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.