Rules and ethics
Part of Business licences rules and ethics: a publisher's guide
Business licences disclosure policy for articles
Business licences disclosure policy: rules for selection, research labels, commercial ties and corrections in licensing articles.
A business licences disclosure policy should help a reader judge why a licensing service, adviser or route appears in an article, and what evidence supports its inclusion. This policy applies to every licensing article: state its jurisdiction, selection method, review date and relevant commercial relationships, with material disclosures close to the recommendation. Do not present a commercial choice as an official route or imply that general information decides an individual case.
What to take away
- Put the disclosure close to the recommendation, not in a ceremonial footer.
- Label whether evidence comes from desk research, a controlled trial or a commissioned case.
- Disclose sponsorship, affiliate payments, referral fees, free access and ownership relationships.
- Paid placement should look and read different from independent editorial selection.
- Keep a short note and full policy that agree on method, date and commercial position.
State how entries are selected
Apply these selection rules. Include an official route only when a current page from the relevant authority supports the requirement and identifies the jurisdiction. The Department for Business and Trade's Find a licence service, GOV.UK's Licence Finder, is a discovery tool: it lets users search by activity and place and returns possible licence requirements, not a definitive or complete legal determination. Keep its warning that the catalogue may be incomplete beside any description of its results.
Minimum evidence for inclusion
- Define the selection task
- Document official discovery route
- Require live first-party page
- Reject search prominence alone
- Reject copied directory text
A commercial product or professional provider is eligible for inclusion only when a live first-party page supports the exact service named, its provider and the relevant jurisdiction. Search prominence and copied directory text do not prove competence. Apply the same criteria to every eligible entry and record an evidence rating of ‘supported’, ‘not supported’ or ‘not checked’; do not convert those ratings into a numerical score or ranking without a disclosed, consistently applied basis.
Label the review method
Use distinct labels for desk research, a controlled product trial and a genuine commissioned case. State the jurisdiction, date, scenario and features observed. A linked page verifies a published claim; it does not prove that the reviewer used the product, obtained approval or tested customer support.
Never invent an account, purchase, quotation, rank or authority interaction. If no hands-on test occurred, say so plainly.
Reveal commercial relationships
Disclose sponsorship, affiliate payments, referral fees, free access and ownership relationships that may affect how content is interpreted. Name the type of relationship and explain whether payment or another benefit affects inclusion, order or wording. This includes referral commissions from company formation agents or licence consultancies, paid incorporation-service referrals and paid directory entries.
Paid placement should look and read different from independent selection. Label a paid directory entry prominently as an advertisement or sponsored listing, identify the payer and state that it is paid placement rather than an independent editorial recommendation. Do not sell the top position in a list described as editorial.
Explain the regulatory boundary
UK rules that apply
- The Advertising Standards Authority's CAP Code applies to marketing communications, not independent editorial as such. For marketing claims and comparisons, check section 3, including rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.18–3.19, on misleading claims, material information, substantiation and comparisons.
- For current consumer-facing unfair commercial practices, use Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 are the predecessor regime; paid-for promotional content must not be presented as independent editorial.
- Department for Business and Trade guidance on dealing with licences and regulations supports early identification of requirements and authorities. Explain that general guidance does not determine an individual case and that an authority or qualified professional may need to resolve uncertainty.
- The Information Commissioner's Office's data protection principles sit under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. They include data minimisation, storage limitation, and integrity and confidentiality.
Correct errors and protect submissions
Provide a clearly named editorial corrections contact route on each article. Log the article, challenged claim, date received and evidence supplied; ask only for material needed to check the claim, restrict access to it and delete it when it is no longer needed. An editor should check the evidence against an appropriate first-party or authority record, record the decision and reason, and tell the person who raised the issue through the same route. If a material claim is under review, flag or pause it where necessary; publish a dated correction or amendment log describing material changes without exposing personal or confidential information.
Draft the visible disclosure
Beside a list, the note should state the method, date, jurisdiction and commercial position in a few direct sentences. For example: ‘Method: desk research against current first-party pages and the official Find a licence service. Jurisdiction: England. Date: [date of last check]. Commercial position: no services were bought or tested and no provider paid for placement.’
For a referral fee, a worked note could read: ‘Commercial position: [company formation agent] pays us a referral fee if a reader buys its service through this link. The fee does not buy inclusion or a ranking; entries are selected using the stated evidence criteria.’ Use that wording only if it accurately describes the arrangement.
If a company formation agent, licence consultancy or other provider pays for a listing, use a separate label such as: ‘Advertisement: this directory entry is paid for by [provider] and is not an independent editorial recommendation.’ State who pays and whether payment affects selection or presentation; do not describe paid placement as editorial selection.
Keep the short note consistent with this policy. The selection criteria, evidence ratings, commercial relationships and corrections process must be available to readers, but a link to fuller policy wording must never be the only place where a material relationship is disclosed.
Before you act
- State the selection task, jurisdiction and minimum evidence required.
- Check official routes against the relevant authority and commercial services against a current first-party page.
- Label the review method, date, scenario and features observed.
- Reveal each relevant commercial relationship and explain its effect on inclusion, order or wording.
- Explain that general guidance does not determine an individual case.
- Provide an editorial corrections contact route, a review process and a dated amendment log; ask only for evidence needed to verify a challenged fact.
Common questions
What should a disclosure note beside a list contain?
It should state the method, date and commercial position in a few direct sentences. For example: inclusion was based on current first-party pages, no services were purchased or tested, and no provider paid for placement.
How should a publisher handle a writer with a conflict that disclosure cannot manage?
Maintain an internal register of supplied access, gifts, sponsorship and referral arrangements, and have the editor check it before assigning or approving coverage. Where a writer has a personal or financial conflict that cannot be managed through disclosure, reassign the review rather than asking the audience to solve the problem.
What should happen when a provider challenges an error in an article?
Record the date received, evidence checked, editor responsible and decision, including a concise reason if the requested change is rejected. Correct or qualify a verified error, notify the person who raised it through the published corrections route and add a dated entry to the public amendment log for any material change. If the claim could mislead readers while under review, flag or pause it where necessary; do not publish the submitter's personal or confidential information.
