Why I mistrust the term "Tech for Good"

David Powell

22 Feb 2026 — 5 min read

I have worked for several companies who have, at various times, described themselves as "Tech for Good" companies. On the surface, this is great! Like many others, I want to build technology for the benefit of others. I want to feel like my work, in whatever small way, pushes the world towards being a better, more equitable place.

However, in my career, I have seen and experienced a pattern whereby founders, who may well start out with good intentions, end up making decisions that prioritise investor returns over social good and exploit the goodwill of their employees along the way.

To explain how this happens, let's tell the story of 2 software engineers, John and Tim, who both want to make the world a better place.

John's Story

Fresh out of University, John is excited to land his dream job at a Tech for Good startup. The people he meets in his interviews all seem to be truly bought into the company's mission of reducing global poverty. The pay is a little lower than at most tech companies, but he figures that's normal when working in the Tech for Good sector and is more than worth it to work for such a cool company.

At first, he loves it! He gets to work alongside wonderfully kind and smart people trying to solve meaningful problems. About a year in, he starts working on a project in partnership with a Government from the Global South, that is funded by a large NGO. However, after working hard on the project for 6 months, he gradually starts to realise that no one at the Government he is working with is using the platform and that the whole project seems to have been forced upon them by the funding NGO. It feels like a complete waste of time. Frustrated, John complains to his manager but is told that the project is a priority for the NGO, and that, as they are funding it, the work has to continue.

Later, he is excited to hear that the company is releasing an open source version of its platform for the first time! John is a big believer in the value of open source and supports the company's stated reasons that it would be great for the sustainability of its projects to be able to host a version of the platform without being dependent on the company in the long term. He is so excited in fact, that at the weekend he decides to set up the new open source platform on his personal computer for a side project. However, when he follows the setup instructions, he just keeps getting errors. The platform is non-functional. It seems to be more of a PR exercise than a genuine attempt to release a platform that could be self-hosted. Increasingly disillusioned with the company, he eventually quits.

Tim's story

Tim works at a big tech company. He enjoys a comfortable lifestyle with excellent pay and benefits, and nice colleagues. However, he finds the work, which is focused on optimising the placement of adverts, quite dull and longs to do something more meaningful. He decides to quit his job, and try to make a difference at a Tech for Good startup where he is excited to start work on the problem of reducing educational inequality through technology. In moving jobs, he takes a large pay cut but is offered equity in the early stage startup which he hopes will be worth something in the future.

However, from early on, the culture of the company seems unlike how he imagined it would be. The company's two co-founders are often arguing in meetings, putting the rest of the employees in an awkward position between them. He is also surprised to find that unlike his previous company, which had transparent salary bands for each different job role, there is no fixed salary structure across the company. He discovers, after talking to a colleague in a similar role, who is the only person-of-colour in the company, that she is paid significantly less than he is. This is despite the company's stated mission of reducing inequality. He soon checks out from his work and enquires to see if his old team will offer him his previous job back.

The problem

Whilst John and Tim's stories are fictional, the problems they experience are all based on real events that I have seen in my career. These experiences are not one-offs, but are widespread in the "Tech for Good" sector. I have personally seen and heard from many colleagues with experiences that are similar to the stories told above.

It is common, for even for-profit "Tech for Good" companies, to offer below-market salaries in exchange for the "benefit" of meaningful work. By positioning themselves in this way, they are able to attract talented and idealistic workers for lower salaries*. These workers, who often whole-heartedly believe in the stated mission of the organisation, can act in a way that produces a positive PR effect for the company. Only later in their terms at the organisation do they see under the hood and realise that company decisions do not always align with its stated social mission.

A Better Way

None of this is to say that organisations cannot build technology to provide genuine public benefit. It's not even meant as a slant against the founders of these kinds of "Tech for Good" companies. Founders do not generally start companies thinking that they are going to exploit people. They simply get caught up in the structural incentives of modern day capitalism and without actively putting safeguards in place will often end up unintentionally exploiting either their workers, the people the company is intended to serve, or both.

However, if we want to understand if an organisation is truly building technology in the public interest, there's a need to take a critical look at its structures. How is it ensuring that the decisions it makes align with its stated mission and values? There's no one way to do this, but some of the questions below may be helpful to assess this:

What is its legal structure? Is it a for-profit? A non-profit? A co-operative? Does the chosen structure suit the needs of the organisation and does it align with its social mission?
Is it set up to make millions for the founders? Whilst I believe that people building technology in the public benefit should be paid and paid well, I am highly sceptical that a company can achieve the sorts of exponential returns expected of venture capitalist funded tech startups without any form of exploitation.
How are they funded? There are many ways to fund public interest technology but it is important that the organisation has thought critically about how they are funding their work and if that funding methodology is aligned with the organisation's stated goals.
Who makes decisions? Is all the power held by a single person? Are there any oversight mechanisms to ensure the organisation’s stated values are being consistently followed?
How transparent is the organisation? Is it open about its finances, salary structures and benefits? Is it open about its key decisions and decision makers? Can it be scrutinized by its employees and external stakeholders? Is the technology open-source?

There are some great organisations out there building technology in the public interest. Some examples of organisations that appear to have thought critically about their structures include:

Ghost - the publication platform on which this blog is hosted. The organisation operates as a non-profit with an open source platform funded by users who pay for the convenience of the cloud version. They have also stated that they plan to never grow beyond around 50 employees.
Poteris is a non-profit building "technology for charities, changemakers, and campaigners". They operate a flat pay structure, with a 4 day working week and a progressive hourly rate depending on the organisation contracting them.
Technology co-operatives such as Outlandish and Common Knowledge.

Building technology in the public interest is possible but good intentions and labelling your organisation as "Tech for Good" aren't enough. Let's strive for better!

Footnotes

*Whilst I strongly believe that work in the public benefit should be paid as well or better than work for private extraction of value, I accept that pragmatism may be necessary in our current world. The objection here is that often these company's decisions do not align with their stated values and that, if and when they do make a profit, this goes to the shareholders rather than the employees.