The only thing I would say is that in talking about the different ombudsman models, there has been a tendency by organizations, specifically private ones, to use the word “ombudsman”, which conjures up all this credibility, without properly equipping the office to do its job. People wonder how that happened. I want to give you the reason why people started doing that.
It all comes out of a movement in the United States where companies were being sued for harassment in the workplace. In order to mitigate damages after a lawsuit, they started creating ombudsmen. That way, at the stage of the trial where you're assessing damages, they could argue that they should pay less because they did their due diligence; they had an ombudsman in place. If you look at the States now, you have the Department of Homeland Security and a whole bunch of them in the private sector, including Coca-Cola, with ombudsmen. It's a legal way to mitigate damages.
That trend has become very attractive, but at the end of the day, you don't really have an ombudsman, you have an extension of the human resources sector.