It was supposedly Emma Harrison's idea. She decided to describe A4e as a "social purpose company", claiming that phrase was her invention, though it wasn't. But someone (and it wasn't me) complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that the description was "likely to mislead consumers as to the nature of their business". And the ASA has agreed. It rules that "we were concerned that individuals would understand the claim to mean that A4e was a not-for-profit organisation. Because we understood that that was not the case, we concluded the claim was likely to mislead and breached the Code." The Guardian and the Express both report the story, by simply printing the press release. A4e's feeble defence is that "the focus of its business activities was to 'achieve positive social outcomes', adding that the majority of its revenue was derived from contracts aimed at achieving long-term sustainable employment outcomes." Yes, well, you can't use a misleading description.
And it was misleading. I remember Harrison's appearance on the BBC's The Moral Maze, when she had to disabuse Michael Buerk of the notion that A4e was a charity.
Another embarrassment for Harrison and her company.
I have visited the A4e Website on numerous occasions,what strikes me as amazing, is in all of their blogs there is not one comment that is critical of anything that they have done,only glowing reports of their success.So maybe this is why Emma believes that her programme is such a success,as honest comments are censored.
ReplyDeleteNo free speach at all on A4ES website, all my questions not published.
DeleteWeasel words by A4E, I notice. According to the ASA website, A4E told the ASA that A4E's "focus" was blah, blah, blah. BP and Shell could equally justifiably claim that their own "focus" is to provide fuel for consumers of all types to use.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of all three of these companies, the "focus" of the company's endeavours might be laudable but the company's *purpose* is to generate profits for its shareholders.
On the profit-making front (the bit that Emma Harrison was not so keen to talk about until Margaret Hodge MP dragged the truth out of Emma Harrison's CEO Andrew Dutton) A4E has fulfilled its purpose most admirably. Emma Harrison owns about 86% of the dividend-paying shares in A4E. Those shares have provided her with a profit of at least £8.6 million GBP.
If A4E's *purpose* was to improve the lives of others, why didn't Ms Harrison plough that £8.6 million back into helping the very people whom her "social purpose" company is supposed to want to assist?
Why was Emma Harrison allegedly also paying herself £365,000 pa gross - or £1,000 per day - for that matter? £100 a day would have been generous by way of remuneration for her, leaving £900 a day to be spent on (ie invested in) the people she purports to have wanted to assist.
Could the hard facts have anything to do with gravy trains and snouts in troughs, one wonders?
I confess! It was me! Mea Culpa!
ReplyDeleteAnyway Judi you say
"Those shares have provided her with a profit of at least £8.6 million GBP"
That was just one year's dividend payment. Enemma's fortune is estimated at £70m or so (though this may be slightly less if it's supposed to include the value of her a4greed shareholding - difficult to measure that since it's a private company with no quoted market price/value). Now all of this has been derived from rip off government contracts - meanwhile she has been masquerading as a "social purpose " company.
You wouldn't make it up.
It appears A4E is a social purpose company, as its goals are in the community interests (getting the long term unemployed back to work - at its most basic you have to admit that's an admirable goal). Unfortunately the way they go about them isn't, but then that isn't what defines a social purpose company.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise
Social enterprises are often regarded - erroneously - as non-profit organisations. Social enterprise is characterized by open membership and goals widely considered to be in the community or public interest.
The problem is, as the Wikipedia entry above states, that the general public don't know what a social purpose company is, and I have no doubt Emma Harrison knew this and played on it.
Let me point you to this blog last year - http://watchinga4e.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/social-purpose-company.html
DeleteA4e deliberately steered away from "social enterprise" but decided that "social purpose company" was sufficiently woolly.
.....and what about all those other A4greed claims:
ReplyDeleteOne into a job every 7 minutes - Really? prove it!
We get no money unless we find people a sustainable job - really? what about the millions paid out in attachment fees?
£1.95 is saved in benefits for every £1 we receive from Govt. Really? Prove it!
and on...
and on...
The £1.95 figure is based on a government ''Estimate''. It's not objective nor based on real evidence, which we already know because it's a government estimate.
DeleteIn the document this estimate was cited by the government, they say it's value for money is based on information which ''varies and is incomplete''. The amazing bit is the sentence immediately following it; ''In the absence of complete information, both the department and the providers have, however, made aggressive assumptions about the level of performance that can be achieved by the work programme and at what price.''
Assumptions, however aggressive are still assumptions and it means the £1.95 return on every pound is fantastical. Especially when the government is trying to sell the policy and especially if the providers have had a say in it.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1012/hc17/1701/1701.pdf
They're still calling themselves a "social purpose company" on the google search results page.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a4e&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
No they're not. If you go to the link it's the updated page. Not A4e's fault.
Delete