Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.) | Nomination of Human Rights and/or Civil Rights Expert to Board at Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.)

Status
10.30% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
5
Resolution details
Company ticker
GOOGL
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Amend board structure
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Conflict and/or violence
  • Digital rights
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that Alphabet’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee nominate for the next Board election at least one candidate who:
• has a high level of human and/or civil rights expertise and experience and is widely recognized as such, as reasonably determined by Alphabet’s Board, and
• will qualify as an independent director within the meaning of the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange.
Whereas clause
Shareholders believe Alphabet requires expert, board level oversight of civil and human rights issues to assess risk and develop strategy to avoid causing or contributing to widespread violations of human or civil rights, such as supporting hate campaigns, privacy violations, or violence.



Shareholders are concerned Alphabet’s content governance has proven ineffectual and poses risk to shareholder value. Alphabet has extraordinary impact on human and civil rights, controlling an estimated 90 percent of the search market. Nearly two billion people use YouTube monthly, with YouTube’s recommendation algorithm driving approximately 70 percent of viewing.



Civil rights advocates have criticized Alphabet for failing to address hate speech that targets communities of color and marginalized groups. YouTube launched a 100 million dollar fund for black creators, yet the New York Times reports YouTube has been “successfully weaponized by racists...to undermine Black Lives Matter.” The company faces a class action lawsuit from black creators alleging Alphabet violated laws intended to prevent racial discrimination.



The Christchurch terrorist attack in New Zealand, broadcast on YouTube, led to a global call to limit the spread of extremist content. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: “We cannot simply sit back and accept that these platforms just exist and that what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published.” Yet, 2020 research found YouTube radicalized viewers by steering them to videos espousing increasingly extremist ideologies.



In 2019, employees — Googlers for Human Rights — petitioned Google not to support United States Customs and Board Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the Office of Refugee Resettlement “until these agencies stop engaging in human rights abuses,” comparing Google’s role to IBM’s enabling Nazis during the Holocaust.



Amnesty International concluded Google’s “surveillance-based business model is incompatible with the right to privacy and poses a serious threat to a range of other human rights.” An unsealed court document revealed Google is enabling reverse search warrants to disclose everyone who searched a keyword rather than information on known suspects, a practice under challenge for violating civil rights.



In 2019, Google was fined a record 170 million dollars by the Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General Letitia James over YouTube’s violation of children’s privacy. Now, a 3 billion dollar United Kingdom lawsuit alleges YouTube has “systematically broken [privacy] laws by harvesting children’s data.”



As fiduciaries, our Board is responsible for stewardship of business performance and long term strategic planning, in light of risk factors like widespread violations of human and civil rights.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Anima Sgr For
VidaCaixa For
Universities Superannuation Scheme - USS Against After careful consideration, we do not believe the proponent's resolution is in the best interests of shareholders.

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.