Tesla is facing a campaign of pressure from activist investors.

Tesla investors on Thursday will be voting on several proposals from activist investors who seek to pressure the company and its chief executive, Elon Musk, to change the way they treat workers, add more independent votes to the automaker’s board of directors, and speak more about how he lobbies. government. officials.

Tesla is widely credited with pioneering the electric vehicle market and setting the automotive industry on track to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the company was accused of racial discrimination at its plant in California, suppression of labor unions and the fact that the board of directors included people close to Mr. Jones. Musk. In May S&P 500 ESG Indexexcluded Tesla from the list of companies meeting certain environmental, social and governance standards.

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

But he said investors are concerned about Mr. Musk’s failed Twitter bid, growing competition in the electric car market, and manufacturing problems at Tesla. “Musk did the magic carpet ride, but you’re starting to see some frustration among investors,” he said. Ives said.

In recent years, activist shareholders have struggled to change the behavior of Tesla and other companies, in some cases with the backing of big investors like BlackRock and Vanguard. But the move drew backlash from conservative lawmakers and some corporate executives. mr. Musk called ESG in May “outrageous scam”.

Active investor groups have submitted eight non-binding proposals that will be voted on at Tesla’s annual meeting Thursday afternoon at the company’s Austin, Texas plant. Last year there were five such proposals.

Tesla management opposes all eight resolutions. The board’s 3-for-1 share split proposal is expected to win broad shareholder support and make it easier for individuals and employees to buy Tesla shares, currently trading at over $900.

The shareholder decisions include a measure that would require Tesla to disclose more information about whether its government lobbying is consistent with efforts to curb climate change. “Tesla is lagging behind when it comes to environmental, social and governance disclosure,” reads a resolution submitted by the Nathan Cummings Foundation and Green Century Equity Equity Fund.

Other resolutions asked Tesla to make it easier for shareholders to nominate candidates to the board of directors, to give employees more freedom to file complaints in court and to monitor more closely whether the cobalt used in its batteries is mined. use of child labor.

The New York State General Pension Fund, which administers the public employee’s pension plan, has filed a resolution asking management to submit an annual report on its efforts to prevent racial discrimination and sexual harassment. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued Tesla in February after he got what he said, there were hundreds of complaints from employees who said they were being racially harassed, assigned physically demanding jobs, and denied transfers and promotions.

In response to the resolution, Tesla said it “does not tolerate discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or any form of mistreatment 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 other aspects of the company and Mr. Black. Mask behavior.

Several shareholder proposals have been approved by the Institutional Shareholder Service, which advises large investors on how to vote at annual meetings. One proposal, supported by the firm but opposed by Tesla’s management, would allow shareholders to nominate alternative candidates for the board of directors.

Tesla has often been criticized for how its board, which includes Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk, fails to keep the CEO from doing things or saying things that harm the automaker.

In response, Tesla said that it has added more independent directors in recent years and that allowing shareholders to appoint members “could be used by corporate raiders.”

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

Last year, the New York chapter of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd filed a resolution asking Tesla to disclose information about the impact of its activities on human rights.

Christine Hull, chief executive of Nia Impact Capital, said active investment firms like her took the lead in opposing Tesla’s leadership, while large institutional shareholders with far more influence remained in the background.

“It’s all run by small-time asset managers, female-led asset managers and nuns. Hull said. Major shareholders, she said, “just have to pick up the phone.”