Tesla faces a pressure campaign from activist investors.

Tesla investors on Thursday put pressure on the company and its chief executive Elon Musk to change how they treat employees, add an independent voice to the automaker’s board and lobby the government. We will be voting on several proposals by activist investors asking us to disclose more information about our activities. official.

Tesla is widely credited with pioneering the electric vehicle market and putting the auto industry on a path to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the company has been accused of racism at its California factory, union-busting, and having too many people close to Mr. Musk on its board. In May, the S&P 500 ESG Index removed Tesla from its list of companies meeting certain environmental, social and governance criteria.

“No one doubts the historic achievements of Tesla and Musk,” said Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities.

But investors said they were concerned about Mr. Musk’s failed acquisition of Twitter, increased competition in the electric car market and Tesla’s production problems. “Musk was on the magic carpet, but investors are starting to complain,” Ives said.

In recent years, activist shareholders have worked hard to change the behavior of Tesla and other companies, in some cases backed by big investors like BlackRock and Vanguard. But the move has drawn backlash from conservative lawmakers and some business executives.Musk called ESG in May ‘Outrageous fraud’

A group of activist investors have submitted eight non-binding proposals to be voted on at Tesla’s annual meeting on Thursday afternoon at the company’s factory in Austin, Texas. Last year, there were five such proposals.

Tesla management opposes all eight resolutions. The board’s 3-for-1 stock split proposal is expected to garner broad shareholder support, making Tesla’s stock, which currently trades above $900, more affordable for individuals and employees. .

The shareholder resolution includes steps to ask Tesla to disclose more information about whether government lobbying is consistent with efforts to limit climate change. A resolution filed by the Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Green Century Equity Fund states that “Tesla lags notably when it comes to environmental, social, and governance-related disclosures.”

Tesla wants to make it easier for shareholders to nominate candidates for its board of directors, give employees more leeway to file complaints in court, and monitor more closely whether the cobalt used in its batteries is mined by child labor. There were also other resolutions calling for

The New York State Common Retirement Fund, which administers the pension plan for state employees, has submitted a resolution asking management to submit an annual report on its efforts to prevent racism and sexual harassment. After the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing received hundreds of complaints from employees about being racially discriminated against, assigned to physically demanding jobs, and denied transfers and promotions. , sued Tesla in February.

In response to the resolution, Tesla said it “does not tolerate discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or any kind of abuse of employees in the workplace or in work-related situations.”

Tesla claims its mission is to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.” But shareholders have become increasingly critical of the company and other aspects of Musk’s actions.

Several shareholder proposals have been approved by Institutional Shareholder Services, which advises large investors on how to vote at the annual shareholder meeting. One proposal supported by the company but opposed by Tesla management would allow shareholders to nominate alternate candidates to the board.

Tesla has faced criticism that its board, which includes Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk, failed to stop the chief executive from doing or saying things that hurt the automaker. I have faced it often.

Tesla responded by saying it has increased its independent board in recent years and that allowing shareholders to nominate members “could be exploited by corporate looters.”

Shareholder proposals have received significant support in the past. Last year, his 46% of shareholders voted in favor of a proposal challenging Tesla’s policy requiring employees to resolve discrimination and sexual harassment complaints before an arbitrator rather than in court. The resolution was filed by his Nia Impact Capital of Oakland, California.

Last year, the New York chapter of Sister of the Good Shepherd submitted a resolution asking Tesla to disclose the human rights impact of its business.

Kristin Hull, chief executive of Nia Impact Capital, says that while activist investment firms like her are leading the way in confronting Tesla’s management, the larger, far more influential Institutional investors were staying behind, he said.

“It’s led by small money managers and women-led money managers and nuns,” Hull said. She said big shareholders “just pick up the phone.”