Shareholder activists have asked Qantas to review its policy of facilitating forced deportations, saying it could harm the airline’s reputation and share values.

On Friday, Qantas shareholders will vote on a motion that asks the company to review its policy of transporting asylum seekers and refugees who have been forcibly deported by the Australian government.

Currently, the airline transports people if requested by the Department of Home Affairs but critics say many refused refugees have not been properly assessed, in what could be a violation of international law.

The motion comes after multiple protests against the airline’s role including one during an award sponsored by the airline.

Ahead of the vote, two proxy adviser groups, and one investor, have said Qantas should review its policies.

Proxy advisers give recommendations to shareholders about whether to vote for certain resolutions, based on how they will affect share prices and other factors.

One group, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which invests the cash from retirement funds, is advising its shareholders to support the motion in its entirety, even though the Qantas board opposes it.

Two of the proxy advisers have recommended the motion should be opposed, but still asked for a review.

CGI Glass Lewis told shareholders to vote against the motion but warned that Qantas is “exposed to certain human rights-related risks”.

“Allegations of human rights abuses can inflict, at a minimum, reputational damage and may dramatically affect shareholder value … We believe that a thorough review of how this issue is being handled would be in the best interests of shareholders.”

Another adviser, Regnan, also backed a review in principle.

“We are broadly supportive of calls for the company to review its policies and processes associated with this issue,” it said.

But it found other parts of the motion – which called for the report to be given to shareholders – went too far, and advised a no vote.

Qantas has consistently stated it would not refuse deportations because government and courts were better placed to decide on immigration matters.

But Regnan’s advice was critical of the company line, saying it was a risk to portray Qantas as “captive” to the government.

“We are concerned about Qantas’ statement that declining to provide service would amount to ‘undermining the Australian government’ … We do not see it as consistent with investor interests for commercial decisions to be, or to be presented as, captive to priorities set by government(s).”

A Qantas spokesperson told Guardian Australia: “Qantas shareholders will have their say on the matter at our annual general meeting this week. We expect these groups to respect the outcome of the vote.

“These are very complex and emotive matters but it’s not for airlines to adjudicate on who should and shouldn’t get to stay in Australia after the government and courts have made their decisions.”

The resolution is being proposed by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility and its director, Brynn O’Brien welcomed the advice of the proxy advisors.

“It simply makes no business sense that an insignificant part of Qantas’s business is exposing them to the real risk of involvement in human rights abuses, and very significant brand damage. The best way for Qantas to manage this risk is simply to stop doing removals work on behalf of the Australian government.”

Sarah Dale, the principal solicitor for the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, also called on Qantas to halt its role in the deportations.

“While the airline participates in involuntary transportation of vulnerable people, it is likely complicit in the violation of international standards,” she said. “Contrary to what Qantas says, the human rights of refugees and people seeking asylum are no longer adequately protected by Australian law or the government … Over the last 12 months we have seen an increase in returns of people in circumstances where international legal standards have not been followed.”

Internationally, other airlines have refused to deport refugees or immigrants on government orders.

In the UK, Virgin Atlantic has refused to deport immigrants after a spate of wrongful removals known as the Windrush scandal. In the US, United and American airlines have refused to carry immigrant children separated from their parents under new government policies.

In Germany, pilots for Lufthansa have also refused to deport unwilling asylum seekers due to a range of reasons, with government figures claiming 222 deportations failed last year due to pilots refusing to take off.

In Australia, Virgin Australia also facilitates forced deportations.