organisationsnr

11:56 Dec 20, 2012 

I apologise for not having involved myself in the discussion until now. I think all of the points which have been made are certainly valid.
There is very little that I can add, other than from my experience working as a translator for PwC - the term which the accountants and auditors preferred for documents was "Corporate Identity Number", although they were not translators themselves and relied on FARS for their translation needs.
I can understand the logic of "Corporate Identity Number", as some people would refer to their personnummer as a "Personal Identity Number". An element of consistency between similar terms is therefore maintained.
As others have mentioned, there is a question of preference on the part of clients and translators, especially when it appears that no consistent official translation exists. However, there seems to come a point in the life cycle of a translation of a particular term where despite it arguably being incorrect, it is so widely used that it becomes the accepted translation. The implications of this could be argued until we're blue in the face, and whether or not it applies to "Corporate Identity Number" is another matter.

14:45 Dec 19, 2012 

Thank you all for engaging in this discussion! And I say this by no means as a way to end the debate - on the contrary. I have been having this debate with myself, having run into the various variations of the term over the years. I *don't* believe it should be a matter of personal preference or what the client thinks is right. This should (...) be a regulated/recommended term, and some body (Skatteverket? FAR?) should go in the forefront. I agree that FAR's term is very generic, and the different variations (see Sven's point) need to be addressed.

13:32 Dec 19, 2012 

My point is more that orgnr is primarily an ID number, not a tax reference, and therefore corresponds more closely to company number.

As for your example: If a company quoted its orgnr with 01 on the end, VAT number would be fine as a translation, but this just doesn't happen. Companies use the 10-digit number without the 01 to identify themselves.

PS According to Bolagsverket you haven't got an orgnr anyway:

Organisationsnumret är en unik identitetsbeteckning som tilldelas juridiska personer, exempelvis företag och föreningar. Enskilda näringsidkare har sitt personnummer som identitetsbeteckning i stället för ett organisationsnummer.

13:25 Dec 19, 2012 

Much appreciated!

13:14 Dec 19, 2012 

Except that Bolagsverket (on their website) in Eng calls it 'registration nuumber'. Of course, that is another translators opinion. But again, ...
:-)

13:03 Dec 19, 2012 

The problem perceived by Chris S arises from that the Swedish way is to identify organisations (and persons) with one, and only one, number; while the British way is to use a multitude of different numbers to identify organisations. This Swedish number is called "personnummer" if it concerns a natural (physical) person and "organisationsnumber" in all other cases.
My "personnummer" is: 4103263994
My "organisationsnummer" is: 410326399401
Let's construct a question to which the answer is "410326399401"
Q: What is Sven Petersson's xxx number"
A: 410326399401

12:54 Dec 19, 2012 

If we are getting picky here, the FAR reference is standard generic, but may not be standard EU. Looking at business registries (and googling CRN (words) + EU) you find 'Company registration number', and 'VAT number' (listed separately), but I see that Sven has a point below about the Swe VAT no.

12:23 Dec 19, 2012 

Eva, this is tricky as translators from Swedish seem to have adopted "corporate ID number" for some reason rather than using something more natural like "company number" or "registration number". Which you use depends on personal preference or what you think your client wants really.

12:14 Dec 19, 2012 

To Richard then! ;-)

12:01 Dec 19, 2012 

Sorry - I should have specified that the term refers to the Swedish branch (AB) of an international conglomerate.