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.  

What's in a name?

A4e gets a mention in a piece in the Guardian about a school in Middlesborough which has been teaching kids how to set up and run businesses. A4e's role, apparently, was to co-ordinate the programme. Trouble is, the writer, Patrick Kingsley, initially described A4e as a "social enterprise". Someone quickly pointed out that it is not a social enterprise but a "straightforward, profit-making business". And to give the Guardian its due, they changed it straight away - to "social purpose company". But the Guardian has made this mistake before, so it shows how the wrong description has stuck. The official definition is: "a social enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners' (DTI, 2002)." Clearly A4e doesn't fit that definition. But to call it, instead, a "social purpose company" (apparently Emma Harrison's idea) is to deliberately fudge the issue.

A social purpose company

The approved description of A4e (approved, at least, by A4e) is "social purpose company". According to Mark Lovell on 3 February last year, "Over the last few years Emma came up with a nice phrase that we use to define what we do – a Social Purpose Company. As a business we have a really focused view of the social impact we aim to deliver; Improving People’s Lives. We have a strong set of commercial skills and principles that we continue to mature and develop. We have a strong set of values and a clear culture about the services we deliver, how we deliver them and how we want the business to evolve."

But if you google on the phrase, you find that it doesn't seem to be Emma's invention. For instance, on a website on Belgian law, we have "Belgian legislation has also created a hybrid entity, the social purpose company, which can be considered as an alternative to non-profit associations. Unlike these associations, a social purpose company may perform a commercial activity, but this activity should be carried out in a non-profit context." This is more or less what we would call a social enterprise; it doesn't describe A4e. Then there's an internet selling company called OneNest which sells artisan goods. It's founder says, "Exactly ten years ago, I created my first social purpose company, oneNest." And, "Global Partners & Associates is a social purpose company working to promote democratic politics, effective governance and human rights."

So the phrase can mean whatever you want it to mean. What A4e apparently wants it to mean is that they're not like all those other private companies, like Serco, Capita, G4S et al, which take whatever contracts they can get in order to make a profit. No, A4e sees itself as blending "commercial and social principles" and coming up with something new. They've got a long way to go to persuade many of the people they've had dealings with that this is the case.

And as a PS, I wonder why there are almost no comments under any of Lovell's blog posts.