 17 state  attorney generals, filed an antitrust lawsuit against the multinational online retail giant, claiming that the corporation is a monopolist that illegally maintains its power through a series of  interconnected, unfair, and anti-competitive tactics.

Why is the FTC going after Amazon? 

Under the current Chair, Lina Khan, the FTC has a more confrontational stance against the influence of  big tech and augmented efforts to break the rooted monopolies held by a few leading firms in sectors like online retail and search engines.

Khan rose to prominence as a legal scholar, primarily through her influential paper in the Yale Law  Journal titled “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox”.  This pivotal work focused on the concept that consumer  prices were paramount in determining whether a corporation engaged in anticompetitive behavior through Amazon’s lens.  This highly anticipated antitrust lawsuit has just been initiated, with Amazon at its center; the company faces accusations of persistently engaging in unlawful practices that obstruct competition, enabling it to wield monopolistic power. 

According to the lawsuit, Amazon currently dominates the e-commerce sector by dictating prices,  limiting the selection of products, and ensuring that its competitors are unable to gain traction with  buyers and sellers. Its strategies affect an enormous portion of online retail sales, impacting numerous  businesses and millions of shoppers, cementing its stronghold in the market.

The specific allegations outlined in the complaint include: 

• Anti-discounting measures and manipulating other stores into increasing prices

• Forcing sellers to use Amazon’s costly fulfillment service to obtain “Prime” product eligibility

 • Lowering the quality of the user experience through “defect ads”

• Manipulating search results and trapping consumers into paying for Amazon Prime

From here, we can explore Amazon’s role in the competitive market landscape.

Analysis: Amazon’s Supply Chain and Anti-Competitive Tactics

I. Amazon’s Overall Supply Chain and Fulfillment

Amazon’s supply chain process starts with bulk goods dispatched to Amazon Warehousing and  Distribution (AWD) through freight and logistics services. AWD then stores products cost-effectively,  ensuring quick availability at distribution centers. Strategically located warehouses, optimised internally with five storage areas each, enhance product retrieval speed, aligning supply with demand. Goods move from fulfillment centers to customers in the final step.  

Fulfillment is integral to Amazon’s supply chain strategy, and with third-party sellers being responsible  for more than half of all sales made on Amazon, there are two fulfillment options for sellers – Fulfillment  by Amazon (FBA) and Fulfillment by Merchant (FBM).  FBM allows the seller to be in charge of listing  their products on Amazon and handling fulfillment aspects of the process on their own, while with FBA, Amazon takes full control of logistics and customer support while merchants only have to send their  products to them.

Fulfillment by Amazon is one of the central parts of the FTC allegations, as they claim that “Amazon  maintains its monopolies in both customer and seller markets by coercing sellers to use Amazon’s fulfillment service”. Amazon’s fulfillment service allows sellers to fully access Amazon’s substantial  base of shoppers, making it a critical aspect of the marketplace services Amazon offers to sellers.  

While it may seem that Amazon does not force the sellers to use FBA, the ones who will opt for independent fulfillment will have to split their inventory across multiple channels in order to ensure the  next day delivery promised by Prime. Such a strategy artificially stunts the growth of FBM, which prevents competitors from reaching the size necessary to effectively challenge Amazon. 

In addition, it is alleged that sellers who do not utilise the Prime eligibility effectively disappear from the  storefront, making the product almost invisible to consumers, which decreases their sales numbers  significantly.  

II. Amazon Prime 

According to the FTC, Amazon’s internal data reportedly indicates a significant rise in consumer  spending when they commenced Amazon Prime. This surge in spending contributes substantially to  Amazon’s revenue, which reached $35.22 billion in 2022 through Amazon Prime sales. Allegedly, to  maintain these sales figures, Amazon is accused of employing tactics such as deceptive designs to  coerce consumers into recurring subscriptions and making the cancellation process intentionally  complex and lengthy, referred to internally as “Iliad Flow”, drawing parallels to Homer’s extensive epic  poem. These manipulative tactics negatively impact both consumers and law-abiding businesses. 

III. Algorithmic and Contractual Tactics 

It is also alleged that Amazon employs its algorithms to restrict rivals from expanding in the e-commerce  industry by manipulating price competition. A crucial factor for Amazon, these algorithms employ various methods to implement an anti-discounting approach and maintain the perception of offering the lowest prices in the market. 

According to the FTC, Amazon employs its “Competitive Monitoring Team” to monitor the internet for price changes continually. Following that, they utilise this team to enforce new contractual duties and even harsher penalties on third-party marketplace vendors who offer cheaper pricing on other internet stores. An example of such a penalty could be the “Select Competitor – Featured Offer Disqualification” algorithm that has been used by Amazon to enforce its “expectations and policies”. This algorithm removes the seller from the “Buy Box”, where 80%  of all purchases are performed, significantly undercutting vendors’ sales thus forcing them to resist offering lower prices elsewhere.  

In addition, it is claimed that Amazon not only prevents the sellers on their marketplace from offering  lower prices but also has manipulated other stores’ pricing algorithms into increasing prices through  “Project Nessie”, the algorithm whose only purpose is to raise prices for consumers. 

Project Nessie accurately predicted that there was a high chance other internet retailers would imitate  Amazon’s price increases for items they were already making a profit on. It acted at the optimal moment  when the probability of others replicating the price adjustment was at its highest. Through these  manipulations of other stores’ prices, Project Nessie has generated over $1 billion in additional profit for  Amazon from 2016 through 2018, according to their own calculations.

IV. Advertisement and search results 

Additional accusations of unlawful tactics involve Amazon degrading customers’ experience by placing costly, irrelevant advertisements on their platform and skewing search results to favor Amazon’s  products over those of better value. 

According to the FTC complaint, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos instructed his executives to “accept  more defects” during a key meeting. “Defect Ads” are advertisements that are partially or entirely  irrelevant to the customers’ search. The main idea in placing “Defect Ads” is to nudge the customers  

towards higher priced items. As the space on the platform allocated to sponsored content expands, it  becomes more and more challenging for buyers to find more affordable products. This complicating  factor, in turn, counteracts the effect of inflated prices. 

Despite the compromise between heightened ad earnings and decreased sales due to inferior search  outcomes, Amazon sustains consistent double-digit growth in total sales and hasn’t experienced a  substantial departure of customers to competing platforms.

The decline in user experience doesn’t just end with flawed ads. Amazon exacerbates advertisement concerns by hiding  natural content under recommendation widgets like the “expert recommendation” feature, showcasing  Amazon’s products ahead of others.  Through manipulation of these widgets, Amazon obstructs fair competition against its own products, intentionally concealing details about competing products to artificially boost its own offerings. According to the FTC, Amazon’s ability to conduct this way without  losing a significant portion of customers directly demonstrates its monopoly power.  

Amazon’s response 

In their statement, Amazon responds to the FTC’s allegations by saying that the lawsuit appears to be  misguided and, if successful, would force Amazon to engage in practices that actually harm consumers and the many businesses that sell in their store—such as having to feature higher prices, offer slower or less reliable Prime shipping, and make Prime more expensive and less convenient.

In addition, Amazon argues that its dedication to low pricing, assistance for independent sellers,  Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA), and Amazon Prime are not only pro-competitive but also beneficial to  customers. They plan to fight the case while maintaining its focus on customer pleasure and innovation.  

Criticism of the Allegations 

The main criticism of FTC’s claim is that their allegations against Amazon are misguided. One common  argument is that both sellers and consumers have the option to choose alternative platforms or avenues  if they feel disadvantaged by Amazon’s practices. They can opt for competing platforms like Walmart and Target or create their own distribution networks to avoid reliance on Amazon;similarly, consumers  are not compelled to shop exclusively on Amazon, as they can adjust their behaviour by seeking better  prices or quality elsewhere. 

However, a critical perspective arises when evaluating Amazon’s dominance in the e-commerce  industry. While it may not hold the same level of dominance in the broader retail market, Amazon  overwhelmingly leads the e-commerce sector with a share of 37.6%, followed by Walmart at 6.4%,  Apple at 3.6%, and eBay at 3%.  This context suggests that within the realm of e-commerce, the options  available to both sellers and consumers are significantly limited by Amazon’s dominant market position.  Hence, the argument that they have the freedom to opt for alternatives might not hold true due to  Amazon’s unparalleled presence. 

Another common argument refers to the FTC’s accusation of Amazon punishing sellers who offer  cheaper pricing on other internet stores. In particular, Fortune argues that “sellers offering prices lower  on their websites does not lead to lower prices for consumers, it just allows the sellers to shift the sale  from the Amazon website to their own” and “merchants who attempt this free-riding tactic are the ones  raising consumer prices on Marketplace to try to keep Amazon from making the sale”. 

Although this price tactic might seem effective in preventing free riding by merchants and ensuring the  lowest price to consumers, it still significantly limits competition and innovation in the marketplace. By  enforcing these rules on sellers, Amazon limits the merchant’s ability to dictate their pricing strategies 

and offer better prices on their websites. This, coupled with Amazon’s prioritisation of private label  items over organic content through recommendation widgets, makes it difficult for sellers to compete.  The price parity policy further emphasises this issue, limiting merchants’ pricing flexibility and making it  harder for them to attract customers. Ultimately, these restrictions hinder consumer choice and  undermine the potential benefits that healthy competition can bring, such as lower prices. 

Insights from Dr. Christopher Gopal 

Dr. Christopher Gopal is a well-known figure in the field of global supply chain management, logistics,  and information technologies. With over four decades of experience as a supply chain and operations executive, he has spoken at various international conferences, including but not limited to HBR, IATA,  OECD, and EU Conference on Concentration and Security.  

Dr. Gopal has also held SVP and VP positions in supply chain and operations for major global  corporations like Dell, SAIC, and Unisys, among others. He has written four books on Supply Chain &  Operations, including the latest one titled “Breakthrough Supply Chains: How Companies and Nations  Can Thrive in an Uncertain World”, which was published by McGraw-Hill in June 2023.  

Currently, Dr. Gopal teaches “Supply Chain Management” and “Strategic Cost Management” at the Rady School of Management at the University of California, San Diego. Additionally, he is a member of the  Defense Business Board (DBB), which is a Department of Defense/Pentagon Advisory Body that provides  business perspective advice to the Secretary of Defense and other officials.  

Exclusively for this article, Dr. Gopal shared his opinion on the most pressing topics of the FTC vs Amazon  lawsuit that allows a broader understanding of the ongoing dispute:

First of all, should the Federal Trade Commission go after Amazon? 

Dr. Gopal advocates for the FTC’s intervention towards Amazon. However, he believes the  ongoing lawsuit should not be aimed at destroying Amazon but rather must emphasise the  necessity to employ stricter regulations that would foster healthy competition and prevent  monopolistic practices from being utilised. He points out the prevalent lack of enforcement of  numerous antitrust rules and regulations, indicating a critical need for implementation. He believes that the FTC should actively enforce these regulations upon Amazon to ensure a fair  marketplace and promote a level playing field for all businesses involved. 

Given the accusations, what potential changes or adaptations might Amazon need to make in its operational strategies to comply with antitrust laws? 

Dr. Gopal believes that the most crucial changes that Amazon will need to make are changes in  their pricing models and fulfillment operations to comply with antitrust laws. According to him,  it might be beneficial for Amazon to decouple these services from its own fulfillment network.  

This means allowing suppliers who wish to sell on Amazon to utilise their own fulfillment  services and giving them the freedom to opt for their preferred delivery and distribution  methods. 

At present, some sellers avoid using Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA) because Amazon requires them to  split their inventory across various sales channels. This constraint restricts sellers and potentially  hampers their ability to maximise their sales potential. Instead of imposing such restrictions,  Amazon could empower vendors by providing them with greater flexibility in managing their  inventory across multiple platforms.  

Essentially, Amazon should function more as a platform that facilitates sales rather than imposing its fulfillment services on vendors. 

In addition, he holds the view that the accusations regarding Amazon’s alleged favouritism toward  their private label products within recommendation widgets, along with algorithms that  seemingly exclude sellers from the “Buy Box”, requires immediate rectification. It is evident that  these practices need adjustment to ensure fair competition on the platform. However, there is a  possibility that Amazon might seek alternative approaches to maintain its strategic advantage  despite any corrective actions taken. 

How will these improvements affect operational efficiency and the company’s relationships with third-party vendors? 

According to Dr. Gopal, opting for a change could notably impact efficiency, especially in relation  to Amazon’s hallmark “next-day delivery”. To ensure clarity, if Amazon intends to uphold this  service standard, it should be communicated clearly up front. Yet, sellers should also have the  freedom to specify longer delivery times, aligning with transparency and allowing them to  manage customer expectations effectively. 

In terms of Amazon’s relationship with third-party vendors, transitioning from a fulfillment focused approach to a platform-oriented one will likely attract more vendors. This evolution  would enable vendors to diversify their distribution, not solely relying on Amazon but exploring  other e-commerce platforms. This diversification could reduce Amazon’s monopolistic  tendencies and compel the company to offer more competitive terms to vendors in order to  remain appealing in the market, which would ultimately benefit both vendors and the e-commerce landscape as a whole. 

What is Amazon’s future? Will the FTC succeed? 

Dr. Gopal anticipates a shift in Amazon’s operations post lawsuit, expecting operational  enhancements in the aftermath of legal proceedings. Nevertheless, an alternate viewpoint  surfaces when considering the imminent election and its potential impact on the FTC’s  administration.  

The prospect of a change in the FTC leadership due to the upcoming presidential election offers  a new angle to the narrative. This potential shift in administration might embolden Amazon to  prolong its legal battle, seeking a more sympathetic disposition from the incoming officials.  Hence, the company might persist in its strategic maneuvering, buoyed by the hope of a more  favorable regulatory climate.

While Dr. Gopal foresees some lawsuit outcomes in the near future, he doesn’t expect Amazon  to concede entirely to the FTC’s demands. The company is likely to fortify its position leading up  to the election. 

Interestingly, Dr. Gopal’s conversation with Barry C. Lynn, a liberal American journalist and writer currently advising the Federal Trade Commission on the Amazon antitrust lawsuit, reveals a contrasting perspective. According to him, the FTC is confident in its ability to win on most of the allegations, indicating a strong belief in its case against Amazon. 

Where from Here? 

According to a former Justice Department antitrust official, George Hay, “Amazon has had years — at  least since Lina Khan came to the FTC — to think about this lawsuit and how they’re going to defend  against it.”  Indeed, with Amazon’s lengthy preparation and the FTC’s determination, the stage is set for  a protracted legal showdown. This impending battle signifies just the initial chapter in the FTC’s broader  campaign to dismantle the monopolistic grip exerted by tech giants. As we await the unfolding of  events, the trajectory of this struggle will undoubtedly shape the landscape of the tech industry for  years to come.

The Changing World of Work: Current Employer and Employee demands in the Irish Job Market

Posted on by Leave a comment

Jessica Weld

On a cold November morning, I squeezed through the typical rush to board a packed Irish Rail Commuter service from Sallins & Naas to Dublin Heuston. As I sat on one of the last available seats, I took notice of the other passengers around me. Many of them were fellow college students and the remainder were workers on their way to their respective nine to fives. 

It made me think: Wow, aren’t we supposed to be in an era of remote working? 

With the recent news of the co-working giant WeWork’s move to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US due to the falling numbers of office attendance, I pondered on the current demands in the job market and its remote working allowances. Some of Dublin’s largest firms have begun to scale back the office space they occupy in the City Centre. Deloitte has announced plans for its new office space in Dublin to have around 1,400 desks for its circa 2,500 employees. To make the comparison black and white, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, firms had to have desks for every single last one of its employees. Remote working was only a mere fantasy to most workers. Nowadays, it’s almost an expectation.

The question is: What is the consensus amongst employers to allow their employees to work from home? And is the lack of remote working opportunities a deal breaker for workers seeking employment?

To help answer these questions I had a discussion with Chloe Gallagher, a Senior Recruitment Consultant at Dublin based recruitment firm Eirkoo. Chloe recruits on behalf of Eirkoo’s clients in the Financial, Professional and Legal services sectors, possessing a special interest in roles relating to emerging markets in ESG areas. Boasting over four years of experience in the world of recruitment, Chloe has been on the front lines of the employment market both pre and post pandemic, garnering a deep understanding of the changes COVID-19 has inflicted on the workspace. Here is what she had to say:

We hear tales of companies downsizing or closing their office buildings to move their operations fully remote. Have you seen this happening around Dublin?

“Definitely in the tech sector, this has happened. The tech sector had the infrastructure to support this better at the time than other industries. This was big at the start of the pandemic where firms didn’t renew leases on their buildings. Although this isn’t as widespread as people may think. Employers are big on getting their employees in the office at least two days a week. A fully remote role is really difficult to come by at the moment.”

What changes have you seen from Employer’s offerings since the COVID-19 pandemic?

“There has certainly been a more flexible offering across the board with all employers. In 2022 we saw “The Great Breakup” where about 1 million women left their roles due to a lack of flexibility afforded by their employers. Flexible hours is now a lot more wide scale since before the pandemic, for example women can take a few hours off during the day to pick their children up from school and make up the time in the evening.

A development I’ve seen recently is in alternative offerings like Wellbeing Programs and other areas of Corporate Social Responsibility like Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. Support like this can be really important for prospective employees. For example, one of the clients I hired for had a Parent Support Group which proved really attractive to working parents.”

What proportion of the roles you recruit for offer remote working opportunities and what flexibility are employers affording in relation to working hybrid or  fully remote?

“Most roles do offer remote working upon completion of a probation period but as I said, it is very difficult to get a fully remote role in today’s job market, even though the current position of the market is ‘candidate short’ meaning that recruiters everywhere are in headhunting mode, a non-negotiable for firms is office attendance.

I have seen many instances where employees have rejected this, one client I was recruiting for told me that when Covid-19 restrictions eased and offices opened up, one of her staff handed in his notice when he was asked to return to the office.”

Has a lack of remote working been a dealbreaker for any of your candidates?

“It definitely has, of the few fully remote jobs I recruit for, I have seen people take pay cuts of up to €20,000 for the flexibility of fully remote working. Especially when working parents have to consider high childcare costs or if someone’s daily commute can be three hours or more, remote opportunities are very valuable.

Something I’ve observed is that because employees have gotten so used to remote working that they are sometimes anxious about returning to the office. This can sometimes be a reason why candidates are more likely to take up a remote role. 

This is something employers have had to consider to support staff on both sides of the fence, helping employees adapt to working remotely which can be often isolating and also supporting employees in their return to the office environment which can be overwhelming.”

Apart from salary, what else are candidates demanding in roles? Has this changed from pre-pandemic times?

“I’ve noticed that especially amongst the younger generations of workers, wellbeing initiatives have become a key factor in attracting candidates to roles. There has been a huge shift in promoting wellbeing in the workplace and many firms offer benefits like Employee Assistance Programs which can be very attractive. The Wellbeing agenda has been pushed by organisations like IBEC in recent years.

Thinking in comparison to the generation of my parents, back in those days an attractive benefit would be a pension and they wouldn’t expect any more. There has been a big change in this regard. Considering companies like Google and LinkedIn where the facilities and benefits never end because they don’t want you to leave the office!

One benefit that would be almost unheard of before the pandemic is the ability to work from abroad. This is quite rare and is usually only afforded to senior management but if there is an opportunity to work towards this, it can be a strong factor to attract candidates towards an organisation.”

What feedback have you gotten from candidates in remote jobs?

“The feedback overall has been very positive. People have more time to spend with their families, they take up new hobbies and they can get active by getting into walking and running. By not commuting every day, workers have more spare time to enjoy.

A big benefit in management roles is less of a need for work travel for meetings and the flexibility of remote working has allowed mothers to remain in the workplace for the most part as they can work around their families.

There are negatives to remote working of course, many people feel isolated as they can be stuck working in their box room for example. Another issue would be that people sometimes find it hard to disconnect from their work and they are more inclined to work after hours. Having a good company culture and support from your employer is important for a good remote working experience.”

–

So as it seems, remote working is still around and is here to stay, although I wouldn’t advise that anyone decides to relocate to Inis Oírr anytime soon. A Hybrid model of working seems to be the way forward for most companies and anyone in the market for a new job will be hard pressed to find a role that is fully remote. 

For now, I’ll have to put up with the busy commute and learn to appreciate the joys of being packed in like sardines on the Red Line Luas. Although, it’s not all that grim; I’ll get to look forward to the comforts of being at home two to three days a week and a wellbeing programme by way of dog therapy and free fruit in my future graduate role. It really was high time that working parents were given more flexibility and being in the next generation of workers, which is something that I as a future member of the workforce celebrate. As it seems, compromise is the name of the game in today’s job market, and a proactive stance to the effects of COVID-19 on the workplace is critical.

Interview with GiveDish 

Posted on by Leave a comment

Zain Alkhatib, Anna Lelashvili and Rein Samarah

Givedish is a social enterprise working with restaurants and cafes to tackle food insecurity, both nationally and globally. For every GiveDish meal sold, a meal is donated to those in need! Cian McGlynn and Olwyn Patterson discuss the story behind their social start-up. 

How does it work? 

A GiveDish meal can be purchased at any of GiveDish’s partner restaurants: Bread 41, Mad Yolks, Chimac, and most recently, Sumaki. The social enterprise partners with Mary’s Meals; a school-feeding programme owned and run by community volunteers in countries to provide free meals. With Mary’s Meals, it costs €18.30 to feed a child for a school year. GiveDish breaks down this cost to fund the free meals provided by Mary’s Meals. On GiveDish’s website, viewers can see the number of meals donated by each partner restaurant. In September alone, GiveDish’s three partner restaurants donated 1,096 meals – and this is only the start! 

The Team

Cian is a second-year Global Business student who became involved with Trinity Entrepreneurial Society. After a few months with the society, he decided to participate in LaunchBox, making his dream to set up a business a reality.

Olwyn is a third-year MSISS student who always had a desire to make something of her creativity. She fondly recounts that as a child that she used to make loom-band bracelets with her friends to sell at charity day in school. Now, she tie-dyes jumpers, socks and t-shirts to sell for charity on Instagram. Upon starting in Trinity, she began to think “about business and entrepreneurship more seriously” and realised that she “could have a larger impact through business than just donating money myself.”

Where they are now

Cian and Olwyn took part in Trinity’s Launchbox, with their start-up, GiveDish, winning 3rd Prize. Launchbox is an accelerator run by Tangent every summer, where ten teams are given office space and €10,000 to work on a start-up. Cian and Olwyn believe that they met some of the coolest and most interesting people through Launchbox. Great speakers such as Dan Hobbs from Protex AI, and Eric Risser from Artomatix (both Launchbox alumni), worked with the start-up groups.

During the interview, Cian and Olwyn revealed that they came up with their enterprise idea “by chance”. Having entered LaunchBox with a “completely different idea”, the team pivoted after some early discovery and research different business models. One of their mentors, Conor Leen (founder of Stampify), introduced them to a Canadian company with an interesting model and, after conducting some customer discovery, the team were set on taking action.

With regards to the name of the business, the team experimented by typing “as many variations of names that could work into GoDaddy to see if the domain was available”, before finding givedish.com to be perfect. They have since changed their domain to givedish.org, however, can still be found at the original givedish.com domain.

Currently, GiveDish is working on building a software application with some help from a developer, as well as slowly refining their processes and making it more transparent. Furthermore, they are looking to help locally; with the rising cost of living, there are problems on Ireland’s doorstep that must be addressed.

GiveDish’s vision is to make donations seamless for people and increase the ease and convenience of donating by making donation part of a daily activity. GiveDish also solves the problem of decreasing profit margins for restaurants by increasing sales of higher profit-margin items. This is achieved primarily through social media; gaining new followers and new partners, and ultimately, donating more meals.

Plans for the future

GiveDish’s goal is to donate 1 million meals to children in need. The social enterprise have many more partners in the works and will continue to tackle food insecurity both globally and in Ireland. To keep up to date with how many meals GiveDish donate, keep an eye on their website. 

Get in Touch

Website : https://www.givedish.org/givedish-partners

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/givedishsocial/

« Older Entries Recent Entries »