Rosie Chapman ponders how the charity brand can protect itself in the melee of competition for service delivery contracts.

Public service contracts are big business for corporates, social enterprises and charities alike. The numbers can be staggering. For example, just one company – the French IT firm Atos – won £3bn worth of contracts in 2012.

One of charities’ traditional advantages in the public service delivery arena has been the way in which they reflect their values and ethos in their work, and the connections they make to their service users. But there are signs that companies and social enterprises are encroaching on this ground, which could have far-reaching consequences for charities’ role, reach and remit.

ASA ruling on A4e

One illustration of this contested ground is a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority in August 2012 which saw the company A4e banned from describing itself as a ‘social purpose company’. On the homepage of its website A4e had described itself as “…a social purpose company with one sole aim. To improve people’s lives around the world. We do this by helping them find work, skills, direction – or whatever it is they need”. The ASA upheld complaints about the use of the phrase, because the regulator was concerned that individuals would understand the claim to mean that A4e was a not-for-profit organisation.

The ASA’s ruling will have had reverberations for other companies working in similar fields to A4e, such as those providing public service contracts like the Work Programme. Some of these companies are likely to have made changes to their tender documents and websites as a result of the ruling.

The Charity Commission’s latest survey of public trust and confidence in charities, carried out in 2012, shows that charities continue to be held in high regard by the public. It is perhaps not surprising then if companies seek to gain some of that cachet by using ‘social purpose’ as part of their branding.