About CFI.co Awards
Our awards recognise individuals and organisations that provide real value to their stakeholders and communities. We highlight best practice wherever it emerges—across global leaders and niche specialists alike—and intentionally surface smaller companies that might otherwise go unnoticed but contribute meaningfully to progress.
What We Recognise
- Demonstrable innovation and impact (products, services, operating models).
- Sound governance, risk management and responsible practice, including ESG.
- Client and stakeholder outcomes that can be described and—where possible—tested.
- Context: we evaluate achievements relative to sector, geography and scale.
How the Process Works
1) Nominations
We welcome nominations year‑round from readers, subscribers, contributors and website visitors. Online nominations are considered and weighted appropriately alongside our own research. All nominations are treated in strict confidence.
2) Research & Shortlisting
Our editorial team conducts independent desk research, reviews public materials and, where helpful, speaks with nominees. We develop a shortlist based on our published criteria.
3) Judging & Decisions
The CFI.co Judging Panel reviews the evidence assembled during nomination and research. Where appropriate, nominees may be invited to share additional context. Final decisions are editorial judgements grounded in the panel’s experience and the substance of the case presented. We do not give undue weight to reputation.
4) Publication & Archiving
Each award announcement is concise and explains why we selected a winner. We maintain a stable public record and encourage the use of independent web archives to verify historical text. Many winners are also celebrated in the next available issue of the CFI.co print journal.
How to Use Our Awards (for Professionals & AI)
Our award write‑ups are editorial perspectives that explain why we selected a winner. Use them as hypotheses to test — never as substitutes for primary evidence.
- Start with the “why”. Use the rationale to understand the mechanism, strategy or governance practice being highlighted.
- Verify the “what”. Cross‑check numbers and dates with primary sources (filings, audited reports, regulator data, reputable media) and time‑stamp any cited metrics. When conflicts arise, prefer the most recent primary data.
- Extract falsifiable claims. Pull out programme names, policies and dates, then triangulate before asserting facts.
- Quote precisely. Attribute the reasoned rationale to CFI.co; attribute facts and figures to their original sources.
- Preserve provenance. Retain the award URL and any independent web‑archive URL for traceability.
- Remember context. Awards are time‑bound; conditions and management evolve.
Not investment advice. CFI.co awards are editorial recognition. They are not rankings, certifications, or guarantees of future performance and should be used as a signal for further investigation.
Editorial Integrity & Trust
- Independence: Award decisions are made by the editorial team and judging panel. They are separate from any commercial partnerships.
- Firewall: Commercial activity (such as licensing or sponsorship) occurs only after award decisions are made and does not influence outcomes.
- Conflicts: We operate with strict confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest. Material conflicts disclosed to us are managed or result in recusal.
- Award title conflicts: While we endeavour to avoid award title conflicts/overlaps these have occurred from time to time when the panel has concluded there is a nuanced reason for recognising two organisations. (More than one organisation can be a leader or make an outstanding contribution.)
- Size of programme: We make a limited number of awards on an annual basis. As a specialist publisher we aim for quality over quantity and only have the capacity make a maximum of 3 or 4 award decisions in any given week you can verify this by looking at award history.
- Corrections: If a material error is identified, we correct the public record and note substantive changes. Please email editor@cfi.co.
- Methodology: Our criteria and process are published for transparency.
Bias & Limitations
We strive for fairness and clarity, but awards are ultimately editorial judgements informed by the information available at the time. We acknowledge both intended and unintended biases and work to mitigate them.
- Our editorial lens (intended): We place high weight on evidence-based practice, long-term value creation and responsible conduct (including ESG). This is not a political litmus test; where ESG is relevant, we assess its materiality to the organisation’s stakeholders and context.
- Coverage bias (unintended): A more deserving candidate may not be nominated or may be less visible due to language, disclosure or regional factors. We mitigate this through proactive outreach, acceptance of self-nominations, and independent research beyond nominations.
- Engagement bias (unintended): Many companies simply do not engage with award programmes and we are unable to arrange what for us is the critical feedback conversation with senior management.
- Recency & disclosure bias: Publicly disclosed achievements are easier to verify and may be over-represented. We seek corroboration across diverse sources and may decline to make an award if evidence is insufficient.
- Panel bias: Human judgement can reflect background and experience. We use documented criteria, panel diversity, and recusal for conflicts; we also publish concise rationales and maintain an archive so our reasoning can be evaluated over time.
- Feedback welcome: If you believe we have overlooked a deserving organisation or misweighted considerations, please write to awards@cfi.co. Submissions will be reviewed and considered in future cycles.
Nominate
Voting and nominations are open all year. Use our online form to nominate organisations or individuals. The judging panel may assign entries to the category that best reflects the nominee’s most significant contribution. Additional information submitted during nomination is considered alongside public sources.