Nehir Solmaz

In recent times, pinpointing greenwashing has become increasingly challenging. As you walk down Grafton Street with your no-straw mug and reusable tote bag, your perceptions are shaped by subtle messages, leading you to trust companies that give out false promises. Without even realising it your perceptions are shaped by these messages, leading you to trust companies who claim to be sustainable yet may lack a genuine commitment to the environment.

You care about what you consume because you care about the planet; therefore, you choose the green market. But what exactly is the green market, and is it green because such companies care about the planet as much as you do, or are they simply checking a box?

Sustainability in the Spotlight

As a conscious consumer, it’s safe to assume you engage with ethical consumption for the greater good of the planet by way of choosing green products or service offerings. However, this green market is often blurry and questionable, leaving you to wonder how ethical the green market claims to be – if they are ethical at all. This raises many questions about the sustainable ethos of many businesses, particularly their intentions when it comes to implementing sustainable initiatives.

On 1 January 2016, the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were officially adopted by world leaders. These goals not only foster economic growth and social welfare, but are also integrated into social systems to tackle a plethora of challenges while highlighting the urgency of addressing climate change. With the UN hitting the gas pedal on going green, there has been a surge in companies adopting green branding, often presenting themselves as eco-friendly without making significant changes to their environmental impact.

By the 2010s, being sustainable had already evolved into a mainstream expectation for companies. However, what really led to many consumers favouring eco-friendly products and practices was the power of social media. In August of 2015, marine biologist Christine Figgener posted a graphic video of herself and team pulling a plastic straw out of a turtle’s nostril, grasping over 35 million views. With this growing influence of social media, consumers began to realise the alarming impact simple consumption experiences had on the earth, leading to a mass desire to be more sustainable. 

In 2018, Starbucks began using paper straws as a sustainability incentive, closely followed by McDonald’s. In 2020, the UK banned plastic straws entirely. Such acts of eco-friendliness within the global market quickly caught people’s attention. Consumers were intrigued by the prospect of having a positive impact on the earth simply by drinking their frappuccino with a paper straw or shopping from the new H&M “Conscious Collection”.

A 2020 McKinsey US sentiment survey revealed that over 60% of customers are willing to pay more for sustainable products. Similarly, research conducted by Nielsen IQ found that over the past three years, sales of “zero waste” products in the global market have seen a surge of 34%. These statistics highlight not only a strong consumer preference for eco-friendly options but also a clear recognition from market leaders that consumers actively seek sustainable choices. This demand is reshaping advertisement strategies of most industries, in some cases pushing them to prioritise green marketing rather than actually environmental responsibility.

Sustainability or Superficiality? 

The burning question: are companies committed to long-term sustainability or just simply “greenwashing” to capitalise on consumers’ good faith? Companies use greenwashing tactics to boost sales and benefit from sustainability-centered consumer demand. According to Zippia, 58% of global companies are guilty of greenwashing. Since consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products, greenwashing has evolved to be one of the most effective modern marketing techniques despite its unethicality.

Since green marketing is actively shaping consumer preferences across the market, businesses are facing a critical decision: invest in real sustainability or risk losing consumer trust. If companies fail to back their claims with meaningful environmental action, they are likely to face reputational damage and scrutiny.

Genuine sustainability is a long-term competitive advantage if companies integrate eco-conscious practices into their business models. Brands like Lush, Patagonia, and Uncle Studios have successfully constructed their reputations, embracing true sustainability. Notably, Patagonia not only uses recycled materials in its products but also motivates their customer base to repair and reuse their gear rather than buying new items and declaring earth as its sole shareholder. Similarly, Lush focuses on package-free products, ethically sourced ingredients and demonstration of strong commitment to ecological welfare through active engagement in reforestation, renewable energy, animal conservation and sustainable supply chain initiatives.. These companies have developed a powerful consumer base fueled by trust and loyalty, proving that authentic sustainability can drive long-term financial success. 

On the other hand, globally recognised brands like H&M and Nestlé have faced immense backlash for greenwashing despite strong financial performance. They have used green marketing as a PR strategy without engaging in meaningful changes in production or sourcing. For example, H&M’s “Conscious Collection” promotes sustainable fashion, however it was revealed that the brand engages in overproduction and exploitation, contributing to massive textile waste and unethical practices. Similarly, Nestlé, states that the company is committed to making 95% of its plastic packaging recyclable or reusable, however reports suggest Nestlé is a part of a group of five firms responsible for 24% of global plastic waste. 

Future or Fad?

Although greenwashing violators may attain strong financial returns, their business strategies are not sustainable in the long-run. In an era of digitalization, consumers are more knowledgeable than ever on climate change, sustainability, and ethical consumption. Therefore, businesses must demonstrate long-term commitments to achieving environmental sustainability rather than relying on deceptive marketing tactics. By embedding sustainability into the core of a company’s operations rather than using it purely as a marketing tool, brands can differentiate themselves, boost their supply chain efficiency and green branding. 

However, the question still remains: is sustainability truly reshaping the business landscape, or is it just a trend that companies have turned into a marketing tool? As regulations tighten and consumer awareness grows, businesses that embrace real change will likely emerge as industry leaders, while those that engage in greenwashing may struggle to keep up in the long-term. The future of marketing is not just green; it is one which favors accountability and is driven by businesses who understand that sustainability is essential for long-term success.

Mariia Kashirina

The COVID-19 pandemic has irreversibly transformed the way we work. What was once considered a rare privilege has rapidly become the norm—more than 80% of organisations worldwide have now adopted remote or hybrid working models according to Deloitte UK.

This shift has brought undeniable advantages: convenience, flexible schedules, the elimination of daily commutes, and improved work-life balance. For many, productivity has increased — and with it, personal satisfaction. Yet while the benefits of remote work are widely acknowledged, its emotional and social consequences — particularly for young professionals — are often overlooked.

The New Work Landscape

Emerging data reveals a more complex picture. Despite enjoying greater autonomy, over one in three young professionals reported struggles with mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. Feelings of isolation, weakened social connections, and reduced access to informal support networks have become prominent concerns in this new remote reality. With limited in-person interactions, many miss out on everyday social interactions, peer learning, and emotional reassurance — elements that are especially vital in the early stages of any career.

To better understand the scope of this challenge, researchers at Trinity Business School conducted surveys and interviews with young professionals — aged 18 to 35 —  as part of the Grand Challenges module. The findings uncovered a disconnect that goes beyond physical distance:

• 83% of respondents stated they feel more productive in in-person environments, highlighting the limitations of remote work in fostering spontaneous problem-solving and informal team bonding.
• 41% admitted they rarely engage with co-workers remotely, further deepening the sense of disconnection.
• 55% reported missing the stress relief and non-verbal cues typically observed through face-to-face peer support, making emotional expression and interpretation more difficult in virtual settings.

These findings are particularly relevant in Ireland, where more than 260,000 students were enrolled in higher education during the 2023/2024 academic year. As these students transition into the workforce, understanding the intersection of remote work and mental health is becoming increasingly urgent.

Preserving Connection & Wellbeing in the New Workplace

As this generation enters a professional landscape shaped by virtual workspaces, one critical question arises: how can we ensure that social connection — and, by extension, mental wellbeing — is not left behind?

To explore this further, I spoke with Dr. Tatiana Andreeva, Associate Professor at Maynooth University and a researcher in hybrid work and knowledge management. She offered crucial insights into the emotional challenges facing young professionals in remote-first environments — and, more importantly, what individuals and organisations alike can do to address them.

According to Dr. Andreeva, while the downsides of remote work are becoming more widely recognised, the real challenge lies in how we define them. One of the key obstacles, she argues, is the overuse of the word “isolation” without truly understanding its meaning.

“People often say they feel isolated, but we rarely ask — from what or from whom?” Dr. Andreeva explains. “Is it isolation from colleagues, from leadership, from tools, or from organisational culture?” This distinction, she notes, is essential. Only by identifying the specific type of distance remote workers experience can organisations and individuals respond effectively.

Dr. Andreeva points out that while remote work may reduce in-office contact, it often increases time spent with family or friends, due to more flexible schedules. However, this trade-off does not always benefit young professionals. For those just starting out — often living alone in new cities and beginning their careers from scratch — remote work can result in disconnection on all fronts. “Young professionals, particularly those who’ve recently graduated or relocated, might not yet have a strong social or professional network,” she says. “If they also feel powerless to initiate workplace interactions because they’re junior, the risk of disconnection is even higher.”

This is where organisational design plays a crucial role. Dr. Andreeva’s ongoing research into hybrid line management has shown that junior employees often face invisible barriers to learning and mentorship — simply because their senior colleagues are less present in the office. Even when companies introduce mandatory in-person days, a lack of coordination can undermine their effort. “You might come in Monday-Tuesday while your teammate comes in Wednesday-Thursday. You never cross paths. That’s not collaboration — it’s parallel isolation.”

More concerning still, inconsistent visibility can affect career progression. Dr. Andreeva recalls an interview with a manager who admitted — despite best intentions—to favouring employees he happened to see more frequently in person. “Some organisations try to address this by introducing anchor days where everyone comes in on the same day,” she says. “But in practice, only 30-40% actually follow through.” 

Done right, however, hybrid work does not have to limit social connection — it can redefine it. Dr. Andreeva highlights creative initiatives introduced by some companies: daily meetings with time set aside for casual conversation, or random virtual “blind lunch” pairings between employees who might not otherwise interact. “It sounds simple,” she says, “but in some cases, these virtual interactions are more inclusive than in-person ones — particularly for those who are shy or new.”

That inclusivity is one reason why remote work, despite its challenges, should not be dismissed. “We have to stop assuming that going back to the office is the only solution,” Dr. Andreeva. “It might work for some, but alienate others. The goal isn’t to force people back into buildings — it’s to design systems that foster connection, wherever people are.” 

This proactive design must also extend to mentorship. Rather than relying on a single mentor, Dr. Andreeva encourages young professionals to seek distributed support—reaching out to multiple individuals for different forms of guidance. “And your mentor doesn’t always have to be a senior executive,” she adds. “Peers or slightly more experienced colleagues are often more approachable and provide more relevant advice.”

Advice for Young Professionals

That said, Dr. Andreeva acknowledges how intimidating it can be for young professionals to initiate contact — especially in virtual settings. “Many hesitate because they feel they’re bothering someone,” she says. “But if your message is clear and specific — asking for advice on something the other person is experienced in — it’s much easier for them to say yes.”

For young professionals working remotely, Dr. Andreeva’s advice is clear: be proactive. Do not wait for connection to happen—create it. Propose virtual coffee chats. Volunteer to organise informal online sessions. Even small efforts can enhance visibility and foster genuine relationships. “There’s a concept called job crafting,” she explains, “where employees shape their roles around their interests. It might start with hosting a weekly catch-up, but it could evolve into a leadership opportunity.” 

However, the responsibility cannot fall solely on individuals. Organisations must take an active role in designing remote and hybrid environments that encourage connection, learning, and equity. This means aligning anchor days to suit team dynamics, building structured networking opportunities, and equipping line managers to support junior staff — wherever they’re based.

Finally, Dr. Andreeva offers a note of caution regarding how remote work is perceived—particularly when it comes to inclusion. “There’s still a stigma, especially for women who choose remote work for caregiving reasons,” she says. “Even after COVID, remote workers are often judged more harshly. Unless we confront that bias now, it could shape the future of remote work in damaging ways.” 

As hybrid work becomes the standard, the challenge — and the opportunity — lies in being deliberate. Connection no longer happens by accident in the hallway or break room. It must be cultivated —through intentional design, proactive effort, and a shared commitment to inclusion and belonging.

Connor Leonard, Rachel Ranjith & Zara Pribicevic

Artificial intelligence has evolved into more than a mere scientific advancement; it has transformed into a competitive arena for efficiency and worldwide dominance. Central to this evolution is ChatGPT, previously the preeminent leader in conversational AI, now confronted by a significant rival: DeepSeek. With its efficiency-driven approach and open-source architecture, DeepSeek heralds a shift in AI development, raising questions about the balance between adaptability and specialisation.

However, the ramifications extend beyond artificial intelligence models. NVIDIA, the leader in AI chip manufacturing, has experienced a challenge to its supremacy as DeepSeek demonstrates the availability of alternatives. Meanwhile, as the U.S.-China AI rivalry increases, innovation has turned into a geopolitical hotspot. With dynamic changes in the AI realm, how does DeepSeek contest ChatGPT, and what influence are felt by NVIDIA? How is the overarching AI weapons race changing global power dynamics?

The ChatGPT Phenomenon

A true marvel of modern invention, ChatGPT, the golden child of OpenAI’s GPT architecture, has become the standard for conversational AI. Alongside its ability to generate human-like text, answer complex questions and assist with tasks, ChatGPT’s ability to provide personal and professional responses have exponentially multiplied its user base, ranging from students to suburban moms to 9-5 workers. We can trace the success of this model back to its scale; trained on vast amounts of data, it uses a generalist approach to handle a wide array of tasks. Like any true everyday hero, it can write your college essay, debug your code or help you draft a breakup text.

However, the unfortunate downfall of this ‘everything-tool’ lies in its defining generalist approach. While ChatGPT excels at breadth, it, more often than not, struggles with depth, especially in specialised domains. Its reliance on pre-2021 data for GPT-3 also limits usability. These limitations, along with increasingly high subscription prices, highlight a growing tension in AI development. Will ChatGPT manage to stay relevant while the pendulum of user demand swings back and forth between versatility and expertise?

DeepSeek: A New Challenger

Cheaper and better products from China never come as a surprise, and yet, the advent of DeepSeek seemed to shock U.S. AI oligarchs. Capable of ChatGPT-esque speech (since they share the same foundational technology) while also offering a broader spectrum of knowledge, DeepSeek distinguishes itself through a more focused approach. DeepSeek is designed to prioritise efficiency and precision, often excelling in cases where ChatGPT’s generalism might fall short. However, once again, the strengths of this model are also its downfall, as DeepSeek’s narrower focus comes with trade-offs. By optimising specific tasks, it may lack the versatility that has made ChatGPT so popular. 

DeepSeek’s emergence suggests a growing recognition that one-size-fits-all solutions may not be sufficient as AI applications become more diverse and complex. However, this shift toward specialisation also risks creating a fragmented AI ecosystem, where users must navigate multiple tools for different tasks, rather than relying on a single, unified platform. The challenge for DeepSeek, then, is to prove that its targeted approach can deliver enough value to justify the added complexity.

Differences, Implications and Competitive Advantages

A key asset of DeepSeek’s groundbreaking reveal was its computational efficiency. While ChatGPT and other US AI oligarchs invest billions in AI chips for model training, DeepSeek achieves almost superior performance using only a quarter of the AI chips required for ChatGPT. This efficiency causes a ripple effect in multiple spheres. It significantly reduces cost of operations. For an increasingly climate conscious consumer, this efficiency results in a lower resource footprint that could serve as a major competitive advantage. Additionally, the reduced requirement for expensive state-of-the-art AI chips significantly lowers the barrier to entry, making it easier for smaller businesses to access the necessary hardware for deploying advanced AI models.

Another key differentiator is DeepSeek’s open-source nature. This is contrasted by OpenAI’s proprietary model which, ironically enough, started off open-source (lending to the brand name, OpenAI). DeepSeek’s openness of a superior model strips some competitive advantage from ChatGPT, as it enables broader access to creating models of similar intelligence. It must be stated, however, that an open-source model is not without fault. Without centralised oversight, there may be significant challenges in maintaining consistency, preventing misuse, quality control, security, and ensuring ethical standards.

The implications of DeepSeek are understandably widespread and have both erased and created competitive advantages on both sides of the competition. The impact can also be seen in industries adjacent to AI, such as NVIDIA, the lead supplier of coveted AI chips.

NVIDIA: An Overview

NVIDIA has been one of the most remarkable success stories in the stock market over the past few years. The company, originally known for manufacturing high-performance graphics processing units (GPUs) for gaming, has transformed itself into an artificial intelligence (AI) powerhouse. This pivot has driven NVIDIA’s stock price to unprecedented levels, with its market capitalisation surpassing $1 trillion in 2023, making it one of the most valuable tech companies in the world.

A key driver behind this explosive growth has been the surge in demand for AI-related computing power. NVIDIA’s cutting-edge chips, particularly its H100 and A100 GPUs, are essential for training and deploying large AI models. This dominance in AI infrastructure has led to exponential revenue growth, allowing NVIDIA to post record-breaking earnings and maintain its stronghold in the semiconductor industry.

AI has become inseparable from advanced semiconductor technology. Training large-scale AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT-4 and Google’s Gemini, requires vast computational resources. NVIDIA’s GPUs, with their parallel processing capabilities, are the gold standard for AI workloads, significantly outperforming traditional central processing units (CPUs).

The reliance on NVIDIA’s technology for AI development has made the company indispensable to major tech firms. However, the company is also reliant on AI firms continuing to use their chips. An analyst from UBS estimated that Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and Alphabet collectively make up 40% of NVIDIA revenue. 

NVIDIA’s Stock Crash: The Facts

Recently, NVIDIA’s stock experienced a sharp decline amid concerns over the emergence of DeepSeek, a new AI player backed by Chinese tech firms. DeepSeek was able to develop a GPT with a combination of NVIDIA chips and cheaper alternatives. The use of cheaper alternatives was previously thought to be impossible in the short term, thus the demand for NVIDIA chips is uncertain in the future.

The stock dropped 17% to $188.42 in one day, erasing nearly $600 billion of value – the largest one day drop in U.S. history. It briefly recovered up to $128.99 over the next few days, but recently it seems to have found an equilibrium.

The future value of the company is still uncertain. The quality of copycat AIs is uncertain, as well as what effect, if any, they will have on NVIDIA’s biggest buyers. Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet have already built their software around NVIDIA chips which makes a decoupling seem unlikely. However, there are also broader geopolitical aspects to this issue.

DeepSeek, AI, and the Great Geopolitical Chessboard

Let us rewind to how AI rose to power to become a tool in political debate. The first AI Safety Summit was organised by then-UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and the outcome was stellar. The Bletchley Declaration was this summit’s achievement – 28 countries, including the United States and China, signed the agreement, promising international co-operation in order to manage the challenges and risks that AI posed. 

The tables have now turned, and at the most recent AI Summit in Paris a new declaration was put forward: “A pledge for Trustworthy AI in the World of Work”, reiterating the importance of transparency and promoting AI accessibility in order to avoid a digital divide. 60 countries signed the declaration, including China, however the UK, who was once an advocate for AI safety, followed suit with their special partner the US, who also refrained from signing the agreement. Vice President JD Vance emphasised that he had concerns over “authoritarian censorship”. The Paris AI summit has shown a change in the dynamics, with an emphasis on geopolitical rivalry and the never ending pursuit of economic and technological advantage.

The United States: Not Amused

Let’s talk about efficiency. This January, while President Trump made Elon Musk’s schedule busier than ever with the introduction of the Department of Government Efficiency, a Chinese firm used creative methods to increase artificial intelligence efficiency –  DeepSeek. Across the pond in Washington, DeepSeek’s success has raised some serious eyebrows. The US has been cranking up the pressure on China’s AI ambitions, raising tariffs and slamming the door on high-tech chips, warning allies against playing too nice with Beijing. 

Trusted advisor J.P. Morgan and their Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy Michael Cembalest noted at a talk on the Global Market Outlook that although Deep Seek is a compelling story, it may be too good to be true. Cembalest emphasised that it was difficult to tell what really happened with DeepSeek, as Chinese statistics are not to be trusted. He compared them with his middle school child’s report, insinuating that we do not have the full picture of DeepSeek’s success story. We have to wonder though, is the US trying to play it down, and are they possibly too nonchalant for their own good?  

China: Playing the Long Game

For Beijing, DeepSeek’s rise to fame isn’t just a win – it’s a strategic flex. Following years of U.S. sanctions blocking access to high-end microchips, China found itself at a crossroads: play nice and roll over or get creative. It chose the latter, giving the country a tech boost. The long game for China begins with DeepSeek, but The People’s Republic is aiming high for full scale AI-driven industrial innovation, aligning with the new policy “Made in China 2025”, emphasising China can not only scale and commercialise emerging technologies, but also innovate and be at the forefront of the field. Beijing isn’t necessarily aiming for the crown in the AI chatbot arena, but to employ the underlying technology to create cost-effective, commercially feasible solutions, which it can subsequently export to lower-income nations. China’s objective is not exclusively “frontier AI”, but rather “mass-market AI”.

Europe: Stuck in the Middle

Meanwhile, Europe is still trying to decide what to do with its seat at the table. On one hand, leaders like former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak organised the first ever AI Safety Summit in November 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron is advocating for AI advancements leveraging the region’s nuclear energy edge, and the most recent “AI Investment Plan” pledging around €200bn towards accelerating AI development. Conversely, Europe seeks to avoid entanglement in the conflict between two technological superpowers. The European Union, hindered by internal discord and slow innovation processes, risks becoming a mere observer, rather than a player, in the race for AI, which is now a key economic driver. 

Microchips: The Tiny Giants Shaping Global Power

At the core of this AI turmoil lies the true arbiter: microchips. The United States has adopted a stringent approach by prohibiting the shipment of advanced semiconductors to China, aiming to impede Beijing’s progress in artificial intelligence. However, China is not lamenting; it is ingeniously managing its resources to maximise the performance of the chips it can still utilise. When the United States intensified its restrictions, China retaliated by restricting the export of gallium and germanium, essential ingredients for semiconductor manufacturing. What is the outcome? A semiconductor rivalry in which both parties are striving to surpass one another.

The Bigger Picture: A Tech Cold War in the Making?

DeepSeek’s emergence is but a fragment of a larger geopolitical conundrum. The AI arms race transcends the mere development of superior models; it encompasses the control of future technologies, economic dominance, and global impact. The United States and China are in conflict, Europe is striving to maintain its significance, and the global community is preparing for the enduring ramifications of a fragmented AI ecosystem. Will this be the dawn of a new digital Iron Curtain? Will innovation discover a method to dismantle obstacles? AI is not only transforming sectors; it is also redefining global power dynamics.

Most of these developments point to a future where AI is both an economic driver and a geopolitical chess piece. In many ways, this entire situation is a microcosm of a broader global transition. ChatGPT’s success and subsequent dethroning proves the need for the precarious balance between being an all-encompassing model and trying to be everything to everyone. DeepSeek’s efficiency-led approach and open-source philosophy promises new paths forward but also exposes fresh challenges. NVIDIA’s stock woes highlight how dependent entire industries are on AI’s progress — yet also how quickly that progress can redefine winners and losers. Nations grapple for control over microchips, data, and AI capabilities, while global alliances and trade deals strain under the weight of competing ambitions. As technology becomes a barometer of power, the potential for fragmentation — specialised models, trade restrictions, or strategic self-reliance — grows. What is certain is that AI is actively reshaping the balance of power — politically, economically, and technologically — well beyond chatbots and chip manufacturers.