A/69/261 society at large. 22 It should be reiterated that religious institutions may require a different assessment in this regard, since their corporate identi ty is religiously defined from the outset. (e) Risk of conflicts in the workplace? 58. Measures of reasonable accommodation in the workplace are not always popular among staff and can lead to tensions, sometimes based on (mis)perceptions that members of minorities receive a “privileged” treatment. As briefly mentioned previously, this is a misunderstanding, because reasonable accommodation presupposes a more demanding concept of complex equality. However, instead of dispelling such misunderstandings among their staff, some employers resort to policies of “abstract conflict prevention” by refusing to even consider measures of reasonable accommodation in the first place. Such restrictive policies often lack any realistic risk-analysis. The mere possibility — perhaps even a far-fetched one — that such conflicts could hypothetically emerge, is taken as a pretext to reject any accommodation of diversity in the workplace. However, the resulting restrictive policies may amount to undue limitations of the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief. As elaborated previously, the imposition of limitations always requires precise empirical and normative arguments, in compliance with article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as all other relevant international human rights norms. (f) Undue economic and managerial burdens? 59. Perhaps the most widespread objection to measures of accommodation concerns anxieties of possibly far-reaching economic or managerial consequences. However, already the definition of reasonable accommodation in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities makes it clear that measures of accommodation should not amount to a “disproportionate or undue burden” for the respective institution. Depending on the specific context, this provision can serve as an argument for rejecting too far-reaching requests for accommodation, if they are likely to cause disproportionate economic or other costs. However, such rejection should always be concrete and confined to specific cases. A broadly applied “preventative” strategy which, with regard to merely hypothetical costs and complications, would deny any discussion of accommodation in the first place would be illegitimate. Moreover, experience shows that in many cases measures of accommodation are nearly or totally cost-free. 23 Rejecting accommodation would thus be “unreasonable” even in a narrow economic understanding of reasonableness. In the long run, measures of accommodation can even have positive economic __________________ 22 23 18/23 See also the Human Rights Committee’s decision on admissibility in the case of Riley et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/74/D/1048/2002, para. 4.2: “The Committee has noted the authors’ claims that they are victims of violations of articles 3, 9, paragraph 1, 18, 23, paragraphs 3 and 4, 26, and 2, paragraph 1, because Khalsa Sikh officers of the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] are authorised to wear religious symbols as part of their RCMP uniform. […] The Committee is of the view that the authors have failed to show how the enjoyment of their rights under the Covenant has been affected by allowing Khalsa Sikh officers to wear religious symbols.”). See Marie-Claire Foblets and Katayoun Alidadi, eds., “Summary report on the RELIGARE Project: Religious Diversity and Secular Models in Europe — Innovative Approaches to Law and Policy”, (summer 2013), p. 13. Available from www.religareproject.eu/system/files/ RELIGARE%20Summary%20Report_0.pdf. 14-58756