The Business Ombudsman Council

Among the institutions created in the post-2014 reform period, the Business Ombudsman Council is the one that most repays attention, because it works in a way that should not obviously work.

What it does

A company that believes a state body has treated it unlawfully or unfairly submits a complaint. The Council examines it, engages with the agency concerned, and issues a recommendation.

It cannot order anything. It has no power to compel, fine or overturn.

Why it works anyway

Because it publishes. A recommendation that is ignored appears in a public report, along with the name of the body that ignored it, and agencies that appear repeatedly are asked about it by people they cannot ignore.

Because it is independent, established with international participation and led by someone from outside the domestic system, which makes its findings hard to dismiss as factional.

And because it deals in specifics: a named company, a named agency, a defined sum, a documented sequence of events. That is much harder to argue with than a general complaint about the business climate.

What it has produced

A large number of resolved cases, substantial sums released to complainants, and — more valuable — a body of systemic recommendations drawn from patterns across many complaints, several of which became legislative changes.

The transferable lesson

An institution with no coercive power but genuine independence and the right to publish can be highly effective, and is considerably easier to establish than one with real authority.

An institution with no power to compel producing results looks odd at first — but in commerce too the most effective pressure is usually reputation rather than litigation. A published complaint produces a result faster than a won case. The transferable lesson is that an institution's power lies not in its mandate but in whether its report is read.