Over several years, Storebrand has been engaging Amazon on various aspects of its management of human rights, given what we perceive as a gap between the company’s stated commitments, and their implementation. These gaps can constitute a reputational and operational risk that may negatively impact Amazon’s long-term performance. Our work on this issue continued in several areas during the second quarter.
Co-filed shareholder resolution
At Amazon.com’s recent annual general meeting (AGM) we co-filed a shareholder resolution asking the company’s Board to assess how it respects international human rights law regarding workers freedom of association (FOA) including the right to associate in organized labour unions. In the proposal we asked Amazon.com to launch an independent assessment of how it was implementing its own stated commitment to workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, as detailed in the company’s Global Human Rights Principles. This was a follow-up, a re-filing of a proposal previously sought in 2022 and 2023.
Unfortunately, the resolution fell short of success, as it received 31.8 per cent of the votes of shareholders (equating to 37 per cent of non-insider votes, as Amazon founder and executive chairman Jeff Bezos owns 10.8 percent of voting power among shareholders). It was also notable that this resolution received the most support of all the shareholder resolutions submitted at the AGM.
Supported joint investor letter on union rights
Furthermore, in June, Storebrand was part of a group of 50 investors and advisers that submitted a joint letter to Amazon, in defence of worker’s collective bargaining rights in the UK.
In the letter, organized by CLA Investment Management, the group expressed concerns regarding reports of Amazon’s conduct in the issue of trade union membership at its warehouse facility in Coventry, UK. The investors stated that they believed Amazon may be taking actions inconsistent with its stated commitments to implementing globally recognised human rights principles.
The joint letter resulted in a response from Amazon.com, which the group of investors finds to be unsatisfactory, as the company’s response continues to suggest that it views union membership as conflicting with its ability to engage directly with workers. The company’s actions since the letter was sent also included publicly documented actions which arguably constituted interferences with workers’ rights to freedom of association, as defined by International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards.
Consequently, we consider the company’s responses and actions to be still unsatisfactory. We are assessing the issue and expect to take further action on the issue during the third quarter.
