You know that bit in Finding Nemo where the Tank Gang hatch their elaborate escape plan?

They’ve thought of everything: the filtration system, the bubbles, the timing. They even account for the one flaw in the plan by having Gill launch himself down the dentist’s sink first to test if fish can survive in the pipes. It’s gold on paper. Every step rigorously tested, every detail considered.

And then they end up in plastic bags floating in Sydney Harbour with no clue what to do next.

“Now what?” asks Bloat the pufferfish, staring out at the vast ocean.

That’s how I see Tech for Good in 2025. Precisely engineered solutions trapped in plastic bags, staring at the actual problems they were meant to solve with absolutely no idea how to reach them.

When Finding Nemo bubbled onto screens in 2003, I was too busy watching it on repeat to realise I was witnessing a masterclass in emotional design. The film won hearts and fundamentally altered how millions of people perceived the ocean. By giving fish human traits and relatable emotions, Pixar accidentally built one of the most effective pieces of ocean advocacy ever created.

It made us laugh, cry, and somehow care deeply about the Great Barrier Reef without delivering a single PowerPoint slide on marine conservation.

Twenty-two years later, as I navigate the murky waters of the tech-for-good ecosystem, I keep circling back to this question: why can’t our supposedly world-changing tech achieve what a little animated clownfish did so effortlessly?

The genius of Finding Nemo wasn’t in making us aware of marine conservation issues. Its power was making us feel something about the ocean. When Marlin desperately searched for his son, we weren’t thinking about coral reef statistics or ocean acidification metrics — we were emotionally invested in a father’s journey through a suddenly relatable underwater world.

This hits exactly what design researcher Don Norman pinpointed in his work on emotional design. Good design operates on three levels: gut reaction, functionality, and personal meaning [1]. Finding Nemo nailed all three. It was visually stunning, told a coherent story, and left us with meaningful connections to characters who happened to be fish.

Meanwhile, look at Ecosia, the tree-planting search engine. Technically brilliant. Genuinely plants trees. Absolutely soulless user experience. Or those carbon footprint calculators that make you feel like shit for existing and offer zero emotional payoff. We’ve built products that can measure dopamine spikes, but barely any that make people cry like a Pixar movie.

The term “Tech for Good” has spread across industry, policy, and academic circles faster than a sped-up TikTok audio of your favourite song. It sounds like a shift away from pure profit-grabbing toward something nobler [2]. But scratch beneath the surface, and things get murky fast.

The Tech for Good Institute themselves admit it’s “catchy but could mean many things” [2]. In other words, it means nothing. It’s the perfect cover for “impact washing” — slapping virtuous labels on tech that delivers sod-all real change.

Source: https://characterdesignreferences.com/

We’ve seen this movie before with “greenwashing.” Volkswagen faked emissions data while running heartwarming eco-ads. Shell talks up renewable energy while pouring billions into fossil fuels. H&M pretends old polyester shirts become new polyester shirts through fashion reincarnation [6].

It’s Meta’s “Time Well Spent” campaign while their product team optimises for rage-scrolling. It’s that mindfulness app tracking your engagement metrics to Slack channels while encouraging you to “be present.” It’s Silicon Valley word salad that lets companies feel virtuous while changing absolutely nothing about their core business models.

When Finding Nemo unexpectedly drove interest in clownfish pets, researchers feared a “Nemo effect” would devastate wild populations. Later studies showed something more interesting — there wasn’t a massive spike in clownfish purchases, but there was a huge jump in people seeking information about marine life [7]. People wanted to learn, not just consume. That’s the better outcome.

Meanwhile, most tech-for-good initiatives measure success through downloads, engagement metrics, or vague “lives impacted” tallies that tell us almost nothing about real change. Sure, the numbers look impressive in investor decks, but do they mean anything substantial? The gap between lofty claims and verifiable results keeps growing, and people aren’t stupid. They smell the bullshit [2].

The “Nemo effect” reveals something crucial: enchantment comes before action. Before we seek information, before we change behaviour, we first need to give a damn. Pixar understood this instinctively by making us care about the reef before asking us to care about the reef.

Research into a newer era of “AI for good” shows a similar pattern. These technologies function as “enchantment tools,” dazzling audiences into believing in their transformative power regardless of whether they actually work [9]. Imagine opening a climate app and feeling the way you did when Dory remembered her parents. We’d all be driving less tomorrow.

But what happens when we trust a spell that doesn’t actually work?

The core problem with most “Tech for Good” isn’t malicious intent. It’s what critic Evgeny Morozov calls “solutionism” — the naive belief that complex social problems have neat, tech-shaped solutions [10]. It’s Google’s balloon internet project (Loon) promising connectivity to remote areas but delivering mostly investor presentations. It’s One Laptop Per Child failing while PowerPoint slides claimed education revolution. It’s thinking an app can solve homelessness when the problem is housing policy.

Think about how you find that perfect tech-for-good app. You search. Google Play ranks results based on downloads, reviews, and mysterious ‘prominence’ algorithms. The discovery of “good” technology is itself controlled by systems designed to maximise engagement, not impact. Genuinely useful apps get buried under flashier alternatives with better SEO budgets. The machine is carving up your good intentions before you’ve even tapped “install.”

What if we built tech with the emotional resonance of Finding Nemo? What if instead of starting with the technical solution, we began with the emotional journey?

This isn’t about slapping inspirational quotes on your landing page or adding cute mascots to your error messages. It requires fundamentally rethinking how we approach tech-for-good:

1. Care about values, not just metrics

The Centre for Humane Technology advocates prioritising human well-being and core values over metrics designed solely to maximise user time and attention [11]. Pixar didn’t optimise for merchandise opportunities or sequel potential; they obsessed over character, emotion, and meaningful narrative.

Think about when the last time an app actually made you feel deeply understood rather than deeply analysed.

2. Bake impact into your business model

There’s a massive difference between Toms Shoes’ “buy one, give one” model and Google’s “we’ll donate 0.1% of our ad revenue to something vague.” Real tech-for-good ventures embed their mission into how they make money [2].

Ecosia plants trees with search revenue. Imperfect Foods sells “ugly” produce that would’ve been wasted. Their profit literally depends on their impact. When your financial incentives fight your mission, guess which one usually wins? (Hint: Meta’s integrity team got the axe before their metaverse team did.)

At Zero Gravity, a platform I’m currently building, we connect low-opportunity students to real career pathways. There’s no escaping the fact that our impact is baked into the product. If we don’t help people land opportunities, we don’t grow. That’s how it should be. Tech-for-good without accountability is just PR.

3. Make people feel seen

Research shows that users fundamentally want validation of their emotional experiences [14]. People seek confirmation that their feelings, experiences, and beliefs are valid, meaningful, and appropriate.

Think about how Finding Nemo validates parental anxiety without judgment — yeah I’m going there. Marlin isn’t wrong to be scared because his concerns are legitimate. His journey teaches balance, not elimination of fear.

Meanwhile, most climate apps treat you like a morally bankrupt monster for taking a flight, with zero recognition of the complex emotions involved.

The apps that last are the ones that make us feel seen, not shamed. Have you noticed Duolingo doesn’t call you lazy for missing Spanish practice? It makes you feel like you’re letting down an owl who believes in you. That’s emotional intelligence.

Well, it is until Duo starts hunting down your family.

4. Hit the identity level

As Norman points out, the “reflective level” is where tech becomes part of who we are and how we see ourselves [1]. It asks: “Does this align with my identity? Can I tell a story about why I use this?”

Spotify’s annual “Wrapped” isn’t just a visualisation of your listening data but a personalised identity statement. “This is who you are, expressed through music.” People share it because it tells their story.

The problem is that most tech-for-good creates negative identity markers: “You’re a carbon offender.” “You’re a water waster.” “You’re not doing enough.” Nobody wants those identities.

Find a story that makes people heroes, not villains. Bruce the shark wasn’t bad for being a shark; he was brave for fighting his nature. “Fish are friends, not food” works because it’s an identity upgrade, not a scolding.

Here’s a practical framework for spotting genuine tech-for-good initiatives I’m going to call the ever so catchy The Do-Good-or-Just-Sound-Good Test:

🌊 Does it make people actually give a damn? Not just understand intellectually, but feel something about the issue.

🤝 Is impact built into how they make money? If making more profit means creating more positive change (not just funding a CSR program), you’re looking at the real deal. The business model should amplify the mission, not fight against it.

📖 Do users tell their friends about it without sounding like an ad? “I love how Flash Forest helps people” vs. “My banking app has an ESG score visualisation that made me realise how problematic my investment in… hey, where are you going?”

🧭 Would it survive if the hype died? Finding Nemo stayed relevant long after the merchandise disappeared from shelves. Will you?

👥 Does it reflect real human diversity? Finding Nemo included characters with disabilities (Nemo’s “lucky fin”) and neurodiversity (Dory’s memory issues) without making them caricatures. Does your tech genuinely serve diverse needs?

You’re not building a plastic bag in Sydney Harbour. Or at least — you shouldn’t be.

The tech backlash we’re witnessing isn’t ultimately about tech itself. It’s about the gap between technology’s implied promise and its lived reality. When itpresents itself as being “for good” but fails to demonstrate authentic, verifiable positive impact, distrust naturally follows.

Source: https://characterdesignreferences.com/

I’ll admit it…I’ve been suckered. I once downloaded an app that claimed it would plant trees every time I logged on. Three months of logging in later, I discovered their “tree planting algorithm” was still “being finalised” and exactly zero saplings had been planted. The app had raised millions in venture funding. Their metrics were perfect. Their impact was a mirage.

Finding Nemo didn’t save the ocean, but it moved people in a way that decades of conservation messaging couldn’t. That emotional movement matters deeply. It created a generation that saw the ocean differently — not as an abstract concept but as a world filled with personalities and stories worth caring about.

Tech for good can’t rely on functionality and “doing good” alone. We’re building tools for humans, and humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. We’re narrative-weavers, meaning-makers, emotional validators seeking confirmation that our feelings and experiences matter.

The most impactful technology won’t just solve problems — it will make us care about them in the first place. It will validate our emotional connection to the issues and communities it serves. It will tap into our need for meaning, identity, and emotional resonance.

In a world of algorithmic gentrification and impact washing, the real revolution isn’t building better metrics. It’s building tech that makes people feel something authentic that ripples through them long after the screen goes dark.

Like that moment when Nemo finally found his way back home, and we all pretended not to cry.

References

1. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.

2. Tech for Good Institute. (2023). Tech for good: What it means and how we can deliver on it. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/03/tech-for-good-what-does-it-mean-and-how-can-we-deliver-on-it/

3. Powell, A. et al. (2022). What’s not good with ‘Tech For Good’? Critical Educational Technology. https://criticaledtech.com/2022/09/16/whats-not-good-with-tech-for-good-notes-on-radhakrishnan-powell-et-al/

4. Good Tech Lab. (2020). Defining Impact Tech. Extract from Chapter 2: The Rise of Impact Tech. https://medium.com/good-tech-lab/defining-impact-tech-819922112408

5. Bethnal Green Ventures. (2021). BGV Impact and Learning Report. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/625a6a50e620b457b31b660f/627d5d9b5f85fa6df5c1f395_BGV%20Impact%20and%20Learning%20Report%202021.pdf

6. Provenance. (2025). Retailer Greenwashing Examples 2025: Major Cases and Key Lessons for Retailers. https://www.provenance.org/news-insights/greenwashing-examples-2025-major-cases-and-key-lessons-for-retailers

7. Buckley, K. A., et al. (2017). Finding Nemo’s genes: A chromosome-scale reference assembly of the genome of the orange clownfish Amphiprion percula. Molecular Ecology Resources, 17(6).

8. Gell, A. (1992). The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology. In J. Coote & A. Shelton (Eds.), Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics (pp. 40–63). Oxford University Press.

9. Nonhuman humanitarianism: when ‘AI for good’ can be harmful. (2021). Information, Communication & Society. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1909100

10. Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. PublicAffairs.

11. Centre for Humane Technology. (2023). Ethics & Technology: The New Frontier of Responsible Board Governance. https://www.iodglobal.com/blog/details/ethics-technology-the-new-frontier-of-responsible-board-governance

12. Nesta Impact Investments. (2019). Impact Investments Annual Report. https://nestainvestments.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/impact_investments_annual_report_v4.pdf

13. The Impact of Emotional Design on User Engagement. (2023). Designlab. https://designlab.com/blog/impact-of-emotional-design-user-engagement

14. Let’s get emotional: emotion research in human computer interaction. (2022). ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221518006_Let's_get_emotional_emotion_research_in_human_computer_interaction