7 ms·

Some additional details: The proposal was submitted by an individual shareholder. She requests that the Board "commission a report assessing the implications

Some additional details: The proposal was submitted by an individual shareholder. She requests that the Board "commission a report assessing the implications of siting Microsoft cloud datacenters in countries of significant human rights concern, and the Company’s strategies for mitigating these impacts." She specifically cites the 2024 completion of a Microsoft datacenter in Saudi Arabia, citing a "State Department report [that] details the highly restrictive Saudi control of all internet activities and pervasive government surveillance, arrest, and prosecution of online activity." The Board opposes the proposal because it believes Microsoft already discloses extensive disclosures on key human rights risks, and has an independent assessment each year of how they manage risks and its commitment to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy. They also re-iterate the need to comply with local laws and legally binding requests for customer data. The proposal is non-binding, so the Board doesn't have to act on it even in the unlikely event it gets majority support (ESG proposals rarely do, especially in this environment). In practice many Boards do choose to act on majority-supported non-binding shareholder proposals, though, because many shareholders will vote against directors the following year if they don't.

embedding-shape 10mo ago
> Microsoft already discloses extensive disclosures on key human rights risks, and has an independent assessment each year of how they manage risks and its commitment to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy Where can one find those extensive disclosures, especially for year 2024/2025? I'd love to hear how Microsoft are protecting freedom of expression and user privacy in a country like Saudi Arabia, which has a track record of excelling at whatever you'd call the opposite of those two things.
- firesteelrain 10mo ago
  https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports-hub https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/human-rights-statement https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/hum... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reporting-governance https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports/government-requests/customer-data https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/government-content-removal-requests-report https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/gov...
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    I guess you're familiar with those resources since you're claiming those mention Microsoft's approach to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy in Saudi Arabia. Could you please be kind and provide direct links to that/those page(s)? I opened and read through the links, but probably it's in some sub-page? Didn't manage to find anything about it.
    - jeroenhd 10mo ago
      I think the closest thing to what you're looking for is over at https://aka.ms/HumanRightsReport https://aka.ms/HumanRightsReport Every step along the way, Microsoft picks "key" areas/terms/subjects, so they're only covering a few human rights that they convinced themselves are most important. Within each covered item, you'll find a couple of paragraphs that explain why complying can be problematic if they want to make more money, and a few lines of manager speak and links to "projects" and "partnerships" that vaguely promise to accomplish vague goals on a vague timeline with no mention of what happens if they fail their goals. Countries and specific risks are not named. Microsoft may as well be helping Netanyahu organize optimal genocide directly and they'll still be able to barf up some manager speak to explain why they're trying real hard, honest! Their statements are full of talk like: > Our commitment to the rule of law carries with it the legal obligation to comply with applicable local law. When we face requests from governments to provide user data or remove content, we work to respect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression by assessing whether the government requests are valid, legally binding, compliant with applicable law, and consistent with international laws, principles, and norms on human rights and the rule of law. (in other words: they'll just ask legal if they should comply with government requests and that's supposed to protect your freedom of speech) And gems like: > The GNI Board concluded that we met our commitment to GNI to make “good-faith efforts to implement the GNI Principles with improvement over time. (in other words: we've managed to convince the GNI board that we really care)
  - AGI-slop 10mo ago
    In 2016 Saudi Arabia was armed to the teeth by the Trump (Administration #1) to launch a huge multibillion invasion of the Yemen, bombing, cutting off food supplies, as a tactic of war, causing a famine which left over 370k people dead. In addition the Saudi's Armed the gnocidal Jajaweed/RSF (again with US weaponry) to fight in Yemen, the same RSF who have now creating mayhem and collapse in the Sudan. The question is, given these encyclopaedic statements about corporate responsibility, for what exactly do they count for? when Microsoft is happy to engage with this regime which: which arms and supplies a group known to practice mass genocide/ janjaweed /rsf sponsored by Saudis * a government which practices mass starvation and invasions of it neighbour * is know for torturing and dismembering dissidents alive What do all those links mean if it allows this?
- aunty_helen 10mo ago
  This is the canned response for advising against a shareholder proposal. We’re already doing x, no need to vote for this nitwits shareholder proposal. Another example that was written almost exactly the same, when a shareholder asked what Caterpillar were doing to avoid their machinery being used for deforestation in at risk locations. If you’ve heard of activist investors, this is their battle ground. Buying enough of a company, tabling votes and then getting their preferred board candidates and shareholder votes put through.
elygre 10mo ago
Is the full proposal available online?
- aunty_helen 10mo ago
  Check the latest proxy statement for the AGM. This is where these votes are brought up in advance and then at the meeting they’re voting on, along with board seats.
- JauntTrooper 10mo ago
  Yes. Here is the proxy statement with the proposals: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000789019/000119312525245150/d908201ddef14a.htm#toc908201_46 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000789019/0... You have to scroll down a bit to page 83 to get to the one the article is referencing.
lenkite 10mo ago
Good way to break up a behemoth and let the pursuit of Digital Sovereignty be initiated everywhere!
- hrnnnnnn 10mo ago
  Norway isn't part of the EU.
sigil 10mo ago
Are human rights concerns running cover for more straightforward financial interests here? Norway and Saudi Arabia are both petrostates with large sovereign wealth funds.
- alephnerd 10mo ago
  Not in this case. Norway's SWF has become increasingly politicized [0] due to the death of the center and the rise of the populist left and right, which is a common issue for any SWF in a Western Democracy. The same thing happened with CalPERS, the Alaska Permanent Fund, Australia's Future Fund, and the Ontario Teacher's Fund as well because these funds are not firewalled off from politicians, thus making them ripe for a populist conversion into ideologically activist funds (this is a both sides problems - as can be seen in California [1] and Florida's [2] case). A major reason why the gold standard of SWFs are funds like Singapore's Temasek, Japan's GPIF, or South Korea's KIC is because they work hard to remain technocratic in nature and single minded about their goal: provide an economic base for self sufficiency for their citizens should adverse economic crises hit, along with the economic cushion to underwrite social security and welfare programs. At some point for an SWF, too much "democracy" just becomes a hinderance to the underlying mission, which in Norway's case, building a SWF to support Norwegian state pensions in perpetuity once their oil wealth dries up. Complaining about "woke/ESG investments" (like in Florida) or stunting about "human rights abuses" (like in CalPERS or Norway's case) doesn't actually shift the needle one way or the other because most other institutional investors (public and private) are much more single-minded about their aims, and a number of funds and LPs have begun to reject investments from politicized SWFs because of the headaches associated with a fund that wasn't supported to be an activist fund dealing with an internal conflict over becoming one or not. SWFs are a fundamental weapon in a government's economic arsenal, and using them in a non-strategic but politically popular manner leads to you only stealing the future from your kids - as can be seen with the woes the Alaska Permanent Fund now faces due to populist promising of constantly raising the Alaska dividend. [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-04/norway-election-trump-ally-takes-on-world-s-biggest-wealth-fund https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-04/norway-el... [1] - https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_55faf935-81b3-457e-9cb3-006fd895dbdf.html https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_55faf935-... [2] - https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2023/governor-ron-desantis-further-prohibits-woke-esg-considerations-state-investments https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2023/governor-ron-desan...
cocoalba 10mo ago
How is Saudi internet policing that different to Germany, UK and others? Just yesterday an American satirist had his computer seized in German
- crazybonkersai 10mo ago
  Western Internet policing is done to preserve our freedom, while Saudi's policing is to oppress people. Simple as that. /s

embedding-shape 10mo ago

> Microsoft already discloses extensive disclosures on key human rights risks, and has an independent assessment each year of how they manage risks and its commitment to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy Where can one find those extensive disclosures, especially for year 2024/2025? I'd love to hear how Microsoft are protecting freedom of expression and user privacy in a country like Saudi Arabia, which has a track record of excelling at whatever you'd call the opposite of those two things.

firesteelrain 10mo ago
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports-hub https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/human-rights-statement https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/hum... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reporting-governance https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports/government-requests/customer-data https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/government-content-removal-requests-report https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/gov...
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  I guess you're familiar with those resources since you're claiming those mention Microsoft's approach to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy in Saudi Arabia. Could you please be kind and provide direct links to that/those page(s)? I opened and read through the links, but probably it's in some sub-page? Didn't manage to find anything about it.
  - jeroenhd 10mo ago
    I think the closest thing to what you're looking for is over at https://aka.ms/HumanRightsReport https://aka.ms/HumanRightsReport Every step along the way, Microsoft picks "key" areas/terms/subjects, so they're only covering a few human rights that they convinced themselves are most important. Within each covered item, you'll find a couple of paragraphs that explain why complying can be problematic if they want to make more money, and a few lines of manager speak and links to "projects" and "partnerships" that vaguely promise to accomplish vague goals on a vague timeline with no mention of what happens if they fail their goals. Countries and specific risks are not named. Microsoft may as well be helping Netanyahu organize optimal genocide directly and they'll still be able to barf up some manager speak to explain why they're trying real hard, honest! Their statements are full of talk like: > Our commitment to the rule of law carries with it the legal obligation to comply with applicable local law. When we face requests from governments to provide user data or remove content, we work to respect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression by assessing whether the government requests are valid, legally binding, compliant with applicable law, and consistent with international laws, principles, and norms on human rights and the rule of law. (in other words: they'll just ask legal if they should comply with government requests and that's supposed to protect your freedom of speech) And gems like: > The GNI Board concluded that we met our commitment to GNI to make “good-faith efforts to implement the GNI Principles with improvement over time. (in other words: we've managed to convince the GNI board that we really care)
- AGI-slop 10mo ago
  In 2016 Saudi Arabia was armed to the teeth by the Trump (Administration #1) to launch a huge multibillion invasion of the Yemen, bombing, cutting off food supplies, as a tactic of war, causing a famine which left over 370k people dead. In addition the Saudi's Armed the gnocidal Jajaweed/RSF (again with US weaponry) to fight in Yemen, the same RSF who have now creating mayhem and collapse in the Sudan. The question is, given these encyclopaedic statements about corporate responsibility, for what exactly do they count for? when Microsoft is happy to engage with this regime which: which arms and supplies a group known to practice mass genocide/ janjaweed /rsf sponsored by Saudis * a government which practices mass starvation and invasions of it neighbour * is know for torturing and dismembering dissidents alive What do all those links mean if it allows this?
aunty_helen 10mo ago
This is the canned response for advising against a shareholder proposal. We’re already doing x, no need to vote for this nitwits shareholder proposal. Another example that was written almost exactly the same, when a shareholder asked what Caterpillar were doing to avoid their machinery being used for deforestation in at risk locations. If you’ve heard of activist investors, this is their battle ground. Buying enough of a company, tabling votes and then getting their preferred board candidates and shareholder votes put through.

elygre 10mo ago

Is the full proposal available online?

aunty_helen 10mo ago
Check the latest proxy statement for the AGM. This is where these votes are brought up in advance and then at the meeting they’re voting on, along with board seats.
JauntTrooper 10mo ago
Yes. Here is the proxy statement with the proposals: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000789019/000119312525245150/d908201ddef14a.htm#toc908201_46 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000789019/0... You have to scroll down a bit to page 83 to get to the one the article is referencing.

lenkite 10mo ago

Good way to break up a behemoth and let the pursuit of Digital Sovereignty be initiated everywhere!

hrnnnnnn 10mo ago
Norway isn't part of the EU.

sigil 10mo ago

Are human rights concerns running cover for more straightforward financial interests here? Norway and Saudi Arabia are both petrostates with large sovereign wealth funds.

alephnerd 10mo ago
Not in this case. Norway's SWF has become increasingly politicized [0] due to the death of the center and the rise of the populist left and right, which is a common issue for any SWF in a Western Democracy. The same thing happened with CalPERS, the Alaska Permanent Fund, Australia's Future Fund, and the Ontario Teacher's Fund as well because these funds are not firewalled off from politicians, thus making them ripe for a populist conversion into ideologically activist funds (this is a both sides problems - as can be seen in California [1] and Florida's [2] case). A major reason why the gold standard of SWFs are funds like Singapore's Temasek, Japan's GPIF, or South Korea's KIC is because they work hard to remain technocratic in nature and single minded about their goal: provide an economic base for self sufficiency for their citizens should adverse economic crises hit, along with the economic cushion to underwrite social security and welfare programs. At some point for an SWF, too much "democracy" just becomes a hinderance to the underlying mission, which in Norway's case, building a SWF to support Norwegian state pensions in perpetuity once their oil wealth dries up. Complaining about "woke/ESG investments" (like in Florida) or stunting about "human rights abuses" (like in CalPERS or Norway's case) doesn't actually shift the needle one way or the other because most other institutional investors (public and private) are much more single-minded about their aims, and a number of funds and LPs have begun to reject investments from politicized SWFs because of the headaches associated with a fund that wasn't supported to be an activist fund dealing with an internal conflict over becoming one or not. SWFs are a fundamental weapon in a government's economic arsenal, and using them in a non-strategic but politically popular manner leads to you only stealing the future from your kids - as can be seen with the woes the Alaska Permanent Fund now faces due to populist promising of constantly raising the Alaska dividend. [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-04/norway-election-trump-ally-takes-on-world-s-biggest-wealth-fund https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-04/norway-el... [1] - https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_55faf935-81b3-457e-9cb3-006fd895dbdf.html https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_55faf935-... [2] - https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2023/governor-ron-desantis-further-prohibits-woke-esg-considerations-state-investments https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2023/governor-ron-desan...

cocoalba 10mo ago

How is Saudi internet policing that different to Germany, UK and others? Just yesterday an American satirist had his computer seized in German

crazybonkersai 10mo ago
Western Internet policing is done to preserve our freedom, while Saudi's policing is to oppress people. Simple as that. /s