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.