Require pre-testing of AI systems that make high-impact decisions about people
Artificial intelligence
Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
Why shareholder democracy is necessary
AI developers and the companies deploying decision-making systems can test them for bias and safety before release without waiting for a mandate, and investors are pressing them to. In October 2023 the AFL-CIO Equity Index Funds filed shareholder proposals at Apple, Comcast, Disney, Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery seeking AI transparency reports on ethical guidelines protecting workers and the public. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility asks technology companies to adopt human rights due diligence for artificial intelligence, addressing biased algorithms and the lack of accountability in how AI is built and deployed. A universal testing requirement still needs government action to cover every developer. A genuine technical barrier also remains: a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem found few widely adopted standards and little agreement on how such audits should be done, so even a willing government could not yet enforce a uniform pre-testing regime.
How this was scoredNecessary
Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
We have not yet written down the two answers behind this rating. Recording them on every item, so a reader can check the reasoning and not only the conclusion, is work in progress.
Every rating is the higher of two answers, one for what companies do and one for what they spend to stop the outcome, because the same vote reaches both. See the full method.
Sources
- Common Ground of the American People: Artificial Intelligence, Program for Public Consultation / Voice of the People, 2026 (study February 2024)
- Artificial Intelligence Transparency will Fight the Dehumanization of the American Workforce, says AFL-CIO Equity Index Funds Shareholder Proposal, AFL-CIO, 2023-10-19
- Digital Rights and AI Accountability, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, accessed 2026-08-28
- Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a Field Scan of the Algorithmic Auditing Ecosystem, ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Costanza-Chock, Raji and Buolamwini), 2022
What civil society organizations are helping owners on this
Presses technology companies to adopt human rights due diligence for artificial intelligence, citing inherently biased algorithms and the absence of accountability and remedy mechanisms.
Digital Rights and AI Accountability, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
Runs a collective engagement with 20 technology companies on digital rights and AI accountability, backed by more than 170 investors, and has organized investor statements supporting mandatory human rights due diligence and safeguards for high-risk AI.
Investor Actions on Digital Rights and AI Accountability, Investor Alliance for Human Rights
Filed AI transparency and board oversight proposals at media and technology companies, including a 2024 proposal at Amazon for a board committee overseeing AI deployment and its human rights impacts.
The 2024 Amazon Proposals, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, 2024
7 campaigns on record
Commission an independent third-party assessment of the human and civil rights risks of the company's facial recognition technology.
Result: not stated in source
The 2024 Amazon Proposals, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, 2024
Publish a transparency report on the company's use of artificial intelligence and the ethical guidelines and board oversight applied to it.
Result: 24 percent support at the June 3, 2024 meeting
Investor Views on AI Oversight: What Do Proxy Votes Tell Us?, Sustainalytics, 2025-05
Establish a board committee dedicated to overseeing the deployment of artificial intelligence and its human rights impacts.
Result: 10 percent support at the May 22, 2024 meeting per Sustainalytics
The 2024 Amazon Proposals, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, 2024
Publish a report on how the company uses artificial intelligence, what ethical guidelines it follows to protect workers, customers and the public, and how the board oversees it.
Result: Not approved at the June 6, 2024 annual meeting, with 144,328,782 votes for and 189,038,209 against. Governance Intelligence reports the proposal drew 43.3 percent of the votes cast and was filed through Segal Marco Advisors.
we found no documented change
Publish a report on how the company uses artificial intelligence, what ethical guidelines it follows to protect workers, customers and the public, and how the board oversees it.
Result: Withdrawn after the company agreed to provide more transparency about its use of artificial intelligence.
Comcast agreed to provide additional disclosure about its use of artificial intelligence.
Publish a report on how the company uses artificial intelligence, what ethical guidelines it follows to protect workers, customers and the public, and how the board oversees it.
Result: Withdrawn before the April 3, 2024 meeting after the company committed to greater disclosure about its use of artificial intelligence.
Disney agreed to expand what it discloses about its use of artificial intelligence.
Publish a report on how the company uses artificial intelligence, what ethical guidelines it follows to protect workers, customers and the public, and how the board oversees it.
Result: Voted down at the February 28, 2024 annual meeting with 37.5 percent support. The SEC had refused Apple permission to leave the proposal off the ballot, saying it raised a question that goes beyond ordinary business.
we found no documented change
Related subjects on other maps
How this rating was made
Every item on every one of our maps is read against one question: how far does this depend on the people who own companies voting their values? We answer it twice, once for what companies do and once for what they spend to stop the outcome, and take whichever answer is higher, since the same vote reaches both. The score carries its reasoning and its sources so that a reader can check it rather than take it.
- Pivotal. Owners voting their values can deliver most of the outcome.
- Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes, and others must also act.
- Helpful. Owners voting their values help, and others carry most of it.
- Independent. This moves without owners. Other levers carry it.
The advocacy record on this page holds only what a source we opened says happened. Where we searched and found nothing, the page says so rather than leaving a silence. Where a campaign names a filer the source does not name, it says that too. Ratings are ours; the list of subjects is Common Ground of the American People's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.