Across multiple Facebook posts — including 28 December 2024, 4 February 2025, and 23 September 2025 — Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (alias “Jayne Price”) has repeated the claim that Jayne’s Baby Bank has “won a sustainability award by the CRS Accreditation.” The wording implies independent accreditation of the organisation as a whole. In reality, the award process tells a different story.
What CRS/CSR Actually Is
The reference appears to be to the CSR Awards operated by The Green Organisation (also known as The CSR Society). These are not accreditations, nor endorsements of companies in their entirety. They are commercial awards based on self-submitted projects. Winners are recognised for individual initiatives, not for overall organisational conduct, and there is no link to the Charity Commission or any regulatory body. Jayne’s Baby Bank is listed on the 2024 International CSR Awards winners list. However, the project was recognised in isolation, not as proof that the operation itself is sustainable or accredited.
Note: In every public post, Ridsdale uses the phrase “CRS Accreditation.” No such body exists. The correct reference is to the CSR Awards. This recurring error itself undermines the credibility of the claim.
Conflicting Explanations from the Organiser
When The Green Organisation was asked for clarification, the responses shifted within hours. On 16 September 2025 at 14:31, CEO Roger Wolens wrote:
“Our CSR Awards are presented in connection with specific projects of a company or individual and this particular campaign relates to recycling and re-using unwanted baby clothes.”
Yet later the same day, at 17:38, the justification changed:
“Any awards we make are in recognition of specific projects; they do not endorse any company as a whole. The project in question is genuine and not without merit, so we will not withdraw the award on this occasion… As the award was made in 2024, it is not readily visible on our website, so I would suggest the chances of further exposure are very limited.”
The contradiction is clear. At one moment the award was linked to “recycling baby clothes,” hours later it was defended as a project under “food & drink” and “healthcare.” Such shifting explanations demonstrate the absence of consistent criteria and reinforce that these awards are not subject to independent verification.
Why the Claim is Misleading
By advertising on social media that Jayne’s Baby Bank had “won a sustainability award by the CRS Accreditation,” Ridsdale presented the award as an organisational accreditation. Examples include:
- 28 December 2024 – “We have also won two sustainability awards from the CRS Accreditation in London.”
- 4 February 2025 – “We have won 2 sustainability awards by the CRS Accreditation.”
- 23 September 2025 – “We have won a sustainability award by the CRS Accreditation.”
In reality, it was a project-level recognition in 2024 with no wider legal or regulatory significance. The awards cannot be described as accreditation, nor do they provide any endorsement of ongoing operations. This inflation of a limited project award into a blanket organisational credential fits a wider pattern of exaggerated claims used to establish false legitimacy in the eyes of donors, volunteers, and the public. The Green Organisation itself was explicit: their awards do not endorse companies as a whole. Any suggestion otherwise is inaccurate.
Disclaimer: This report is based on correspondence with The Green Organisation, public listings on csrawards.co.uk, and archived Facebook statements by Carrie-Anne Ridsdale. It is presented in the public interest and does not constitute legal advice.
– Sherlock
Automated Notice: Transcript Commentary
Speaker: “Jayne Price” (alias Carrie-Anne Ridsdale)
Business Representation: The transcript centres on sales of toys, branded shoes, ornaments, purses, and furniture. This is clearly retail trade, not foodbank distribution. It contradicts repeated public claims of being a “registered foodbank” or “not-for-profit charity shop.”
Volunteer Goods Taken Home: Donated stock is being removed by volunteers for private resale. No evidence of tracking or accountability is mentioned. For a legitimate charity, all stock should be processed through formal channels — this practice raises serious questions about where donations are really going.
Operational Capacity vs Claimed Disability: The speaker describes moving bags, heavy lifting, and handling large items. This is inconsistent with longstanding claims of being in “palliative care,” “housebound,” or severely disabled — narratives often used to justify benefits and Motability vehicle use.
Customer Behaviour and Attitude: Instead of addressing customer concerns, complaints are dismissed outright. This reflects a private business mindset rather than a public-facing charity or foodbank, where accountability and fair treatment would be expected.
Business Transparency: References to retail promotions (“fill a bag for £5”) confirm the shop is trading commercially. There is no mention of receipts, accounts, or regulatory oversight. Publicly, this continues to be framed as a charitable foodbank outlet, which risks misleading donors and customers.
Stock Handling and Safety: The transcript shows cluttered, ad-hoc stock management with goods stored in cars, back rooms, and tight spaces. This style of operation echoes prior Environmental Health concerns raised in official inspections.
– Sherlock