Methodological guidelines for evaluating applications
for the “Green Future” environmental women's projects award by the Council of the Eurasian women's forum
1. These guidelines have been developed to assist the experts of the Green Future Women’s Projects Award in Ecology and Sustainable Development, organized by the Council of the Eurasian Women’s Forum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Competition'), in evaluating applications for participation.
2. Before evaluating applications for participation in the competition, the expert must review the following documents:
3. The competition expert personally evaluates the applications and questionnaires submitted by participants.
4. The competition expert is not permitted to evaluate an application or questionnaire (hereinafter referred to as the application) if it is submitted by an organization where the expert or their close relative is an employee or a member of a governing body, or in any other case where there are circumstances that suggest the expert may have a personal, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
In such cases, the expert must inform the Organizing Committee about the conflict of interest.
5. When evaluating submitted applications and questionnaire results, the competition expert conducts a thorough review of the information and documents included, including links to websites and other sources of information referenced in the application.
6. The competition expert is not permitted to discuss the application or questionnaire results with the organization that submitted the application, directly request documents, information, or explanations from the organization, or take any actions that might reveal the identity of the expert evaluating the application.
If the expert has questions requiring additional information or documents from the submitting organization, they may request that the Competition Organizing Committee obtain the necessary information or documents.
7. If the competition expert discovers that the application does not comply with legal requirements and/or the Competition Regulations, contains false information, or includes forged documents, the expert must inform the Competition Organizing Committee. If such circumstances are confirmed, the Expert Jury must discontinue consideration of the application.
8. The competition expert evaluates the application based on specific criteria, assigning a score from 1 to 10 for each criterion (whole numbers only).
The expert’s overall score for the application is calculated by summing the points assigned to each criterion and multiplying them by the corresponding weighting coefficient for that criterion.
9. Criteria for evaluating applications in the following categories:
2. Before evaluating applications for participation in the competition, the expert must review the following documents:
- The Competition Regulations, approved by the Council of the Eurasian Women’s Forum of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the State Corporation Rosatom (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Competition Regulations');
- These guidelines.
3. The competition expert personally evaluates the applications and questionnaires submitted by participants.
4. The competition expert is not permitted to evaluate an application or questionnaire (hereinafter referred to as the application) if it is submitted by an organization where the expert or their close relative is an employee or a member of a governing body, or in any other case where there are circumstances that suggest the expert may have a personal, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
In such cases, the expert must inform the Organizing Committee about the conflict of interest.
5. When evaluating submitted applications and questionnaire results, the competition expert conducts a thorough review of the information and documents included, including links to websites and other sources of information referenced in the application.
6. The competition expert is not permitted to discuss the application or questionnaire results with the organization that submitted the application, directly request documents, information, or explanations from the organization, or take any actions that might reveal the identity of the expert evaluating the application.
If the expert has questions requiring additional information or documents from the submitting organization, they may request that the Competition Organizing Committee obtain the necessary information or documents.
7. If the competition expert discovers that the application does not comply with legal requirements and/or the Competition Regulations, contains false information, or includes forged documents, the expert must inform the Competition Organizing Committee. If such circumstances are confirmed, the Expert Jury must discontinue consideration of the application.
8. The competition expert evaluates the application based on specific criteria, assigning a score from 1 to 10 for each criterion (whole numbers only).
The expert’s overall score for the application is calculated by summing the points assigned to each criterion and multiplying them by the corresponding weighting coefficient for that criterion.
9. Criteria for evaluating applications in the following categories:
- "Green Cities", "Ecological Culture", "Green Workforce", "Green IT Solutions" and "Green Supply Chain":
№
Criteria for evaluating competition applications
1
Relevance of the project/initiative
2
Compliance of the achieved results with the goals and objectives of the project/initiative
3
Innovation and uniqueness of the project/initiative
4
Social and environmental significance of the project/initiative, presence of practical effect
5
Geography of the project/initiative and prospects for scaling and replication
6
Quantitative coverage of the target audience of the project/initiative
7
Own contribution and additional resources attracted to implement the project, prospects for its further development
8
Compliance of the experience and competencies of the project team with the planned activities
9
Information openness, publicity (publications about the project in the media, on information resources of organizations, on company websites, scientific articles)
- “GreenTech”:
№
Criterion
1
Relevance of the project/initiative and significance of the environmental or technological challenge
2
Compliance of the achieved results with the goals of the project/initiative
3
Scientific and technological novelty, innovation and uniqueness of the proposed solution
4
Availability of a confirmed or justified environmental effect from the introduction of technology
5
Geography of technology application and prospects for scaling, replication and implementation
6
Quantitative coverage of the target audience of the project/initiative
7
Potential to reduce anthropogenic impact, resource consumption, waste generation, emissions or other environmental impacts
8
Own contribution and additional resources attracted to implement the project, prospects for its further development
9
Compliance of the experience and competencies of the project team with the planned activities
10
Availability of supporting materials. Information openness, publicity (publications about the project in the media, on information resources of organizations, on company websites, scientific articles)
- “Green Partnership”:
№
Criterion
1
Relevance of the project/initiative and significance of the environmental or technological challenge
2
Compliance of the achieved results with the goals of the project/initiative
3
Cross-industry synergy: project results that partners were able to achieve only through joint work
4
Availability of a confirmed or justified environmental effect from the introduction of technology
5
Geography of technology application and prospects for scaling, replication and implementation
6
Quantitative coverage of the target audience of the project/initiative
7
Potential to reduce anthropogenic impact, resource consumption, waste generation, emissions or other environmental impacts
8
Own contribution and additional resources attracted to implement the project, prospects for its further development
9
Compliance of the experience and competencies of the project team with the planned activities
10
Availability of supporting materials. Information openness, publicity (publications about the project in the media, on information resources of organizations, on company websites, scientific articles)
10. Recommended approach for assigning a score (from 1 to 10) based on the application evaluation criteria:
Scoring range
Approximate structure of the assessment
9-10
The highest level — corresponds to an “excellent” rating.
The evaluation criterion is met perfectly, without any flaws. The competition expert has no remarks.
The evaluation criterion is met perfectly, without any flaws. The competition expert has no remarks.
7-8
Average level — corresponds to a “good” rating.
Overall, the criterion is met very well, but there are some minor shortcomings or flaws that generally do not have a significant impact on the overall quality of the project.
Overall, the criterion is met very well, but there are some minor shortcomings or flaws that generally do not have a significant impact on the overall quality of the project.
4-6
Below average level — corresponds to a “satisfactory” rating.
The quality of information provided for this criterion is questionable, with several important parameters inadequately addressed or described unconvincingly. While the information is present, it is partly contradictory. The number and severity of shortcomings prevent the competition expert from assigning a higher rating.
The quality of information provided for this criterion is questionable, with several important parameters inadequately addressed or described unconvincingly. While the information is present, it is partly contradictory. The number and severity of shortcomings prevent the competition expert from assigning a higher rating.
1-3
Low level — corresponds to an “unsatisfactory” rating.
Information regarding the criterion is either missing (in the application and in publicly available sources online), presented in vague terms, or is of extremely poor quality, containing factual errors or failing to meet the requirements of the competition regulations. The number and severity of deficiencies for this criterion suggest significant risks for the project's implementation.
Information regarding the criterion is either missing (in the application and in publicly available sources online), presented in vague terms, or is of extremely poor quality, containing factual errors or failing to meet the requirements of the competition regulations. The number and severity of deficiencies for this criterion suggest significant risks for the project's implementation.
11. The competition expert shall also provide a separate assessment of the overall impression of the application, assigning a score from 1 to 10, along with a general comment.
12. The list of finalists shall include the top 3 applications in each category based on the highest scores.
13. The winners shall be the applications that have received the highest score in their respective category.
12. The list of finalists shall include the top 3 applications in each category based on the highest scores.
13. The winners shall be the applications that have received the highest score in their respective category.