Tech for good is a bad idea
Tech for good is a bad idea
Too click-bait? For good companies should be about good, not tech
Technology has been improving for a long time and while it’s easy to get caught up in the hype it’s important to remember that technology is really just a tool. It doesn’t create outcomes on its own, it helps people deliver value. You wouldn’t praise a carpenter’s hammer for building a chair.
Real impact, real results, lie in the outcomes and the people driving changes. We shouldn’t center conversations around ‘tech’, we should focus on the ways in which people use it and how it can make people’s lives better.
The Problem with 'Tech for Good'
I really don’t like the term ‘tech for good’ because it puts the wrong thing first. It encourages people to talk about the tech that companies build to do good rather than the good they may or may not actually be doing. This is never how ‘for good’ companies succeed. Companies that do good solve a problem with technology, but it’s not about the technology.
Technology is never the outcome, at least not in the ‘for good’ world. Don’t get me wrong, ‘tech companies’ that do good are great, but they don’t help anyone or themselves by talking about being a ‘tech for good’ company.
Consider Tesla. It’s a tech company, a sustainability company, and arguably a ‘for good’ company too. From the beginning Tesla put the problem first—transitioning from a hydrocarbon economy—and then came up with a solution: affordable sustainable transport. They used tech to get there. It’s not a tech for good company; it’s a sustainable transport company that uses tech.
You might think, "Well, that is my definition of a tech for good company—a company that uses tech to do good." and that’s good and fine but my argument is it puts the wrong focus first. People read it and think they need to build software, circuits, robots, or AI, and then try to fit the technology to a problem. This doesn’t work. They say more than 9 out of 10 startups fail, and I bet this is a big reason why.
Examples of Failure
Do you recognize any of these names?
A123 Systems
Coda Automotive
Abound Solar
Ener1
H2GO Power
Better World Books
Probably not. These are companies that tried to fit technology to a problem in sustainability and missed the point. If they’d done any user research or market validation, they’d have known it was a terrible idea. Then there are more famous failures like Segway, Google Glass, Theranos, Quibi, and Juicero. These are consumer goods companies that started with technology and then found a problem to solve with it. You could call them ‘tech for consumers’ companies, they are what happens when you put tech first.
The Right Approach: Good First, Tech Second
Tech for good is stupid. Try to do good first and see if technology can help you. The companies actually doing good don’t talk about being tech for good companies; they talk about the good they’re doing. They focus on the value they bring to people. Tech itself isn’t the value; it helps deliver it.
If you’re a tech company that, let’s say, connects homeless people to restaurants with leftovers, you don’t talk about your amazing app; you talk about the good you’re doing. ‘Tech for good’ is an arrogant way of selling yourself, and if you ask me, it signals that you don’t know what problem you’re really solving.
I have a friend attending the VivaTech conference in Paris this week who I’ve asked to keep an eye out for ‘tech for good’ companies. If there was ever a market for shorting start-ups, I’d start there. This sounds to me like ‘tech bros’ with (hopefully) good intentions trying to fit their cool ideas to problems. When if you look for the companies that just do good they probably don’t have the same shine at a tech conference like this because their people aren’t machine learning developers, instead they’re busy doing good. (I like machine learning developers by the way, the point is applying it to something is the good thing, not just to be shiny).
Measuring Impact: The Real Test of Good
So how can you tell the difference? If start ups are getting funding and building these products calling themselves ‘tech for good’ and they’re out they’re doing something, how can you tell the ones that will fail from the ones that will succeed? How can you tell the ones who say ‘tech for good’ for marketing from the ones who actually do use tech for good? Well, you ask them how they measure their success.
It's not enough to declare a technology as 'for good' because it has potential. We need to be able measure its real-world impact. The value of technology comes from tangible outcomes that benefit people and communities. For example, if a tech company uses innovative methods to mass-produce food for refugees, the focus should be on the number of families served and the improvement in their lives, not the AI models they use in their supply chains.
If they went to governments or NGOs looking for funding and started talking about regression model improvements or AI efficiency and confidence scores, they’ll get nowhere, but if they can show numbers that prove the amount of people they’ve fed and the affect it has, they’ll get the money.
Example of success
Zipline is my favourite example of this that I’ve written about dozens of times before. They are a logistics company that serve local communities on a global level. They started by looking at the problem hospitals in Rwanda had with the shelf life of blood not being long enough to serve remote areas which led to high death rates. Then, they went and used tech (fixed wing UAV drones) to solve the problem. They used tech for good but don’t talk much about their drones (Only really to the robotics nerds like me) they talk about the millions of units of blood they’ve delivered.
Conclusion: Focus on What Matters
If you’re actually for good it’s never the tech that matter. In the end, 'tech for good' should be about the people and the outcomes, not the technology itself. The tools are important, but they are just that—tools. The real drivers of change are the individuals and organisations leveraging these tools to create meaningful, positive outcomes. By focusing on measurable impacts 'tech for good' can become ‘For good’ which I think is more poignant.