Norway wealth fund to vote for human rights report at Microsoft, against Nadella

Scope of the Proposal

• The shareholder proposal asks Microsoft’s board to commission a report on risks of operating cloud datacenters in countries with “significant human rights concerns,” with Saudi Arabia explicitly cited (state surveillance, repression of online activity).
• The board opposes it, arguing Microsoft already publishes extensive human-rights and transparency reports and undergoes independent assessments; the vote is non‑binding but politically sensitive if it passed.

Confusion: Saudi Arabia vs Israel

• Many commenters initially assumed the issue was Microsoft’s alleged involvement with Israeli military/intelligence (Azure for Unit 8200, mass surveillance, targeting systems, Gaza war).
• Others clarify this specific proposal is about Saudi Arabia and a new datacenter there; a separate prior proposal focused on Israel.
• Several note that Microsoft’s willingness to work with both Israel and Gulf states shows profit‑seeking rather than ideological alignment.

Complicity vs “General Purpose Compute”

• One camp argues cloud services are like steel or general utilities: indirect inputs that shouldn’t bear moral or legal responsibility for clients’ abuses, unless specifically tailored for surveillance/warfare.
• Opponents call that a false equivalence: at the scale of state repression or genocide, cutting off key suppliers (including cloud/AI providers) is one of the few effective levers.
• There is debate over whether Microsoft merely provided storage/compute or more specialized, embedded support to security forces.

Corporate Human‑Rights Policies

• Some see “human rights principles” and ESG language as mostly marketing and checkbox compliance, easily reconciled with doing business in repressive regimes.
• Others point out that reputational risk, press coverage, and internal dissent can make these policies materially binding.
• Linked Microsoft reports are criticized as vague, self‑congratulatory, and non‑specific to risky countries while still justifying compliance with local law and government data requests.

Norway’s Wealth Fund and Activist Investing

• Commenters debate whether the fund’s stance reflects principled ethics, political theater, or mission drift from its core goal of long‑term financial security.
• Some defend its ~6–7% long‑run return as appropriate for a large, conservative pension vehicle that explicitly balances returns with ethical guidelines.
• Others worry about sovereign wealth funds becoming politicized “activist” tools, though critics reply that refusing to invest “at any cost” is both legitimate and necessary.