"How can a responsible company ensure that it respects freedom of religion or belief for all in access to and during employment irrespective of location or context ?"

The dilemma for responsible business is how to ensure that the religious practices of actual and potential employees from different religious groups are accommodated, striking an appropriate balance between respecting the freedom to manifest one's religion, protecting the rights of workers in general and attending to legitimate business interest. This is especially important in certain locations where governments prohibit or restrict the practice of certain religions.

Likewise, companies can also face challenges in avoid complicity where they do not take adequate steps to safeguard their employees against discrimination targeting members of certain religious, non-theistic groups, or if they send their employees to countries or areas where they are likely to be victimised for holding certain religions or beliefs.

Religion in the workplace

Risks to business can arise out of ignorance of the diverse contexts in which businesses operate. According to the UN Global Compact and UN Alliance of Civilizations, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the workplace is a constantly evolving issue, driven by:

• Demographics: "Increasing levels of migration, much of it to seek work opportunities, are bringing religious diversity to societies that might previously have had a sense of religious homogeneity"
• The increased role of religion in public life: The increasing role of religion in public life means "religious inclusiveness is becoming a growing factor in employee recruitment, retention, productivity and satisfaction"
• Globalisation of operations: This is creating situations in which "corporate employee policies and practices developed in the religious context of the company's home market (e.g. with regard to the right of women and other members of religious groups to wear religious clothes or holiday schedules) might run contrary to religious requirements in other markets"
• The Internet and outsourcing: This is "increasingly connecting employees with shared, including religious, interests globally"

For the purposes of this particular dilemma, the globalisation of operations (i.e. through the expansion by multi-national corporations into a range of growth markets) is a particularly salient factor. Nonetheless, this dilemma also poses a challenge for businesses that have significant numbers of employees who have relocated from one location – with divergent religious norms – to another (i.e. different categories of migrant workers, for example. As a result, the dilemma goes beyond issues of growth market contexts. It is likely to arise, for example, in any location where Multi-National Corporations' (MNCs) employees find themselves working amongst colleagues – or living amongst community members – with religions or beliefs that differ from their own.

Key elements of freedom of religion or belief

For the purposes of this dilemma freedom of religion or belief is interpreted as incorporating the following elements:

• Freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief: This category deals with the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to manifest one's religion or belief. It covers such areas as freedom to worship, religious symbols, observance of holidays and days of rest, teaching and disseminating materials, among others. For businesses, this means respecting the religious practices of workers from different religious groups, for example, in relation to holidays and rest days.

• Freedom from discrimination based on religion or belief: This category deals with discrimination on the basis of religion or belief/ inter-religious discrimination/ tolerance. For businesses the effective protection of employees from discrimination based on religion or belief necessitates that one's right to choose, practice and observe religion or belief is not a determining factor in access to and during employment, in particular related to among other things, hiring, discipline, advancement and redundancy.

According to General Comment 22 on Article 18 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by the UN Human Rights Committee, there is a critical distinction to be made between the right to hold, change or adopt religion or belief and the right to manifest religion or belief. International human rights law does not allow limitation of the internal-freedom rights (right to change, have or adopt) of religion or belief. This is distinct from the external freedom "to manifest his [or her] religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching, which is broadly construed. Manifestations of religion or belief, in contrast to internal freedom, may be limited, but only under strictly limited circumstances set forth in the applicable limitations clauses. It is a requirement that the limitations are "prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others".

Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief

It is important to state that issues of discrimination constitute the corner-stone of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Therefore, companies should place particular focus on promoting equality and non-discrimination when addressing issues of religion or belief in access to and during employment. Efforts to respect freedom of religion or belief in the workplace are likely to prove – at least from a corporate point of view – challenging due to the fact that there is a misconception within international corporate culture that religion or belief is entirely a ‘private' matter that should neither be actively promoted nor discouraged by employers in order to avoid accusations of discrimination. However, discrimination in general occurs when employers treat one person or group less favourably than another in a similar situation and this treatment cannot be objectively and reasonably justified.

However, the proactive accommodation of any one religion or belief within the workplace can be legitimate and permissible in order to overcome an existing situation of inequality and discrimination against a disadvantaged religious group. This concept is also called "positive discrimination", "affirmative action" or "reverse discrimination".

Indeed, the placing of a rule or policy that appears to apply to everyone equally can work to the disadvantage of some groups and may amount to indirect discrimination. For example, where a company requires that no religious clothing or headwear is worn by any employee where it is not strictly required for the job, it may amount to indirect discrimination since some religious groups could be disadvantaged.

See Freedom of religion case studies

Back to top

Companies are likely to face challenges in relation to freedom of religion or belief in access and during employment where it is operating in a context characterised by:

Discriminatory or repressive regulations

As noted by the ILO in "Equality at Work: Tackling the Challenges", discrimination based on religion or belief is often worse in countries where there are restrictions of the fundamental rights, such as freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of religion or belief, where a state religion is recognised as official or followed by the majority of the population and not all beliefs are entitled to equal protection (e.g. non-believers). Common legal restrictions include measures that bar individuals of certain faiths from working in particular sectors or jobs, require people of all faiths and non-believers to adhere to mainstream religious norms, or traditions place onerous restrictions on specific forms of religious expression and severely impair freedom of association for religious purposes.

The ILO notes that in Saudi Arabia, for example, non-Muslim migrant workers are forbidden from the public display of religious symbols such as Christian crosses or Hindu tilaka and advertisements exclude certain groups (particularly Hindus). Similarly, in Senegal and Sudan, Christian job applicants are required to deny their faith or to convert to Islam if they want to be employed. In Egypt, Coptic Christians are subject to persistent discrimination, with limited access to education, recruitment and promotion. In other states – for example where governments maintain secularist or atheistic philosophies (e.g. China or, at a constitutional level, Turkey), all religious groups are potentially subject to restrictive or repressive measures. The dilemma for businesses operating in environments with discriminatory or repressive regulations is to avoid tacitly facilitating the external dynamics of marginalisation and unequal and discriminatory treatment in access and during employment, whilst maintaining both a political and social licence to operate.

Prevalent and embedded social intolerance/inter-religious discrimination

Some growth markets might have adequate legal protection ensuring both freedom of religion or belief, tolerance and non-discrimination, yet are characterised by animosity between religious groups – or antipathy for religious groups by non-believers and vice versa. If cultural assimilation and amicable co-existence is lacking outside the workplace, it is likely to also be reflected (at least to some degree) within the workforce.

For instance, tensions between Muslims and Hindus are particularly acute in some areas of northern India and have erupted into mass violence. In a context where friction between groups is so intense, discrimination or harassment might infiltrate into the workplace.

This issue can be aggravated where discrimination based on religion or belief coincides with distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, political, ethnic or other status. The ILO notes, for example, that in India, Pasmanda and Dalits (the lowest castes) suffer more extreme marginalisation and socio-economic discrimination if they are either Muslim or Christian. In other countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, meanwhile, Hindus are treated as unequal citizens and confined to low-skilled jobs.

Legal compliance by companies

In a small number of extreme cases, local laws may actually require companies to support – or even exercise – a degree of religious intolerance. This is often the case where there is an official state religion and the majority of the population adheres to an orthodox strand of the faith (for example, Islam in Saudi Arabia), or where secularism is official policy (for example, China and Turkey).

In China, for example, the Falun Gong religious group is outlawed – meaning that companies may actually break the law by facilitating or supporting their activities, or by failing to assist the authorities in their investigations/enforcement of the law. In such circumstances, companies are expected to find ways to honour internationally recognised human rights standards to the greatest extent possible and to be able to demonstrate that they have made a serious effort to do so. This is a dilemma that has been experienced by certain MNCs operating in China – with cases of local law enforcement officials searching company offices and records for evidence of Falun Gong activity amongst employees. In countries with a poor human rights record, such as China, companies are advised to determine the scale, complexity and the severity of violations of freedom of religion or belief as early as possible in order to set up steps during their human rights due diligence process to avoid legal and complicity risks.

This does not mean, however, that such situations will not give rise to controversy or human rights concerns. In September 2010, for example, it was reported that a Falun Gong employee of Australian air carrier Qantas (Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services) claimed that she had been demoted from her job as an international flight attendant after being found to have carried Falun Gong materials into China. The Chinese authorities found a copy of Zhuan Falun (the main Falun Gong text) in her luggage, as well as a newspaper linked to the movement – resulting in her deportation and warnings not to return to the country. Qantas said that they had limited the employee to short-haul flights because its international crew needed to be able to travel to any country. Qantas also noted that its staff manual forbade employees from ‘conveying' newspapers while working.

Similarly, there are several countries – both in traditional MNC markets and in growth economies (see below) – that have opted to ban the burqa (i.e. outerwear used by some Muslim women to cover their entire body other than their eyes and hands) or similar items of clothing in public spaces. They have done so using a range of justifications including, amongst other things, national security, societal integration and women's liberation. In July 2010, for example, Syria announced a ban on (full face veils and robes) in both public and private universities. Turkey, Belgium and France have similar restrictions. Although international instruments do not speak clearly to these issues, companies should adopt a cautious approach towards thepromotion of tolerance and non-discrimination when applying such national legal requirements.

Intersection of freedom of religion or belief with violations of other human rights and business objectives

In addition, MNCs are likely to face a number of challenges, particularly as they come into greater contact with societies that demonstrate high levels of religious orthodoxy – as well as conflicting values and priorities. This is not only a matter of companies moving into new operating contexts. Increasing labour migration also means that these issues can impact MNCs within their better-established operations as well. When accommodating religious concerns, companies should take care to present policies in a transparent and anti-discriminatory manner and provide a sound rationale underpinning their decisions.

Striking an appropriate balance

First, there is a risk that by fully respecting and supporting the religious rights of one group only, the rights of other religious or belief groups might be undermined (or perceived to be undermined). An example of this might be where Christian Evangelicals demand the right to proselytise and/or convert non-Christians. Accommodation of such a demand within the workplace would clearly provoke opposition amongst other religious or belief groups or the staff in general. Likewise, the differing requirements, manifestations and practices of different religious groups mean that MNCs are likely to be subject to conflicting demands depending on the group in question. Examples of this issue can be found in the JBS Swift and HP cases above.

Another example of this can be found in the Intel case mentioned in this dilemma. Following opposition by ultra-Orthodox Jews. Intel decided to stop employing Jewish workers at its Jerusalem plants on Saturdays That particular case illustrated that demands for changes to internal policies can originate from outside the workplace. Orthodox members of the greater community exerted sustained pressure that caused the company to eventually relent and change their operational strategy. Whilst satisfying Orthodox groups, the halt to business activity on Sabbath implicitly restricted the ability of non-Orthodox Jews (and other groups) from working on Saturdays.

Violation of other human rights

Secondly, there are situations when the right to choose, practice and observe religion or belief intersects with such rights as freedom of opinion and expression, prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, among others. MNCs can undermine these human rights if they do not take adequate actions to protect their employees from discrimination and harassment for exercising their freedom of expression in relation to their religious or other belief. There are a number of circumstances in which such situations could occur, examples within the workplace might include:

• Restrictions on proselytising: Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Evangelicals and other groups place a premium on proselytising and in many cases consider it a religious duty to encourage conversions within and outside the workplace. In many cases, this is likely to cause tensions among these and other groups– or be perceived as a form of harassment.
• Gender-based discrimination: Some hard-line adherents to Islam, Orthodox Judaism and certain other religions may consider it a religious duty to avoid contact with members of the opposite sex within and outside the workplace. Accommodating this requirement within the workplace in particular could be considered objectionable by both men and women who consider it a barrier to gender equality. An example of this kind of ‘conflict' might be found in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where there are strong religious norms that require the strict separation of men and women – including in the workplace.
• Intolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) rights: Some orthodox religious adherents will be uncomfortable with the protection of the rights of LGBTQ individuals, and open expression of homosexuality and bisexuality, as well as the practice of those who may be gender-fluid, or transitioning. Indeed, they may consider it a duty to either avoid individuals in this category, or to even ‘reform' them. This risks compromising other people's freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and right to privacy.

Business objectives

The dilemma involves accommodation of freedom of religion or belief of jobseekers and employees, in a way that it respects a number of other rights such as:

• The right to manifest one's religion or belief without causing significant operational disruption (e.g. maintenance of strict prayer times for airline pilots)
• The right to wear clothes that keep with individuals or groups religion or belief without risks to occupational health and safety (e.g., the wearing of loose headwear or garments such as a burqa around moving machinery)
• The right to be free from discrimination based on religion or belief related to participation in certain business activities (e.g. restrictions in employment opportunities due to the Islamic need to avoid ‘usury' in certain finance activities, dismissal from work for refusal to register civil partnership as a matter of religious conscience etc.)

See Freedom of religion case studies

Back to top

Real-world examples

Specific examples of dilemmas that business may face in respecting the right to freedom of religion or belief in the workplace are predominantly found in countries with well-established legal protections and effective legal enforcement regimes. However, the dearth of reporting on this topic in areas with weaker laws and enforcement mechanisms does not mean that there is no problem in the first place. Indeed, a lack of statistical evidence and/or publicly reported legal proceedings addressing discrimination based on religion or belief could in certain contexts may suggest that official protection of freedom of religion or belief is actually inadequate – or that it is so culturally accepted that it is essentially considered normal.

This suggests that respecting equality and non-discrimination of employees on grounds of religion or belief may be more of a challenge in some growth markets than in the traditional locations in which MNCs have historically operated. Nonetheless, in order to illustrate some of the issues around this topic, it is often necessary to use examples from outside the growth economies. This is in order to establish the principles and lessons that companies can try and apply in potentially more challenging circumstances (e.g. guidance precedents) – and to identify the kind of outcomes that MNCs would ideally achieve, irrespective of location.

Born-again Christian awarded compensation following unfair dismissal

In 2014, a born-again Christian was awarded €70,000 after the Irish Equality Tribunal found that he was discriminated against due to his religion. The man was dismissed from his position at South Tipperary County Council for repeatedly speaking about his religion with co-workers and members of the public, and attempting to share the Gospel with them; something that he claimed was a fundamental tenant of his faith. However, the council held that he was not dismissed because of his religious views, but rather because he continually failed to comply with directions from senior management, following multiple disciplinary procedures. The Tribunal found that European charters on human rights and freedoms protect a right to manifest one's religion, and, as a result, the manifestation of religion is covered in the Employment Equality Act. This case highlights the difficulties companies face in allowing manifestations of belief in the workplace, while ensuring other members of staff, both religious and non-religious, do not feel harassed.

Christian employee loses discrimination case following requirement to work Sundays

In 2013, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales found that Celestina Mba, a practicing Christian, did not suffer religious discrimination when a dispute arose between her and her employer over her refusal to work on Sundays. Ms. Mba, who was employed by the London Borough of Merton, claimed that it was her deeply held belief that Sunday is a day for worship and not for work. However, the court found that her employer made efforts for two years to accommodate her religious practice by arranging shifts so she could attend church on Sundays. However, the court also found that given the nature of Ms. Mba's employment in an environment that requires 24/7 coverage for children with serious disabilities, she had a contractual and legal obligation to work on Sundays as and when required. This scenario demonstrates the difficulties that may arise for companies and instructions needing to provide a 24/7 service, whilst attempting to foster a diverse and inclusive workplace.

The EEOC sues UPS for religious discrimination

In 2015, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EOCC) sued delivery company, UPS, for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit claims that the company discriminated against employees and applicants who religious practices were in conflict with its uniform and appearance policy. The policy prohibits male employees in customer-facing or supervisory roles from having beards or growing their hair below collar length. The lawsuit maintains that since 2004, UPS has failed to hire or promote individuals who religious practices conflict with this policy. For example, a bearded Muslim man who applied for a position at the company was told that ‘God would understand' if he shaved his beard to get the job, or that he could apply for a lower-paying job if he wanted to keep his beard. Similarly, a Rastafarian part-time supervisor was told by his manager that they "did not want employees looking like women on (his) management team." This scenario demonstrates the potential discriminatory implications of company appearance policies.

Intel decides to stop employing Jewish workers at its Jerusalem plant on Saturdays following protests by the ultra-Orthodox community

The ultra-Orthodox community (also known as ‘Haredi Jews') in Israel comprises 12% of the Jewish population and is rapidly growing in number compared to other groups. There are tensions between Haredi and non-Haredi Orthodox Jews, as well as between Haredi and secular Jews over issues such as Jewish conversions, civil marriage and gay rights. Religious Jews are forbidden to work on the Jewish Sabbath, and in recent months the ultra-Orthodox have become increasingly militant in enforcing the Saturday work ban, including rallies against the opening of public car parks.

Intel has had operations in Israel for several years, but after sustained rallies by the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community who oppose work on Sabbath, it decided to stop employing Jewish workers at its Jerusalem plant on Saturdays. As reported by the BBC, under a compromise 2009 deal, Intel only employs 60 non-Jewish staff on the traditional day of rest. This demonstrates the kind of strong religious pressure companies can potentially find themselves subjected to from wider society – and which can have a significant operational impact.

Islamic advocacy group files discrimination case against US manufacturing company

In 2016, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed complaints against Ariens Co. in Wisconsin alleging religious discrimination against Muslim employees. The issue arose when the company began enforcing a new policy which made it impossible for Muslim workers to take breaks at traditional prayer times. The workers had previously been allowed to take breaks at the appropriate times for prayers. It is alleged that workers who attempted to pray beyond newly introduced break times were threatened with dismissal by the company. As a result, seven Muslim employees were let go in 2016, while a further 14 resigned over the dispute. CAIR argues that the refusal of the company to entertain or discuss options to offer reasonable religious accommodation is at odds with prevailing Title VII law and EEOC guidelines. As a result, the EOCC may decide to litigate the case in federal court. This scenario demonstrates the importance of considering diversity in the workplace when adopting new policies, and providing for flexibility where possible to accommodate religious beliefs.

Temporary employment agency found guilty of religious discrimination

In June 2017, Orlando-based staffing company, HospitalityStaff, was ordered to pay USD30,000 in damages following an EOCC religious discrimination case. The decree comes following allegations that the company violated religious discrimination law by requiring a Rastafarian employee to cut his dreadlocks will working at a hotel in Orlando. When the employee refused, he was taken off the assignment and not provided with alternative employment. As part of the ruling, HospitalityStaff has agreed to amend its employee handbook and policy manual providing for reasonable accommodations covering both disability and religious-based requests.

See Freedom of religion case studies

Back to top

Legal risks

Fundamental points that should be borne upon by businesses in order to avoid legal risks in relation to the freedom of religion or belief include the following major issues, among others:

Internal freedom right (forum internum)

The key international instruments confirm that "[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." In contrast to manifestations of religion, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion within the forum internum is absolute and may not be subjected to limitations of any kind. Thus, for example, legal requirements mandating involuntary disclosure of religious beliefs are impermissible. Both the UDHR (Article 18) and the ECHR (Article 9) recognise that the protection of the forum internum includes the right to change one's religion or belief. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 22 (48) on Article 18 states that "freedom to ‘have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including inter alia, the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief. In any event, the right to "change" or "to have or adopt" a religion or belief appears to fall within the domain of the absolute internal-freedom right, and national legislative provisions that impose limitations in this domain are inconsistent with internal-freedom requirements. Therefore, businesses should be particularly careful when investing in or operating in countries that enforce such legislation in order not to be found complicit in violation of the right.

External freedom right (forum externum)

Everyone has the freedom, either alone or in community with others, in public or private, "to manifest his [or her] religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching (ICCPR, Article 18.1). As suggested by this phrase, the scope of protected manifestations is broad. Thus, national legislation that protects only worship or narrow manifestation in the sense of ritual practice is inadequate. Also, it is important to remember that it both the manifestations of an individual's belief and those of a community that are protected. Thus, the manifestation of an individual's belief may be protected even if the individual's beliefs are stricter that those of other members of the community to which he or she belongs. Recognising this fact, however, does not imply that the beliefs of a community as a collective do not also warrant respect. However, external freedom, such as manifestations of religion or belief, in contrast to internal freedom, may be limited, but only under strictly limited circumstances set forth in the applicable limitations clauses.

In the US, for example, the external freedom, such as the right to manifestation can be limited to the extent to which it:

• Results in ‘undue hardship' to the company
• Compromises the human rights of other employees
• Increases health and safety risks

In another case, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, companies are required (on notice) to "reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless providing the accommodation would create an undue hardship." As a result, failure to make such reasonable accommodations by businesses would, in the US at least, result in significant fines and/or specific performance. However, businesses investing in or operating in countries with poor human rights record should pay particular attention to limitation and derogation clauses under national legislation in relation to this right.

Equality and non-discrimination

International human rights law obliges states to respect and to ensure to all individuals under their jurisdiction the right to freedom of religion or belief without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or other origin, property, birth or other status. In addition, the ILO has adopted No. 111, Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (1958).

According to this convention, discrimination includes:

• "Any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation
• Such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with representative employers' and workers' organisations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies"

Most ratifying states have relevant national legislation in place implementing the terms of these international legal instruments. Nonetheless, ratification does not equal enforcement, particularly in environments where groups vulnerable to discriminatory treatment wield little influence or power.

The US, for example, has a well-established federal anti-discrimination regime enforced by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The relevant legislation is Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whilst clearly not directly applicable to many emerging market scenarios at this juncture, this legislation nonetheless sets out some important principles – that are likely to be reflected in legislation in a number of countries and/or provide guidance for companies as to how to approach this issue.

The Civil Rights Act prohibits harassment or any other employment action based on:

• Affiliation with a particular religious or ethnic group
• Physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics, such as accent or dress associated with a particular religion, ethnicity, or country of origin
• The perception or belief that a person is a member of a particular racial, national origin, or religious group whether or not that perception is correct
• Association with a person or organisation of a particular religion or ethnicity

An example of a lawsuit under this legislation involved an allegation by an Iranian Muslim analyst employed at Merrill Lynch. Majid Borumand alleged that the bank refused to promote him. He was ultimately fired in 2005, allegedly because of his religion and national origin. Simultaneously, a less qualified colleague was promoted. According to the June 2007 complaint filed with the US District Court in Manhattan, Borumand was subject to such comments as "the reason that you are not allowed on the trading floor is because you are from a country which has a high risk factor and a threat." The resulting settlement with the EEOC required Merrill Lynch to pay a total of USD1.55 million to Borumand (in back pay, damages and legal fees) and to commit to improving employee training regarding religion and national origin bias.

Considering this experience, businesses should consider reviewing national legislation to assure that any differentiations among religions are justified by genuinely objective factors and that the risk of prejudicial treatment is minimised or totally eliminated.

Legal consequences of failure to respect freedom of religion or belief

In the event that companies breach laws relating to freedom of religion or belief, they are likely to face a range of sanctions including:

• Lawsuits (from affected individuals and/or groups)

• Legislative penalties and fines (e.g. as mandated by relevant regulations and judicial bodies)

Other costs can come in the form of legal fees and diverted management time and resources.

Reputational risks

Even where allegations of complicity do not result in legal action, companies can still face a range of non-legal risks. This is particularly the case for reputational risk, which can be very serious for companies operating in a number of growth markets. If a company is perceived to be in violation of the freedom of religion or belief of jobseekers and/or workers – it may end up alienating a range of stakeholders including consumers, investors, current and prospective employees and civil society members.

This has the potential to result, for example, in:

• Divestment by ethical investment organisations (many of which have religious origins, such as charities) who perceive an intolerant or discriminatory approach to religion or beliefs
• Reduced staff morale, motivation and commitment
• Reduced sales as a result of brand erosion amongst consumers who are either part of, or sympathetic to, religious groups that are perceived to be subject to unjustified restrictions and/or limitations on their freedoms

In addition, there is also a reputational risk if MNCs are seen as condoning the violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief by a given state.

Financial risks

As noted by the UN Global Compact and UN Alliance of Civilizations report, Doing Business in a Multicultural World, "to be successful in an inter-connected world, businesses of all sizes and in every country must be able to compete effectively in diverse, multicultural environments". This, notes the report, is due to the business advantages offered by:

• Creating a diverse and inclusive workplace that can attract, retain and motivate the best talent
• Recognising and responding to the diverse and changing needs of customers in the market place
• Managing critical relationships with government authorities and local communities in order to maintain a licence to operate

In light of these considerations, companies that fail to responsibly address violations of freedom of religion or belief risk losing out on these benefits. Although it is not always possible to ‘prove' that the commercial interests of a company has been harmed, globalisation, the growth of non-Western consumer markets and the internationalisation of the global workforce means some long-term consequences are likely. As pointed out by Special Representative of the Secretary-General John Ruggie, failures to respect [all] human rights can generate financial risks, for example, as a result of the suspension of operations due to protests.

See Freedom of religion case studies

Back to top

Companies can seek specific guidance on this and other issues relating to international labour standards from the ILO Helpdesk. This aims to help company managers and workers understand the ILO approach to socially responsible labour practices and to assist in the development of good industrial relations. The ILO Helpdesk website also contains detailed factsheets and links to information, resources and frequently asked questions on labour issues, using the ILO Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy as the framework. This includes information on decent work principles including workplace discrimination, among other areas.

The UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework for Business and Human Rights provides guidance on how to protect individuals and communities from corporate related human rights harm.

The framework is comprised of three key principles:

• Protect: The state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business;
• Respect: The corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and
• Remedy: Greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and non-judicial.

The framework states that in addition to complying with national laws businesses have a responsibility, in the context of the countries where they operate, to respect human rights through their own business activities and through their relationships with third parties – such as business partners and entities in their supply chains. To meet this responsibility, the framework notes that businesses should engage in human rights due diligence and specifies the main components of the process:

• Policies: Including a human rights policy containing broad commitments, supported by more detailed guidance in specific functional areas
• Impact assessment: Including assessments that explicitly reference internationally recognised human rights and are used by companies to avoid potential negative human rights impacts on an ongoing basis
• Integration: Including the embedding of respect for human rights throughout a company
• Tracking performance: Including regular updates of human rights impact and performance

The Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework aim to provide "concrete and practical recommendations" about how businesses can operationalise their responsibility to respect human rights. According to the Guiding Principles, the responsibility to respect human rights requires responsible companies to:

• Implement a human rights policy
• Apply human rights due diligence
• Provide for remediation

The UNGPs apply to all States and to all business enterprises, both transnational and others, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership and structure.

The UNGPs have experienced widespread uptake and support from both the public and private sectors, and numerous companies have publicly stated their commitment to the Guiding Principles. The UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework is also used by companies to report on how they respect human rights.

Companies can seek specific guidance on this and other issues relating to international labour standards from the ILO Helpdesk. This aims to help company managers and workers understand the ILO approach to socially responsible labour practices and to assist in the development of good industrial relations.

Specific actions that responsible business might take include:

1. Where relevant, conduct an assessment of the company's approach relating to freedom of religion or belief in operating context

Where relevant (for example, when entering into new markets, establishing new operations, making major changes to the workforce, etc.) companies are advised to assess the following risks and impacts, among others:

• The prevalence of discrimination, in particular against religious groups
• The quality of national laws in host countries with respect to issues such as the protection from discrimination based on religion or belief as well as the quality of the enforcement of such laws
• The international obligations of host countries in the above-mentioned area
• The impact of the company's operations, products or services in the context of the operating environment (any such assessment should be relevant to operational requirements and may range from a ‘quick' desk-based assessment, to a far more extensive exercise
• The risks associated with – and the impacts of – (depending on the sector, size of the company, geographical presence and other complex factors) of business partners, suppliers and contractors on freedom of religion or belief

When conducting an assessment, companies could use in-house expertise or seek assistance from academic experts dealing with freedom of religion or belief, as well as independent consultancies. The assessment may focus on three key issues:

External environment:

• In each operating theatre, what are the relevant laws pertaining to equality, non-discrimination, and other areas regulating freedom of religion or belief issues? Are restrictions in these laws satisfying three basic requirements (e.g. legality, legitimacy and proportionality)? Does the legislation protect adequately (or not refer at all to) rights of non-believers? What is the level of government tolerance to the different freedoms and rights of its population as demonstrated by the prevalence of violations of freedom of religion or belief, their types and gravity?
• Are there any grievances or tensions in the host country, particularly in the area of freedom of religion or belief?

Internal environment:

• Does the company look at risks to people and their right to freedom of religion or belief, not just risks to company? Does the company assessment take account of the perspectives of potentially affected stakeholders?
• Does the company assess the potential impacts of its operations, products and services on freedom of religion or belief?
• Does the company assess the composition of its workforce in terms of ethnicity, religion or beliefs?
• Does the company understand employee religious practices that have workplace implications? Are there well-articulated policies to address these issues?
• To what extent does the company respect freedom of religion or belief in access to and during employment?

Relationships (business partners, entities in supply chain, other state/non-state actors):

• Does the company assess the potential impacts of its business relationships on freedom of religion or belief?
• Do partners show tolerance and respect towards religious groups, individuals and/or non-believers? To what extent do business partners have policies and procedures in place to protect their workforces from discrimination based on religion or belief – and to provide remedies for violations?
• Does the company consider risks arising from inter-religious discrimination/intolerance inside and outside the workplace, and between the internal company setting and the external environment?

In designing an assessment a company may wish to consult existing guidance documents, such as the International Finance Corporation, UN Global Compact and International Business Leaders Forum's Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management. This Guide provides companies with a "process to assess their business risks, enhance their due diligence procedures and effectively manage their human rights challenges." It is further supported by their online guide, which guides users through different stages of the assessment process, including Preparation, Identification, Engagement, Assessment, Mitigation, Management and Evaluation.

2. Adopt and implement a policy on freedom of religion or belief

The UN Global Compact's Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide suggests that companies should ideally adopt a (globally applicable) human rights policy that requires:

• The company to take into account of the need to respect and accommodate religious diversity
• The company to comply with national and international laws and standards on non-discrimination, equality and diversity
• Business partners (e.g. sub-contractors) to adhere to the company's general human rights policy and encourage them to develop a similar standard of their own)

Additional policy elements that companies might consider (if relevant) include commitments to:

• Ensure that processes and considerations involving hiring, dismissal, promotion, training, pay rates and general workplace activity only involve merit-based evaluations
• Accommodate religious practice and expression (involving, for instance, dress, schedule and prayer) in a consistent, reasonable and transparent manner – subject to reasonable and necessary business requirements. Companies will inevitably need to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. As much as possible, adherents of different faiths and non-believers should be treated on an equal basis and any deviation from this approach must satisfy legality, legitimacy and proportionality test and have sound business imperatives underpinning the decision. Companies should be diligent about documenting such business imperatives (and associated precedents) in order to prevent or mitigate the risk of legal action related to unequal or discriminatory treatment – or related financial and reputational damage.
• Maintain a transparent and straightforward complaints procedure that allows all employees to report cases of discrimination based on religion or belief, and investigate all such allegations thoroughly. Maintain a system of disciplinary measures in order to deal with employees who have been found to have discriminated on the grounds of religion or belief.
• Balance the interests of different religious and non-religious groups and individuals in an open and fair way, with the ultimate aim of achieving equality and non-discrimination (subject to reasonable business requirements).

Any company policy regulating freedom of religion or belief – should be supported by relevant implementation mechanisms to ensure that their provisions are given real effect. These might include, for example:

• Policy: Checking that the terms of the company's broader set of policies are consistent with the human rights policy commitment, in particular in relation to freedom of religion or belief

• Implementation: Ensuring that each team has at least one member trained in assessing human rights, in particular equality and non-discrimination
• Monitoring: Giving responsibility for overseeing issues of discrimination based on religion or belief to an individual or committee of the Board or to senior management. Where a company has local staff, establishing local management-level oversight of the policy commitment and ensuring they have an effective channel of communication with regional or corporate headquarters.
• Reporting: Requiring regular reporting to the Board on risks of discrimination based on religion or belief and annual reviews of such risks by the Board (see below for further details)
• Assurance: Tying staff assessments and reward systems to implementation of the policy commitment

Where relevant and practicable, companies may consider encouraging or requiring business partners (e.g. sub-contractors, joint venture partners, franchisees, etc.) to adhere to their policies, or to develop similar standards.

3. Where relevant, establish an appropriate protocol on wearing religious symbols and religious attire

Although the right to manifest one's religion may be limited in some cases, companies may be required to accommodate certain religious practices amongst employees. This requirement is rarely unqualified, however. For example, in the US, companies will not need to accommodate such practices to such a degree that it has the effect of driving away customers or that it causes a company to go out of business. According to US legal standards, for instance, accommodation has to be ‘reasonable' but does not need to take the specific form suggested by the employee. Similarly, international human rights law is not clear on these issues. Nonetheless, companies may wish to adopt an approach that helps promote tolerance and non-discrimination.

Companies may consider, for example, establishing clear rules regarding the physical expression of faith by employees. This includes the wearing of:

• Yarmulkes (skullcaps or kappel)
• Hijabs (Muslim headscarves)
• Crosses
• Turbans
• Bindis

Additionally, complying with grooming policies relating to shaving and hair length might cause difficulties for adherents of certain religions, so companies might consider the extent to which they can reasonably be flexible on this topic within the limits imposed by the nature of business activities.

There will be cases where companies can legitimately curtail flexibility in terms of religious symbols, attire and grooming. This may be due, for example, to:

• Occupational health and safety (e.g. flowing religious garments, beards and hair that might comprise a safety hazard in jobs using heavy machinery)
• Consistency between concessions given to different religious groups. Even though some accommodations are seemingly easier to allow than others (e.g. yarmulkes compared to dreadlocks), in the interests of equal treatment, requests by employees need to be considered in a tolerant and non-discriminatory manner. In this way, companies are likely to avoid charges of either overt or camouflaged discrimination depending on the religion or belief involved

Conformity with local laws or cultural expectations (e.g. the attire of female employees when attending meetings or functions outside the workplace in a religiously conservative environment)

The case of Chevron US, described above in the ‘real-world examples' section, demonstrates how this can work in practice. The company's refusal to allow a Sikh employee to continue in his specific role due to his refusal to adhere to its ‘clean-shaven' policy was found to be justified on the basis of occupational health and safety considerations. Because his role required him to use a respirator against toxic chemical fumes, there was a ‘reasonable and objective' basis on which to restrict his right to keep with his religion or belief – particularly given that the company had offered the employee alternative roles that did not require the use of a respirator.

The Muslim Council of Britain has published a guide entitled "Muslims in the Workplace: A Good Practice Guide for Employers and Employees." The section dealing with good practice suggestions for employers is not context specific and sets out principles that could apply to businesses with Muslim employees regardless of their location. The publication is very useful on the subject of religious accommodations for Muslims pertaining to, among other things, dress, grooming and social interaction. It also gives a comprehensive depiction of the relevant legal framework regulating religious expression and non-discrimination in the UK workplace.

4. Where relevant, establish a protocol on religious worship, observance and teaching in the workplace

Accommodation of religious worship, observance and teaching in the workplace requires a nuanced approach because it touches on issues related to productivity and equal treatment of employees of different beliefs and non-believers. Simply allowing all religious groups and individuals to exercise their right to worship as they see fit will not necessarily ensure equality, promote universal satisfaction or safeguard productivity. Company protocols should contain limitation clauses, which identify circumstances in which the manifestation of those rights may be restricted. First of all, limitation clauses should be sufficiently clear as to give notice of what is and is not prohibited. Secondly, it should contain the purported basis for the limitation (e.g. "business interests" may not be a permissible limitation, with more specific reasons likely to be required). Thirdly, it should be proportionate to the general interest that is served.

A company may also wish to consider:

• Implementing a consistent policy on prayer groups. It is advisable that either all groups requesting the ability to meet for religious reasons are allowed (within reason and in conformance with stated corporate policy) or none are permitted. General Motors (GM) succeeded in religious discrimination litigation by being steadfast in its policy of enfranchising ethnic minorities that wanted to gather socially and share ideas outside of their particular business units, but not allowing similar gatherings based on religion. A Christian employee failed to prove he was discriminated against based on his religious beliefs because GM treated all religious denominations equally – i.e. none of them received official sanction to meet in the workplace.
• Assessing power dynamics within the prayer group(s). If a particular prayer group is initiated by an executive, for example, employees might feel compelled to attend. Where lower-level employees take charge of workplace prayer, there might be reduced potential for perceived abuse and risk relative to the situation in which leaders preside over the prayer meeting.
• Stipulating that prayer meetings will only address religious topics. Specifying that topics brought up during meetings will not involve discussions about work will placate concerns from those that do not attend about being at an information disadvantage. This is especially relevant when executives are members of particular prayer groups.

• Designating prayer rooms in a way that is acceptable to all spiritual or religious uses. Where companies provide spaces for religious observance, the UN Global Compact and UN Alliance of Civilizations suggest that: "rooms should be designated in a way that is friendly for all religious or spiritual uses (e.g. as a "room for meditation, reflection and prayer"). It is also important to communicate openly about their establishment, using it as an opportunity to educate employees about the groups that might want to use it."
• Consulting religious experts and/or hiring chaplains on a part-time basis. Organisations might consider retaining the services of chaplains representing different faiths or obtaining their services pro bono on a part-time basis. Nonetheless, potential problems can arise due to perceptions of unequal representation. To address this problem, companies might a) appoint one or more inter-faith chaplains or b) appoint multiple chaplains, each of which has responsibility for a particular faith.

5. Establish a protocol regarding religious holidays and schedules

According to the UN Global Compact and the UN Alliance of Civilizations report, Doing Business in a Multicultural World, companies should – when trying to accommodate employees' religious holidays or time commitments – consider:

• Instituting "floating" holidays (e.g. a paid holiday from work taken at a time chosen by the employee so that they can choose to honour religiously-mandated celebrations). For example, IBM provides a floating holiday scheme to its employees enabling them to exchange time off falling on public holidays for a significant religious or cultural holiday
• Instituting holiday-swapping among employees (e.g. voluntary substitutions with colleagues of substantially similar qualifications. Companies can promote this practice by, for example, publicising its policy permitting such arrangements, promoting an atmosphere in which swaps are favourably regarded, and providing a central file, bulletin board, group e-mail, or other means to help employees find colleagues willing to swap holidays).

There are several factors that might be considered when evaluating if certain accommodations are reasonable or, conversely, if they impose an undue hardship on the employer. For example:

• Company size (e.g. smaller employers are likely to find accommodation more disruptive than larger employers)
• Length of time involved in the desired accommodation (e.g. the difference between a short prayer at the start of each day and a multi-week pilgrimage)
• Availability of replacements (e.g. the degree to which a person can be temporarily ‘replaced' by an equivalent colleague)
• Amount of advance notice given by the employee seeking the accommodation (e.g. short notice can complicate attempts to ameliorate operational disruption)
• Effect on workforce morale of anticipated or actual complaints of favouritism (e.g. the potential for certain types of accommodation to introduce divisiveness within the workforce)
• Number of employees requiring religious accommodations at the same time (e.g. the difference between individual accommodations, compared to accommodations required by a large portion of the workforce)

As demonstrated in the case of Intel in Israel described above, care needs to be taken when balancing a) business considerations against the need for religiously-sensitive scheduling and b) interests of different groups – whether religious or not. For example, the result of ultra-Orthodox protests against Jews working on the Sabbath resulted in Intel halting the employment of any Jews (whether ultra-Orthodox or not) on Saturdays. Arguably, this has undermined the legitimate interests of those more liberal Jews who may have preferred to work on this day.

Likewise, the JBS Swift and Co. example demonstrates that this – and other religious accommodations – can prove contentious. In that case, objections amongst Latino workers at the company's US facilities over the religious accommodations granted to migrant workers from Somalia resulted in claims of discrimination, industrial unrest and public protests on both sides. In addition, the religious demands of the Somali workforce proved difficult to accommodate due to the fact that the Somali workers made up such a significant proportion of the workforce, that accommodation of their prayer would almost certainly affect productivity.

6. Monitor and report performance

Continuous improvement will be reliant on a company's regular monitoring of its performance, and the reporting of the same to relevant stakeholders. The kinds of indicators that companies can use to monitor their performance in this respect would ideally be related to the specific issues addressed during the assessment phase (see above). These might include – depending on local legal restrictions, privacy concerns, commercial confidentiality and/or company policy – measures such as:

• The religious makeup of the workplace, if voluntary provided, compared to broader society (including, where desirable and practicable, further breakdown by recruitment, pay, seniority, redundancies, promotions etc.)
• Instances – and outcomes – of complaints linked to allegations of discrimination based on religion or belief and/or restrictions on freedom of religion or belief reported through company grievance mechanisms
• Instances – and outcomes – of tensions between members of religious groups/individuals within the workplace
• The number of employees benefitting from religious accommodations made by the company
• The number of employees who voluntarily leave the company who cite discrimination based on religion or belief as a factor in their decision

In many cases, companies (and their employees) may be reluctant to take part in this kind of monitoring, however. In part, this is due to the often ‘private and personal' nature of religion or belief and/or concerns about how the information is going to be used (e.g. to disadvantage a certain group or individuals). As a result, any related surveys or information gathering should be of a purely voluntary nature and should be subject to strict privacy controls that might include periodic monitoring by external experts.

Reporting on the outcome of these measures can play an important role in communicating positive as well as negative company performance, and of identifying where policy and implementation is proving effective or ineffective. Given sensitivities around religious issues in many locations, many companies will prefer to communicate such information only to select stakeholders.

7. Establish grievance procedures and remedy mechanisms

Companies may consider instituting grievance procedures in order to ensure that employees have access to effective remedies when they want to assert religious complaints.

At a basic level, this might include formal procedures through which complaints can be pursued through the conventional company hierarchy. Such procedures should ensure that impartial investigations are carried out in response to each complaint. It is advisable that the company clearly communicate that these mechanisms:

• Are free and readily accessible to all persons to all, irrespective of their religious affiliation or absence thereof
• Can be anonymous if desired
• Will not result in the complainant facing retribution if any claims are not proved
• Will have structures and procedures ensuring that all complaints are impartially investigated
• Will have an adequate, effective and prompt mechanism to address complaints (e.g. ranging from restitution to compensation)

Companies may also consider – particularly in areas of high religious sensitivity or tension – implementing confidential whistle-blowing hotlines operated by third parties. This will provide a higher degree of assurance against retaliation to employees making complaints, and will also offer them an avenue of redress that does not rely on company hierarchy that may be part of the problem in the first place. Companies might, for example, consider the appointment of an adjudicator to oversee the handling of complaints and ensure that impartiality is maintained throughout the process.

As noted in The Labour Principles of the United Nations Global Compact - A Guide for Business, any such mechanism should take into account formal structures and informal cultural issues that can prevent employees from raising concerns and grievances. This might include, for example, prevailing social perceptions that some restrictions/forms of discrimination towards certain religions are justified.

8. Promote religious understanding and tolerance and respect within the workplace

The promotion of tolerance and respect in the workplace can:

• Reduce the risk of workplace discrimination through better understanding of other religions and beliefs (and their practices)
• Help contextualise specific accommodations, so that they are less likely to lead to resentment amongst co-workers

In ‘normal' circumstances, this approach should be relatively straightforward – for example, awareness raising, inter-faith dialogue etc. In circumstances characterised by general religious tension, however, this approach needs to be handled sensitively (e.g. where opinions have hardened to a point where such efforts are considered intrusive, manipulative or unwelcome). Companies will want to ensure that the staff who lead on such efforts have the necessary skills and experience - whether linguistic, gender-focused, cultural or otherwise.

The Tanenbaum Centre for Interreligious Understanding produces etiquette guides that give specific tips on behaving in religiously sensitive ways. The Guides are especially useful for individuals recently assigned to work in settings with unfamiliar cultural and/or religious characteristics.

Diversity training

Diversity training can take many forms, including internal instruction by human resource experts, training from external specialists and online learning programmes. It is relatively rare to have such training focus purely on religion or belief issues, and it is usually is of a more general nature that encompasses issues such as race, culture, disability, age, gender and other attributes. Ideally, such training should be tailored as much as possible to the specific contexts of those taking part – including particular emphasis on issues related to freedom of religion or belief where appropriate.

As a part of diversity training, MNCs might consider initiatives aimed at global integration of their business activities. For instance, a company could enrol foreign workers and executive managers in cross-cultural management training. Managerial training could comprise two levels: orientation in their home country where they are free to ask questions and raise sensitive matters, and orientation in their destination country to sensitise them to local nuances. In addition, employee exchange programmes could be established, thereby creating global networks which enable workers to share ideas, concerns and experiences, including those related to religion or belief.

Another mode of diversity training might entail workshops dedicated to achieving heightened ‘cultural fluency', including members from civil society and both the public and private sector. Business for Diplomatic Action – a non-partisan, non-profit organisation – offers a CultureSpan workshop that is designed to help executives develop a global mindset based on an in-depth understanding of cultural similarities and differences, giving them the tools to build effective international teams and make global decisions across diverse cultures.

Online forums and intranet sites

Companies might consider using online forums and intranet sites to generate global discussions on a range of diversity and inclusion topics and share feedback, knowledge and experience internally. The UN Alliance of Civilizations notes initiatives in this category are particularly effective when:

• Feedback is integrated into Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) audits
• Results are used to assess progress
• Ideas are used to identify new product or service development priorities
• Successful practices are recognised and used to inform policy changes

Companies may prefer to have such sites run by independent third parties. This is due to concerns over the need to distance the company from the sensitive nature of the issues being discussed – as well as the risk that the company is seen to facilitate or condone unacceptable opinions that are expressed via such fora. Even when operated by third parties, such sites should be subject to strong moderation in order to ensure commentary is constructive, fair and legal – and that such facilities are not illegitimately abused.

Affinity groups

Affinity groups are voluntary groups consisting of employees sharing a common identity. These are commonly organised along ethnic lines and can theoretically be applied to religious groups as well. Affinity groups are aimed at providing support networks and at promoting understanding between different identities. Nonetheless, they need to be approached with care for two key reasons. In the event that there is little interaction between groups, they might actually foment religion-based segregation within the workplace, which could have the effect of galvanising rather than dispelling prejudice. In addition, if certain groups are declined accreditation/registration for their religion or beliefs, for example due to state restrictions, there could be valid charges of discrimination.

As a result of these considerations – as well as a desire to maintain neutrality and impartiality in relation to various religions, denominations and beliefs in the workplace – some companies will be unwilling to sanction religious affinity groups. Nonetheless, the UN Global Compact and UN Alliance of Civilizations advocate the establishment of such groups because they serve as:

• A forum to identify common challenges faced by members of a particular faith or non-believers in the workplace
• A recruitment attraction
• A pool of understanding about appealing to that particular religious group in the mass market

Diversity Best Practices - a think tank focusing on multicultural management in the workplace - estimates that 90% of Fortune 500 companies have, or soon will have, employee affinity groups.

See Freedom of religion case studies

Back to top

Definition

Legislation often includes the understandable attempt to define "religion" or related terms ("sects", "cults", "traditional religion", etc.). There is no generally accepted definition for such terms in international law, and many states have had difficulty defining these terms. It has been argued that such terms cannot be defined in legal sense because of the inherent ambiguity of the concept of religion. A common definitional mistake is to require that a belief is God be necessary for something to be considered a religion. The most obvious counterexamples are classical Buddhism, which is not theistic, and Hinduism, which is polytheistic. In addition, terms such as "sect" and "cult" are frequently used in a pejorative rather than analytic way. Therefore, in the cases when national legislation includes definitions, companies should review the text carefully to ensure that they are not discriminatory and that they do not prejudge some religions or fundamental beliefs at the expense of others.

International standards also do not speak in an isolated sense, but of "religion or belief." The "belief" aspect typically pertains to deeply held conscientious beliefs that are fundamental about the human condition and the world. Therefore, atheism and agnosticism, for example, are generally held to be entitled to the same protection as religious beliefs. It is very common for legislation not to protect adequately (or not to refer at all to) rights of non-believers. Companies should be aware that although not all beliefs are entitled to equal protection, national legislation should be reviewed for discrimination against non-believers.

Basic values underlying international standards for freedom of religion or belief

There is a broad consensus among states based on the contours of the right to freedom of religion or belief as formulated in the international human rights instruments. As a result, companies should bear in mind the fundamental points in this area that covers the following major issues when assessing national legislation and practice:

Internal freedom rights: in contrast to manifestations of religion, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion within the internal freedom is absolute and may not be subjected to limitations of any kind. UDHR (Article 18), the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No.22 (48) on Article 18 all support the fact that the right to "change" or "to have or adopt" a religion or belief fall within the domain of absolute internal-freedom rights, and national legislations that impose limitations in this domain are inconsistent with internal-freedom requirements.

External freedom rights: in contrast to internal freedom rights, manifestations of religion or belief may be limited, but only under strictly limited circumstances established in the applicable limitation clauses. However, companies should check carefully that the limitations imposed by states fulfil three basic requirements: legality (prescribed by law and clear); legitimate (contain purported basis for limitation) and proportionate (interference with the right is reasonable proportionate to the fulfilment of a "pressing social need").

Equality and non-discrimination: international human rights instruments outlaw discrimination based on religion or belief without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Companies should assure that the risk of prejudicial treatment is minimised or totally eliminates. However, companies should be aware that national legislation that acknowledges historical differences in the role that different religions have played in a particular country's history are permissible so long as they are not used as a justification for discrimination.

Neutrality and impartiality: states have a "duty to remain neutral and impartial" when dealing with the various religions, denominations and beliefs. Moreover, when faced with religions conflicts "the role of the authorities is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other". When dealing with the structuring of religious communities, the neutrality requirement "excludes assessment by the State of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the ways in which those beliefs are expressed." Therefore, companies should be aware that "state measures favouring a particular leader or specific organs of a divided religious community or seeking to compel the community or part of it to place itself, against its will, under a single leadership, …constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion" and are impermissible.

Non-coercion: no one shall be subject to coercion that would impair his/her freedom of religion or belief. This aspect of freedom of religion or belief protects against practices that use compulsion to go beyond reasonable persuasion, either by improperly inducing an individual to change a religion or belief, or improperly preventing an individual from changing religions or beliefs. Companies should review national legislations on coercive features with particular care.

Tolerance and respect: companies should assess national legislation with regard to the compliance with the commitment of mutual tolerance and respect between different religions groups as well as believers and non-believers. Although there is no requirement that the teaching of tolerance be included within any statutory schemes, it may be appropriate to suggest the possibility of having such provisions in business policies.

Right to association: because some religious groups object in principle to state chartering requirements, a state should not impose sanctions or limitations on religious groups that elect not to register. However, in the contemporary legal setting, most religions communities prefer to obtain legal personality in order to carry out the full range of their activities in a convenient and efficient way. A series of decisions of the ECtHR recognised that access to such a status is one of the most important aspects of the right to association, and that the right to association extends to religions associations. Therefore, companies should be aware that undue restrictions on the right to legal personality are inconsistent with the right to association and freedom of religion or belief.

Right to effective remedies: parties asserting religious claims have rights to effective remedies. This is rooted in general rule-of-law conceptions, but has found specific embodiment in a number of international norms. Among other things, as indicated by provisions such as ICCPR (Article 2) states have general obligation to give practical effect to the array of norms spelled out in international human rights law. More specifically, provisions such as ECHR Articles 6(1) and 13 require that effective remedies be made available. Particularly significant in this area is that religious organisation be assured of prompt decisions on applications and a right to appeal, either in the legislation under consideration or under applicable administrative review provisions spelled out in separate legislative enactments.

Countries that present the highest risk of violations of freedom of religion or belief

Verisk Maplecroft's 2017 Freedom of Opinion and Expression Index assesses the risk to businesses of exposure to restrictions of the right of a person to hold opinions, as well as seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference. According to its assessment, emerging economies such as Brazil, China, Iran and Pakistan all measure ‘extreme risk.'

Figure 1: 10 highest risk countries from Verisk Maplecroft's Freedom of Opinion and Expression Index

North Korea	Uzbekistan
Vietnam	Iran
Cuba	Turkmenistan
Eritrea	Equatorial Guinea
China	Kuwait

The 2017 United States Commission on International Religious Freedom also undertakes comprehensive research and analysis of the extent to which religious freedom is protected and promoted on a global basis. In addition to making policy recommendations, the Commission maintains a list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs), where the US says there are ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. This Watch List currently contains 16 states (Myanmar, Central African Republic, China, Eritrea, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam), two of these are members of BRICs and four are in the Next-11 group of emerging markets (Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Vietnam).

Human rights at stake

Right to have, change or adopt religion or belief (UDHR, Article 18): Recognises that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his [her] religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. The protection of this right includes the right to change one's religion or belief.

Right to religious freedom of children (Declaration on Religious Intolerance, Article 5 and CRC, Article 14): There is no agreed international standard that specifies at what age children should become free to make their own determinations in matters of religion or belief. Therefore, businesses should pay particular attention to the provisions in the national laws that fail to give appropriate weight to decisions of mature minors, or that interfere with parental rights to guide the upbringing of their children. To the extent that a national law specifies an age, it should be compared to other state legislation specifying age of majority (such as marriage, compulsory school attendance, etc.)

Right to be free from discrimination ( ICCPR, ICESCR, Article 2, CEDAW, Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers, Article 1): Some groups, such as women, migrant workers, minorities may be disproportionately affected in the fields of civil, political, economic and social life in countries which severely restrict freedom of religion or belief. They may face discrimination based on race, colour, sex, property or other status in addition to religion. This includes, for example, the restriction on the right of women to wear clothes that keep with their religion or belief.

Rights of minorities (ICCPR, Article 27): In many cases, religion will be a key distinguishing feature of many minority groups – or religious boundaries will at least overlap closely with ethnic and cultural boundaries. As a result, it such vulnerable group is often face multiple discrimination based on their minority status and religion or beliefs.

Right to be free from torture for exercising freedom of religion or belief (CAT, Article 1): Some countries with repressive regimes are likely to punish people for holding certain religions or beliefs. This can present significant risks to businesses of exposure to violations of the right of freedom of religion or belief of local employees as well as human security risks to foreign employees of companies who practice religion or beliefs restricted or prohibited in such countries.

Right to freedom of expression and opinion (ICCPR, Articles 18 and 19): Any restriction on an employee's freedom of religion or belief is also likely to entail the undermining of this right. Given the integral nature of religion to many people's values, world views and lifestyles – religious restrictions are likely to impact people at a fundamental level, with significant consequences for their ability to express themselves or to hold a wide range of opinions. This may a particularly difficult issue to manage with respect to proselytising religions, where followers believe themselves obliged to be vocal in their belief and opinion.

Right to freedom of association (ICCPR, Article 22): In some environments, repression of particular religions is so severe that it includes limits on the ability of like-minded people to associate together in order to express or practice their faith (e.g. prayer groups, churches, representative organisations etc.). This, in itself, is likely to undermine people's right to freedom of association. According to a series of decisions of the ECtHR the right to association extends also to religions associations.

See Freedom of religion case studies

Back to top