01 · Governance
Governance Principles and Independence of Evaluation
Governance Principles: The Award is committed to applying the principles of integrity, transparency, independence, fairness and equal opportunity at all stages of participation, evaluation, judging and the approval of results. Independence of Evaluation: Evaluation and judging must be carried out independently of the commercial, advertising, sponsorship and partnership activities associated with the Award. No commercial or financial relationship with any participating establishment may grant it any advantage in evaluation or ranking. Separation of Management and Evaluation: The Management is responsible for organisational, operational and commercial matters, while evaluation and judging are carried out in accordance with the approved methodology by the competent evaluators and judging panels.
02 · Governance
Oversight Committee and Judging Panels
Oversight Committee: A Higher Oversight Committee may be formed to monitor the integrity of evaluation and judging procedures, review compliance with the approved policies and standards, and consider exceptional cases that require an organisational decision. Judging Panels: Judging panels are formed according to the nature of the sectors and categories, with due regard to expertise, specialisation and independence. Experts, consultants, academics and representatives of relevant bodies may be engaged according to the nature of each sector.
03 · Governance
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of Interest: All members of judging panels, evaluators, experts and staff involved in the evaluation process must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest. This includes any direct financial, professional or personal relationship that affects, or may affect, the independence of the evaluation. Conflict of Interest Procedures: Where a conflict of interest exists, the person concerned is excluded from evaluating the establishment in question, discussing its result or voting on any decision relating to it. Conflicts of interest and the actions taken in respect of them are documented.
04 · Governance
Confidentiality and Data Protection
Confidentiality: Information and documents submitted by establishments for evaluation purposes are confidential and are used only within the scope of participation, evaluation, verification and the preparation of the related results and reports. Confidentiality of Judging Deliberations: The deliberations of judging panels, individual evaluators' scores and any internal discussions relating to results are not available for publication, unless otherwise decided in accordance with the approved disclosure policy. Data Protection: The data of participants, users and evaluators is handled in accordance with the laws, regulations and policies in force in the State of Qatar. No data is collected beyond what is required for registration, evaluation or the management of the Award and the platform.
05 · Governance
Accuracy of Information and Verification
Accuracy of Information: Participating establishments are responsible for the correctness and accuracy of the information and documents they submit. The Management may verify information with official sources or request additional documents and evidence whenever necessary. Independent Verification: Independent bodies or experts may be engaged to verify certain information, results or evaluation procedures where appropriate to the nature of the category.
06 · Governance
Consistent Evaluation, Evaluator Training and Documentation
Consistent Evaluation Procedures: Unified forms, criteria and guidelines are used for all participants within the same category to ensure fairness and the comparability of results. Evaluator Training: Evaluators and members of judging panels may be required to undergo induction or training on the evaluation methodology, criteria, scoring system, and integrity and conflict of interest procedures before the evaluation begins. Documentation of the Evaluation Process: Appropriate records of the evaluation process are kept, including forms, scores, reports, decisions and material amendments, so that the procedures can be reviewed when needed.
07 · Governance
Review, Approval and Correction of Results
Review of Results: Results are reviewed before approval to ensure that evaluations are complete, that scores and weightings have been calculated correctly and that there are no material errors. Approval of Results: Final results are approved in accordance with the organisational structure and the authorities defined for the Award. No preliminary or unapproved results are considered official results. Errors in Results: If a material error is discovered after the results have been approved or announced, it is investigated and corrected in accordance with the approved procedures. A result or position may be amended if it is established that the error directly affected the final outcome.
08 · Governance
Non-Interference and Independence from Sponsors and Partners
Non-Interference: No participant, sponsor, partner, employee or external party may exert pressure or interfere in order to influence the evaluation or ranking of an establishment. Any attempt to influence the evaluation process is treated as a matter concerning the integrity of the Award. Gifts and Benefits: Members of judging panels and evaluators may not accept gifts, benefits or services from participating establishments where doing so could affect, or appear to affect, the independence of the evaluation. Communication with Evaluators: Communication between participants and evaluators is conducted through the approved channels. Establishments may not contact evaluators directly to discuss their scores or to influence the evaluation. Independence from Sponsors and Partners: Sponsor or partner status confers no right to interfere in the evaluation of participants or to amend results. Partner bodies may be involved in organisational, advisory or technical matters within a clearly defined scope that does not affect the independence of the evaluation process.
09 · Governance
Transparency
Transparency of Methodology: The general principles of the evaluation methodology, the eligibility criteria, the categories and the participation rules are published in a way that allows participants to understand how the evaluation is conducted. Details that could compromise the integrity of the evaluation tools, such as the timing of unannounced visits or the identities of mystery shoppers, need not be published. Transparency of Results: The names of the winners, their categories and their positions are announced in accordance with the approved publication mechanism. Additional information on the reasons for excellence or on general performance indicators may be published without disclosing confidential information or the data of other participants.
10 · Governance
Audit, Decision Records and Methodology Development
Audit: Certain stages of the evaluation or the results may be subject to internal or independent audit to confirm compliance with the approved methodology and procedures. Decision Register: A register is kept of material decisions relating to evaluation, judging, appeals, conflicts of interest and any exceptional changes to procedures. Methodology Development: The evaluation and governance methodology is reviewed periodically to draw on the outcomes of previous cycles, professional and technical developments, and best practice. General Integrity: The Management may take any necessary action when a situation arises that is not expressly provided for, where this is necessary to protect the fairness, integrity or credibility of the Award, provided that the decision and its reasons are documented.
