What's in a name?

Last year A4e was told by the Advertising Standards Authority to stop describing itself as a "social purpose company" because it could mislead people into thinking it was a social enterprise rather than a profit-making business.  There has always been a bit of a problem for the media in describing the company.  "Recruitment agency" or "recruitment company" have been used frequently and, of course, inaccurately.  Now A4e has come up with a new phrase.  In a piece on its website about a job fair in Sheffield it calls itself "Sheffield public service provider".
Are they are providing a public service?  It's debatable.  But that's semantics.  I'm more interested in why the company feels the need to come up with these phrases, as if trying to distance itself from the fact that it is a business which, like all businesses, exists to make a profit.  "Public service provider" seems like a cloak of respectability designed to disguise that.  Why can't they just call themselves an outsourcing company?

Requiring email passwords, and other things

Some time ago people raised concerns about Work Programme providers apparently requiring clients to divulge their email passwords.  Naturally some thought this was a breach of their privacy, while others could see good practical reasons for it.  Well, someone decided to ask the Information Commissioner's Office for a ruling, and has passed the response to us.  It doesn't help much:

"Principle 1 of the DPA states that:
“personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless – 

1. At least one of the conditions in schedule 2 is met, and
2. In the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in schedule 3 is met.

In practice this means that an organisation should ensure that staff know the purposes for which their personal data will be processed, and that data will not be used in any way that would have an adverse effect on the individuals concerned."

It goes on to say that if you have concerns you should raise them with the organisation; if that doesn't help and you think that the principles of the DPA are being broken, you can make a formal complaint to the ICO.  The difficulty, of course, would be in defining "an adverse effect".

The news that the Advertising Standards Authority has banned A4e from describing itself as a "social purpose company" was picked up by lots of local papers and specialist websites, but of the mainstream media only the Guardian and the Express report it.  Congratulations to our regular correspondent, Gissajob, who made the complaint to the ASA.  We first raised the subject in April 2011.  In January 2012 the Guardian was guilty of falling for the spin, calling A4e a "social enterprise".  The following month the Guardian's Patrick Butler was mocking A4e's "threadbare pretensions to being a 'social purpose company'". However, A4e doesn't like the ASA's ruling.  On its website it says, somewhat petulantly, "The ASA has upheld a complaint against A4e’s use of the term ‘social purpose company’ to describe itself. In line with the ASA’s recommendation, we are amending our advertising; however, given that we continue to deliver services which positively impact on people’s lives, we are a private company with a social purpose. To this end, we are considering an appeal against the ASA ruling."  So there!

If you're a connoisseur of beer you may have come across some made by the Thornbridge brewery.  And you may be interested in a piece in the Sheffield Star.  Yes, it's the brewery owned by Emma Harrison's husband.  

A4e can't call itself a "social purpose company"

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.