July, 30 2021, 09:37am EDT

Top 10 Leading Venture Capital Firms Failing in their Responsibility to Respect Human Rights
Almost none of the world's largest venture capitalist (VC) firms have adequate human rights due diligence policies in place, Amnesty International reveals today in a landmark
WASHINGTON
Almost none of the world's largest venture capitalist (VC) firms have adequate human rights due diligence policies in place, Amnesty International reveals today in a landmark report.
Venture capitalists play a decisive role in shaping the future of technology, and with it the future of our economies, politics, societies and our human rights. And yet there is woefully little effort by VC firms to ensure they are not investing in companies whose products and services may be causing or contributing to human rights abuses.
In the first comprehensive look at the human rights responsibilities of venture capitalists, Amnesty International surveyed all the firms on the Venture Capital Journal's list of the 50 largest VC firms, as well as three leading tech accelerators (Y Combinator, 500 Startups and TechStars). Amnesty International found that none of the ten largest firms - who together have raised more than $82 billion over the last five years - had adequate human rights due diligence policies in place. In fact, of the 50 VC firms and three tech accelerators surveyed by Amnesty International, we found that only a single firm (Atomico) had human rights due diligence processes in place that potentially met the standards set forth by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Failure to carry out adequate due diligence is a failure of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The vast majority of leading VC firms are failing in their responsibility to respect human rights under international standards on business and human rights, including the globally-endorsed UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
"Our research has revealed that the vast majority of the world's most influential venture capitalist firms operate with little to no consideration of the human rights impact of their decisions," said Michael Kleinman, Silicon Valley Director of Amnesty Tech. "The stakes could not be higher - these investment titans hold the purse strings for the technologies of tomorrow, and with it, the future shape of our societies."
Grading the world's largest VC firms
This report examines 50 of the world's largest VC firms as measured in total funding raised over the last five years - together, a total of $164 billion dollars - as well as three high profile startup accelerators. For this report, Amnesty International reviewed publicly available information on each VC firm's human rights due diligence processes. We also sent numerous letters to each firm, requesting additional information.
As mentioned above, none of the world's top ten largest VC firms have sufficient human rights due diligence policies in place. Eight of these firms (NEA, Tiger Global Management, Sequoia Capital, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Andreessen Horowitz, Accel, Index Venture Partners and General Catalyst) showed no evidence that they checked whether their investments could be linked to human rights abuses. Two of the firms (Insight Partners and Norwest Venture Partners) do conduct some level of human rights due diligence, although not to the standards set out in the UN Guiding Principles.
Amnesty International's research highlights the fact that VC firms fund companies whose products are sold to repressive governments and cause or contribute to human rights abuses. For instance, VC-backed technology companies provide spyware equipment to the Chinese government, which forms part of the dystopian surveillance infrastructure monitoring the Uighur population in Xinjiang.
VC firms also invest in companies whose business models undermine human rights. For instance, Amnesty International in our Surveillance Giants report explained how the surveillance-based business model of social media companies including Facebook and Google undermines our right to privacy. Yet venture capitalists continue to invest in companies like TikTok with similar surveillance-based business models. Companies relying on app-based or "gig workers", such as Lyft and Uber, also receive critical funding from venture capitalists, despite employees often facing exploitative and abusive work conditions.
Further, the lack of human rights due diligence by VC firms dramatically increases the risk that they fund companies developing new and "frontier" technologies that have a significant negative impact on human rights. For instance, the application of increasingly powerful artificial intelligence / machine learning (AI/ML) tools across a wide variety of sectors risks amplifying existing societal biases and discrimination.
"A lack of human rights due diligence means venture capitalists are turning a blind eye to whether their investments are contributing to human rights violations," said Kleinman.
"VC firms cannot act like they are above the law. Like all companies, they have a responsibility to carry out due diligence in order to identify, prevent and mitigate any adverse human rights impacts of their investments."
Lack of diversity
Investment teams that are predominantly white and male are less likely to fund startups led by women and Black, indigenous and other people of color. In turn, this lack of diversity means the new technologies that receive investment are less likely to consider their impact on women as well as minority and marginalized communities.
For instance, a recent survey in the US conducted by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), Venture Forward and Deloitte, found that women comprise only 23% of venture capital investment professionals - those involved in deciding which startups to fund - while 65% of firms did not have a single female investment partner. This lack of representation has a direct impact on start-up investment - in 2018, all-female founding teams received just 2.2% of all US-based venture funding.
The numbers are even worse for racial diversity. According to the same NVCA, Venture Forward and Deloitte survey, only 3% of VC decision-making investment staff in the US are Black, and 4% Latinx. Black and Latinx founders also received less than 2.3% of VC funding. The problem is even more glaring from an intersectional perspective - Black and Latinx female founders receive less than 0.5% of all US-based venture capital funding in 2019.
The situation in the UK is comparable. According to Diversity VC, as of 2019, men comprised 80% of all investment roles at venture capital firms in the UK.
"This glaring lack of diversity means new frontier technologies are being largely funded and built by white men, without an understanding of the broader impact of their technologies. VC firms urgently need more women and minority groups in decision making roles and should publicly commit to hiring more diverse teams," said Kleinman.
"Venture capitalists ultimately get to decide which startups will grow to become the next Google or Facebook. If we want to ensure that tomorrow's leading tech companies and technologies support our human rights, we need to act today."
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
Trump Tariffs Have Cost Average US Family Nearly $1,200 So Far
"The president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
Dec 11, 2025
As President Donald Trump persistently claims the economy is working for Americans, Democrats in the US House and Senate on Thursday released an analysis that puts a number to the recent polling that's found many Americans feel squeezed by higher prices: $1,200.
That's how much the average household in the US has paid in tariff costs over the past 10 months, according to the Joint Economic Committee—and costs are expected to continue climbing.
The Democrats, including Ranking Member Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), analyzed official US Treasury Department data on the amount of tariff revenue collected since the beginning of Trump's second term as he's imposed tariffs across the European Union and on dozens of other countries—some as high as 50%.
The White House has insisted the tariffs on imports will "pry open foreign markets" and force exporters overseas to pay more, resulting in lower prices for US consumers.
But the JEC combined the Treasury data with independent estimates of the percent of each tariff dollar that is paid by consumers, as companies pass along their higher import prices to them.
At first, US families were paying an average of less than $60 in tariff costs when Trump began the trade war in February and March.
But that amount shot up to more than $80 per family in April when he expanded the tariffs, and monthly costs have steadily increased since then.
In November, a total of $24.04 billion was paid by consumers in tariff costs—or $181.29 per family.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families."
From February-November, families have paid an average of $1,197.50 each, according to the JEC analysis.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families,” said Hassan.
If costs remain as high as they were over the next 12 months, families are projected to pay $2,100 per year as a result of Trump's tariffs.
The analysis comes a week after Republicans on a House Ways and Means subcommittee attempted to avoid the topic of tariffs—which have a 61% disapproval rating among the public, according to Pew Research—at a hearing on global competitiveness for workers and businesses.
"Rep. Jimmy Gomez [D-Calif.] read several quotes from [former Rep. Kevin] Brady [R-Texas] during his time in Congress stating that tariffs are taxes that impede economic growth. Brady, who chaired the Ways and Means Committee and drafted Trump’s first tax law in 2017 (and now works as a lobbyist), had no desire to discuss those quotes or the topic of tariffs," wrote Steve Warmhoff, federal policy director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Nor did Republicans address the point made by the Democrats’ witness, Kimberly Clausing, when she explained that Trump’s tariffs are the biggest tax increase on Americans (measured as a share of the economy) since 1982."
Clausing estimated that the tariffs will amount "to an annual tax increase of about $1,700 for an average household" if they stay at current levels, while Trump's decision to lower tariffs on goods such as meat, vegetables, fruits, and coffee last month amounted to just $35 in annual savings per household.
The JEC has also recently released analyses of annual household electricity costs under Trump, which were projected to go up by $100 for the average family despite the president's campaign pledge that "your energy bill within 12 months will be cut in half."
Last month the panel found that the average household is spending approximately $700 more per month on essentials like food, shelter, and energy since Trump took office.
“At a time when both parties should be working together to lower costs," said Hassan on Thursday, "the president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tlaib Rips Lawmakers Who 'Drool at the Opportunity to Fund War' While Opposing Healthcare for All
"They’re gutting healthcare and food assistance to pay for bombs and weapons. It’s a sick vicious cycle," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Dec 11, 2025
"Imagine if our government funded our communities like they fund war."
That was Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich.) response to the House's bipartisan passage Wednesday of legislation that authorizes nearly $901 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year, as tens of millions of Americans face soaring health insurance premiums and struggle to afford basic necessities amid the nation's worsening cost-of-living crisis.
Tlaib, who voted against the military policy bill, had harsh words for her colleagues who "drool at the opportunity to fund war and genocide, but when it comes to universal healthcare, affordable housing, and food assistance, they suddenly argue that we simply can’t afford it."
"Congress just authorized nearly a trillion dollars for death and destruction but cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," said Tlaib, referring to the budget reconciliation package that Republicans and President Donald Trump enacted over the summer.
"They’re gutting healthcare and food assistance to pay for bombs and weapons. It’s a sick vicious cycle," Tlaib continued. "Another record-breaking military budget is impossible to justify when Americans are sleeping on the streets, unable to afford groceries to feed their children, and racking up massive amounts of medical debt just for getting sick."
House passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) came as Republicans in both chambers of Congress pushed healthcare proposals that would not extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year, resulting in massive premium hikes for millions.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that a Senate Democratic plan to extend the ACA subsidies for three years would cost around $85 billion—a fraction of the military spending that House lawmakers just authorized.
The NDAA, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, approves $8 billion more in military spending than the Trump White House asked for in its annual budget request.
According to the National Priorities Project, that $8 billion "would be more than enough" to restore federal nutrition assistance to the millions expected to lose it due to expanded work requirements included in the Trump-GOP budget law.
"Our priorities are disgustingly misplaced," Tlaib said Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Don't Give the Pentagon $1 Trillion,’ Critics Say as House Passes Record US Military Spending Bill
"From ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by," said one group.
Dec 10, 2025
US House lawmakers on Wednesday approved a $900.6 billion military spending bill, prompting critics to highlight ways in which taxpayer funds could be better spent on programs of social uplift instead of perpetual wars.
The lower chamber voted 312-112 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026, which will fund what President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans call a "peace through strength" national security policy. The proposal now heads for a vote in the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.
Combined with $156 billion in supplemental funding included in the One Big Beautiful Bill signed in July by Trump, the NDAA would push military spending this fiscal year to over $1 trillion—a new record in absolute terms and a relative level unseen since World War II.
The House is about to vote on authorizing $901 billion in military spending, on top of the $156 billion included in the Big Beautiful Bill.70% of global military spending already comes from the US and its major allies.www.stephensemler.com/p/congress-s...
[image or embed]
— Stephen Semler (@stephensemler.bsky.social) December 10, 2025 at 1:16 PM
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) led opposition to the bill on Capitol Hill, focusing on what lawmakers called misplaced national priorities, as well as Trump's abuse of emergency powers to deploy National Guard troops in Democratic-controlled cities under pretext of fighting crime and unauthorized immigration.
Others sounded the alarm over the Trump administration's apparent march toward a war on Venezuela—which has never attacked the US or any other country in its nearly 200-year history but is rich in oil and is ruled by socialists offering an alternative to American-style capitalism.
"I will always support giving service members what they need to stay safe but that does not mean rubber-stamping bloated budgets or enabling unchecked executive war powers," CPC Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on social media, explaining her vote against legislation that "pours billions into weapons systems the Pentagon itself has said it does not need."
"It increases funding for defense contractors who profit from global instability and it advances a vision of national security rooted in militarization instead of diplomacy, human rights, or community well-being," Omar continued.
"At a time when families in Minnesota’s 5th District are struggling with rising costs, when our schools and social services remain underfunded, and when the Pentagon continues to evade a clean audit year after year, Congress should be investing in people," she added.
The Congressional Equality Caucus decried the NDAA's inclusion of a provision banning transgender women from full participation in sports programs at US military academies:
The NDAA should invest in our military, not target minority communities for exclusion.While we're grateful that most anti-LGBTQI+ provisions were removed, the GOP kept one anti-trans provision in the final bill—and that's one too many.We're committed to repealing it.
[image or embed]
— Congressional Equality Caucus (@equality.house.gov) December 10, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Advocacy groups also denounced the legislation, with the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project (NPP) noting that "from ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by."
"The last thing Congress should do is deliver $1 trillion into the hands of [Defense] Secretary Pete Hegseth," NPP program director Lindsay Koshgarian said in a statement Wednesday. "Under Secretary Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon has killed unidentified boaters in the Caribbean, sent the National Guard to occupy peaceful US cities, and driven a destructive and divisive anti-diversity agenda in the military."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


