Latest / Future of Work Tech with Fexingo: Remote Tools, AI Productivity, and Workplace Software / How Microchips Are Changing Employee Benefits
Transcript
- Lucas: So earlier this month, a small Swedish fintech company called Epicenter — which has been offering its employees microchip implants since 2015 — announced that over 60 percent of its staff have now voluntarily gotten one. And I think that number is worth sitting with for a second. Luna: Sixty percent? That is a lot higher than I would have guessed. And these are implants, right — like, under the skin? Lucas: Yeah, it's a rice grain sized RFID chip inserted between the thumb and index finger. You barely feel it. And what it does is replace your office keycard, your gym membership card, your transit pass, even your coffee shop payment — you just wave your hand over a reader. Epicenter started this almost a decade ago, and now they've got over a hundred companies in Sweden, Norway, and Finland offering it as an optional benefit. Luna: I remember reading about this a few years ago and thinking it was a stunt. But if adoption is at 60 percent after ten years, it's not a stunt anymore. It's a trend. Lucas: Exactly. And the cost is actually reasonable — about three hundred dollars per implant, plus the reader infrastructure, which most offices already have for keycards. The company typically covers it. And the pitch is pure convenience: you never lose your keys, you never forget your badge, you just walk through the door. Luna: But I have to imagine the privacy pushback is enormous. I mean, you're putting a trackable device inside your body. Your employer knows exactly when you enter and leave, maybe where you go in the building, what you buy in the cafeteria. That is a lot of data. Lucas: It is, and that's the crux of the debate. The companies offering it are very clear that it's voluntary and that the data is encrypted and not used for surveillance. But trust is a fragile thing. And in the US especially, where employee monitoring software is already controversial, the idea of a permanent implant feels dystopian to a lot of people. Luna: Right. In Sweden, the cultural attitude toward data sharing is different — there's more trust in institutions. So maybe that 60 percent opt-in rate wouldn't replicate in, say, Texas or California. Lucas: That's exactly the question. A 2024 survey from Pew found that only 18 percent of American workers would even consider a voluntary implant for workplace access. And among those who said no, the top reason was privacy concerns, followed by 'it's creepy.' So the technology works, but the social acceptance is still very low. Luna: And yet, we carry smartphones everywhere that track our location, our purchases, our browsing history. We've accepted that. So is the line at the physical boundary of the body? Or is it about who controls the data? Lucas: I think it's both. A phone you can leave at home, turn off, or throw in a river. An implant is with you 24/7. And there's also the question of what happens if you leave the company. Do you keep the chip? Can you? Usually they deactivate it, but the chip stays in your hand. So you're walking around with a dormant tracker. Luna: That's actually a good point. And it raises the question of who owns the chip after employment ends. The company paid for it, but it's in your body. That's a legal gray area that hasn't been tested much. Lucas: Right. And beyond the privacy and ownership issues, there's also the health angle. The chips are biocompatible — they're encased in glass, similar to what's used in veterinary microchipping. But any foreign object carries a small risk of infection or migration. The data so far shows very low complication rates, but it's not zero. Luna: So let's talk about the business case. Why would a company offer this? Beyond the novelty factor, is there a real ROI? Lucas: Sure. The main argument is efficiency. If you eliminate the need for keycards, passwords, and separate payment methods, you save time and administrative overhead. One study from a Swedish tech firm estimated that implant users saved an average of four minutes per day on access-related tasks. Four minutes a day times two hundred employees times two hundred fifty working days — that's over three thousand hours a year saved. That is real productivity. Luna: I can see that. But I also wonder about the signal it sends to employees. Offering implants might be seen as innovative by some, but others might view it as a violation of bodily autonomy. For a company trying to attract top talent, that could backfire. Lucas: And that's why most companies that do this frame it as purely optional, and they emphasize that there are no penalties for opting out. In fact, at Epicenter, they still issue traditional keycards to anyone who doesn't want the chip. The key is that the implant is a perk, not a requirement. But even with that framing, the adoption rate varies wildly by department. In their engineering team, it's over 80 percent. In marketing, it's closer to 40. Luna: That makes sense. Engineers are more likely to be early adopters of tech that blurs the line between human and machine. Marketers might be more attuned to how it looks to clients or the public. Lucas: Right. And that's the microcosm of the larger trend. We're seeing a slow but steady push toward biometric and implantable tech in the workplace. Not just in Sweden, but also in parts of Japan and Germany. Some hospitals in Europe are using implants for staff to access patient records hands-free. It's niche, but it's growing. Luna: So where do you see this going in the next five years? Do we reach a tipping point where implants become as common as smartphones? Lucas: I don't think we'll see mass adoption in the US or Western Europe within five years, but I do think we'll see more pilots and more companies testing the waters. The technology will get smaller, cheaper, and more capable. There are already prototypes of chips that can store medical records or function as a digital wallet. If the privacy concerns can be addressed — and if there's a clear regulatory framework — adoption could accelerate. Luna: And of course, once a few big-name companies like Google or Apple offer it, the perception changes overnight. If your employer is a household name, the chip becomes a status symbol rather than a dystopian gadget. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the fascinating thing about this whole space. The technology has been viable for years, but the adoption curve is driven entirely by culture and trust. It's not a technical problem anymore. It's a social one. Luna: Speaking of trust and culture — something that keeps this show ad-free and independent is listener support. If today's conversation gave you something to think about, and you want to help us keep exploring these kinds of topics without corporate sponsorship, you can support us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small gesture that makes a big difference. Lucas: Absolutely. And we really appreciate everyone who does that. It lets us spend time digging into stories like this one, where the tech is interesting but the human side is even more important. So thank you. Luna: Right. And to bring it back — one thing I'm curious about is whether we'll see a 'right to disconnect' law that addresses implants. Some countries already have laws that let employees ignore work emails after hours. If you have a chip that tracks your location, that line gets even blurrier. Lucas: That's a great point. In fact, Portugal and France already have right-to-disconnect laws. And the European Union is working on an AI regulation that could classify workplace biometric monitoring as high-risk. So the legal framework is starting to catch up. But it's moving slowly, and the technology is moving fast. Luna: So the big question for employers is: do you want to be an early adopter and potentially get ahead of the curve, or do you wait and see how the regulations and public opinion shake out? Lucas: And for employees, the question is: how much convenience is worth how much privacy? That's not a question technology can answer. That's a personal one. And I think that's where we'll leave it today.