Different challenges.
The same questions.

Comparing companies fairly

Company size does not determine who receives recognition. We consider both the amount of progress and how much of the relevant problem it addresses. Results are assessed within their stated boundaries: a product, facility, program, or whole business.

We look at total quantities and per-unit results where meaningful, the time period, and the proportion of operations covered. A small pilot at a large company is assessed as a pilot. A small company's broad adoption matters alongside its absolute impact.

We do not combine unlike outcomes into a numerical ranking. Selection requires judgment, and the published explanation makes that judgment open to scrutiny.

What we look for during review

We ask candidates for:

• What changed, when it became operational, and the starting point.
• Measured results, the period covered, and how they were calculated.
• The part of the business affected and evidence that the work can continue.
• Supporting sources and an honest account of what remains unsolved.

Evidence can include operational records, material-flow data, repair and return figures, published reports, or independent assessments. We identify company-reported results as such and may request information to corroborate central claims. A paid certification is not required.

Follow the material, not just the claim

A future target, a prototype, a recyclable label, or an available take-back program does not establish an achieved outcome on its own. We need to understand what happened in practice.

We distinguish collection from successful reuse or recovery, and estimated waste avoided from measured reductions. We consider meaningful tradeoffs, including burdens shifted elsewhere. Savings and commercial success can strengthen a case; a company does not have to incur higher costs to deserve recognition.

How selection works

1. Introduce a company through the nomination form. You can suggest your own company or another business.
2. Mike Hansen follows up to learn more and explain what is needed for consideration.
3. Up to three candidates are selected for a deeper review for the first award.
4. The evidence and limitations are reviewed against the four questions above.
5. A recipient is selected and the reasoning is published. If the evidence does not support a recipient, no award is given.

Who makes the decision

Mike Hansen, founder of the Infinite Awards, reviews submissions and makes the selection. If a technical question calls for outside expertise, that input and its role will be disclosed. Relevant relationships with a candidate will also be disclosed.

Independence and relationships

Payment cannot buy priority, selection, or favorable coverage. Relevant personal or commercial relationships will be disclosed alongside a selection. If a conflict prevents a fair review, the company will not be considered in that cycle.

A Material Progress interview is not a requirement for consideration and gives a company no preference in selection. Any later award will have its own published reasoning and will disclose the earlier coverage.

We need enough publishable evidence to explain a selection. Confidential assurances alone cannot justify recognition. Questions or corrections are welcome through Contact.