Tesla stakeholders will be discussing two proposals that host several ESG-related issues at the company’s AGM on 22 September.
Firstly, charity Sisters of the Good Shepherd has filed what is known as the Human Rights Disclosure proposal due to their concerns about the actual and potential human rights impacts in Tesla’s operations and supply chain.
The proposal asks for Tesla to prepare a report on the company’s processes for embedding respect for human rights within operations and through its business relationship.
Non-profit Investor Advocates for Social Justice and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), a proxy advisory firm, have voiced their support for the proposal.
ISS has reportedly stated that additional reporting on human rights due diligence would help shareholders assess the effectiveness of Tesla’s human rights risk management efforts.
While Tesla has a Supplier Code of Conduct and Human Rights and Conflict Minerals Policy in place, the proposal states that company disclosures ‘do not demonstrate effective implementation of a robust human rights commitment throughout the business.’
Secondly, Kristin Hull, founder and CEO of social impact fund Nia Impact Capital, will speak at the EV giant’s annual meeting against the company’s use of mandatory arbitration for employee sexual harassment and racial discrimination claims.
Late last year, Ms Hull filed first of its kind-proposal requesting that Tesla’s Board of Directors oversee the preparation of a report on the impact of the use of mandatory arbitration on Tesla’s employees and workplace culture.
According to Bloomberg, Tesla’s board opposes the proposal, reportedly stating that Nia has not stated “convincing support for a correlation between arbitration and harassment, discrimination or limits on employee grievances generally.”
The company reportedly added that it is committed to maintaining a diverse and inclusive workforce and says arbitration offers an alternative form of adjudication that is often quicker than trial, and just as fair.
