Big Tech companies shape how people communicate, access information, and participate in society, and can contribute positively to connectivity and economic opportunity. Yet many of the most material human rights risks in the sector are driven by core incentives in the business model, including engagement-based revenue models and rapid product deployment.
A substantial body of research and reporting has connected major technology companies and platforms to harms including harassment, exploitation, privacy violations, discrimination, disinformation, misinformation and erosion of information integrity, often amplified by addictive design features and biased algorithms. Children and other vulnerable groups face elevated risks of mental health impacts and physical harm, while the broader population and social cohesion can also be adversely affected by digital technologies that are not designed with respect for human rights in mind.
Project objectives
The Big Tech & Human Rights investor collaboration - consisting of institutional investors with over EUR 7 trillion in combined assets under management - seeks to shift the conversation upstream, through engagement with big tech companies. Our objective is that big tech companies intentionally align their business with respect for human rights and demonstrate accountability for the way the products operate in society. We want companies to demonstrate that they understand these risks well and have processes to embed steps into business decisions that deliver real, rights-based outcomes and make things right when harms occur.
We encourage big tech companies to:
- Embed human rights into business model and strategic decision-making, including by identifying and addressing misaligned incentives that drive harmful outcomes.
- Strengthen governance and culture so that human rights responsibilities and accountabilities are defined and embedded and the work is adequately resourced. Company culture should enable the raising of human rights concerns, free from risk of retaliation.
- Conduct robust human rights due diligence based on evidence and meaningful stakeholder engagement, particularly with vulnerable groups. Ensure access to effective grievance and remedy.
The initiative builds on investor expectations issued by the Council on Ethics and the Danish Institute of Human Rights in 2020. The primary goal is to ensure that Big Tech companies take concrete measures to address operational and human rights risks pertaining to their products and business models, and to encourage a more transparent reporting on the related impacts and efforts.
Engagement with Big Tech companies
The initiative targets seven companies which have been selected for engagement due to the significance of their platforms and the ensuing risks of human rights impacts:
- Alibaba
- Alphabet
- Amazon
- Apple
- Meta
- Microsoft
- Tencent
Engagement framework
The investor collaboration has developed the following engagement framework to support the company dialogues:
| Topic | Criteria | What good practice looks like |
| I. Intentionality & Business Model Alignment | 1. Business‑model‑level human rights risk assessment (design, development, existing products) 2. Board/executive review of revenue‑linked risks 3. Decisions to redesign, limit, or exit harmful activities that result in preventing or mitigating harms to people | - Company has embedded a structure to evaluate how revenue models (e.g., advertising, recommender systems, customers) may incentivize harmful content, addiction, polarisation or other salient human rights risks. - Company can articulate where revenue generation creates human rights risk and there may be tensions between growth targets and human rights commitments and harm reduction. - Evidence that risk identification has informed strategic decisions to reduce likelihood of harm. |
| II. Governance, Culture & Accountability | 1. Formal board oversight of human rights 2. Senior executive accountability 3. Job descriptions and incentives linked to human rights performance 4. Integration of human rights expertise into product development, AI governance and other core functions | - Clear ownership at executive level with authority and resources to review the company’s business model and strategy, and any proposed changes to them, to ensure any inherent human rights risks are identified and addressed. - Incentives (including bonuses and performance evaluations) reinforce good outcomes for people, not harmful growth. - Evidence of cross‑functional decision‑making. - Company provides resources and human rights expertise across relevant teams, in alignment with the company's salient human rights risks. |
| III. Risk Assessment & Integration | 1. Documented human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) and identification of salient risks 2. Explicit identification and assessments of risks to vulnerable groups 3. Evidence of integration of HRIA findings into product design and marketing decisions | - Risks to children, human rights defenders, and other vulnerable groups are explicitly identified. - Design or operational changes result from HRIAs. - Assessments are ongoing and forward‑looking. |
| IV. Stakeholder Engagement | 1. Engagement with affected stakeholders or credible intermediaries 2. Evidence of affected stakeholder feedback influencing outcomes 3. Engagement with policy makers supporting human rights outcomes | - Stakeholder input is documented and integrated into decision-making. - Company can evidence clear feedback loops into decision‑making. - The company's public policy engagement does not create or exacerbate human rights risks and societal harm. |
| V. Grievance & Remedy | 1. Grievance mechanisms aligned with UNGP effectiveness criteria (e.g., legitimate, accessible, transparent, predictable, etc) 2. Provision of disclosure related to remedy and grievances 3. Whistleblower protection, including safeguards against retaliation and limits on NDAs | - Mechanisms cover end-users, employees, and affected stakeholders across the value chain. - Timely remediation that accounts for perspectives of affected stakeholders is provided and documented. - Whistleblowers are protected and retaliation is addressed. |
Progress
Activities and progress in the investor collaboration are reported on annually:
Other resources
In June 2025, the Council on Ethics hosted a discussion on the role of investors in tech governance together with the Global Network Initiative, as a side event to the Internet Governance Forum. A summary of the discussions can be found here.
In November 2025 the Council on Ethics, on behalf of the Big Tech & Human Rights investor collaboration, co-organised a panel discussion on Safeguarding human rights in the age of artificial intelligence at the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights. The event was co-organised together with the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, European Commission, OHCHR B-tech Project, AI & Equality (by Women @ the Table), Investor Alliance for Human Rights, and World Benchmarking Alliance. More information on the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights website.
Participating investors
The initiative was launched in March 2023, supported by more than 30 investors with over EUR 7 trillion in combined assets under management. The collaboration has grown since its launch in 2023, to more than 35 participating investors from eight different countries. The Council on Ethics co-ordinates the initiative, supported by a Steering Group. Participating investors are organised in clusters focusing on each of the seven target companies, with at least one lead investor per company.
Click here to see the list of participating investors
Alecta
Amundi
Andra AP-fonden (AP2)
Tredje AP-fonden (AP3)
Fjärde AP-fonden (AP4)
Sjunde AP-fonden (AP7)
APG
Aviva Investors
Boston Common Asset Management
Candriam
Cardano Asset Management
CCLA
Church Commissioners for England
Church of England Pensions Board
Christian Brothers Investment Services
DNB Asset Management
Domini Impact Investments, LLC
Ethos Foundation
Ethos Engagement Pool International (104 investors)
Ethos engagement services clients
First Sentier Group
Globalance Bank Ltd.
Handelsbanken Asset Management
Lannebo
LGPS Central
NY City Comptroller's Office
PGGM
Railpen
Robeco
Royal London Asset Management
Schroders
Skandia
Storebrand
Swedbank Robur
Swiss Association for Responsible Investments (11 investors)
Sycomore Asset Management
Universities Superannuation Scheme
Van Lanschot Kempen
Scope of the collaboration
All members of the initiative are independent fiduciaries and vote in accordance with their own voting principles, policies or guidelines and independent internal investment analysis. The Initiative does not require or seek collective decision-making or action with respect to acquiring, holding, disposing of securities nor making resolutions to AGMs. All members are responsible and accountable for their own independent voting decisions, including any pre-declaration or vote solicitation. Any decision by participants with respect to investing, divesting or in any way changing the level of holding of a security will always be at their sole discretion and made in their capacities as individual institutions.
