ECDMA Global Awards — Official Jury Selection Policy

1. Purpose and scope

1.1. This Official Jury Selection Policy (the “Policy”) defines the standards and procedures used to identify, assess, and appoint Jury Members (“Judges”) for the ECDMA Global Awards (the “Awards Program”).

1.2. The jury must consist exclusively of professionals with outstanding, verifiable achievements in e-commerce, digital marketing, and the broader digital economy (including, where relevant to Awards categories, technology, product, data & analytics, logistics & infrastructure, payments, customer experience, media, journalism, publishing, education, HR and talent, and related business functions).

1.3. This Policy supplements and must be read together with:

• ECDMA Global Awards — Terms & Conditions (2026 Cycle) (the “General Terms”); and
• ECDMA Global Awards — Judge Terms & Conditions (2026 Cycle) (the “Judge Terms”).

1.4. If there is a conflict between this Policy and the General Terms or Judge Terms, the General Terms prevail.

Invitation-only: Judges are appointed strictly by invitation. There is no open application process and no right to appointment.

2. Definitions

2.1. Organizer: Community Management LTD (Company No. 15674628), registered office: 71–75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ, United Kingdom.

2.2. ECDMA Council / Council: The governing body (or authorized committee) of ECDMA responsible for final approval of Judge invitations for the Awards Program.

2.3. Organizing Committee: The team appointed by the Organizer to administer the Awards Program, including eligibility screening, operational checks, coordination, and platform administration.

2.4. Judge: An independent professional appointed by invitation to evaluate nominations (“Nominations”) in specific Award categories (“Categories”).

2.5. Outstanding Achievements: Significant, documented professional distinction demonstrating recognized impact, leadership, and authority in the relevant domain.

3. Principles of jury formation

• Outstanding professional achievement: Judges are recognized experts with a track record of significant results and influence in their field.
• Authority and credibility: Each Judge’s profile must strengthen the credibility of the Awards Program.
• Integrity and independence: Judges act impartially, avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain confidentiality.
• Diversity of expertise: The jury is formed to include a balanced mix of geographies, sectors, and specializations across e-commerce and digital marketing and adjacent domains covered by the Awards Program.
• Merit-based selection: Appointment is based on merit and fit — not on payments, sponsorships, relationships, or nomination outcomes.

4. Eligibility standard: outstanding, verifiable achievements

4.1. General standard

4.1.1. A candidate may be considered as a Judge only if they demonstrate significant, documented professional distinction and a reputation for ethical conduct.

4.1.2. Job title, years of experience, or seniority alone are not sufficient. The candidate’s profile must show recognized impact, leadership, and professional authority.

4.1.3. Candidates must be natural persons, at least 18 years old, and capable of completing evaluations in English (or in other languages supported by the judging workflow for the cycle).

4.2. ECDMA Senior Members

4.2.1. ECDMA Senior Member status in good standing is treated as strong evidence of distinction and may be sufficient to satisfy the “Outstanding Achievements” standard.

4.2.2. However, Senior Member status does not guarantee appointment. All candidates remain subject to conflict-of-interest checks, integrity screening, expertise fit, capacity constraints, and jury diversity requirements.

4.3. Achievement-based criteria

4.3.1. Candidates who are not ECDMA Senior Members must typically satisfy at least three (3) of the criteria below, or provide comparable evidence of distinction:

4.3.2. The Council may request additional documents, links, or references to verify any criterion.

4.4. Integrity and reputation screening

4.4.1. Integrity is a prerequisite for selection and continued participation. Candidates with credible histories of professional misconduct, unethical behavior, serious reputational issues, or integrity risks may be declined.

4.4.2. The Organizer may perform reasonable due diligence, including checks for conflicts of interest and other risk indicators, and may decline candidates where risk is deemed material.

5. Candidate identification and nomination channels

5.1. Candidates may be:

• proposed by ECDMA Council Members or ECDMA Senior Members;
• recommended by current Judges or ECDMA Members;
• identified through independent research and market monitoring;
• invited based on publicly visible track records of achievements and domain expertise; and/or
• included as part of targeted outreach for specific category clusters where subject-matter expertise is required.

5.2. Any “interest form” or similar expression of interest (if offered) is not an application, does not guarantee review, and does not create any right to appointment.

6. Selection process

6.1. Preliminary assessment (Organizing Committee)

The Organizing Committee performs an initial review to verify that:

• the candidate meets the outstanding achievement standard (Section 4);
• there is sufficient evidence of distinction and credibility;
• the candidate’s expertise matches the Awards Program’s current or planned Categories; and
• there are no obvious integrity or conflict red flags.

6.2. Verification and additional expert evaluation (as needed)

Where appropriate, the Council may request additional information or involve additional expert reviewers (for example, Senior Members or external authorities) to validate the credibility and significance of the candidate’s track record.

6.3. Decision by the ECDMA Council

6.3.1. The final decision to invite a candidate to the jury is made by the Council in accordance with its internal procedures.

6.3.2. The Council may approve or reject a candidate at its sole discretion, based on the totality of evidence, program needs, and integrity considerations.

6.3.3. Internal deliberations and detailed motivations of Council decisions are not subject to disclosure.

6.4. Invitation, acceptance, and onboarding

6.4.1. Approved candidates receive a formal invitation.

6.4.2. To become a Judge, the candidate must:

• accept the invitation in writing (or via the official platform workflow);
• confirm they have read and agree to the General Terms and Judge Terms;
• confirm readiness to follow this Policy, complete assigned evaluations, and meet deadlines; and
• complete any required onboarding, including scoring calibration or sample scoring exercises (where used for the cycle).

6.5. Assignment and ongoing suitability

6.5.1. Judges are assigned to Categories aligned with their expertise. Assignment decisions may change to manage capacity, conflicts, or quality control.

6.5.2. The Organizer may remove a Judge from the panel, limit assignments, or require recusal to protect integrity, including for conflict of interest, confidentiality breaches, misconduct, or failure to complete evaluations.

7. Conflict of interest and independence

7.1. Judges must immediately disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest related to any assigned Nomination and recuse themselves where a conflict exists, as required by the General Terms and Judge Terms.

7.2. The Organizer may reassign Nominations or Judges to preserve integrity.

7.3. Judges must not communicate with nominees regarding any Nomination and must not accept any gifts, benefits, or consideration connected to judging.

8. Transparency, publicity, and status claims

8.1. The Organizer may publicly list Judges (name, title, biography) to demonstrate credibility of the jury, subject to Judge consent as required by applicable law and the Judge Terms.

8.2. Judge assignments, individual scores, deliberations, and non-public process information are confidential.

8.3. Judges may state that they served as an ECDMA Global Awards Judge for the relevant year, subject to the branding and accuracy rules in the General Terms and Judge Terms. Judges must not make misleading statements that imply endorsement, certification, or guarantees of external outcomes.

9. Compensation and “no pay-to-judge”

9.1. Judging is a volunteer professional service. Judges receive no financial compensation for evaluating Nominations.

9.2. Appointment as a Judge cannot be purchased. Payments, sponsorships, or any other commercial arrangements do not influence judge selection, judge assignments, scoring, or outcomes.

9.3. The Organizer may offer optional administrative items (for example, reference letters or certificates) with processing fees to cover administrative and production costs. Any such optional items do not affect eligibility, appointment, or judging outcomes.

10. Policy updates

10.1. The Organizer reserves the right to modify this Policy from time to time.

10.2. The latest version will be published on the official Awards Program website.

10.3. Continued participation as a Judge constitutes acceptance of the most recent version of this Policy.

11. Contact

Jury and judge-related questions: [email protected]

General Awards inquiries: [email protected]

Postal address: Community Management LTD (Company No. 15674628), 71–75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ, United Kingdom