Demonstrates ethical leadership, standing up for righteousness even in difficult circumstances, and consistent integrity in actions.
1-3: Some ethical behavior, minor courage. 4-6: Clear examples of standing up for what is right. 7-10: Exemplary moral courage, unwavering integrity, sets a role model.
Impact & Influence
30%
The tangible positive effect of the nominee’s actions on individuals, communities, or society, and how many people are inspired toward righteousness.
1-3: Limited influence, minor effect. 4-6: Noticeable impact in a specific community or context. 7-10: Broad, transformative influence that inspires many.
Innovation & Creativity
20%
Unique approaches or strategies to advance righteousness, justice, or ethical conduct.
1-3: Conventional approach, minor originality. 4-6: Meaningful creativity in approach or advocacy. 7-10: Highly innovative or groundbreaking approach that advances righteousness.
Sustainability & Reach
10%
Potential for long-term positive effects and influence on others (individuals, groups, or organizations).
1-3: Short-term, limited reach. 4-6: Sustainable within certain communities. 7-10: Long-lasting, broad-reaching effect that can scale to inspire many.
Judging Panel Composition
Panel Assembly: An independent panel of several judges will be convened by the Righteousness Award Secretariat.
Expertise: Judges will be selected based on their distinguished expertise across fields relevant to righteousness, ethical leadership, social impact, community service, justice, advocacy, education, and organizational excellence.
Term: Judges serve for a single award cycle to ensure fresh perspectives, uphold fairness, and mitigate conflicts of interest.
Ethics and Conflict of Interest
Mandatory Disclosure: All judges must sign a conflict-of-interest disclosure form prior to reviewing any submissions. They must declare any past, present, or anticipated personal, professional, or organizational relationships with nominees.
Recusal Policy: A judge must immediately recuse themselves from evaluating any nomination where a conflict exists. The Secretariat will reassign such entries to another qualified judge.
Confidentiality Agreement: All judges are bound by a strict confidentiality agreement. Discussions, deliberations, and nomination details are strictly confidential and not to be disclosed outside the judging process.
Evaluation Process & Timeline
Phase
Timeline
Activity
Outcome
1. Preliminary Screening
September
The Secretariat verifies eligibility, completeness, and validity of nominations. Judges perform an initial remote review, scoring entries against core criteria (Moral Courage, Impact, Innovation, and Sustainability).
A shortlist of nominees (individuals, groups, or organizations) advances to the next round.
2. Deliberation & Deep Review
Early October
Judges convene (in-person or virtually) for a detailed internal review of shortlisted nominations. They evaluate all submitted materials, compare entries, and assign scores according to the rubric.
Judges finalize scores and rankings for each nominee.
3. Final Selection
Late October
The judging panel convenes to deliberate, finalize the slate of awardees, and may assign special recognitions (e.g., Honorable Mention, Group/Organization Awards).
The official list of awardees is locked and sent for announcement preparation.
