Human Rights - Risk Assessment
NYSCRF is using a formulation common for several years that appears just this once in 2018, seeking a risk assessment at Tesla. It wants a report by December on Tesla’s process for comprehensively identifying and analyzing potential and actual human rights risks of Tesla’s entire operations (a “human rights risk assessment”) addressing the following:
- Human rights principles used to frame the assessment;
- Methodology used to track and measure human rights performance, including key indicators;
- Nature and extent of consultation with relevant stakeholders in connection with the assessment; and
- Actual and/or potential human rights risks identified in the course of the assessment (or a statement that no such risks have been identified).
The resolution takes note of a discrimination case filed by African American employees and other litigation alleging LGBTQ discrimination and sexual harassment—as well as a high injury rate and allegations of obstructing unionization.
Apple convinced the SEC that it need not include a proposal from Harrington Investments that raised concerns about its operations in China. Commission staff agreed it duplicates another human rights resolution it received first from Jing Zhao, asking for a human rights committee. (That proposal is covered in the Board Oversight section, p.x.) The proposal sought a report on Apple’s “role in promoting freedom of expression.” Specifically, it asked the company to:
- Summarize measures Apple took to prevent removal of relevant VPN apps in China;
- Describe Company policies for evaluating and responding to, above and beyond legal compliance, government requests to remove apps from the App store affecting freedom of expression;
- Explore policy options for the Company to play a role in ensuring that consumers in countries like China, with severe censorship records, have unfettered and anonymous access to the Internet.