Evaluation Framework
A transparent, evidence-based approach designed to ensure comparability, impartiality and global relevance across all award categories.
Core Evaluation Principles
Evaluation Stages
Eligibility & Completeness Check
Secretariat review for category fit, completeness and minimum evidence requirements.
Independent Jury Scoring
Jurors score entries against the rubric using category criteria and submitted evidence.
Shortlisting (Where Applicable)
Finalists may be requested to clarify results, provide additional evidence or answer jury questions.
Final Review & Confirmation
Final review of consistency, documentation and approvals before winners are confirmed and notified.
Scoring Rubric (Guideline)
The weighting below is a guideline for how juries typically assess submissions. Category-specific criteria may adjust emphasis.
| Criterion | Typical Weight | What Jurors Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation / Originality | 30% | Clear novelty, meaningful technical progress, differentiated approach. |
| Measured Impact | 25% | Verifiable outcomes for users, safety, quality, sustainability or performance. |
| Feasibility & Scalability | 20% | Readiness, manufacturability, deployment maturity, repeatability across contexts. |
| Governance & Risk Management | 15% | Controls, oversight, safety culture, cybersecurity posture, responsible operations. |
| Sustainability / Ethics Alignment | 10% | Lifecycle thinking, responsible sourcing, equity and compliance where relevant. |
Evidence Strength Levels
- High-level descriptions and limited quantified results
- Internal data without methodology detail
- Few supporting documents
- Clear KPIs with baseline vs. achieved improvements
- Methodology and measurement approach described
- Supporting reports or third-party references
- Independent verification or audit-grade evidence
- Replicable results across sites, fleets or markets
- Clear governance, risk controls and long-term performance tracking
Category-Specific Evidence (Examples)
Evidence expectations vary by category. The examples below illustrate typical documentation types — you do not need to submit every item, but the submission should support the main claims credibly.
- Architecture overview and technical validation results
- Security testing summary (where relevant)
- Deployment readiness and scaling evidence
- Lifecycle analysis, carbon baseline and measured reduction
- Energy / water / material efficiency metrics
- Circularity or recycling proof points
- Validation plans, reliability metrics, warranty trends
- Safety process governance (reviews, audits, training)
- Evidence of sustained improvement (not one-off)
- Programme results, reach and long-term outcomes
- Safeguards, ethics and inclusion measures
- External partners, audits or public reporting (if available)
Fairness, Confidentiality & Safeguards
Next steps
Review how to apply, learn about the jury safeguards, or check this year’s timeline before submitting.