IOA Seeks Feedback on Revised SOPs and Code of Ethics

The International Ombuds Association Board of Directors has convened a task force to review professional Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics as part of the Board's regular review cycle. The task force shared its proposals on January 28 and now solicits feedback from members for input on the meaning, interpretation, and practice alignment of the proposed revisions. Online feedback sessions and regional meetings are offered over the next several weeks. In general, the revisions aim to better reflect the complexities of modern workplaces and to better integrate the primary ethical standards.

Here is a more complete analysis of the proposals:

• Structural & Philosophical Shifts
• Preamble (Decoupling from Code of Ethics): A major change noted in the Preamble is the recommendation to remove direct references to the Code of Ethics within the Standards of Practice. This suggests a desire for the SOPs to stand alone as a functional manual.

• SOP 1.1 ("Empowerment" Language): The definition of the role has shifted from a passive "resource for an organization" to an active tool for "empowering both organizations and their people."

• SOP 1.2 (Interdependence):  The new text also explicitly states that the standards are "interdependent and non-severable." It adds a "fallback" clause: if one standard is mentioned, the others are legally and ethically incorporated by reference.

• Professionalism & Governance
• SOPs 1.2 & 1.4 (Charter Requirements): The new standards are more prescriptive. While the old text required a charter, the new text specifies that the charter must be "publicized" and "accepted by organizational leadership" to ensure the organization is held accountable to the standards, not just the Ombuds. The proposal thus shifts responsibility for complying with standards from the Ombuds to the Ombuds and the organization.

• SOP 1.3 (Expanded Duties): The "General Standards" section now includes a specific of Ombuds duties, creating a clearer "job description" for Ombuds: 
• works directly with individuals and groups at all levels of the organization to address concerns; 
• facilitates open communication, dialogue, and collaborative problem-solving to resolve conflicts; 
• helps participants identify options and connects them with appropriate resources; 
• identifies and brings forward issues and procedural irregularities that affect individuals or the organization; and 
• provides feedback to the organization on emerging or systemic concerns.  

• Independence
• SOP 2.2 (Reporting Lines): The new language adds that reporting to the highest level is necessary specifically to ensure independence, linking the hierarchy directly to the function's integrity.

• SOPs 2.3 & 2.4 (Non-Ombuds Duties): This is a critical update for "adjunct" or "collateral" Ombuds. The new text moves from a vague warning about "compromise" to a strict requirement: if you have other jobs, they must not interfere with Ombuds duties. It places a new burden on the Ombuds to "clearly communicate when they are and are not" acting in their capacity as an Ombuds.

• Impartiality & Informality
• SOP 3.3 (From Neutrality to Impact): While the existing text focused on "fairly considering people," the new text requires the Ombuds to consider the "implications of options" and their "possible impacts on participants and the organization." This is a more proactive, systemic approach.

• SOP 4.1 (Voluntariness): The new text moves the "voluntary" requirement to the very front of the Informality section, reinforcing that no one can be forced to use the office as part of a grievance process.

• SOP 4.4 (Notice): The language clarifying that the Ombuds is not an agent for notice is strengthened, reinforcing the "off-the-record" nature of the office.

• Confidentiality & Records
• SOP 4.6 (Record Keeping): A subtle but vital change in terminology: the new text shifts from "permanent records" to "personally identifiable information" (PII). This aligns the standards with modern data privacy laws.

• SOP 5.3 (Duty to Oppose): The new text is stronger regarding legal battles; it mandates that the Ombuds "shall oppose" disclosing information in both internal and external legal matters.

• SOP 5.4 (Confidentiality Exceptions): The new draft consolidates all exceptions to confidentiality into one "Master List" (imminent risk of serios harm; visitor permission; and defense to claim of Ombuds misconduct in formal proceedings).

(IOA Clarifications to SOPs & COE 2026.)

Related posts: Proposal to Revise IOA Membership Categories Loses [2006]; IOA Members Vote to Change Bylaws [2016]; International Ombudsman Association to Drop '-man' From Name [2021]; IOA Asks Members to Approve Omnibus Revision of Bylaws [2021]; Members Broadly Support Changes to IOA Bylaws [2021]; IOA Updates Standards of Practice [2022].