This is just woke special interest groups buying shares to be loud. Sell your shares if you don't agree. This kind of thing is going to make being a public companies less and less desirable and push more and more companies too remain private, further concentrating wealth because of misguided "investor protection" rules.

Just? If special interest groups control 60+% of shares outside of Musk's personal stake, I'd be shocked.

The data argues against your hypothesis pretty convincingly.

I would think a lot of individual shareholders don't vote unless there's a high profile or high stakes issue like the Solarcity acquisition. Not sure if this data is available but would be interesting. This allows special interest groups to have an outsized influence on the vote.

The data comes from morningstar, and the adjusted data removed Musk's shares. To perform that calculation they just have total numbers of votes cast. (And I would guess that most shareholders vote by proxy, meaning individual shareholders are, in fact, voting.)

If they controlled that many shares then it would be policy not a request. They clearly do not.

Or investors are trying to mitigate potential damage to share prices if Tesla doesn’t improve their image.

Speaking from experience of owning a model s, Tesla vehicles are not particularly high quality. Pleasant to drive, yes, but not particularly well built.

I wonder if shareholders are trying to shore up long term concerns/risks they see with the company before the image of Tesla being a "cool" brand wears off.

Is there hard evidence that diversity in organizations increases innovation and competitiveness? I hear it a lot, but I've always assumed it's a hand-wavey platitude designed to trojan horse in discriminatory hiring policies weighted by race, gender or other protected classes rather than ability.

Several reviews have produced output that shows, yes, diversity increases financial results. A summary of such reviews is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2020/01/15/diver...

Use that link to locate the studies themselves if you'd like.

The thesis is that diverse product owners recognize when market needs are under served. They are more likely to actually make a product that niches find useful and desirable.

I always find it funny when someone tries to influence teslas stock price with an idiotic article, but it's even more funny when nobody buys it.

I don't see how the issues they bring up are going to materially affect the business or stock price. Everyone knows TSLA is overvalued but this isn't what would move the needle.

Maybe the people voting care about the issues raised in the votes? Eg, use of arbitration against employees might be something someone genuinely cares about, independent of the impact to the stock price

Is arbitration or the lack thereof really going to change the number of cars they sell or their revenue in a meaningful way?

That's exactly my point. Some shareholders vote with criteria other than "cars sold" in mind. I regularly vote to improve worker quality of life, even if it means weaker financials for the company in stock votes.