In December, more than 26% of Microsoft shareholders voted in favor of a shareholder proposal calling on the company to evaluate the effectiveness of its human rights due diligence processes. The resolution was filed by an unprecedented 59 co-filers representing more than $80 million in Microsoft shares, signaling meaningful investor concern about the human rights risks associated with the company’s technologies and services.

The proposal requested that Microsoft publish a report assessing its human rights due diligence and highlighting risks linked to the use of its technologies in Palestine, China, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The vote followed years of engagement between investors and Microsoft on these issues, including five years of dialogue facilitated by Investor Advocates for Social Justice (IASJ), with recent discussions focused on concerns that Microsoft technologies have been misused by the Israeli government against Palestinians.

The shareholder vote came amid heightened scrutiny of Microsoft’s human rights record. In 2025, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, raised concerns about the role of technology companies, including Microsoft, in what she described as an “economy of genocide,” citing the use of cloud and AI infrastructure to enable surveillance and data control. That same year, investigative reporting by The Guardian documented the use of Microsoft technologies by the Israeli military, including for mass surveillance.

In response to investigative reporting and sustained investor and public pressure, Microsoft initially conducted an internal review and stated that it had found “no evidence to date” of misuse, while acknowledging that it lacked full visibility into how customers use its software. By September 2025, the company reversed course, noting that the reporting was correct, and commissioned a third-party review that confirmed key findings from The Guardian’s reporting.  As a result of the review’s findings, Microsoft decided to terminate one of the contracts in question, which was tied to mass surveillance of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. Microsoft’s actions are commendable, and while concerns related to its other contracts with Israel remain, this sequence of actions represents a rare example of a major technology company responding meaningfully to its shareholders’ and other stakeholders’ concerns.

Microsoft’s response stands in contrast to other technology companies facing similar allegations. Several companies identified by the UN Special Rapporteur for their role in human rights abuses linked to technology have not undertaken comparable reviews or engaged meaningfully with shareholders on these concerns. Amazon, for example, was cited in the report for the misuse of its technologies and services, including through its Project Nimbus contracts. Despite significant concerns raised by investors, the public, and its own workers, including through a 2026 shareholder proposal,  the company has not conducted a review, meaningfully engaged with shareholders on this issue, or provided adequate transparency. This growing gap between companies that respond to investor expectations and those that do not underscores the increasing importance of human rights reporting, transparency, and robust due diligence across the technology sector.

Investors are signaling that robust human rights oversight is no longer optional. As scrutiny of technology companies intensifies, the Microsoft vote underscores a broader shift in investor expectations and sets an expectation for how companies across the sector should respond.