Governance & Ethics

Judging methodology

Every eligible nomination is assessed by an independent panel against published, weighted criteria. Each category defines its own criteria and weights, which are made known to nominees in advance. Judges score independently, save drafts, and submit locked scores through a confidential portal. Final rankings aggregate all submitted scores; individual judge scores and comments are never published.

Where a category is open to public voting, voting is a secondary signal and never the sole determinant. The exact weighting between judging and public voting is set per category and published in the category details.

Eligibility & rules

Eligibility criteria are published on each category page and applied uniformly. Nominations may be self-submitted or made by a third party. All submissions are verified for completeness and eligibility by the Secretariat before advancing to judging. The Secretariat may request additional information; nominations that cannot be verified are not advanced.

• One submission per nominee per category per season.
• Information provided must be accurate and verifiable.
• Supporting evidence is treated as confidential.
• The Secretariat reserves the right to reclassify or decline entries that do not meet criteria.

Conflict of interest

Every judge accepts a confidentiality undertaking and declares any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest before scoring. Judges must recuse themselves from any nomination where a conflict exists; recusals are logged. The panel composition is reviewed to minimise conflicts, and no judge may score a nomination in which they or their organisation have a direct interest.

Anti-bribery & anti-corruption

The ABT Awards operate a strict zero-tolerance policy on bribery and corruption. No payment, gift or inducement may be offered to influence an outcome. Offering or accepting such inducements results in immediate disqualification and may be reported to the authorities. Outcomes cannot be purchased, accelerated or influenced by any payment.

Data protection & privacy

Personal data is collected only for the purpose of administering the awards and is processed lawfully and securely. Nomination evidence, financial information and judge commentary are confidential and never disclosed publicly. Voters' details are used solely to verify votes. Individuals may request access to or correction of their data, or its deletion, by contacting the Secretariat.

Code of ethics

All participants — nominees, judges, sponsors, staff and volunteers — are expected to act with honesty, fairness and respect. Misrepresentation of achievements, attempts to influence judges, or abuse of the process are grounds for disqualification. The awards celebrate genuine transformation; integrity is non-negotiable.

Sponsorship independence

Sponsorship supports the awards financially but confers no influence over outcomes. Sponsors are categorically separated from judging: sponsors cannot score, see scores, or direct decisions. Sponsorship of a category is disclosed transparently and never guarantees a result. The judging process and the sponsorship function are managed by separate teams.

Verification & audit

Every award decision is traceable: nominations carry a unique reference, judge scores are time-stamped and locked, public votes are verified by one-time code, and all significant actions are recorded in an action log. Certificates carry a verifiable QR code and a public verification record. The process is designed to be auditable end to end.

Complaints & appeals

Concerns about the process, eligibility or conduct may be raised through a formal, confidential channel. Each case receives a unique reference and is reviewed independently. Appeals against decisions are considered on the basis of process, not preference. Submit or track a case below.