A/HRC/8/5 page 27 the collective leverage of organizations and their members to achieve solutions; and reduce the resource implications for the individual entities involved. The organizations concerned must remain responsible for ensuring that any such mechanism meets the minimum principles described above. F. Gaps in access 102. The foregoing describes a patchwork of grievance mechanisms at different levels of the international system, with different constituencies and processes. Yet considerable numbers of individuals whose human rights are impacted by corporations, lack access to any functioning mechanism that could provide remedy. This is due in part to a lack of awareness as to where these mechanisms are located, how they function, and what supporting resources exist. NHRIs, NGOs, academic institutions, governments and other actors could address this gap through improved information flows. 103. Yet this is not solely about a lack of information. It also reflects intended and unintended limitations in the competence and coverage of existing mechanisms. Consequently, some actors have proposed the creation of a global ombudsman function that could receive and handle complaints. Such a mechanism would need to provide ready access without becoming a first port of call; offer effective processes without undermining the development of national mechanisms; provide timely responses while likely being located far from participants; and furnish appropriate solutions while dealing with different sectors, cultures and political contexts. It would need to show some early successes if faith in its capacity were not quickly to be undermined. To perform these tasks any such function would need to be well-resourced. Careful consideration should go into whether these criteria actually can and would be met before moving in this direction. V. CONCLUSION 104. The current debate on the business and human rights agenda originated in the 1990s, as liberalization, technology, and innovations in corporate structure combined to expand prior limits on where and how businesses could operate globally. Many countries, including in the developing world, have been able to take advantage of this new economic landscape to increase prosperity and reduce poverty. But as has happened throughout history, rapid market expansion has also created governance gaps in numerous policy domains: gaps between the scope of economic activities and actors, and the capacity of political institutions to manage their adverse consequences. The area of business and human rights is one such domain. 105. In fact, progress has been made in the past decade, at least in some industries and by growing numbers of firms. The Special Representative’s 2007 report detailed novel multi-stakeholder initiatives, public-private hybrids combining mandatory with voluntary measures, and industry and company self-regulation. All have their strengths and shortcomings, but few would have been conceivable a mere decade ago. Likewise, there is an expanding web of potential corporate liability for international crimes, reflecting international standards but imposed through national courts. Governments have adopted a variety of measures, albeit gingerly to date, to promote a corporate culture respectful of human rights. Fragments of international institutional provisions exist with similar aims.