The resolution, known as Proposal 11, is being backed by a coalition of more than 40 investors led by Zevin Asset Management. The firms collectively manage $1.15 trillion in assets and hold around $2.2 billion in Alphabet shares directly, investors say. This is equivalent to less than 1% of the company’s shares outstanding, given Alphabet’s roughly $4.4 trillion market value. In an earlier letter to Alphabet, the group requested a meeting with management after the company came out against a shareholder resolution calling for a report on how it oversees related risks.

It is unlikely the motion will pass through the Friday vote, investors say, but they say they are hoping pressure on the company will result in a meaningful review of its practices.

Investors have been pressing for clearer reporting on the risks arising from what they say are potential gaps in Google-parent Alphabet’s policies and oversight of customer data processed through Google Services and Google Cloud.

The investors are seeking a report to evaluate how governance gaps could lead to Google’s products facilitating “surveillance, censorship, profiling, and targeting in contexts of governmental overreach” and recommend risk-mitigation measures. The proposal cites Project Nimbus, the company’s $1.2 billion cloud computing contract with the Israeli government, as an example of a contract that “may not align with [Alphabet’s] data governance principles.”

The pressure is part of a recent wave of scrutiny around AI governance across the tech sector. In the last few months, a series of deals struck with the U.S. Pentagon by major AI labs and tech firms, including OpenAI and Google, have sparked concerns over the use of such technology for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. In London, some staff at Google DeepMind have launched a union effort following the company’s deal with the Pentagon. 

Similar pressure has been applied at Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple as cloud and AI services become more deeply embedded in government and military operations. There have also been several protests staged by tech workers over Project Nimbus specifically. In 2024, Google fired a number of people who protested against Project Nimbus.

In 2025, Google also revised its AI principles that had previously pledged not to pursue technologies whose primary purpose was to cause harm, including weapons and certain surveillance uses, replacing them with a more general commitment to develop AI “responsibly” and in line with applicable law. The move drew criticism from human rights groups and some employees at the time, who argued it weakened clear the red lines around military and surveillance use for which they had previously fought.

Mounting scrutiny over government AI use 

Investors say the core issue is whether Alphabet has sufficient visibility into how its tools are being used once governments deploy them. 

Marcela Pinilla, director of sustainable investing at Zevin, told Fortune investors are seeking answers about the downstream use of Google’s technology. Once a government customer has access to Google’s cloud infrastructure and AI tools, they want to know if Google can actually see how that technology is being used and know that if it found evidence of misuse, it would intervene. 

Investors say their concerns deepened after Alphabet revised its AI Principles in 2025—a change they argue makes robust contractual safeguards and board-level oversight more critical.

Joshua Brockwell, director of investment communications at Azzad Asset Management, a Muslim faith‑based investment firm that is part of the coalition, said he’s concerned about a long‑term hit to Alphabet’s ability to attract top talent. 

“A large number of students and potential employees at Alphabet have pledged not to work for the company until it gets out of the business of aiding and abetting these kinds of potential human rights violations. That doesn’t bode well for having the best and brightest available to help grow the value of the investment,” he said.

There are also specific concerns over the potential for mass surveillance. AI technology has the capacity to aggregate disparate data streams—such as location, biometric identifiers, communications metadata, and public records—into detailed, real-time profiles of individuals and groups. Experts warn that even though it might argued that mass surveillance is unconstitutional in the U.S., because the collection or purchase of each individual piece of data may be legal, stitching this disparate data together to track individuals at scale falls into a legal gray area.

“What was before an innocuous data point now, with AI, can be combined and abundantly collected and sliced and diced to really hone in on families, individuals, and that is a huge worry on how the instrument of AI is going to be applied and accelerate conflict,” Pinilla said.

Alphabet has recommended that shareholders vote against the resolution, saying the company already has a “robust, multi-layered framework for data privacy and security” and that its existing disclosures “already provide meaningful transparency.” The company did not respond to a request for comment by press time. 

There has already been pushback from other investors. The Anti-Defamation League and JLens—an investment adviser that describes itself as aligning capital with Jewish values—jointly urged shareholders to vote against Proposal 11, arguing in a public statement that the resolution singles out Israel through its focus on Project Nimbus. 

Still, Pinilla says the NBIM backing is a significant boost to the coalition’s efforts. “That announcement really supports that it’s not Zevin and a handful of investors picking on Alphabet—it’s a real concern about systemic risk and human rights violations,” she said.

Kamil Zabielski, Head of Sustainable Investments at Storebrand Asset Management, another investor backing the resolution, told Fortune the stakes were financial as well as ethical. 

“For us, this is ultimately about whether Alphabet has adequate safeguards that are up to par to match the real-world risks of the use—or misuse—of its services, especially in high-risk conflict contexts,” he said. “Failures in managing human rights risks stemming from governance gaps can have real-life consequences and can lead to legal, regulatory, operational, and reputational consequences that affect long-term shareholder value.”