A/69/261 becomes obvious that in the context of freedom of religion or belief the term neutrality can have very different meanings. It can sometimes be a proxy for a policy of non-commitment towards, and non-recognition of religious or belief diversity and can even lead to rather restrictive measures in this area. Unfortunately, there are examples of unreasonably restrictive readings of neutrality within both public institutions and the private sector. By contrast, neutrality can also represent a policy of fair inclusion of people of diverse religious or belief orientation — both within an organization’s staff and vis-à-vis its customers. In this positive understanding, the principle of neutrality serves as an antidote to all sorts of biases, exclusions, negative stereotypes and discrimination. It provides an open and inclusive framework for the free and non-discriminatory unfolding of religious and belief diversity among staff and when dealing with the outside -society. This latter is an understanding of neutrality to which the Special Rapporteur fully subscribes. From such a perspective, reasonable accommodation, far from endangering the neutrality of the workplace, can actually become a positive factor of “neutrality”, appropriately understood. (c) Opening the floodgates to trivial demands? 56. Employer reluctance towards reasonable accommodation may reflect fears that such a policy could invite all sorts of trivial demands from staff. Indeed, it is important to ensure that reasonable accommodation do es not fall prey to trivial interests. The underlying idea is not simply to accommodate all kinds of personal tastes or preferences, but rather to help avoid situations in which an employee would otherwise be faced with discriminatory treatment and a serio us, existential dilemma. The preamble to the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief recalls that “religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements of his conception of life”. Those claiming some accommodation in order to fully exercise their freedom of religion or belief can therefore be expected to present the argument that without such appropriate measures they would suffer an existential conflict, that is, a dilemma of a serious nature. Certainly in some cases it may be difficult to distinguish a serious religious or belief-related demand from more trivial interests. When confronted with such questions, public or private employers may therefore need professional advice, based on a clear understanding of freedom of religion or belief and its broad application. The availability of appropriate professional support is of strategic significance for the practical implementation of reasonable accommodation in this area. (d) Diluting corporate identity? 57. Public institutions and private companies can have a legitimate interest to be publicly recognizable in their dealings with customers and other people. Experiences from both public institutions and private companies demonstrate that the interest in maintaining corporate identity is, in most cases, easily reconcilable with accommodating religious diversity. Rather than leading to all -or-nothingdilemmas, reasonable accommodation usually just requires a degree of flexibility from both employers and employees, as well as tolerance from third parties and the 14-58756 17/23