Discussants shared their various perspectives on inclusion and echoed the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals’ commitment to “Leave No One Behind” as the guiding principle in its consideration. Discussants viewed inclusion not only through an economic dimension but also through a social dimension. Considerations were given to social identifiers such as gender, race, age, religion, disabilities, and sexual orientation. Discussants agreed that inclusion should be grounded in providing universal accessibility and equal opportunities for everyone. Discussants proceeded to acknowledge that inclusion, however, is not often a key consideration for businesses, and that there is a misconception that an inclusion agenda runs counterproductive to a profit agenda. Discussants discussed this misconception and sought to challenge its proliferation – arguing that the importance of inclusion for businesses goes far beyond social good, and that it can also align with a business’s economic interests. It was argued that having a diverse range of perspectives is important in generating different ideas and fostering innovation, in helping businesses to successfully breach different markets, and in challenging hidden assumptions and groupthink. Tangible statistics were provided to support the notion that inclusion and profit can be economically aligned. Companies whose boards had a higher than average percentage of women outperformed those with fewer than average¹. A 2017 McKinsey report found that if there are three or more women on the board of a company or in a startup, statistically they generate a 47% higher return on equity and 55% higher earnings before interest and tax². A PIIE report also noted that companies whose executives comprised of greater than 30% women earned, on average, 6% more net profit than those with less than 30%. Diversity³ practices positively impact competitiveness through increased team efficiency and 60% higher results⁴. As such, in addition to more creativity, innovation, and balance, inclusion can generate concrete and tangible benefits as well.

Discussants shared the various challenges that they had encountered in the process of pushing for greater inclusion in their respective areas of responsibility. Policymakers noted that the public sector generally lacks sufficient understanding and knowledge on the full potential of technology, which leads to confusion on what policy agenda should be pursued with regarding inclusion. The space is new even from a policy perspective, which signifies that there are not many clear precedents on many of the topics that need to be addressed. Therefore, the issue is not only about the implementation of good policies, but also about the identification of such policies are. Even when good practices are identified, it is often hard to scale them up to a meaningful degree, especially when complemented with the necessity to accommodate the needs of everyone. In addition, investors are generally interested in matters of return on their investments, with less attention given to the importance of inclusion and sustainability, which naturally leads to a lack of funding for many social and impact-driven startups.

Governments have become increasingly aware of the impact that social enterprises have on the building of sustainable, inclusive communities. Representatives from the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) discussed some of their work and challenges within the space.

• The SMG is engaged in ongoing efforts targeted towards human development and inclusion. One of the key considerations of any project it engages in is the distributional effect of the funds invested within the community. An example of this is in the method through which the SMG makes group purchases for its operations – it grants special benefits to female-led enterprises through procedures such as a preferential purchasing system or sealed, competitive bidding.

• There has been a minimal increase in the proportion of startups founded by women in the past five years. The SMG had previously opened the Seoul Startup Hub in Mapo City and set up fifteen entrepreneurship support centres exclusively for women; however, female entrepreneurs are not making full use of the infrastructure. This highlights the difficult nature of gender inequality in the innovation space, an issue that the SMG will continue to work diligently on.

The efforts of the SMG are still in their early stages. As such, the government lacks proper indicators to guide and measure the success of impact-driven startups. The public sector in South Korea has been earmarked to significantly expand its interest in social enterprises as well as small to mediumsized businesses. It is hoped that together with this shift in focus from the government, there will be increasing commercial interest from investors. From a perspective on policy implementation, the discussion of whether new policies should be introduced or existing policies should be transformed is still ongoing. Working through changes of administration is an issue confronting all departments. Designing robust and sustainable solutions is, therefore, a must.

Discussants shared several examples of policies and projects that had successfully challenged harmful stereotypes and encouraged greater inclusion in the technology and innovation space.

• One example given was from New York City, which spends $16 billion USD annually on project procurement. The policy cited was one that stipulated that of the annual budget for procurement, a minimum of 8% must go to Women- and Minority-owned Business Enterprises (WMBEs). This example highlighted the critical role that governments can play in making investments and hence their potential in creating more opportunities for underrepresented groups.

• Another example given was from Brazil, where the City of Porto and several other cities together hosted a Hackathon, called Hackacity. Under the partnership with the Human Smart Cities Network, these cities opened up their databases and invited citizens from the community to come up with innovative solutions to the community’s urban problems. For example, in Belo Horizonte, the Open Data Portal was newly launched for the Hackathon. The first winner of the Hackathon was a low-income, homosexual woman of Afro-descent, challenging the stereotype of what an innovator should look like and alleviating the unwarranted fear of policymakers in the opening up of data.

• One last example given came from Portugal, an initiative called “Portuguese Women in Tech”. Structured as a competition, it was launched to recognise and award women who were making contributions to the technology industry. The initiative was seen to be important in showcasing female role models within the technology industry in the hope that it may inspire other women.

Discussants heard from a young entrepreneur based in Seoul with regards to her experience navigating the policy landscape of Seoul City. Three points were raised that she felt to be important.

1. Social welfare for workers is often tied to their employer, not directly to the government. As a result, workers will often be hesitant to enter newer, more fledging organisations as these organisations are generally not able to provide the same level of social welfare benefits as larger employers. Therefore, it is important that the government provides adequate social protection and social services to reduce workers’ reliance on employer-based benefits, and hence encourage more participation in the startup space.

2. Governments should measure the success of their innovation and startup funding through a more diverse set of criteria. Currently, the criteria for measuring the success of a startup are heavily skewed towards metrics around how much employment the startup generates. The government should consider a broader set of criteria, including metrics that account for growth and innovation. This shift is crucial in facilitating the increasing youth demand to pursue impact-driven enterprises in Korea.

3. Support from the government for innovation and startups is currently limited in the avenues through which support is provided. Currently, government support is primarily through funding and other financial support. However, the support from the government should be more all-encompassing – including infrastructure, mentoring systems, and the creation of an ecosystem conducive to innovation in order to maximise the chances of success for startups.

Education is a crucial factor in the continued focus on inclusion and sustainability and in the progress towards an informed, inclusive ecosystem. Those in power need to take the lead in challenging stereotypes, pushing for change, demonstrating the importance of inclusion, and sharing best practices that local communities can learn from. For full impact, leaders need to play an active part in the promotion of inclusion to demonstrate their commitment to the wider community.

Idea and policy assessment from diverse stakeholders are imperative, given that opportunities and policy impact will differ depending on the context. Based on the resulting feedback, policymakers should adopt a more longitudinal perspective in their analysis of challenges and opportunities to ensure that their policies are not counter-productive. In this light, SDGs 17 – strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable development – is the key to scaling-up and expanding the results of discussions/dialogues.

It is important that there be an aggregation of ideas and assessments from a diverse range of stakeholders. There needs to be a multisectoral platform to attract voices from all pockets of society to tackle issues confronting the innovation and technology space.