International Judges

The judging panel are representatives of sector organisations and/or specialists in a particular area and represent international regions.

It is their substantial experience in the sector that truly makes the International Green Gown Awards sector owned.

Each of our partner organisations provides at least one representative to be a judge:

• United Nations Environment
• Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI)
• Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU)
• International  Association of Universities (IAU)
• L’Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF)
• EAUC
• Campus Responsable
• ACTS

Judging Process

Each partner organisation nominates a representative of their organisation to be a judge. 

All judges are checked to ensure no conflict of interests with the applicants. If there is any conflict of interest the judges are asked not to judge that category or that application depending on the nature of the conflict.

All applications are checked by the International Green Gown Awards secretariat in terms of application length, correct information submitted etc.

The judges are sent all of the applications that are eligible. They are asked to complete a scorecard and submit this to the International Green Gown Awards secretariat. 

A virtual judging session is then undertaken with the judges and each application and the combined scorecards are considered. The judging decisions are made at this meeting. 

The regional award winners from the UK & Ireland Green Gown Awards, the Green Gown Awards Australasia and Les Trophées des campus responsables (French speaking) are automatically entered as Finalists and undergo the same judging process as all International finalists. 

Judging Criteria

The International Green Gown Awards are judged separately to the regional awards. The judging criteria for the International Green Gown Awards are solely based on a comparison of the projects as a whole. There is no additional information in the form of brochures or printed materials. 

Category Criteria:

TO BE BASED ON A COMPARISON OF THE PROJECTS AS A WHOLE

A - The Initiative: (30 points)

• How innovative is the Project? How well does the Project fit the category?
• The Environmental and Social Benefits
• Leadership and Engagement
• Wider Societal Benefits
• Graduate Employer Benefits

B - The Execution (70 points)

• How does the Project relate to the bigger picture?
• Does the Project involve multiple stakeholders?
• What is the significance and scale of impact for the institution? How large an impact can it make? Is it important/needed/is it significant?
• What is the significance and scale of impact for the sector? i.e. a departmental initiative or can it benefit all areas of an institution - campus /estates/curriculum
• What is the student impact?
• What is the potential international reach and scale of impact for the wider sector?  Is it limited to specific territories/regions – and all learning providers?
• What is its scale of impact for dissemination?

Think about:

• The broader significance for the sector (e.g. originality, innovation/best practice within the sector, pathfinder status)
• The quality and reliability of evidence supporting the claims being made (e.g. quantitative evidence of benefits and outcomes)
• Unusual features which make the application ‘stand out from the crowd’ (e.g. extraordinary commitment and impact of a member of staff, quirky responses to topics that are sometimes seen as boring).
• The local environment and country of the Project (e.g. be sensitive to local cultures and different challenges)

Based on the above criteria, judges decide on a winner for each category. Ideally we would like to have the winners across a varied geographical location; however, the winning applicant is to be chosen based purely on the biggest scale of impact, regardless of geographical location.

The only exception to this rule is where judges will have to:

Distinguish between small and large institutions, judges will have the discretion to award up to TWO winners. (Small institutions are those with an annual turnover of US$50 million or below.) However, this will only be done when applications are of a high quality and is not mandatory for judges to do so.