This page presents an introduction to and analysis of the dilemma. It does so through the integration of real-world scenarios and case studies, examination of emerging economy contexts and exploration of the specific business risks posed by the dilemma. It also suggests a range of actions that responsible companies can take in order to manage and mitigate those risks.
The dilemma for responsible business is how to ensure that the religious rights of employees are best respected in the context of dynamic multi-cultural workforces and operating environments, where companies' ability to achieve de facto equality among employees is limited in certain locations by, for example, obstructions of a legal, cultural or political nature.
Likewise, companies can also face challenges in terms of conflicts between the religious rights claimed by members of different groups. Similarly, certain religious rights may conflict with other categories of human rights (see below for further details).
According to the UN Global Compact and UN Alliance of Civilizations, religion in the workplace is becoming an increasingly important issue for companies, driven by:
For the purposes of this particular dilemma, the globalisation of operations (i.e. through the expansion by multi-national corporations into a range of emerging 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. migrant workers and expatriates). As a result, the dilemma goes beyond issues of emerging market contexts. It is likely to arise, for example, in any location where MNCs' employees find themselves working amongst colleagues – or living amongst community members – with backgrounds, cultures and beliefs that differ from their own.
For the purposes of this dilemma ‘freedom of religion or belief' is interpreted as incorporating the following issues:
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 freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to manifest religion or belief. International human rights law frames the freedom of thought, conscience and religion in a profound, far-reaching manner from which no derogation is permitted. This is distinct from the freedom to manifest a religion or belief, which is broadly construed but can be restricted if limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
It is important to state at the outset that companies should place particular focus on promoting non-discrimination when addressing religion or belief in the workplace. In part, this is because non-discrimination is in itself a vital factor in ‘respecting' employees' religious freedom – at least in the ‘passive' sense.
More proactive efforts to respect freedom of religion or belief in the workplace are likely to prove – at least from a corporate point of view – more problematic. It is common within international corporate culture for religion or belief to be considered an essentially ‘private' matter that should neither be actively promoted nor discouraged by employers. Likewise, the proactive accommodation of any one religion or belief within the workplace potentially leaves employers open to accusations of favouritism and/or discrimination (see below) – and also risks undermining workplace unity. Even in jurisdictions where the legal regime protecting religious rights in the workplace is highly articulated, businesses are generally not obliged to accommodate religious freedoms to the extent that their commercial viability is compromised.
Nonetheless, the placing of restrictions on the freedom of religion or belief of certain groups may amount to indirect discrimination. For example, where a company insists that no religious clothing or headwear is worn by any employee, this will – in effect – exclude those employees whose religions require them to wear certain clothing or headwear from working at the company. Likewise, there are potential complications when companies accommodate the religious freedoms of one group in a way that is unequal to – or even prejudicial to – another group. As a result, this dilemma looks at both of these human rights issues together.
It should also be noted that non-discrimination does not necessarily mean treating all cases of religion or belief within the workplace on an equal basis. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, "right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without any discrimination does not make all differences of treatment discriminatory... differentiation based on reasonable and objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]".2
As a result, the point about non-discrimination is not necessarily to apply exactly the same policies and principles in all locations. Instead, it is about achieving whatever policies are needed to ensure all employees are – in reality – treated equally, irrespective of location or context. The need to deal with local circumstances – or the specific requirements of certain religions – means companies may actually need to apply different policies in different locations.
Whilst addressing such issues, responsible companies must also adhere to national law (when in conformity with international law), successfully and sensitively navigate local norms and taboos and maintain profitability.
Specific examples of dilemmas that business may face in respecting religious rights 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 religious discrimination could in certain contexts 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 non-discrimination of employees on grounds of religion or belief may be more of a challenge in some emerging 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 emerging 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.
In February 2010, Nadia Eweida - a Christian female British Airways employee - lost her appeal regarding a lawsuit based on religious discrimination. In 2008, the Employment Appeal Tribunal had ruled against her claim to be a victim of indirect religious or belief discrimination stemming from a corporate uniform stipulation. As a part of a new wardrobe policy invoked in 2004, BA prohibited any visible item of adornment around the neck. On three occasions, Ms. Eweida attended work with the cross visible under her uniform but concealed it when requested. However, she eventually changed her stance and refused to cover up the cross, which resulted in a six-month unpaid suspension. After a high profile media campaign, in 2007 BA relented and amended its wardrobe regulations to allow for the display of faith or charity symbols. However, Ms. Eweida pursued a claim of £120,000 in damages and lost wages. In explaining the decision to dismiss the case, Lord Justice Sedley, indicated that indirect discrimination was defeated by BA's case on justification. He said: "This case has perhaps illustrated some of the problems which can arise when an individual asserts that a provision, criterion or practice adopted by an employer conflicts with beliefs which they hold but which may not only not be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce".
Starting in 2006, JBS Swift and Co. faced a dispute at one of its US facilities between its Latino workers and a group of Muslim employees that had recently emigrated from Somalia as political refugees. Many of the new Somali workers were observant Muslims who wanted to maintain their traditional prayer schedule. The disagreement was predicated on how to accommodate the prayer time for the Muslim employees without disadvantaging other employees or compromising productivity. The Somalis offered to let their employer deduct pay for time at prayer, but supervisors considered it untenable to lose the labour of hundreds of people simultaneously, even if the interruptions lasted less than five minutes. The Latino employees were concerned about how these and other concessions would impact their right to equal treatment in the workplace. Tensions escalated to formal discrimination claims, mass job walk outs and public protests by both sides.3 This scenario demonstrates the complexities involved in placating competing demands within a diverse workforce, whilst maintaining workplace continuity, productivity and cordial relations among employees – a lesson that is as applicable in the US, as it is in any other country with religiously diverse workforces.
In 2007, a member of the Sikh religion, which generally does not permit shaving, lost his religious-discrimination case against Chevron US, which has a clean-shaven policy. The employee's job required the use of a respirator that forms a tight seal with the face to prevent exposure to chemical fumes. The company argued that this respirator could not be used properly with facial hair. The circuit court determined in Bhatia vs. Chevron USA, that the company had tried to accommodate the employee by attempting to find him a different but comparable job that did not require the use of a respirator, and that the company's safety precautions were in line with federal regulations. The principles on which this decision was based – reasonable and objective accommodation – is one that can guide MNCs when addressing similar religious issues in a wide range of workplace locations.
In a 2004 religious discrimination action, Peterson (the plaintiff) claimed that Hewlett-Packard (HP) engaged in disparate treatment by terminating his employment contract on account of his religious views and that it failed to accommodate his religious beliefs. The origin of the dispute involved HP displaying diversity posters as a part of their corporate diversity campaign, which included a picture of a homosexual employee.
Peterson is a devout Christian who believes that homosexuality violates the Ten Commandments. In response to the posters, Peterson posted Biblical scriptures in his work cubicle that were large enough for passersby to see, including a particular passage condemning homosexuality. His supervisor determined it could be offensive to certain employees and that it violated corporate policy prohibiting harassment.
After discussions regarding mutual accommodation were fruitless, Peterson was given time off with pay to reconsider his position. When he returned to work, he again posted the controversial scriptural passages and refused to remove them; he was subsequently fired.
The verdict of the case indicated that Peterson was not terminated because of his religious beliefs, but because he violated corporate harassment policy and was insubordinate. The court also ruled that it would create undue hardship for HP to accommodate the plaintiff by allowing him to post messages intended to demean and harass his co-workers or to exclude homosexuals from its voluntarily adopted diversity program. This scenario indicates that the implementation of diversity policies can elicit contentious responses from certain employee groups – even if they are intended to provide a degree of protection to all groups.
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 parking lots.
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 deal, Intel will only employ 60 non-Jewish staff on the traditional day of rest.4 This demonstrates the kind of strong religious pressure companies can potentially find themselves subject to from wider society – and which can have a significant operational impact.
1 UN Alliance of Civilisations, 2009, Doing Business in a Multicultural World: Challenges and Opportunities, http://www.unaoc.org/images//090512_multiculturalism%20report.pdf
2 L. G. Danning v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 180/1984, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 205 (1990), at para. 13.
3 Wall Street Journal, 2008, Religious-Bias Filings Up, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411562348138619.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.
4 BBC News, Intel in Jerusalem ‘Sabbath Deal’, 18 November 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8365923.stm
Companies are likely to face religious challenges in the workplace where it is operating in a context characterised by
As noted by the ILO in "Equality at Work: Tackling the Challenges",5 religious discrimination is often worse in countries where there is little freedom of religion or where a state religion disadvantages or excludes other religions or beliefs. Common legal restrictions include measures that bar individuals of certain faiths from working in particular sectors or jobs, require people of all faiths to adhere to mainstream religious norms, 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.6 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 treatment in workplace, whilst maintaining both a political and social licence to operate.
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 actually 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 will have little choice but to comply with local legal requirements. 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 such cases, companies might be obliged by domestic law to cooperate with the local authorities.
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 Quantas claimed that she had been demoted from her job as an international flight attendant after being found to carry Falun Gong materials into China. 7The 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. Quantas said that they had limited the employee to short-haul flights because its international crew needed to be able to travel to any country. Quantas also noted that its staff manual forbade employees from ‘conveying' newspaper while working.
Similarly, there are several countries – both in traditional MNC markets and in emerging 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.8 In July 2010, for example, Syria announced a ban on niqabs (full face veils and robes) in both public and private universities. Turkey has similar restrictions, whilst France, Belgium and Spain are in the process of enacting legislation along the same lines – some of which may be relevant to the workplace, even though the primary focus is on outlawing particular categories of veils in public spaces. Thus, when companies consider the details of the extent to which they allow the physical manifestation of religious beliefs in the office, they will nonetheless need to comply with relevant legal requirements.
Some emerging economies might have adequate legal protection ensuring both freedom of religion and non-discrimination, yet are characterised by animosity between religious groups – or antipathy for religious groups by non-religious groups 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 religious discrimination coincides with ethnic or social prejudices. The ILO notes, for example, that Pasmanda and Dalits in India 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.9
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 addressing religious accommodation, companies should take care to present policies in a transparent manner and provide a sound rationale underpinning their decisions.
Religion or belief
First, there is a risk that by fully respecting and supporting the religious rights of one group, the rights of other religious or belief groups might be undermined (or are 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.
Human rights
Second, there is a risk that by respecting and supporting certain religious rights, an MNC can undermine other human rights. Although there are a number of circumstances in which such situations could occur, examples within the workplace might include:
An example of this can be found in the Intel example mentioned in the previous section. 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.
Business objectives
Third, a person's religious beliefs may be in direct conflict with a company's business objectives. Examples might include situations where strict adherence to certain religious demands will:
5 ILO, Equality at work: tackling the challenges: Global report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Report of the Director-General, 2007, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---webdev/documents/publication/wcms_082607.pdf
6 ibid
7 New Zealand Herald, 2 September 2010, Falun Gong cost me my job, says air hostess, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=10670494
8 OpenDemocracy, The Dangers of A Burqa Ban, 19 July 2010, http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/valérie-hartwich/dangers-of-burqa-ban
9 ibid
Examples of scenarios companies might face when operating in emerging economies include:
China: According to a 2009 Amnesty International report, ‘Doing Business in China: The Human Rights Challenge', although the Chinese constitution recognises the right to freedom of religion, the government represses religion outside its official channels.10 The US Department of State notes that the Constitution protects only "normal religious activities," and officials have wide latitude to interpret the meaning of "normal".11 All unregistered religions are considered illegal. The report goes on to note that Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and unregistered Christian groups all face persecution. The Falun Gong has been officially banned since 1999. Amnesty International USA's 2008 Annual Report indicated that "Falun Gong practitioners were at particularly high risk of torture and other ill-treatment in detention".12 Similarly, the US Department of State's 2009 Human Rights Report on China note: "Some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in re-education through labour (RTL) camps, while Falun Gong sources overseas placed the number even higher".
Bangladesh: The US Commission on International Religious Freedom notes that religious minorities, including Ahmadiyyas, Hindus and Christians, are discriminated against at both government and societal levels.13 The report indicates that religious minorities face prejudice in areas such as government employment, political positions and the judiciary. Despite some improvements, it is reported that the government of Bangladesh nevertheless continues to show serious weaknesses in protecting human rights, including religious freedom.
Egypt: The US Commission on International Religious Freedom reports that Coptic Christians and marginal Muslim sects are harassed, while Baha'is face official intolerance at the hands of the state.14 The government discriminates against non-Muslims in public sector employment. Since the 1970s, there have been sporadic clashes between Muslims and members of the Coptic Christian minority (comprising 10% of the population). News analysis indicates that the most serious cases are usually in poor, rural areas where the trigger is often a dispute over land or personal relationships and escalates into localised sectarian violence. Human Rights Watch claims that violence against the Coptic community often occurs with impunity and human rights defenders campaigning for better treatment of the community face persecution.15
Indonesia: The constitution provides for freedom of religion and official recognition of six religions (Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism). This right is generally respected.16 Other religions must register with the Ministry for Culture and Tourism, which restricts their right to establish a house of worship. Members of the Ahmadiyah Islamic sect, considered heretical by many mainstream Muslims, are reportedly subject to discrimination. Reports indicate that Christians and Jews also face discrimination and occasional physical attacks, particularly in West and East Java.17 Over the past several years, the influence, visibility, and activities of extremist groups have led to sectarian tensions and religious freedom violations.18
India: Following a visit to India in March 2008, in her Mission Report, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief expressed concern about a number of issues including the situation of religious minorities; justice for victims and survivors of communal violence; freedom of religion or belief in Jammu and Kashmir; the negative impact of laws on religious conversion in several states; and the implications of religion-based personal laws.19 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has also indicated that despite Constitutional guarantees of non-discrimination, as well as criminal law provisions punishing acts of discrimination, "widespread and often socially accepted discrimination, harassment and/or violence persist against members of certain disadvantaged and marginalised groups, including... religious minorities such as the Muslim population."20 The US Commission on International Religious Freedom noted several incidents of wide scale violence and mass displacements of Christians and Muslims at the hands of Hindu extremists in 2008-2009.
Iran: In 2010, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that even though Zoroastrians, Armenian and Assyrian Christians and Jews are recognised as ‘protected' religions minorities in a country where Shi'a Islam is the official religion, they have faced increasing discrimination and repression.21 Specifically, the Commission reports that religious minorities such as Baha'is, Christians and Sufi Muslims face physical attacks, harassment and arbitrary detention. Moreover, in its 2010 report entitled ‘Iran: End Persecution of Baha'is Dozens Detained Without Charge; Leaders Face Charges Carrying Death Penalty', Human Rights Watch has indicated that since the Islamic revolution in 1979, the Iranian government has put in effect various discriminatory policies against the Baha'is, including limiting access to education and employment.22
Pakistan: In its 2010 Annual Report, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom found evidence of "systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief" and "religiously discriminatory legislation (such as the anti-Ahmadi laws and blasphemy laws) that fosters an atmosphere of intolerance." Moreover, the report indicates that sectarian and religiously-motivated violence is chronic and the government has failed to protect members of religious minorities from persecution and bring perpetrators to justice.23
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has stated that "in Pakistan and elsewhere, Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslims and have been subject to a number of undue restrictions and in many instances institutionalized discrimination”.24 All citizens are subject to certain provisions of Shari'a and blasphemy laws. Shi'a Muslims, Christians and Hindus are also reported to face harassment and violence.
Turkey: Turkey has a democratic government and the country's constitution calls for the protection of the freedom of belief and worship, and the private dissemination of religious ideas. However, the Turkish government's attempts to control religion and exclude it from the public sphere based on its ‘Ataturkist' policy of state secularism reportedly results in serious religious freedom violations for many of the country's citizens. According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, severe limitations on the freedom of religion or belief are experienced by the majority Sunni Muslim community, the minority Alevis as well as Christians and the Greek, Armenian and Syriac Orthodox.25 Only Sunni Islam is officially permitted and the state controls all official mosques, training of Muslim clergy and the content of sermons.26
Viet Nam: Although freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution, in its 2009 Annual Report Amnesty International notes that a religious decree implemented in 2004 "codifies de facto state rule over all aspects of religious life".27 The US Commission on International Religious Freedom reports that individuals continue to be imprisoned or detained for reasons related to their religious activity or religious advocacy; police and government officials are not held fully accountable for abuses; and independent religious activity remains illegal. In an October 2009 report, ‘Vietnam: Sharp Backsliding on Religious Freedom', Human Rights Watch notes that the governing boards of officially authorised religious organisations are under the control of the government. Some religious factions are also banned, including part of the HoaHoaBuddhistChurch and the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam. In addition, Human Rights Watch indicates that hundreds of people are currently imprisoned in Viet Nam for their religious or political beliefs, or a combination of the two.28
Nigeria: According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, the government of Nigeria continues to respond inadequately and ineffectively to recurrent communal and sectarian violence. Religion is a driving force in the violence, as a “precipitating factor or proxy for political or social issues.”29 Other religious freedom concerns in Nigeria include the expansion of Shari’a law into the criminal codes of several northern Nigerian states and discrimination against minority communities of Christians and Muslims across the country.30 After her 2005 visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Belief and Religion highlighted in her Mission Report the following areas of concern: impunity for communal violence; political manipulation of religious difference; and harsh punishment amounting to torture and cruel, inhuman and indecent conduct in the states that anchor their penal code in Shari'a law.31
Russia: There is no official state religion and the law recognises Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism as ‘traditional' faiths. Although the law provides for freedom of religion, human rights groups have concerns about frequent instances of discrimination against minorities and the prevalence of xenophobia. In its 2010 report, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom noted the increased frequency of the use of anti-extremist legislation against religious groups that are not known to advocate violence. The report indicates that national and local government officials also discriminate against groups they view as non-traditional and Muslims through the enforcement of other laws pertaining to taxation and organised crime. Harassment has come in the form of denials of registration and detention and harassment of religious community members. In addition, there are reportedly often delays and refusals to permit construction or leasing of places of worship.32
10Amnesty International, 2009, Doing Business in China: The Human Rights Challenge, http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Amnesty-Switzerland-guidance-on-doing-business-in-China-2009.pdf
11 US Department of State, 2009, International Religious Freedom Report 2009, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127215.htm
12 Amnesty International USA, 2008 Annual Report, http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2008&c=CHN
13 United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2010, Annual Report 2010, http://www.uscirf.gov/images/ar2010/additionally%20monitored%20countries.pdf
14 ibid
15 ibid
16 United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2010, Annual Report 2010, http://www.uscirf.gov/images/ar2010/indonesia2010.pdf
17 ibid
18 ibid
19 Special Rapporteur on Religion and Belief, March 2008, Country visit to India (A/HRC/10/8/Add.3), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/visits.htm
20 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, February 2007, Consideration of State Reports at the 70th Session, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/cerds70.htm
21 United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2010, http://www.uscirf.gov/images/ar2010/iran2010.pdf
22 Human Rights Watch, 2010, Iran: End Persecution of Baha'is Dozens Detained Without Charge; Leaders Face Charges Carrying Death Penalty, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
23United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2010, http://www.uscirf.gov/images/ar2010/additionally%20monitored%20countries.pdf
24 OHCHR, 29 May 2010, UN experts strongly condemn attacks against Ahmadis in Pakistan, http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10074&LangID=E
25 United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2010, http://www.uscirf.gov/images/ar2010/additionally%20monitored%20countries.pdf
26 ibid
27 Amnesty International, 2009, Annual Report 2009: The State of the World's Human Rights, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/viet-nam/report-2009
28 Human Rights Watch, October 2009, Viet Nam: Sharp Backsliding on Religious Freedom: Harsh Crackdown on Followers of Buddhist Peace Activist Thich Nhat Hanh, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/18/vietnam-sharp-backsliding-religious-freedom
29 United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2010, http://www.uscirf.gov/images/ar2010/additionally%20monitored%20countries.pdf
30 ibid
31 Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, 2005, Country visit to Nigeria (E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.2), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/visits.htm
32 United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2010, http://www.uscirf.gov/images/ar2010/additionally%20monitored%20countries.pdf
The right to be free from religious discrimination can be found in several international human rights instruments as it is a part of the prohibited grounds for discrimination. Several international human rights covenants outlaw discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.33 In addition, the ILO has adopted No. 111, Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (1958).
According to this convention, discrimination includes:
Most ratifying states have relevant national legislation in place implementing the terms of these international legal instruments.35Nonetheless, 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 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:36
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."37 The resulting settlement with the EEOC required Merrill Lynch to pay a total of US$1.55 million to Borumand (in back pay, damages and legal fees) and to commit to improving employee training regarding religion and national origin bias.
Under Article 18 of the ICCPR, "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching". The freedom of employees to manifest their religion may however, be subject to certain limitations that are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
As a result, companies will find that they are subject to a legal obligation, in many of the countries in which they operate, to accommodate the religious expression of their employees. As noted above, however, such accommodation can legitimately be limited. In the US, for example, this obligation can be limited to the extent to which it:
National anti-discrimination laws will often also cover freedom of thought, conscience and religion due to the sometimes close relationship between these two issues. For example, 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 with discrimination, failure to make such reasonable accommodations would, in the US at least, result in significant fines and/or specific performance.
In the event that companies breach national laws relating to discrimination and/or freedom of thought, conscience and religion, they are likely to face a range of sanctions including:
Other costs can come in the form of legal fees and diverted management time.
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 emerging markets. If a company is perceived to be unaccommodating to the religious requirements of workers – or to be failing to protect workers from discrimination – it may end up alienating a range of stakeholders including consumers, investors, current employees, prospective employees and civil society members.
This has the potential to result, for example, in:
In addition, there is also a reputational risk if MNCs are seen as condoning discriminatory practices and policies of a given state, which are in contradiction to international human rights law.
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:
In light of these considerations, companies that fail to responsibly address religious discrimination and freedom of religion risk losing out on these benefits. Although it is relatively hard 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.
33 Specifically, this language is found in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 2 and Art. 7) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (Art. 2(1) and Art. 18(1)), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art. 2(2)), the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Art. 5(vii)); Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Art. 3)) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art. 2))
34 ibid
35 All BRICs and N-11 emerging economies have ratified ILO Convention No. 111.
36 US EEOC, Employment Discrimination Based on Religion, Ethnicity or Country of Origin, http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/fs-relig_ethnic.cfm
37Reuters, 31 December, 2008, Merrill Settles Iranian Muslim Bias Lawsuit, http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN3134956220081231
38 This criterion refers to the US legal regime enshrined under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964).
39 UN Global Compact and UN Alliance of Civilizations, 2009, Doing Business in a Multicultural World: challenges and opportunities, http://www.unaoc.org/images//090512_multiculturalism%20report.pdf
The starting point for protecting employees' rights relevant to this dilemma is adherence to national legislation regarding religious rights in the workplace. In situations where local legislation falls short of international legal standards, companies should aspire to meet these higher standards.
According to the UN's "Protect, Respect and Remedy"40 policy framework ("the framework"), business has a responsibility to respect all human rights. To meet its responsibility to respect human rights, the framework states that a responsible company should engage in human rights due diligence41 to the level commensurate with the risk of infringements posed by the country context in which a company operates, its own business activities and the relationships associated with those activities.42
The framework also specifies the four main components of the human rights due diligence: a statement of policy articulating the company's commitment to respect human rights, serving as guidance underpinning specific actions; periodic assessment of actual and potential human rights impacts of company activities and relationships; integration of these commitments into internal control and oversight systems; and tracking and reporting performance.
Companies can seek specific guidance on this and other issues relating to international labour standards from the ILO Helpdesk.43 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 the payment of a living wage.
Specific actions that responsible business might take include: 44
Where relevant (for example, when entering into new markets, establishing new operations, making major changes to the workforce, etc.) companies can assess the risks posed by:
When conducting an assessment, companies could use in-house expertise or seek assistance from academic experts of religious figures as they see fit. The assessment may focus on three key issues:
External environment:
Internal environment:
Relationships (business partners, entities in supply chain, state/non-state agents):
Where practicable, it is important for assessments to have a multi-stakeholder focus. This could entail the inclusion of, among other specialist participants, NGOs, religious organisations and academic experts.
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: Road-Testing Draft. This Guide provides companies with a "process to assess their business risks, enhance their due diligence procedures and effectively manage their human rights challenges."45 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.
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:
Additional policy elements that companies might consider (if relevant) include commitments to:
Any policy on religious rights – especially with respect to non-discrimination– should be supported by relevant implementation mechanisms to ensure that their provisions are given real effect. These might include, for example:
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.46
In areas characterised by well-established legal protection for religious freedom, companies may be legally 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. 47 Similarly, international human rights law on the topic of religious expression is not a categorical right. According to Article 18(3) of the ICCPR, restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief are only viable if they are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Companies may consider, for example, establishing clear and fair rules regarding the physical expression of faith by employees.48 This includes the wearing of:
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.49
There will be cases where companies can legitimately curtail flexibility given to employees in terms of grooming habits and dress. This may be due, for example, to:
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, 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 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 religious freedom in this respect – 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.
Considering whether to allow prayer in the workplace essentially falls under the freedom of thought, conscience and religion feature of the dilemma. Accommodation of worship in the workplace requires a nuanced approach because it touches on issues related to productivity and equal treatment of employees of different faiths, as well as those that do not practice a particular faith. Simply allowing all religious groups to worship as they see fit will not necessarily ensure equality, promote universal satisfaction or safeguard productivity.51
A company may wish to consider:
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:
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:
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.
Continuous improvement will be reliant on a company monitoring its performance and reporting it 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 and/or company policy – measures such as:
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' nature of religion 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 progress by the company, 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.
Companies may consider instituting grievance procedures in order to ensure that employees have free and fair access to remedy when they face religious discrimination or unfair restrictions on their religious freedom.55
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 thorough investigations are carried out in response to each complaint. It is advisable that the company clearly communicate that these mechanisms:
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 ombudsman to oversee the handling of complaints and ensure that impartiality is maintained during the investigation 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.
The promotion of tolerance in the workplace can:
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).
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, and it 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 religious issues 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 expatriate 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.
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:
Companies may prefer to have such sites run by independent third parties. This is not only due to concerns over the need to distance the company from what is considered an essentially ‘private' matter, but also due to the sensitive nature of the material 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 and fair – and that such facilities are not abused in such a way as to incite to discrimination, hostility or violence.
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 for their beliefs, for example due to intra-religious tensions, there could be valid charges of religion-based discrimination.
As a result of these considerations – as well as a desire to maintain a clear gap between religion and 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:
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.58
40 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, 7 April 2008, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf
41 According to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations, human rights due diligence is "a process whereby companies not only ensure compliance with national laws but also manage the risk of human rights harm with a view to avoiding it." See: UN Special Representative, 7 April 2008, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf
42 UN Special Representative, 7 April 2008, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, para. 57, http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf
43 ILO Helpdesk for business on international labour standards, http://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/Decentwork/lang--en/WCMS_120642/index.htm
44 Suggested actions are for guidance only. Depending on the circumstances, these may not be relevant to all companies. The suggested actions may be adopted and adapted in certain regions/sectors/contexts where risks are known to be greatest. The adoption of these actions will also be dependent on the company's existing policies, resources and procedures, as well as the cost-benefit of undertaking these actions, which indeed might be the root cause of the dilemma itself. The aim of the Forum is to encourage business, trade unions, civil society and other stakeholders to engage on the dilemma topic, to augment the suggestions and to provide additional insight and case examples.
45 IFC, UNGC and IBLF, Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management 2007, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/HRIA_final.pdf
46 MonashUniversityet al, Human Rights Translated – A Business Reference Guide, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/human_rights_translated.pdf
47 US EEOC, Employment Discrimination Based on Religion, Ethnicity or Country of Origin, http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/fs-relig_ethnic.cfm
48 The thematic report on religious symbols prepared by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in 2006 (E/CN.4/2006/5) may provide useful guidance related to accommodating the physical manifestation of religious beliefs. Paragraphs 36-60 are particularly applicable to the discussion raised in this dilemma.
49 See ILO Helpdesk for business on international labour standards, http://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/Decentwork/lang--en/WCMS_120642/index.htm
50Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief(Ms. Asma Jahangir), Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Religious Intolerance (E/CN.4/2006/5)
51 See ILO Helpdesk for business on international labour standards, http://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/Decentwork/lang--en/WCMS_120642/index.htm
52 UN Global Compact and UN Alliance of Civilizations, 2009, Doing Business in a Multicultural World: challenges and opportunities, http://www.unaoc.org/images//090512_multiculturalism%20report.pdf
53 BNET UK, Workplace Chaplains, 2000, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_8_45/ai_65143945/
54 HR Leader, Cultural Diversity, IBM Style, 2010, http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/articles/74/0C021774.asp?Type=60&Category=903
55 See ILO Helpdesk for business on international labour standards, http://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/Decentwork/lang--en/WCMS_120642/index.htm
56 UN Alliance of Civilisations, 2009, Doing Business in a Multicultural World: Challenges and Opportunities,: http://www.unaoc.org/images//090512_multiculturalism%20report.pdf
57 ibid
58 State Magazine, 2009, Department's Hidden Treasure: Employee Affinity Groups, http://business.highbeam.com/436203/article-1G1-198291258/department-hidden-treasure-employee-affinity-groups
The right to be free from religious discrimination can be found in several international human rights instruments as it is a part of the prohibited aspects of discrimination. Several international human rights covenants outlaw discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Specifically, this language is found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (Art. 2(1), Art. 18(1) and Art. 26), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art. 2(2)), the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Art. 5(d)(vii)); Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Art. 3)) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art. 2)). As with all human rights, it is incumbent on the state to promote and enforce the freedom of religion or belief. Nonetheless, companies have a duty to respect and support this right as applicable.
In addition to the international human rights treaties referenced above, the ILO has adopted Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (No. 111) (1958). According to this convention, discrimination includes:
The UN Human Rights Committee has held that a differentiation based on reasonable and objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination in the meaning of Art. 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (equal protection before the law without discrimination).
In a report concerning the impact of discrimination based on religion or belief on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has emphasised that:
International human rights law precludes restrictions on the ability to hold, seek, and receive opinions and beliefs, including those regarding religion. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), individuals should be able to choose, practice and observe their religion or belief and participate in society without discrimination. Beliefs may be manifested through worship, as well as through teaching and observing rituals, including wearing of specific apparel.
However, as with other fundamental human rights, there is a balance that must be struck between individual expression and collective welfare. International human rights law permits restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief only if limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.61
The UN Human Rights Committee – an expert body that interprets the treaty provisions of the ICCPR (in a non-legally binding manner) – has elaborated the contours of the right to the freedom of religion or belief in its General Comment 22. It is worth noting that the right is depicted as "far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thought on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief, whether manifested individually or in community with others."62
Moreover, the "fundamental character of these freedoms is also reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency."63 Restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner.64 Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms "belief" and "religion" are to be broadly construed, including traditional religions as well as beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions.65
Maplecroft's Freedom of Conscience, Expression and Religion Index assesses restrictions on the ability to hold, seek and receive opinions and beliefs, including those regarding religion. According to its assessment, emerging economies such as Egypt, China, Iran and Pakistan all measure ‘extreme risk.’
Figure 1: 10 highest risk countries from Maplecroft's Freedom of Conscience, Expression and Religion Index 201266
|
Iran |
Myanmar |
|
North Korea |
Somalia |
|
Sudan |
Uzbekistan |
|
China |
Eritrea |
|
Saudi Arabia |
Afganistan |
Figure 2: Maplecroft – Global Map of Freedom of Conscience, Expression and Religion Index 201267
The 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 12 states (Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, India and Venezuela), five of which are members of BRICs and the Next-11 group of emerging markets (Egypt, Indonesia, Russia, India and Turkey).
Human rights impacts
Right to freedom of expression and opinion (ICCPR, Article 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.
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 will often be hard to distinguish, for example, whether a person is being discriminated against for their religious status, their minority status, or both.
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.
Right to be free from gender discrimination (ICCPR and ICESCR Articles 2): Some religions do not treat members of different genders on an equal footing, which may include gender segregation in the workplace. Beyond the work setting, female adherents of particular religions might not have equal rights pertaining to property ownership, custody of children or inheritance.
59 ibid
60 Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, 2009 thematic report (A/HRC/10/8, para. 58), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/annual.htm
61 United Nations, 1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 18(3), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
62 ICCPR, Human Rights Committee, 1993, General Comment 22, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/comments.htm
63 ibid
64 ibid
65 ibid
66 All countries mentioned face an extreme risk related to freedom of conscience, expression and religion.
67For details on the methodology, please see: http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/human_rights/about_human_rights_report/freedom_expression/
Website: By 
Maplecroft in partnership with the United Nations Global Compact
