1985 when the movie Back to the Future
came out we were infused we were excited
that we’re gonna have hoverboards we’re
gonna have amazing amazing technological
innovations that were all going to love
and that was great
I myself was very much into technology
apart from folding computers for some
strange reason I ended up studying law
and afterwards I worked for different
governments different institutions and
politics and all these years observed
hundreds of companies and work with
hundreds of companies to entice them and
look for ways they can be more
successful but more importantly for ways
they can be more strategic and thinking
about technology today I realized that
it’s radically different that the way it
was twenty or thirty years ago and I’ll
give you three reasons why I think
technology as such is not what it used
to be the first one is the speed of the
spread of Technology well so means what
man came out it took about 15 to 20
years to become a globally successful
product on the other hand if you take
Spotify which is this amazing music live
streamers streaming service he took up
about eight years to get 100 million
users across the world the second reason
why it’s different today is the depth at
which technology affects us and you see
that according to some statistic one out
of ten American adults is using a
smartphone while having sex now we know
that 85% of
mystics are made up but it still kind of
proves the point that this is a very
very important has very intimate effect
on our everyday lives and then the third
one is the ease-of-use
we know babies who can use an iPad even
before they can talk technology is so
accessible so easy to use which is a
great thing at the same time it just
lowers the barrier to entry so for these
three reasons I have come to realize
that that our social side effects of
technological innovation very
significant important social side effect
who among you has used Airbnb in the
past year and up whoa impressive will of
Airbnb don’t we great company great
service very interesting what they have
to offer but then if you happen to be
living in Barcelona you may have seen
news like that where there are protests
against the company because it disrupts
local communities because it has an
impact on residents in everyday
buildings so there is a certain effect
on the society as a result of technology
or if we think about self-driving cars
Google you bear many other companies are
about to roll these out in the next
couple of years and it’s amazing that on
one hand they’re going to save 30,000
maybe even more lives it’s fantastic on
the other hand it’s pretty likely
they’re going to induce unemployment for
millions of people who are living from
driving trucks or cars or other vehicles
so you might be thinking fine that’s all
great but isn’t it the job of government
regulators politicians to address this
shouldn’t they be the ones who come and
deal with these side effects whether
through laws taxation or other means
and I think that it’s actually the
companies themselves who have a good
reason to address these and you might be
wondering yeah sure why should a company
care about these side effects I think
essentially there are two reasons one is
a moral argument and the other one is a
one understood business argument the
moral argument is the way we look at
ourselves as good people that we are
saving energy that we turn off the tab
when we are brushing our teeth that we
recycle that we send a card on Mother’s
Day and company’s value driven companies
do the same look at IKEA for instance
when they would not be sourcing their
wood from endangered Brazilian
rainforest or they would engage the
local communities when they open a new
shop in the outskirts of Sofia so
companies are generally referred to as
good corporate citizens when their
morale that value driven judgment is
appreciated but then let’s look at the
one understood business argument and
that business argument can be summed up
with the following phrase that is often
quoted in the public affairs on the
lobbying world is that if you’re not at
the table you’re on the menu if you’re
not engaged in a conversation if you’re
not proactively trying to address an
issue sooner or later it’s going to bite
you sooner or later there’s going to be
some sort of backlash whether it’s
protest whether it’s lost whether it’s
taxes but it’s going to hurt you you
need to proactively engage and then
that’s all fine and good but what or
rather when can a company deal with such
an issue and if you think about startups
what’s the number one concern of a
start-up it’s the grow
to get customers to get funding to make
sure their supply chain works smoothly
it’s not about the social concern at
least for most technology driven
startups so when a bunch of college kids
are out there and they are doing amazing
job it’s not their primary consideration
but when a company especially a tech
company is scaling up its growing there
is a phase in the growth phase when they
have millions of users or customers they
are present in various countries they
are starting to affect people’s lives
that’s probably the point when they need
to start considering fine what is the
impact of what we do do we need to
address it in one way or another and if
we accept the idea that they should we
need to look at what can a company
actually do about it and I think by and
large there are three things that they
can do the first one is to show empathy
and name the problem simply say well we
have an issue here and all of you would
be aware of the heat and criticism that
Facebook got after last year’s elections
and not only that not only their
platform being used to spread fake news
but also the platform being used for
purposes which were not meant to be used
for whether it’s live streaming bullying
or even suicide and various other
backlashes
and a couple of weeks ago Facebook
founder Mark Zuckerberg he came out
where the 6,000 word level really really
long memo trying to address these issues
and some people criticized him from
being too little and too late but still
the idea of saying hey we have an issue
here whether it’s local journalism
whether again the negative ways of
attack innovation being used we need to
address it in one way or other
so that’s probably the first one showing
empathy naming the problem the second
one is compromising on the short-term to
gain on the long-term to be more
strategic in the mindset and very simple
perhaps even simplistic example for that
is if we look at Apple and iPhone and
various devices and the way they have
constructed an operating system to be
using cars now when you’re using your
phone in a car through the system it
doesn’t allow you to send a text message
while you’re driving and probably most
of you would say yeah that’s right
because you’re freedom to use the device
and the imperative to save your life and
keep you safe are connected that you
need to be limited in some sense for a
greater purpose for a more important
value than your freedom to use the
gadget at any point in time so that’s a
short-term limitation for something more
important the third one is the sponsor
third-party programs perhaps when
self-driving cars are becoming a reality
perhaps helping organizations
educational funds or other initiatives
to train those who are drivers into a
new job and support those not
necessarily a company running those but
supporting those because of this
responsibility that we’ve discussed so
with that in mind there’s just so much
innovation coming out and you will be
working in companies and you will be
founding companies maybe robotics
biotechnology whatever it may be and
chances are that those companies will
have social impact and I urge you and I
encourage you to look at those
whether for the moral argument whether
for the business argument whether for a
third one that I may have not mentioned
I encourage you to do that because we
all would like to be living in a future
that Marty McFly could come back to thank