Powerhouse Parramatta

Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds

1 December 2026

Awards Sector Forum AGM

Purchase tickets

Judging Terms and Conditions

award Submissions

2026 Awards judging

These terms apply to judges appointed by the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) for the 2026 APCO Awards. By accepting an appointment in writing or through APCO’s nominated platform, judges agree to these terms.

Appointments apply to the 2026 awards cycle only and do not guarantee future appointment. Judges must confirm that they have the expertise, availability and any necessary employer approval to undertake the role.

The version of these terms accepted on appointment applies throughout the cycle. Any material amendment must be communicated to judges and accepted before taking effect.

Role and responsibilities

Judges assess entries across all award categories, subject to the conflict of interest requirements below.

Judges must:

  • Complete any required briefing and familiarise themselves with the published criteria, scoring guidance and judging procedures.
  • Assess allocated entries independently, fairly and consistently.
  • Complete scoring and supporting comments by the notified deadlines.
  • Participate in final deliberations, in person or virtually as agreed with APCO.
  • Notify APCO promptly if they cannot complete their responsibilities.

 

Judges must undertake their own assessments and must not delegate their role or share platform access

Entries must be assessed on their merits against the published criteria and supporting evidence.

Judges must not favour or disadvantage an entrant because of its size, profile, APCO membership, sponsorship, commercial relationships or other factors outside the published criteria.

Judges must not seek or accept gifts, benefits, hospitality or other inducements connected with an entry or intended to influence judging. Any lobbying, attempted influence or inappropriate approach must be reported promptly to APCO.

Hospitality and recognition provided by APCO to the judging panel under these terms are permitted.

Judges may disclose an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest at any time via the conflict of interest declaration form.

Conflicts must be disclosed before accessing relevant entry materials or as soon as they become apparent. Judges must pause any affected assessment until APCO confirms how the conflict will be managed.

Relevant interests and relationships may include:

  • Employment, directorships, consultancy or advisory roles.
  • Client, supplier, business partnership or significant financial relationships.
  • Involvement in an entered initiative or preparation of an entry.
  • Close personal or family relationships with an entrant or project team.
  • Significant disputes or competitive interests that could reasonably affect impartiality.
  • Past relationships that remain relevant to an impartial assessment.

 

Knowing an entrant professionally does not automatically prevent participation, but any relationship that could reasonably call impartiality into question must be disclosed.

APCO will provide sufficient information about entrants to support conflict checks before releasing full entry materials.

A judge must withdraw from judging an entire category where:
  • The judge or their organisation is an entrant, joint entrant or named project partner.
  • The judge helped prepare an entry or was materially involved in the initiative being assessed.
  • The judge has a direct material financial interest in an entry’s success.
 
For this purpose, the judge’s organisation includes their current employer, a business they own or control, and an organisation on whose behalf they serve on the panel. Interests involving related entities must also be disclosed for assessment by APCO.
 
Withdrawal applies to all entries in the affected category and includes assessment, scoring, shortlisting, deliberations and selection of finalists and winners.
 
The judge must not access category entry materials through the judging process, receive confidential category results, or seek to influence the outcome. They must leave the meeting or virtual discussion while that category is considered.
 
The judge may continue judging other categories where no disqualifying conflict exists. Their appointment does not, of itself, prevent their organisation from entering the Awards.

APCO will assess other disclosed conflicts and document the appropriate response. This may include restricted access, withdrawal from an individual entry or the entire category, or replacement of the judge.

Category-wide withdrawal will be required where participation in assessing competing entries could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Judges must pause assessment of affected entries until APCO confirms the arrangements. Conflict decisions must be made by an APCO representative who is not affected by the conflict.

If a conflict is identified after assessment has begun, APCO will exclude affected scores and arrange independent reassessment where necessary. Excluded scores must not be recorded as zero.

APCO will maintain a record of declarations, decisions and withdrawals.

Judges must use the published criteria, weightings and scoring scale. Scores must be supported by concise, evidence-based comments.

Professional expertise may inform assessment but must not be used to fill gaps in an entry’s evidence. Any external information that may materially affect an assessment must be referred to APCO for verification and consistent handling.

Judges must complete their initial scoring independently before panel deliberations.

APCO will document the scoring and aggregation method before judging begins. The method must ensure fair comparison where judges withdraw or scores are excluded. Raw totals must not disadvantage entries assessed by fewer judges.

Any correction or moderated change to a submitted score must be recorded with a reason.

All requests for clarification must be directed through APCO or its appointed judging administrator. Judges must not contact entrants directly about their entries.

APCO may coordinate technical advice or request clarification from an entrant. Clarifications must explain or substantiate the submitted entry and must not provide an unfair opportunity to materially improve it after the closing date.

Substantive information affecting assessment must be documented and shared with all unconflicted judges assessing the relevant entry. Guidance affecting interpretation of a category’s criteria must be shared consistently across that category.

Technical advisers must meet appropriate confidentiality and conflict of interest requirements. They do not determine scores or outcomes unless separately appointed as judges.

APCO will appoint a panel chair before judging begins.

At least three unconflicted judges must complete assessments and participate in the final decision for each category. If this requirement cannot be met, APCO will appoint an additional independent judge and allow sufficient time for assessment before a decision is made.

Where the chair is conflicted or unavailable, APCO will appoint an unconflicted acting chair for that category.

Aggregated scores provide the starting point for deliberations. The panel may depart from the initial ranking only for reasons connected to the published criteria and evidence. Those reasons must be recorded.

The panel will seek consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, the decision will be made by a majority vote of participating unconflicted judges. The chair has one ordinary vote and, if votes are tied, an additional casting vote.

APCO will record attendance, withdrawals, final decisions and the reasons for any departure from the initial ranking.

APCO determines administrative eligibility under the entrant terms. Judges must refer concerns about eligibility, misleading claims or insufficient evidence to APCO.

The panel may recommend that no award be presented where entries do not meet the published standard.

Judging decisions on merit are final. APCO may nevertheless review an outcome where there is credible evidence of a material procedural error, undisclosed conflict, misconduct, ineligibility or false or misleading information.

Any reassessment must be undertaken by unconflicted judges. APCO will document the reason and process and provide an affected entrant with an appropriate opportunity to respond where relevant.

Any withdrawal of finalist or winner status will be managed under the entrant terms. Nothing in this clause excludes rights available under applicable law.

Confidentiality

Non-public entry materials, personal information, scores, comments, deliberations, preliminary rankings and outcomes are confidential.

Judges must not disclose confidential information outside the authorised judging process, including to colleagues, employers or other entrants, without APCO’s prior written approval, except where disclosure is required by law.

Where legally permitted, judges must notify APCO before any legally required disclosure and limit disclosure to what is required.

Results must remain confidential until officially announced by APCO. Public announcement of an award does not authorise disclosure of entry materials, scores or deliberations.

These obligations continue after the judging appointment ends.

Judges must use APCO-approved systems and take reasonable steps to protect entry materials and personal information.
 
Judges must not:
  • Share passwords or permit another person to access their judging account.
  • Store or circulate materials through unapproved shared drives, email accounts or collaboration tools.
  • Upload entry materials or confidential judging information to public or unapproved artificial intelligence tools.
  • Use automated tools to generate scores or replace their own judgement.
 
Any approved use of technology must comply with APCO’s information-handling requirements.
 
Suspected loss, unauthorised access or disclosure must be reported to APCO immediately. Judges must cooperate with reasonable containment and investigation steps.
 
At the end of judging, or earlier if requested, judges must return or securely delete local copies as directed by APCO, except where retention is legally required. Any retained information remains subject to these terms.

Ownership of entry materials remains with their respective rights holders. Judges may use those materials only to fulfil their judging responsibilities.
Judges must not reproduce, publish, commercially exploit or use entry materials for their own research, business development or other purposes.

To the extent they own the relevant rights, judges assign to APCO copyright in scoresheets, written assessments and feedback created specifically for the judging process. Judges retain ownership of their pre-existing materials and general expertise.

APCO may retain judging records for administration, audit and dispute resolution and may provide entrants with appropriately anonymised feedback. Confidentiality and privacy requirements continue to apply.

Judges must behave professionally and respectfully towards entrants, other judges, APCO staff and service providers.

A judge who needs to withdraw must notify APCO promptly and, wherever practicable, provide at least two weeks’ notice. A newly identified conflict must be disclosed immediately regardless of this notice period.

APCO may suspend access or replace a judge where reasonably necessary to address a conflict, non-performance, misconduct, breach of these terms or a risk to the integrity of judging.

Where practicable, APCO will explain the concern and provide an opportunity to respond. Immediate suspension may occur where necessary to protect confidential information or the judging process.

APCO will assess whether the judge’s previous work requires independent review or reassessment.

The judging role is voluntary and unpaid.
 
Each judge receives a complimentary ticket to the APCO Sector Forum and Awards Night. APCO will separately confirm arrangements for judging meetings and any panel hospitality.
 
Travel, accommodation and other expenses are the judge’s responsibility unless APCO agrees otherwise in writing beforehand.
 
Event attendance is subject to the applicable event terms.

Judges authorise APCO to use their supplied name, professional title, biography and approved photograph to acknowledge their involvement and promote the Awards.

APCO must obtain prior approval for any attributed quote or use implying endorsement beyond the judging appointment.

Judges must ensure supplied biographies and photographs are accurate and that they have permission to provide them.

APCO will handle judges’ personal information in accordance with its Privacy Policy, including for administration, communication, acknowledgement and event delivery.

Judges must refer media enquiries about entries, deliberations or outcomes to APCO and must not speak on APCO’s behalf without authorisation.

Judges must exercise reasonable care and comply with these terms. APCO will not seek compensation from a judge solely because it or an entrant disagrees with an assessment honestly made with reasonable care and in accordance with the published criteria.
 
This does not excuse fraud, wilful misconduct, negligence or a breach of confidentiality or other obligations under these terms.
 
Nothing in these terms excludes or limits any right, remedy or liability that cannot lawfully be excluded or limited.

These terms are governed by the laws of New South Wales, Australia. APCO and each judge submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of its courts.
 
Questions, conflict declarations and concerns about the judging process must be directed to APCO’s nominated judging administrator or [email protected]