Purpose and Scope

The Hult Prize Foundation (Hult Prize) aims to run fair, transparent competitions at the local and national levels (e.g., OnCampus Events, National Finals). This policy explains how participants, judges, and organizers can appeal a decision that they reasonably believe had a material impact on the outcome of the local rounds of the competition.

• Exclusions: This policy does not apply to Hult Prize’s global Incubator, Accelerator, or Global Finals, which are governed by separate policies.
• Non-Competition Matters: This policy does not cover issues unrelated to competition procedures and execution but it includes matters that affect the integrity of these processes, such as conflicts of interest or bias in judging and decision-making.

Key Definitions

• Appeal: A formal request to review and possibly change a decision made at a local or national level and which the appellant reasonably believes to be improper or incorrect due to a rule violation, procedural error, or bias.
• Appeal Officer: An individual or committee is designated at each competition stage (OnCampus or National) to review appeals. If there is a conflict of interest, the Appeal Officer will name a replacement.
• Conflict of Interest: Any situation where the Appeal Officer or another decision-maker may not be impartial due to personal or professional relationships.
• Appellant: The person or team submitting the appeal. If possible, there is at least one other relevant party (another team, judge, or organizer) that supports the appeal.

Grounds for Appeal

An appeal is only valid if it involves a confirmed or reasonably suspected breach of Hult Prize rules or procedures that materially impact results. These can include:

1. Significant Procedural Violations (i.e., deviations from the standard judging process that harm a specific team.)
2. Apparent Partiality or Conflict of Interest (i.e., undisclosed personal or professional ties between a judge and a team.)
3. Misapplication or Misinterpretation of Rules (i.e., disqualifying a team for a rule violation that doesn’t match the facts or for a rule that doesn’t exist in the official guidelines.)
4. Discriminatory treatment or breaches of confidentiality that change how teams are ranked.
5. Significant mathematical or clerical errors in calculating results.

Examples of Non-Appealable Issues

• General Dissatisfaction with Results: Disagreeing with or disliking the judges’ outcome without citing a specific rule violation.
• Non-Competition Complaints: Issues about personal disputes unrelated to the competition framework (e.g., interpersonal conflicts between team members).
• Requests for Coaching/Business Advice: Appeals that seek additional feedback or guidance.