Human Rights & Worker Rights | Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Alphabet, Inc.</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>AI / Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Harm, Misinformation/Disinformation </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p>Whereas: Generative AI is central to Google’s business, with Gemini, Gemma, Veo 3, and<br>Nano Banana models integrated across the company’s offerings. Google’s AI Overviews have<br>two billion monthly users,1 with many users relying on Overviews instead of clicking on<br>traditional search links.2 In October 2025, Alphabet reported record quarterly revenue, with CEO<br>Pichai saying, “We’re seeing AI now driving real business results across the company.”3<br><br>Yet generative AI is prone to falsehoods. Google has acknowledged that so-called<br>“hallucinations” are “a problem for all large language models across the industry.”4 NewsGuard,<br>which assesses information reliability, found Gemini “spreads false claims” nearly 17% of the<br>time.5 Model accuracy can also be impacted by bad training data6 and efforts to “poison” models<br>by bad actors.7<br><br>Shareholders are concerned that Google generative AI produces falsehoods that cause real<br>world harm and engender legal, regulatory, financial, and reputational risks to Alphabet.<br>Ultimately, the proliferation of AI related falsehoods is creating a larger problem for society, what<br>has been called “epistemic collapse” – a world in which users are increasingly unable to discern<br>what is true or authentic.<br><br>Google has been sued in Delaware,8 Washington DC,9 Minnesota,10 and Brazil11 for harms<br>allegedly incurred as a result of falsehoods produced by Google’s generative AI.<br><br>Google’s generative AI models have stirred controversy that could threaten its business; in<br>October 2025, the Gemma model was removed from Google’s AI Studio platform after a U.S. senator alleged that it fabricated “serious criminal allegations” about her. Amidst widespread<br>media coverage, the senator advised Google: “Shut it down until you can control it.”12<br><br>Google’s Veo 3 – which can generate hyperrealistic video depicting misleading information –<br>has been integrated into YouTube Shorts; a PC Magazine reviewer says it “has the potential to<br>create disinformation on a catastrophic scale.” NewsGuard says Google’s Nano Banana Pro is<br>a “misinformation superspreader” that advanced false claims about politicians, public health<br>topics, and top brands 100 percent of the time when prompted to do so.13<br><br>While Google’s policy guidelines aim to prohibit generative AI from producing harmful factual<br>inaccuracies, shareholders question whether they are sufficiently effective at mitigating risks to<br>the company amidst a proliferation of lawsuits and new regulation regarding generative AI.14<br>Without policies and practices that minimize generative AI falsehoods, there is considerable risk<br>to Alphabet, and an “existential threat”15 to generative AI technology itself.</p>
<p>Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board commission a third-party assessment, at<br>reasonable expense, of additional actions the company could take to mitigate the proliferation of<br>false information on the platform and report to shareholders, omitting proprietary or privileged<br>information, with a summary of the outcome of the assessment. At board and management’s<br>discretion, the report may include additional uses of human, algorithmic, whistleblower or other<br>methods to more promptly detect and eliminate false information and prevent its elevation and<br>dissemination.</p>
<p>1https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/23/googles-ai-overviews-have-2b-monthly-users-ai-mode-100m-in-theus-<br>and-india/<br>2https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-whenan-<br>ai-summary-appears-in-theresults/#:~:<br>text=Google%20users%20who%20encounter%20an,are%20Wikipedia%2C%20YouTube%20<br>and%20Reddit.<br>3 https://www.techbuzz.ai/articles/google-hits-historic-100b-quarter-as-ai-drives-growth-explosion<br>4 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26219988/blackburngoogle.pdf<br>5https://www.newsguardtech.com/press/newsguard-one-year-ai-audit-progress-report-finds-that-aimodels-<br>spread-falsehoods-in-the-news-35-of-the-time/<br>6https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/04/google-meta-efamation-ai-generated-responsesaustralia<br>7https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/04/google-meta-efamation-ai-generated-responsesaustralia<br>8abajournal.com/news/article/suit-says-google-spread-radioactive-lies-against-conservative-activistthrough-<br>ai-platforms<br>9https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/rolling-stone-billboard-owner-penskesues-<br>google-over-ai-overviews-2025-09-14/<br>10 https://futurism.com/company-sues-google-ai-overviews<br>11https://valorinternational.globo.com/law/news/2025/06/06/court-orders-google-to-pay-damages-for-aigenerated-misinformation.ghtml<br>12 https://www.theverge.com/news/812376/google-removes-gemma-senator-blackburn-hallucination<br>13https://www.newsguardrealitycheck.com/p/google-new-ai-image-generator-misinformationsuperspreader?<br>utm_source=substack&publication_id=2106147&post_id=180625003&utm_medium=emai<br>l&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=emailshare&<br>triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=wcq9&triedRedirect=true<br>14 https://roninlegalconsulting.com/ai-generated-defamation-and-legal-liability-a-closer-look/ ;<br>https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2025-august/recentdevelopments-<br>artificial-intelligence-cases-legislation/ ; https://www.bakerlaw.com/services/artificialintelligence-<br>ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions/ ;<br>https://sustainabletechpartner.com/topics/ai/generative-ai-lawsuit-timeline/<br>15 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/06/google-ai-overview-libel/678751/</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Tatiana Parrott</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Vancity Investment Management</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Palantir Technologies</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>AI / Artificial Intelligence, Data Privacy/Surveillance/Cyber Security, Human Rights Due Diligence, Immigration </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Challenged</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED</strong>: Shareholders request the Board of Directors publish a report, at reasonable cost and<br>omitting proprietary information, with the results of a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA),<br>examining actual and potential human rights impacts associated with the use of Palantir’s products<br>and services.</p>
<p><strong>WHEREAS</strong>: The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) expects companies<br>to take all reasonable steps to ensure their products and services are not used to violate human<br>rights. The UNGPs specify businesses should conduct ongoing human rights due diligence, of<br>which HRIAs are a key tool,1 to “identify, prevent, mitigate and account for … adverse human<br>rights impacts from their activities or as a result of their business relationships.”2<br><br>Palantir’s Human Rights policy states it is aligned with the UNGPs,3 but it does not disclose<br>whether it conducts HRIAs, without which stakeholders cannot be assured Palantir’s products and<br>services are not violating human rights. Recent allegations of Palantir’s technologies being used to<br>violate human rights suggest the Company is not meeting its human rights responsibilities.<br><br>Palantir’s technology has been utilized by the US, other governments, and corporations to analyze<br>massive amounts of personal data, enabling individuals to be tracked on numerous datapoints and<br>authorities to monitor people with unprecedented precision. The following examples highlight<br>human rights concerns:<br><br>• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other US agencies use Palantir’s artificial<br>intelligence (AI) to combine social media activity with other private data to track and target<br>migrants for detention and deportation, and to revoke people’s immigration status.4<br>Palantir’s ImmigrationOS uses “personal data that DOGE has siphoned from federal<br>agencies,”5 violating its responsibility to protect human rights of refugees, asylum-seekers,<br>and migrants.6<br>• The Department of Health and Human Services, several of its agencies,7 and the Centers<br>for Disease Control and Prevention use Palantir software, raising concerns about privacy,<br>states’ willingness to report disease data, and health data being used to locate<br>undocumented individuals.8<br>• Despite criticism and lawsuits that Palantir’s predictive policing programs violate<br>presumption of innocence, non-discrimination, and privacy,9 it is still in use.10 In England,<br>Palantir established a “’real-time data-sharing network’ that includes the personal details of<br>victims, children and witnesses” as well as “union membership, sexual orientation and<br>race.”11<br>• Palantir was recently solicited to merge data on Americans from multiple agencies into a<br>centralized system,12 creating a de facto surveillance infrastructure with significant<br>profiling, security, legal, and data integrity risks.13<br><br>Insufficient human rights due diligence exposes Palantir to material legal, financial, and<br>reputational risks, and HRIAs can help mitigate such risks. Guidance from the Danish Institute for<br>Human Rights explains how HRIAs can help companies fulfill their human rights responsibilities,<br>especially in contexts where people “face severe risks and impacts in connection to businesses’<br>digital projects, products or services.”14</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>1 https://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/document/A%20HRIA%20of%20Digital%20Activities%20-<br>%20Introduction_ENG_accessible.pdf<br>2 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf<br>3<br>https://www.palantir.com/assets/xrfr7uokpv1b/29IHCTisO8v2pofVMrxtnX/7e91f4f393074f69ae047d01eaeb<br>abce/Palantir_Human_Rights_Policy.pdf<br>4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/12/03/palantir-immigration-ice/;<br>https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-5372776/palantir-tech-contracts-trump<br>5<br>https://static1.squarespace.com/static/62c3198c117dd661bd99eb3a/t/682f27817f8ce231daa5c949/174792<br>0769727/FINAL_TRUMP+2.0+DHS+FIRST+100+DAYS+BRIEF-compressed.pdf<br>6 https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/surveillance-human-rights<br>7 https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/hhs-agencies-and-offices/index.html<br>8 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/06/health/cdc-data-privacy-palantir.html<br>https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/21/magazine/palantir-alex-karp.html<br>9 https://www.techpolicy.press/politicians-move-to-limit-predictive-policing-after-years-of-controversial-<br>failures/<br>https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2023/02/rs20230216_1bvr15471<br>9en.html<br>https://freiheitsrechte.org/en/themen/digitale-grundrechte/palantir-bayern<br>10 https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/185799.pdf; https://www.vice.com/en/article/300-<br>californian-cities-secretly-have-access-to-palantir/; https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/minority-report-why-<br>we-should-question-predictive-policing/; https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-expands-use-of-palantir-<br>surveillance-software/a-73497117<br>11 https://libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/uk-police-working-with-controversial-tech-giant-palantir-on-real-<br>time-surveillance-network/<br>12 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/technology/trump-palantir-data-americans.html<br>13 https://www.npr.org/2025/06/29/nx-s1-5409608/citizenship-trump-privacy-voting-database<br>14 https://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/document/A%20HRIA%20of%20Digital%20Activities%20-<br>%20Introduction_ENG_accessible.pdf</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Aaron Acosta</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, St. Joseph Province</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Ferguson Enterprises Inc.</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>Workplace Equity </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Withdrawn for Agreement</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED:  </strong>Shareholders request that Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. (“the Company” or “Ferguson”) publish annual reporting, prepared at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, disclosing its employee retention rates by the categories the Company is currently required to track under applicable state or federal laws, such as veteran status, age, gender, race, and disability status. </p>
<p><strong>WHEREAS:  </strong>The value of the Ferguson brand is directly linked to the quality of its 32,000 associates. As the company has stated, “Our reputation for providing extraordinary customer service and delivering the industry’s most comprehensive mix of quality products and services is built on the dedication and innovative thinking of our people.”[1] It has also written, “Our associates are fundamental to the long-term success of the Company. We continue to invest in the development of our associates and are committed to attracting, developing, engaging and retaining the best talent.”[2]</p>
<p>While Ferguson currently discloses aggregated workforce composition data by gender and “minority” status, it does not currently provide investors with information on whether it successfully retains talent across demographic groups. </p>
<p>High turnover imposes recruitment, onboarding, and training costs.  Gallup estimates employee-related turnover costs at 40% of annual salary for frontline workers.[3] As employees leave, they take with them institutional knowledge, customer relationships, and process memory. Direct training costs do not reflect the on-the-job time needed by new employees before they are able to contribute fully. Frequent staffing disruption also impairs operational efficiency, scheduling, safety, service consistency, team cohesion, and employee enthusiasm.[4] </p>
<p>When a business can retain employees more consistently, those efficiencies may free up resources for customer service and investment in growth. Reducing separation rates also allows more investment per employee (training, development, cross-skilling) and the ability to build and deepen employee skills over time.</p>
<p>Retention is a forward-looking signal of human capital and overall business health; Strong retention rates signal a healthy internal culture; one where employees have confidence in the future of the company. </p>
<p>Employers such as Microsoft, Visa, Procter & Gamble, Bank of America, Netflix, and Pfizer already disclose retention or attrition data by demographic group, showing whether any demographic is exiting disproportionately. The collection and assessment of retention rate data is possible in all major workforce management databases; it is a standard human resource practice.</p>
<p>Human capital management reflects a company’s contribution to economic security, job quality, and fair employment practices, which are recognized public policy concerns. Retention rates are a clear indicator of the success of a company’s human capital management practices, as well as its potential for future growth. Additionally, employee retention reflects systemic workforce stability and economic resilience, rising beyond routine operational matters.</p>
<p><strong>A note on the request: </strong>This request seeks disclosure only; it does not seek changes to any particular retention programs, targets, or operational decisions, and it leaves decisions about formats, baselines, benchmarking, and disclosure location to the Company’s discretion.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br> </p>
<p>[1] https://www.ferguson.com/content/corporate-information/careers/</p>
<p>[2] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0002011641/000201164125000027/ferg-20250731.htm`</p>
<p>[3] https://www.gallup.com/workplace/646538/employee-turnover-preventable-often-ignored.aspx</p>
<p>[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211392097_The_Cost_of_Employee_Turnover;</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Meredith Benton</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Whistle Stop Capital</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Uber Technologies</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights, Inclusiveness </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>Worker Rights, Health & Safety, Workplace Equity </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Withdrawn for Agreement</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED:  </strong>Shareholders request that Uber Technologies, Inc. (“the Company” or “Uber”) publish annual reporting, prepared at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, disclosing its employee retention rates by the categories the Company is currently required to track under applicable state or country laws, such as veteran status, age, gender, race, and disability status. </p>
<p><strong>WHEREAS: </strong>As Uber wrote in its 2025 annual report: “Our success depends in large part on our ability to attract and retain high-quality management, operations, engineering, and other personnel … Challenges related to our historical culture and workplace practices and negative publicity we experience have in the past led to significant attrition and made it more difficult to attract high-quality employees … Future challenges related to our culture and workplace practices or additional negative publicity could lead to further attrition and difficulty attracting high-quality employees.”[1] </p>
<p>As it referenced, Uber has faced significant workforce culture controversies. In 2017, employees claimed harassment , discrimination and a toxic workplace culture; the allegations were a driving force in Uber’s change in executive leadership.[2],[3] However, concerns about the company’s culture remained. Internal Uber data estimated that 20 percent of employees left the company in 2021. [4]</p>
<p>While Uber currently discloses its U.S. workforce composition data through its EEO-1 form, it does not currently provide investors with information on whether it successfully retains talent across demographic groups or the countries in which it operates. </p>
<p>High turnover imposes recruitment, onboarding, and training costs.  Gallup estimates employee-related turnover costs at 80 percent of annual salary for professionals in technical roles.[5] As employees leave, they take with them institutional knowledge, customer relationships, and process memory. Frequent staffing disruption impairs operational efficiency, safety, and team cohesion.[6] Conversly, strong retention rates signal a healthy internal culture; one where employees have confidence in the future of the company.</p>
<p>For Uber, poor retention may lengthen the time needed for product improvements or development, reduce effectiveness of safety, trust, and compliance activities, and lengthen customer support response times. As the company operates on an international scale, it may also reduce cohesion and connection across global teams. </p>
<p>Employers such as Microsoft, Visa, Procter & Gamble, Bank of America, Netflix, and Pfizer already disclose retention or attrition data by demographic group, showing whether any demographic is exiting disproportionately. The collection and assessment of retention rate data is possible in all major workforce management databases; it is a standard human resource practice.</p>
<p>Human capital management reflects a company’s contribution to economic security and workforce stability which are recognized public policy concerns that rise beyond routine operational matters. Retention rates are a clear indicator of the success of a company’s human capital management practices.</p>
<p><strong>A note on the request: </strong>This request seeks disclosure only; it does not seek changes to any particular retention programs, targets, or operational decisions, and it leaves decisions about formats, benchmarking, and disclosure location to the Company’s discretion.</p>
<p><br> </p>
<p>[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001543151/000154315125…</p>
<p>[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.ht…</p>
<p>[3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/20/uber-ceo-travis-kala…</p>
<p>[4] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/uber-losing-employees-h…</p>
<p>[5] https://www.gallup.com/workplace/646538/employee-turnover-preventable-o…</p>
<p>[6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211392097_The_Cost_of_Employee…;</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Liz Levy</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Clean Yield Asset Management</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Kroger Co.</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>Collective Bargaining/Unionization </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>WHEREAS</strong>: Freedom of association and collective bargaining are fundamental human rights under internationally recognized human rights frameworks. The United States has seen a “revival of union power” leading to significant changes in employee contracts in multiple industries.[1] A Gallup poll found that almost 70 percent of Americans approve of unions, this support has held steady for the last five years and is the highest approval rating of 60 years.[2],[3]  </p>
<p>Should The Kroger Co. (Kroger) brand be linked to poor union practices, it risks losing customers. Moreover, the presence of unions has been positively correlated with low turnover, improved diversity, investment in training, and reduced legal and regulatory violations.[4] Conversely, companies that actively oppose unionization experience declines in productivity relative to those that are less opposed; “the overall negative effects are driven by manager’s or owner’s dislike of working with unions rather than economic costs of unions.”[5]</p>
<p>Kroger’s Human Rights Policy states “We commit to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights as defined by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). We also commit to respect internationally recognized human rights as defined by . . . [t]he ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” Kroger also commits to “embed this Human Rights Policy in our company’s culture, operations and supply chain, conduct human rights due diligence, and provide access to remedy as appropriate.”[6]</p>
<p>The last clear update to this policy was in 2022, and the last progress update to its “Commitment to Respect Human Rights” was for fiscal 2021.[7]</p>
<p>Despite its stated commitments, in the Richmond and Tidewater areas in Virginia, it has been alleged that Kroger is refusing to recognize unions at 11 stores, despite a majority of associates at these stores having agreed to unionization. The local labor union, UFCW Local 400, believes that the company has engaged in an effort to keep the union out of new stores, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement they have in place. Concerns have also been raised that Kroger has closed union stores and replaced them with non-union stores.</p>
<p>Given this inconsistency, a review is requested of the company’s implementation of its stated policies. This would provide investors with greater confidence that Kroger is appropriately managing its relationship to labor.</p>
<p><strong>BE IT RESOLVED</strong>: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue a report analyzing whether Kroger’s internal policies regarding non-interference, workers’ freedom of association, and collective bargaining rights are consistent with the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at reasonable cost and omitting privileged information. </p>
<p>[1] https://hbr.org/2023/10/are-we-seeing-a-revival-of-union-power </p>
<p>[2] https://www.afge.org/article/new-gallup-poll-70-of-americans-approve-of-labor-unions/  </p>
<p>[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/694472/labor-union-approval-relatively-steady.aspx </p>
<p>[4] https://www.workerscapital.org/our-resources/shared-prosperity-the-investor-case-for-freedom-of-association-and-collective-bargaining/ </p>
<p>[5] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2023/assa/unionization-employer-opposition-preview.pdf , p.3</p>
<p>[6] https://www.thekrogerco.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Kroger-Human-Rights-Policy-Feb-2022.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com </p>
<p>[7] https://www.thekrogerco.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Kroger-Human-Rights-Progress-Update-Policy-Feb-2022.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com </p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Lyndsay Fritz</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Amalgamated Bank</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>AI / Artificial Intelligence, Data Privacy/Surveillance/Cyber Security </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED</strong>, Shareholders request the Board of Directors of Alphabet, Inc. (“Alphabet”) to update the Audit Committee (the “Committee”) Charter to provide formal oversight on the responsible development and deployment of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and AI-related risks that may impact the human rights of users and other stakeholders, including reviewing and discussing with the full Board matters deemed by the Committee to be significant on Alphabet’s AI strategies, policies and initiatives; public policy and regulatory risks pertaining to AI; and implementation of Alphabet’s policies governing the development and deployment of AI.</p>
<p><strong>Supporting Statement:</strong><br>Alphabet has committed to “expanding [its] investment in AI across the entire company,” investing more than $75 billion in capital expenditures to advance AI development across the business in 2025 alone.<br>In October 2025, Alphabet amended its Audit Committee Charter (“Charter”) and Risk and Compliance Committee Charter to remove oversight of civil and human rights, which was formally integrated in 2020. As the company ramps up its investment in AI, this rollback leaves an accountability gap around responsible AI governance addressing human rights risks. The fast pace of investments and implementation of AI in the coming years warrants the board’s attention to these issues. The development and deployment of AI may create new unforeseen risks to the human rights of billions of users and stakeholders or exacerbate existing risks, thus increasing Alphabet’s risk exposure. At present, the Charter is unclear as to whether the board formally oversees material AI-related risk and implementation of its responsible AI policies.<br><br>Alphabet acknowledged that its “evolving AI-related efforts may give rise to risks related to harmful content, inaccuracies, discrimination, intellectual property infringement or misappropriation, violation of rights of publicity, defamation, data privacy, cybersecurity, and other issues […] [Its] implementation of AI systems could subject [Alphabet] to competitive harm, regulatory action, legal liability”.<br><br>Oversight of AI vested in the Committee would ensure that the Board has the specialized expertise and dedicated focus needed to evaluate the risks, opportunities and compliance obligations unique to the AI systems that Alphabet develops and deploys. This is an increasingly common practice in the industry and is aligned with peers such as Microsoft, eBay, Cisco, and Comcast, which have assigned the oversight on AI, responsible AI, or AI-related risks to at least one Board committee.<br><br>Poor AI governance may lead to greater risk exposure and may in turn cost more to address any necessary changes. As illustrated by a recent derivative lawsuit settlement between shareholders and Alphabet, unaddressed vulnerabilities in AI governance systems may eventually lead to costly and resource-intensive interventions, whether they result from regulatory enforcement, litigation, or voluntary reforms. Proactive and effective AI governance aligning with best practice would reduce the likelihood of the risk to materialize and the scale of eventual remedy costs.<br><br>Formalizing AI oversight in the Charter is therefore a sound corporate governance exercise that would assure shareholders that the Board oversees material risks related to the development and deployment of responsible AI within Alphabet’s long-term growth strategy.</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Juana Lee</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE)</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Meta (Facebook Inc.)</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>AI / Artificial Intelligence, Children, Data Privacy/Surveillance/Cyber Security </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED</strong>, that shareholders of Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) urge the board of directors to oversee a data protection impact assessment on the company’s collection of user interactions with generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (voice and text) to personalize advertising and content. It should describe how Meta is ensuring appropriate use of, and opt-out procedures for, collection of this data. The assessment should be prepared at reasonable cost, omit confidential and proprietary information, and be made available on Meta’s web site.</p>
<p><strong>WHEREAS</strong>: On October 1, 2025, Meta announced that, beginning December 16, 2025, it would start “Improving Your Recommendations on Our Apps With AI at Meta”1. This means that the company will harvest data from users’ daily conversational interactions with Meta’s AI products like AI chatbot, to further monetize their data. These interactions can be uniquely revealing, capturing intimate details of users’ personal lives, relationships, health, and beliefs. While a user may be able to manage their ad preferences and feeds on Meta’s platforms, this does not prevent Meta from harvesting users’ data. The company has provided no way for a user to fully opt out of this surveillance technology2.<br><br>This is perhaps the most salient issue Meta is facing today. 97% of Meta’s $36.5 billion 2024 Q1 revenue came from ads3. 2025 saw Meta spend nearly unprecedented amounts on its generative AI products4. If this evolution of technology is not done sustainably, the company risks not only legal and regulatory consequences but severely damaging the core of its business.<br><br>More than half of all U.S. internet users—163 million people—are projected to use generative AI by 2029, making it one of the fastest-adopted technologies in modern history. Approximately one third of Americans under 30 already engage with AI several times daily, and it is projected that by 2029, more than 55 million Gen Z users (ages 18–34) will rely on these tools5. This will only intensify the problems stemming from the lack of information about how Meta uses their data. One study from Pew Research Center found that 67% say they understand little to nothing about what companies are doing with their personal data, and 73% believe they have little to no control over what companies do with that data6.<br> </p>
<p>eMarketer, an industry research group, cautioned that “guardrails on ad placement within chatbot conversations need to be tight to prevent what could be perceived as exploitive targeting”7. This risk is heightened among children and teens by Meta embedding invasive AI data practices into daily online interactions without meaningful safeguards8. We know that social media impacts children’s brains differently than adults’9 and this escalation of surveillance advertising could disproportionately harm them.</p>
<p>An assessment that discloses information about how the company is ensuring users have control over their own data would mitigate reputational, financial and legal risk from Meta’s generative AI offerings.</p>
<p>1 https://about.fb.com/news/2025/10/improving-your-recommendations-apps-ai-meta/<br>2 https://rankingdigitalrights.org/bte25/companies/Meta<br>3 https://news.designrush.com/97-percent-of-meta-total-revenue-in-q1-2024-comes-from-ads<br>4 https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/29/meta-ai-q2-earnings.html<br>5 https://www.emarketer.com/content/genai-user-forecast-2025<br>6 https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/10/18/how-americans-view-data-privacy/<br>7 https://www.emarketer.com/content/ai-consumer-behavior-trust-economy<br>8 htps://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-ai-chatbots-sex-a25311bf<br>9 https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2022/social-media-children-teens</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Lydia Kuykendal</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Mercy Investment Services</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Salesforce.com, Inc.</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>AI / Artificial Intelligence, CAHRA / Conflict Zones </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>WHEREAS</strong>: Shareholders are concerned that Salesforce’s sales of “dual-use” and defense technologies that employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) could expose the Company to significant legal, financial and<br>reputational risk.<br><br>In 2025 Salesforce launched Missionforce, an offering that leverages AI to improve defense and<br>national security operations. A Salesforce executive said: “The goal is simple: to help our<br>warfighters and the organizations that support them operate smarter, faster, and more<br>efficiently.”1 Salesforce also has investments in AI firms with military and defense contracts and<br>partnerships.2 3<br><br>Dual-use and military applications employing AI have many known risks. AI has inherent error<br>rates, which are amplified in unpredictable environments like a battlefield.4 The rapid speed of<br>AI decision-making can outpace the ability to take precautions in preventing or minimizing harm<br>to civilians, and it can increase the likelihood of conflict escalation.5 Even with a human in the<br>loop, evidence suggests humans are more likely to defer to the judgments of machines in high<br>stress environments.6<br><br>Potential legal liability is centered largely around compliance with international humanitarian law<br>(IHL). Existing IHL obligations apply to the development and use of AI-enabled military<br>capabilities – and companies, corporate personnel, and executives can be liable under IHL for<br>providing assistance to those committing abuses.7 Major defense contractors have been sued<br>for allegedly abetting war crimes.8</p>
<p>Companies may be able to avoid liability if they can demonstrate adequate due diligence was<br>taken.9<br><br>Salesforce’s Office of Ethical and Humane Use of Technology says it aims to understand “the<br>direct impacts of our products on the world and what relevant guardrails should be put in place<br>for customer use.” It adds: “We aim to protect people from direct harm from the use of our<br>technology.”10<br><br>Allegations of Salesforce’s responsibility for the humanitarian consequences of military AI<br>experimentation could harm its reputation and incite backlash from employees and investors.11<br>To assess exposure to these risks, investors need clear disclosure on Salesforce’s exposure to<br>dual-use and military AI technologies and steps taken to mitigate legal liability and reputational<br>harm.<br><br>RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board issue a report at reasonable cost, omitting<br>proprietary or legally privileged information, to be updated annually, that summarizes the<br>company’s dual-use and military AI projects.<br><br>Supporting statement: Shareholders recommend that the board and management, in their<br>discretion, disclose relative financial commitments to these projects, any steps Salesforce is<br>taking to mitigate the risks to operations and finances associated with these initiatives including<br>whether and how the company integrates the risks described in this proposal into capital allocation<br>and innovation decisions, with disclosure in such a report sufficient for investors to<br>understand the company’s ongoing and anticipated investment and involvement pertaining to<br>dual use and military AI projects.<br> </p>
<p>1 https://theaieconomy.substack.com/p/salesforce-missionforce-national-security<br>2 https://salesforceventures.com/perspectives/anthropics-13b-series-f/<br>3https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/amazon-alphabet-salesforce-back-databricks-at-28-billionvaluation.<br>html#:~:text=David%20Paul%20Morris%20%7C%20Bloomberg%20%7C%20Getty,such%20as<br>%20Salesforce%2Downed%20Tableau.<br>4https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/governing-military-ai-amid-a-geopoliticalminefield?<br>lang=en ; https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/04/symposium-on-military-ai-and-the-law-of-armedconflict-<br>the-need-for-speed-the-cost-of-unregulated-ai-decision-support-systems-to-civilians/<br>5https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/04/symposium-on-military-ai-and-the-law-of-armed-conflict-the-need-forspeed-<br>the-cost-of-unregulated-ai-decision-support-systems-to-civilians/ ;<br>https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/interface/2025/defence-tech/ethics-and-regulation-of-ai-in-defencetechnology<br>6https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/04/symposium-on-military-ai-and-the-law-of-armed-conflict-the-need-forspeed-<br>the-cost-of-unregulated-ai-decision-support-systems-to-civilians/<br>7https://opiniojuris.org/2025/04/07/the-role-of-business-in-war-a-different-defense-to-corporate-complicity-part-i-the-old-offense/;  https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/updates/key-takeaways-military-ai-peace-security-dialogues-2025  <br>8https://armstradelitigationmonitor.org/case/civil-complaint-by-yemeni-nationals-to-seek-injunctive-reliefand-damages/</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Michael Connor</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Open MIC</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>NVIDIA</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>AI / Artificial Intelligence, CAHRA / Conflict Zones, Military Contracts </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED</strong>: Shareholders request that NVIDIA publish a report, at reasonable<br>expense and excluding proprietary details, which provides a clear explanation of<br>the strategic rationale for engaging in military sales and contracts, including how<br>such activities are expected to contribute to long-term shareholder value despite<br>potential challenges such as lower margins, increased administrative complexity,<br>legal risks, and reputational risks.</p>
<p><strong>Supporting Statement:</strong><br>NVIDIA’s leadership in advanced computing technologies positions the company<br>as a supplier for a wide range of sectors, including defense and national security.<br>However, investors currently lack transparency into the company’s involvement in<br>military sales, contracts and investments and the strategic reasoning behind these<br>engagements. This lack of disclosure creates uncertainty about how such<br>activities align with NVIDIA’s long-term growth strategy, its reputational and legal<br>risk profile, and shareholder interests.<br><br>Government and military contracts are often associated with lower profit margins,<br>complex regulatory requirements, and bureaucratic processes that can increase<br>costs and operational risk.1 Unpredictable changes in export market rules and<br>regulations for sales to foreign governments also have been a source of unwanted<br>volatility in NVIDIA shares.2<br><br>Additionally, these relationships may expose the company to reputational risks,<br>particularly in regions where military activities are controversial or subject to<br>heightened scrutiny.<br><br>Existing international humanitarian law (IHL) obligations apply to the development<br>and use of AI-enabled military capabilities – and companies, corporate personnel,<br>and executives can be liable under IHL for providing assistance to those<br>committing abuses.3 Major defense contractors have been sued for allegedly<br>abetting war crimes.4<br><br>NVIDIA acknowledges in its annual report that if its products “draw controversy<br>due to their perceived or actual impact on society, such as AI solutions that have<br>unintended consequences…we may experience brand or reputational harm,<br>competitive harm or legal liability.”5<br><br>For these reasons, some investors view government contracting as a low-value<br>business segment.</p>
<p>Despite these challenges, NVIDIA continues to pursue military-related sales and<br>contracts. NVIDIA also has investments in numerous AI ventures with military<br>contracts. Shareholders deserve a clear explanation of why the company believes<br>these engagements are strategically important and how they contribute to longterm<br>shareholder value.<br><br>Without this information, investors cannot fully assess the risk-return profile of<br>NVIDIA’s military-related activities or evaluate whether these engagements align<br>with the company’s stated priorities.<br><br>By publishing a report that explains the strategic rationale for military sales and<br>contracts, NVIDIA will improve transparency, investor confidence, and<br>accountability, enabling shareholders to make informed decisions about the<br>company’s governance and long-term value creation.</p>
<p>1 https://csimarket.com/Industry/industry_Profitability_Ratios.php?ind=201<br>2 https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/tech/nvidia-plunge-h20-chip-china-export-intl-hnk<br>3 https://opiniojuris.org/2025/04/07/the-role-of-business-in-war-a-different-defense-to-corporatecomplicity-<br>part-i-the-old-offense/<br>4 https://armstradelitigationmonitor.org/case/civil-complaint-by-yemeni-nationals-to-seek-injunctive-reliefand-<br>damages/<br>5 https://s201.q4cdn.com/141608511/files/doc_financials/2025/annual/NVIDIA-2025-Annual-Report.pdf</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>AI / Artificial Intelligence, One Vote Per Share, Worker Rights, Health & Safety </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED</strong>: Shareholders request that our Board take all practicable steps in its control to initiate and adopt a recapitalization plan for all outstanding stock to have one vote per share. We recommend that this be done through a phase-out process in which the board would, within seven years or other timeframe justified by the board, establish fair and appropriate mechanisms to effectuate such recapitalization plan. This is not intended to limit our Board’s discretion in crafting the requested change in accordance with applicable laws and existing contracts.</p>
<p>SUPPORTING STATEMENT:<br>In Alphabet’s multi-class voting structure, Class B stock has 10 times the voting rights of Class A. As a result, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin currently control 52% of our company’s total voting power while owning less than 11% of outstanding voting stock1, and will continue to retain voting control even though they have stepped down from leading the company.<br><br>Due to this voting structure, our company takes public shareholder money but refuses shareholders an equal voice in the company’s management. For example, it was primarily the weight of the insiders’ 10 votes per share that permitted the creation of a non-voting class of stock (class C) despite shareholders voting to oppose the move.2<br><br>Shareholders note that directly employed Google workers are partially compensated in Class C stock. Google’s compensation philosophy states that “Googlers should share the success of the company,” but without voting rights, these employee-shareholders cannot exercise oversight of executives. Google’s global workforce is reportedly more than 50% temporary workers, contractors or vendor employees yet these workers have even less say over their indirect employer’s actions, and are subject to increasingly alarming treatment.3 A survey of U.S. data workers powering AI showed that 86% worry about meeting basic financial responsibilities and only 30% are paid for downtime between tasks, even as their labor underpins the very systems that drive the company’s growth.4<br><br>Corporate governance experts overwhelmingly illustrate a growing concern about multi-class share structures. The Council for Institutional Investors (CII) recommends a seven-year phase-out of dual class share offerings, and the International Corporate Governance Network supports CII’s recommendation.<br> </p>
<p>Outside shareholders overwhelmingly support this proposal, with 98% backing in 20255. By adopting this change, the Board can strengthen governance, improve accountability, and protect long-term shareholder value.<br><br>Shareholders are encouraged to vote FOR this good governance request to allow better shareholder oversight.<br> </p>
<p>1 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204425000014/goog-20241231.htm<br>2 https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hblr//wp-content/uploads/sites/87/2015/06/HBLR-5.2-Lee-Protecting-Public-Shareholders.pdf<br>3 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-workers.html<br>4 https://cwa-union.org/ghost-workers-ai-machine#cite16<br>5 Excluding Class B votes and using share counts from company proxy and 10-K implies that 98% of unaffiliated Class A votes supported the proposal. See Alphabet Inc., Form 8-K (June 12, 2025); DEF 14A (Apr. 25, 2025); Form 10-K (Feb. 4, 2025).</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Madison Krieger</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>NorthStar Asset Management</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

Report on Generative Artificial Intelligence Misinformation and Disinformation Risks