That matters commercially. With entry fees in some programmes pushing past £320 per submission and headline sponsorships ranging from £15,000 to £25,000, the stakeholders writing the cheques increasingly want proof that the process is clean.

Donna O'Toole, founder of August Recognition and author of WIN!, has been one of the most vocal critics of the status quo. Her firm's research found that 75% of business leaders don't know where to find the right awards or how to judge their credibility, and 70% want help improving entries. "We champion all the awards programmes that are authentic and credible. By calling out the ones that aren't, we protect businesses and help the whole industry thrive," she says.

Mark Tungate, Editorial Director of the Epica Awards, argues that the answer lies in who sits on the jury. Epica's panel is made up exclusively of trade journalists — and judges are barred from voting on entries from their own country. "We can't be bought," Tungate says. The model has gained relevance amid recent high-profile incidents in adjacent sectors: in 2025 Cannes Lions revoked a Grand Prix after AI-generated footage was found in a winning case film.

Sarah Austin, founder of the British Business Excellence Awards, takes a different but complementary approach: more than 70 judges meet in person to deliberate, and every shortlisted company presents live. "You can't fake it in the room," she says.

For an industry where independent research suggests winning a credible award can lift sales by up to 37%, the message from the report is stark: transparency is no longer a nice-to-have. It is the commercial moat that separates programmes worth entering from those that aren't.