SPICY AWARDS

JUDGING
PROCESS

A structured, evidence-led process designed to recognize meaningful contribution, demonstrated impact and changemaking momentum.

Evidence Led Independent Jury STARS Methodology Impact Driven
Explore Categories Eligibility & Rules
Judging Framework
08
Stages of Assessment From nomination and eligibility through evidence, independent assessment, deliberation and final determination.
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

Recognition
with integrity.

The Spicy Awards recognize individuals, organizations, movements, enterprises, initiatives, institutions, and collaborations creating meaningful social, environmental, cultural, economic, or community impact.

Judging is designed to look beyond visibility and reputation. A strong nomination must demonstrate what was done, why it mattered, what changed, who was affected, and what evidence supports the claim.

The process therefore combines structured evidence, STARS assessment, category fit, independent Jury judgment, verification and governance oversight.

THE RECOGNITION EQUATION
Evidence + STARS + Category Fit + Independent Judgment

The Awards judge contribution, not visibility; impact, not popularity; evidence, not assertion; context, not scale alone; and integrity, not influence.

Each stage of the process exists to ensure that recognition is grounded in the substance and significance of the work.

HOW A NOMINATION MOVES

From nomination
to recognition.

Every competitive nomination moves through a defined sequence. Each stage answers a different question before the nomination progresses to the next stage.

01

Nomination & Intake

The nomination is received, recorded and prepared for assessment. The submission establishes the nominee, Changemaker Archetype, primary category, nomination narrative and supporting information.

02

Eligibility Screening

The nomination is checked against the published eligibility requirements, submission requirements, applicable deadlines and other entry conditions.

03

Archetype & Category Fit

The work is assessed against the selected Changemaker Archetype and primary category to ensure that the nomination is being judged in the appropriate context.

04

Evidence & STARS Assessment

The nomination is examined through the STARS methodology and the quality of evidence supporting the claimed contribution and impact.

05

Independent Jury Review

Eligible nominations are independently assessed by Jury members against the published judging framework before collective deliberation takes place.

06

Verification & Due Diligence

Relevant claims, evidence, references and other information may be checked before an outcome is confirmed.

07

Deliberation & Moderation

The Jury considers scores, evidence, category fit, contextual factors and verification findings, including significant differences between assessments where relevant.

08

Final Determination & Governance

The competitive outcome is determined in accordance with the Awards Rules, with applicable governance oversight and final confirmation.

THE STARS METHODOLOGY

Five questions.
One story of impact.

STARS provides a structured way to understand the substance of a changemaker's work. It helps the Jury move from a nomination narrative to a clearer assessment of significance, transformation, accountability, reach and sustainability.

S

Significance

How important is the challenge, opportunity or contribution being addressed?

T

Transformation

What meaningful change has occurred because of the work?

A

Accountability

How clearly does the nominee demonstrate responsibility, integrity and ownership of the work?

R

Reach

Who has been affected or reached, considered within the nominee's purpose, resources and operating environment?

S

Sustainability

Can the contribution continue, adapt, scale or create lasting value?

JURY CONSIDERATION

Judging Lenses

Depending on the category, the Jury will consider the following lenses when assessing the strength and significance of the nomination.

Impact

What meaningful difference has the nominee contributed to?

Evidence

How convincingly is the contribution or impact demonstrated?

Innovation

Has the nominee introduced or applied a meaningful new approach?

Leadership

Has the nominee demonstrated meaningful initiative, responsibility, or influence?

Sustainability

Is the contribution capable of continuing, scaling, adapting, or creating lasting value?

Inclusion

Does the work meaningfully consider access, participation, equity, diversity, or community ownership where relevant?

INDEPENDENT JURY ASSESSMENT

100-point
scorecard.

The competitive Jury assessment uses a structured 100-point framework. The weighting emphasizes significance and transformation while maintaining accountability, reach and sustainability as part of the assessment.

No.
Criterion
What the Jury considers
Weight
01
Significance
Importance of the challenge, opportunity and contribution within its relevant context.
30%
02
Transformation
Demonstrated positive change, outcomes, progress, influence or meaningful difference.
25%
03
Accountability
Integrity, responsibility, ethical conduct, ownership and credibility of the nominee's contribution.
20%
04
Reach
Depth and breadth of influence considered relative to context, resources, purpose and community.
10%
05
Sustainability
Capacity of the contribution to endure, adapt, scale or create lasting value.
15%
Total Possible Score 100 Points
EVIDENCE & VERIFICATION

Claims must meet
evidence.

Recognition is not based simply on visibility, popularity, wealth, organizational size, media attention or follower count. The substance of the contribution must be supported.

Evidence may include

  • Measurable outcomes and impact data
  • Impact reports and project records
  • Research and verified data
  • Beneficiary feedback and testimonials
  • Case studies and publications
  • Policy or systems-change evidence
  • Financial or operational information where relevant
  • Photographs, video and digital portfolios
  • Independent references and supporting documentation

Evidence quality

  • Relevance — does it support the claim?
  • Credibility — can it reasonably be trusted?
  • Specificity — is the contribution clear?
  • Consistency — do the sources align?
  • Recency — is it relevant to the assessment period?
  • Attribution — can the nominee's contribution be distinguished?
JURY INTEGRITY

Independent
by design.

Competitive judging is conducted independently. Jurors are expected to apply the published framework consistently and to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the judging process.

  • Judges assess nominations independently before collective deliberation.
  • Judges must disclose actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • A material conflict may require recusal from the relevant nomination or category.
  • Sponsors, partners, nominees, nominators and other external interests must not direct competitive judging outcomes.
  • Jury deliberations and individual assessments are confidential.
  • Previous recognition does not automatically create an advantage in a new Awards cycle.
SEPARATE RECOGNITION PATH

People's Choice

The People's Choice Award is separate from the Jury-determined competitive categories. Its eligibility and voting requirements are published separately. Public participation does not automatically determine Jury-determined category outcomes.

Explore People's Choice
INSIDE THE PROCESS

How each stage
works.

Select a stage to understand what happens before a nomination progresses to the next part of the process.

The nomination is formally received and prepared for assessment. The submission establishes the nominee, selected Changemaker Archetype, primary competitive category, nomination narrative and supporting materials. Self-nominations and third-party nominations are assessed under the same standards.
The Awards Secretariat checks whether the nomination meets the applicable eligibility requirements and submission conditions. Incomplete, invalid, materially misleading or dishonest submissions may be rejected or withdrawn in accordance with the Awards Rules.
The nomination is assessed against the selected Changemaker Archetype and primary category. Where the work more appropriately belongs in another category, the Jury or Awards administration may move the nomination to a more appropriate category in accordance with the published Rules.
The nomination is considered through the STARS methodology: Significance, Transformation, Accountability, Reach and Sustainability. Evidence is also considered for relevance, credibility, specificity, consistency, recency and attribution.
Eligible nominations are independently reviewed by Jury members using the published judging framework. Judges form their assessments independently before collective deliberation. Conflicts of interest must be declared.
Relevant claims, evidence and supporting information may be verified using appropriate sources such as public records, websites, publications, references, organizational information and submitted documentation. False or manipulated evidence may result in disqualification or withdrawal.
The Jury may consider written submissions, evidence, verification findings, scores, category fit and other official information available to it. Significant differences between assessments may be reviewed to understand the basis of different judgments and support consistent application of the criteria.
Following assessment, verification and deliberation, the Jury determines the competitive outcome in accordance with the Awards Rules. The Awarding Board provides applicable governance oversight, including exceptional governance matters and Special Honors where relevant. Governance oversight does not replace independent competitive judging.
RECOGNITION WITH INTEGRITY

Impact deserves
more than attention.

The Spicy Awards recognize changemakers whose work demonstrates meaningful contribution, credible evidence, integrity and the potential to create lasting momentum.

Eligibility & Rules Award Categories Spicy Awards
Scroll to Top