19.08% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Conduct due diligence, audit or risk/impact assessment
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Digital rights
  • Human rights
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors commission an independent study of Rekognition and report to
shareholders regarding:
- The extent to which such technology may endanger, threaten or violate privacy and/or civil rights, and unfairly or
disproportionately target or surveil people of color, immigrants and activists in the United States;
- The extent to which such technologies may be marketed and sold to authoritarian or repressive governments, including
those identified by the United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices;
- The potential loss of good will and other financial risks associated with these human rights issues;
The report should be produced at reasonable expense, exclude proprietary or legally privileged information, published no
later than December 31, 2024.
Supporting statement
Filed by: John Harrington

Amazon markets and sells facial recognition (“Rekognition”) to government that may pose significant financial risks due to
privacy and human rights implications;
Human and civil rights organizations are concerned facial surveillance technology may violate civil rights by unfairly and
disproportionately targeting and surveilling people of color, immigrants and civil society organizations;
Nearly 70 organizations asked Amazon to stop selling Rekognition, citing its role enabling “government surveillance
The ACLU found Rekognition incorrectly identified 28 Congressional members as having been arrested for a crime, and
falsely matched 1 in 5 California lawmakers. Research shows Rekognition is worse at identifying black women than white
men and misgenders nonbinary people;
Reports indicate restricting facial recognition is a rising trend:
- Multiple cities and states have banned government facial technology.
- In 2022, the Facial Recognition Ban on Body Cameras Act was reintroduced in Congress.
- UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged a moratorium on Artificial Intelligence (AI) until adequate safeguards
exist, calling for a ban on AI inconsistent with international human rights law.
There is little evidence our Board of Directors, as part of its fiduciary oversight, has rigorously assessed risks to Amazon’s
financial performance, reputation and shareholder value associated with privacy and human rights threats to all stakeholders;
For 5 years, similar proposals have been before Amazon. In 2023 the proposal received 37.40 percent support.
Responding to the growing movement against police brutality and criminal justice bias, Amazon issued an indefinite
moratorium on Rekognition used by police departments. While this acknowledges risks, it is unclear whether it includes
other government agencies. In 2021, the Government Accountability Office found 19 of 24 United States government
agencies surveyed were using facial recognition.
Microsoft banned face recognition sales to police awaiting federal regulation, then announced the removal of features from
its AI service to ensure facial recognition technology meets ethical guidelines, while IBM stopped offering the software.
Following a $550 million settlement from a lawsuit alleging nonconsensual use of facial recognition, Facebook ceased using
facial recognition

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Kutxabank Gestion SGIIC SAU. For
THEMATICS Asset Management For
Whitley Asset Management For
Anima Sgr For As, although the company has taken steps to provide its customers with guidelines on using its technological products and services, shareholders and the company are likely to benefit from an independent report on how the company's due diligence process determines whether customers' use of its products or services contributes to human rights violations.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.