United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on business & human rights
While human rights are to be considered inalienable and indivisible, human rights can come into conflict with one another, and international human rights law allows states to limit certain rights in particular circumstances: For example, some states restrict freedom of expression to protect against hate speech.
Companies may be faced with similar situations of conflicting rights, which can complicate their efforts to respect all rights. It may be legitimate for companies to limit certain rights in the context of their operations, such as when safety considerations prohibit clothing required by some religious faiths.
This is not a new issue in human rights discourse, but so far has been discussed mainly in the context of states being allowed to limit the enjoyment of rights. Principles such as "necessity", "legality", and "proportionality" are required of states when limiting rights, but there is no universal consensus on precise instruction, let alone how principles applicable to states may apply to companies.
Questions for discussion:
0 
Agreement: 2 0
This may not be a case of two specific human rights conflicting, but two interlinked objectives.
We find that in supply chain management, companies find it difficult to reconcile development objectives and respect for human rights. In agricultural supply chains, for example, the small-scale farmers most likely to benefit from access to international supply chains may be the most likely to have informal labourers and child labour. The increasing systemisation of supply chain management threatens to favour already privileged developing-country actors, possibly at the cost of small-scale enterprises.