Where finance
makes a
difference.

The division allows teams to be assessed more fairly. There is no predefined boundary between the two categories: the jury assigns the categories based on the submitted dossiers and provides an objective explanation for its decision.

In smaller organisations, strengths often lie in versatility, practical solutions and the ability to achieve a great deal with limited resources. In larger organisations, specialisation, international collaboration and managing complex processes may be particularly important.

These are possible characteristics, not fixed expectations. A small organisation can also be complex, and a large team can excel through simplicity.

The jury considers, among other things:

The team’s remit and responsibilities.

The size and complexity of the organisation.

The people, resources and systems available.

The starting point and the progress achieved.

The quality and sustainability of performance.

The Best Finance Team Award considers the collective quality of finance over a longer period and the projects delivered.

The jury then examines what those achievements reveal about the team: its expertise, collaboration, ownership and contribution to the organisation.

The dossier must therefore demonstrate several aspects of how the team operates. One successful project can strengthen the story, but cannot be the sole basis of the assessment.

We propose the following criteria as the basis for assessment.

Reliability and quality of finance operations: a strong team has its financial foundations in order. The jury examines the quality and timeliness of reporting, closing, planning, cash management and internal control, insofar as these fall within the team’s remit. In other words: are the fundamentals for which the finance function is responsible in good order?
This also includes managing vulnerabilities. Are responsibilities clear? Is information reliable? Can problems be identified and resolved in good time?

Contribution to the organisation and decision-making: the team explains how finance helps the organisation move forward. This may be demonstrated through better investment decisions, sharper insight into profitability, stronger working capital management or timely adjustments to plans. The entry includes concrete examples where finance made a difference. The jury takes account of the team’s sphere of influence and does not automatically attribute overall business performance entirely to finance.

Collaboration and service: the jury examines how the team collaborates and makes its expertise accessible. Do other departments understand the financial information? Is finance involved early enough? Can colleagues rely on practical support and constructive challenge? Internal collaboration also matters: sharing knowledge, coordinating specialists and solving problems together.

People, leadership and development: an exceptional team invests in its people and its continuity. The entry shows how employees take responsibility, develop new skills and strengthen one another. The jury also considers workload allocation, cover arrangements and the handling of work pressure. Performance that structurally depends on overwork or a few indispensable individuals is difficult to sustain. Leadership is reflected here in the quality of the collective and the conditions that enable people to work well.

Continuous improvement and adaptability: a strong team continually improves the way it works.

Technology can help, but a simpler process, a better distribution of tasks or clearer agreements can also deliver substantial benefits. The jury assesses how the team selects, implements and adjusts improvements. Managing growth, uncertainty, organisational change or unexpected problems can also demonstrate relevant achievements.

Demonstrable progress and lasting results

The entrant substantiates what the team has achieved and how those results are sustained. Alongside figures, concrete examples, feedback from internal stakeholders and demonstrable changes in operations may be used. A team already operating at a high level does not need to invent a transformation story. Consistently delivering exceptional quality in a demanding context can also merit an award.

The dossier is prepared with support from the editorial team and is limited to eight pages. It describes:

The organisation and its business context.

The finance organisation, the team’s remit and its composition.

The main challenges during the assessment period.

The collective approach and allocation of responsibilities.

The performance of finance operations.

The contribution to organisational decisions and results.

The team’s collaboration, development and continuity.

The main results, lessons and further areas for improvement.

Preferably, several team members represent the team at the jury presentation. This allows the jury to assess how widely knowledge, ownership and collaboration are shared.

The jury reaches a consensus on the winners in both categories. The procedure is as follows:

After the presentation (20 minutes) and Q&A (10 minutes) with the team, each jury member assigns individual scores against the six criteria defined above using ThinkNova’s JuryApp. Jury members cannot influence one another, and no overall score for each entrant is requested at this stage. By defining clear criteria, we aim to achieve an even more objective, evidence-based assessment.

After all presentations, the JuryApp ranks all entrants by combining the individual scores. The results are discussed, arguments for and against are considered, and the winning team is selected.

The winner is announced only at the award ceremony (see below).

There are two types of communication: internal and external.

Internal communication includes all information exchanged between the team and the jury. Neither the jury nor the organisers will make this information public.

External communication includes all information used in an article, podcast or video and is approved by the teams in advance. This communication puts the team and its story centre stage: the challenge, the people, the approach and the results.

A digitalisation initiative may also form the basis of a Best Finance Team entry. We want a clear distinction between the two awards.

The new award is therefore not a second route to recognising the same team story. An entrant must define a specific project achievement: a clear problem, a selected solution, an implementation process and demonstrable results. A team/company can qualify for only one award.

The award is open to all technology projects that improve a significant aspect of finance operations. Examples include:

Consolidation, closing and financial reporting.

Budgeting, forecasting and planning.

Automation of financial processes.

Data quality, data integration and management information.

Treasury, cash management and working capital.

Internal control, compliance and auditability.

AI applications within finance.

ERP projects with a clearly defined finance component.

Both broad transformations and targeted improvements are eligible. The size of the budget or the reputation of the software used should not provide a decisive advantage. A limited project that solves an important problem exceptionally well should be able to outperform a large programme. The jury assesses relevance, quality of execution and impact in relation to the context.

An important eligibility condition is that the solution must actually be in use. An idea, product demo or proof of concept without sustained use within finance is not sufficient. The solution must have been in use for at least three months at the time of submission.

Every entry consists of two inseparable elements:

The provider or implementation partner explains the solution, project approach, technical choices and its own contribution.

The client confirms the original need, internal effort, adoption and results achieved.

The client is therefore an active co-entrant. This makes the entry more credible and prevents the dossier from becoming solely a sales pitch. The award recognises the joint case, so both client and partner are named in the communication.

An award-worthy project brings together several qualities. It solves a relevant problem, uses technology appropriately, reaches effective operational use efficiently and delivers results that endure beyond implementation.

We propose six criteria as the basis for judging.

Demonstrable impact on finance: the jury looks at what has concretely improved. Examples include a faster close, fewer manual tasks, more reliable data, better forecasts, stronger controls or management information becoming available sooner. Changes in the work of finance also count. Can employees spend more time on analysis and advice? Has dependence on a few key individuals decreased? Can the team accommodate growth without a proportionate increase in headcount? A smaller team can be an outcome, but is not a goal in itself. The more relevant question is how the relationship between capacity, quality and output has improved. Time freed up should be substantiated as concretely as possible. A distinction is made between estimated time savings, capacity actually released and realised cost savings.

Implementation and time to value: speed is an important distinguishing criterion, provided it is assessed in context. This includes both the time until the solution goes into use and the time until the first demonstrable results: time to go-live and time to value. The jury considers the original schedule, actual lead time, scope changes, budget control and stability after go-live. A rapid launch is convincing only when the process also works reliably and is used. A complex international project is therefore assessed in relation to its scale and dependencies.

Innovation and solution quality: innovation need not be a world first. It may also involve a smart application of existing technology, better integration or simplifying a persistent problem. The entrant explains what is innovative: the technology, process design, combination of solutions or application in its own context. Technical complexity does not earn extra points in itself. The jury assesses whether the solution is appropriate, reliable, manageable and future-proof. Integration, data quality, security, traceability, maintainability and scalability are relevant factors. A simple solution can represent a strong achievement. State of the art is thus translated into concrete qualities. Using the latest technology is relevant only when it adds something meaningful.

Collaboration and internal workload: a successful project requires a good allocation of expertise and responsibility between finance, internal IT and external partners. The jury examines how decisions were made, problems were resolved and knowledge was transferred. The client’s own contribution must also be clear. This last point is essential. A project may look fast and inexpensive on paper while placing a heavy burden on the finance team for months. The dossier therefore also includes information about internal time commitments, temporary cover, training, data preparation and any disruption to day-to-day operations. The relevant question is: how well did client and partner achieve results together, taking the total effort into account?

Adoption and lasting integration: a solution creates lasting value only when people use it and the organisation can manage it. The jury looks at actual use, training, process ownership and support after delivery. Have old ways of working been phased out? Have parallel spreadsheets disappeared where that was the intention? Can the client continue independently? Limitations, remaining areas for improvement and dependencies may also be discussed. A realistic dossier is more convincing than a story in which everything went smoothly.

Value for investment and transferability: results are assessed against the total investment: external costs, internal effort and recurring costs of use and management. Not every benefit needs to be expressed in euros. Greater control, better information and reduced operational vulnerability can also carry substantial weight, provided they are concretely substantiated. The jury also considers the lessons for other organisations. What can be replicated? What conditions were necessary? What would client and partner do differently on a future project?

All entrants use the same dossier format. This improves comparability and limits the advantage of large marketing budgets.

The dossier is limited to eight pages:

The starting point: the problem, context and original objectives.

The solution: scope, technology and key choices.

Execution: schedule, budget, project organisation and significant adjustments.

Collaboration: the roles of finance, IT and external partners.

Internal effort: time commitments, training and the burden on the organisation.

Results: a substantiated comparison of the situation before and after the project.

Lasting integration: use, management, ownership and remaining points of attention.

Lessons: success factors, limitations and transferable insights.

The client validates the dossier and results. Confidential information may be included in a separate appendix for the jury.

At the jury presentation, the team is represented by the vendor and client, possibly joined by an implementation partner. This allows the jury to assess how widely knowledge, ownership and collaboration are shared.

The jury reaches a consensus on the winner. The procedure is as follows:

After the presentation (20 minutes) and Q&A (10 minutes) with the team, each jury member assigns individual scores against the six criteria defined above using ThinkNova’s JuryApp. Jury members cannot influence one another, and no overall score for each entrant is requested at this stage. By defining clear criteria, we aim to achieve an even more objective, evidence-based assessment.

After all presentations, the JuryApp ranks all entrants by combining the individual scores. The results are discussed, arguments for and against are considered, and the winning team is selected.

The winner is announced only at the award ceremony (see below).

Entry for this award is linked to a paid package for the vendor, enabling it to build a strong presence in the CFO community.

The participation package includes:

Entry with one client case.

Assessment of the dossier and a presentation before the jury.

An editorially developed case article published online and in CFO Magazine quarterly.

A case video featuring client and partner, recorded alongside the jury meeting and also shown at the award event.

A table for 10 guests at the award event.

Inclusion in communication about the participating cases.

Use of an appropriate entrant or finalist label.

The ultimate ambition is an award that shows which technology projects truly move finance forward, how those results were achieved and what others can learn from them. The winner may use the label “Best Digital Finance Project of the Year — winner, year X” in its communication.

Budget: €8,000

Growth can take different forms:

Organic growth: additional production capacity, new sites, product development or international expansion.

Growth through acquisitions: acquiring activities, expertise, technology, customers or access to new markets.

Financial capacity for growth: new capital, an IPO or a financing structure that enables a concrete growth plan.

Strategic strengthening: an equity investment, joint venture or other transaction that better positions the company for further development.

The entry must establish a clear connection between the financial action and the business ambition.
Refinancing may qualify, for example, when it demonstrably creates room for investment or expansion. Merely replacing existing debt on better terms is, in itself, too limited a basis. A change in shareholders must likewise make clear what growth opportunities it creates for the company. Proceeds for selling shareholders do not, in themselves, constitute a growth achievement by the business.

The award is aimed at external parties that support companies in major financial and strategic growth initiatives, such as:

Corporate finance and M&A advisers.

Investment banks and specialised bank financing teams.

Advisers on IPOs and capital market transactions.

Providers of alternative financing, private debt, leasing, factoring and asset-based finance.

Investment firms and growth capital providers.

Specialist transaction advisers, including legal, tax and due diligence partners.

Each entrant participates with a specific client case. The external partner’s contribution must be substantial and demonstrable. This also means a specialist partner can submit a strong entry without having led the entire process. The dossier must then specify exactly what responsibility that partner held and how its contribution influenced the result.

Where investors are themselves shareholders, that role is explicitly stated. The jury must be able to understand the interests and contributions of the different parties involved.

An entry is submitted by the company together with one lead external partner, who acts as the point of contact.

Other advisers, financiers and partners involved are named, with a clear description of their roles. One case constitutes one entry; the same transaction may not be submitted multiple times by different advisers.

The company actively contributes to the dossier and jury presentation, preferably represented by the CFO or another person with direct responsibility for the initiative.

The external partner explains its expertise and contribution. The company clarifies the strategic need, the trade-offs made and the consequences for the business.

This creates a shared story that demonstrates both the quality of the advice and the value for the client.

The three awards each highlight a different achievement:

The growth award therefore focuses on a clearly defined initiative with a strategic rationale, important choices, execution and a demonstrable outcome. The finance team often plays a crucial role. Here, the jury specifically assesses the growth initiative and the joint achievement with the external partner.

A case must be sufficiently advanced to allow meaningful assessment. For an investment programme, financing must be definitively secured and execution must demonstrably have started.

An announced acquisition, an intention to provide financing or an IPO process that has not yet been completed is not sufficient.

The jury always distinguishes between:

What has been achieved: for example, completed financing, acquired activities or capacity brought into use.

The initial results: for example, new revenue, investment, market access or operational improvements.

What is still expected: for example, future synergies, returns or further expansion.

This distinction matters because the full impact of an acquisition, IPO or investment often becomes visible only after several years.

A recent case can therefore enter, but must provide sufficient evidence of what has already been achieved at the time of submission. Future expectations are assessed on their supporting evidence and do not carry the same weight as realised results.

The award recognises the quality and significance of the initiative in relation to the company’s context. A medium-sized company that achieves a crucial expansion through a well-considered financing solution should be able to outperform a much larger transaction.

We propose six criteria as the basis for assessment.

Strategic significance: the jury examines why this growth step mattered. What ambition or constraint prompted it? What opportunities arose? Why was this an appropriate choice at that time? A strong case connects the financial transaction to a concrete business plan. The amount of capital raised or the acquisition price provides context, not independent proof of quality.

Quality of the solution: the entrant explains which alternatives were examined and why the final approach was selected. In financing, relevant factors may include the balance between equity and debt, maturities, flexibility, collateral and terms. In an acquisition, valuation, transaction structure, financing, due diligence and integration arrangements may be relevant. For an IPO, the suitability of the step for the company, preparation and the link between the capital raised and the growth plan also matter. Creativity is valuable when it solves a relevant problem. Complexity does not earn extra points in itself.

Execution and collaboration: the jury looks at how the initiative was delivered. How were responsibilities allocated? How did management, finance, shareholders and external partners work together? How were difficult decisions made and unexpected problems resolved? The burden on the company also matters. An initiative often demands a great deal from the internal team while day-to-day operations must continue. A strong partner brings expertise and helps the company keep the process manageable. Speed is relevant in relation to complexity and without compromising diligence.

Demonstrable impact and value creation: the entrant makes clear what the initiative delivered. Depending on the case, this may include:

Growth capital made available and deployed.

New production capacity or sites.

Access to new markets, technology or customers.

Realised revenue growth or operational improvements.

The first demonstrable results of an acquisition.

Greater financial capacity to implement an investment plan.

For an IPO, short-term share price performance is not an adequate measure. For an acquisition, completing the transaction alone is likewise not proof of full value creation.

The jury assesses what has actually been achieved, how the initiative contributed to it and how credible the remaining expectations are.

Risk management and financial resilience: a growth step must be appropriate to the company’s capacity. The jury therefore also considers financial obligations, liquidity, integration risks, dependencies and the ability to absorb setbacks. Which scenarios were examined? Which risks were consciously accepted? How are they monitored? A convincing case shows that growth and financial resilience were considered together.

Insights for other companies: the award also aims to share practical knowledge. Which choices made the difference? Where did difficulties arise? What would those involved do differently? Under what conditions could a similar approach work for another company? An open discussion of lessons and limitations strengthens the substance of the entry.

Entrants use a uniform dossier format, for example limited to eight pages, supplemented by a confidential evidence appendix.

The dossier describes:

The company and its growth objective.

The financial or strategic challenge.

The alternatives examined and the choice made.

The structure and course of the initiative.

The contributions of the different parties involved.

The results achieved and effects still expected.

The main risks and how they are monitored.

The lessons from the case.

The client validates the dossier and results. *Confidential information may be included in a separate appendix for the jury.

At the jury presentation, the team is represented by the business partner and client, possibly joined by an implementation partner. This allows the jury to assess how widely knowledge, ownership and collaboration are shared.

The jury reaches a consensus on the winner. The procedure is as follows:

After the presentation (20 minutes) and Q&A (10 minutes) with the team, each jury member assigns individual scores against the six criteria defined above using ThinkNova’s JuryApp. Jury members cannot influence one another, and no overall score for each entrant is requested at this stage. By defining clear criteria, we aim to achieve an even more objective, evidence-based assessment.

After all presentations, the JuryApp ranks all entrants by combining the individual scores. The results are discussed, arguments for and against are considered, and the winning team is selected.

The winner is announced only at the award ceremony (see below).

*Confidentiality and public communication: financing and acquisition processes often involve sensitive information. Two levels of information are therefore provided:

The jury dossier contains the evidence needed to assess the case, under confidentiality terms agreed in advance.

The public case describes the challenge, approach and lessons in a way that the company and its partner can share.

Where necessary, exact amounts may be replaced by ranges or relative figures in public communication. Sufficient verifiable information must remain available for judging.

The parties involved agree in advance which information may appear in an article, video or presentation.

Entry for this award is linked to a paid package for the vendor, enabling it to build a strong presence in the CFO community.

The participation package includes:

Entry with one client case.

Assessment of the dossier and a presentation before the jury.

An editorially developed case article published online and in CFO Magazine quarterly.

A case video featuring client and partner, recorded alongside the jury meeting and also shown at the award event.

A table for 10 guests at the award event.

Inclusion in communication about the participating cases.

Use of an appropriate entrant or finalist label.

The ultimate ambition is an award that shows how companies achieve meaningful growth with their financial and advisory partners, which choices and solutions make this possible and what others can learn from them. The winning company and its partner may use the label “Best Finance for Growth Award of the Year — winner, year X” in their communication.

Budget: €8,000

The award recognises the organisation and the people driving its ESG approach. In this respect, we also want to position it as a team award, highlighting everyone with policy-level responsibility for sustainability.

The entry shows how senior management, operational leaders, finance and any sustainability specialists work together. External partners may make an important contribution, but the organisation retains ownership of the ambition, choices and execution.

Within a finance award family, the connection to business operations is particularly relevant: how is the ambition translated into investments, budgets, decision-making, risks and measurable progress?

Ambition is the meaningful progress an organisation seeks in relation to its activities, impact and starting point.

The jury therefore considers:

The relevance of the challenges selected.

The scale of the intended change.

The timeframe within which the organisation aims to make progress.

The resources and responsibilities committed to this.

The first steps and results that can already be demonstrated.

A distant future target without an implementation plan is insufficient. Conversely, an organisation with a clear plan and meaningful initial achievements can be a strong candidate, even when the full impact will become visible only later.

An entry may concern a broad ESG strategy or an important change programme within it.

Examples include:

Making production, buildings, energy use or mobility more sustainable.

A circular business model or a different approach to materials and waste.

Responsible procurement and improvements in the value chain.

Employee safety, well-being, inclusion or development.

Strengthening integrity, governance and accountability in decision-making.

An investment or transition programme that connects several ESG objectives.

Not every entry needs to give equal attention to E, S and G. However, the selected priorities must fit the organisation’s most significant impacts and risks.

A strong initiative in one area must not obscure material problems in others. The entrant therefore also explains the broader context, limitations and any tensions between objectives.

The ESG Ambition Award assesses the credibility and execution of a sustainability ambition. A report, label, certificate or new measurement system may support the approach, but is not sufficient grounds for the award on its own.

The jury examines what changes are taking place in policy, investment, behaviour or business operations, and what effects are intended and achieved.

The role of finance is relevant as the link between ambition and delivery. Finance can, for example, help assess investments, allocate resources, make data reliable and monitor progress.

We propose six criteria as the basis for assessment.

Relevance of the priorities: the organisation explains why it is addressing these particular topics.

Where are its greatest impacts, risks and opportunities to make a difference? Which needs of employees, customers, suppliers or other stakeholders play a part? The jury assesses whether the chosen approach addresses the material challenges.

Level of ambition and clear objectives: targets are concrete enough to allow progress to be assessed. Where possible, the entry includes a baseline, an intended result and a timeframe. The organisation also clarifies which activities, locations or units the targets cover. The jury assesses ambition in relation to the starting point. Both closing a substantial gap and pushing boundaries from a strong position can be relevant, provided the case supports this convincingly.

Feasibility and commitment of resources: a credible ambition has an implementation plan. The entrant shows which actions are being taken, what investments and resources are needed and what dependencies exist. Difficult choices are also addressed. How are financial feasibility, long-term effects and other business objectives balanced? What happens if a planned solution does not work?

Governance and integration into business operations: the jury examines ownership of the approach.

Who is responsible? How does management monitor progress? How are employees and relevant partners involved? The ambition gains credibility when it visibly influences budgets, investment decisions, operating arrangements and day-to-day responsibilities.

Demonstrable action and initial results: the award assesses ambition that is being put into practice.

The entrant distinguishes between actions decided upon, measures implemented and effects measured. An allocated budget is, for example, a concrete step but not yet proof of realised impact.

Results are accompanied by a measurement period, methodology and clear scope. Where relevant, both absolute figures and relative improvements are shown, so that growth or contraction of the organisation does not distort the picture.

Transparency and ability to learn: a strong entry presents a realistic picture. What remains uncertain? Which goals are proving harder than expected? Where do interests conflict or new choices become necessary?

The jury values the quality of the supporting evidence and the ability to adapt. Unsubstantiated claims or omission of material limitations weaken the entry.

The dossier describes:

The organisation and its main ESG challenges.

The selected priorities and their rationale.

The starting point, targets and timeframes.

The implementation plan, resources and responsibilities.

The connection to business operations and financial decision-making.

Actions implemented and the first measurable results.

Limitations, trade-offs and lessons.

Next steps and how they will be monitored.

The jury reaches a consensus on the winners. The procedure is as follows:

After the presentation (20 minutes) and Q&A (10 minutes) with the team, each jury member assigns individual scores against the six criteria defined above using ThinkNova’s JuryApp. Jury members cannot influence one another, and no overall score for each entrant is requested at this stage. By defining clear criteria, we aim to achieve an even more objective, evidence-based assessment.

After all presentations, the JuryApp ranks all entrants by combining the individual scores. The results are discussed, arguments for and against are considered, and the winning team is selected.

The winner is announced only at the award ceremony (see below).

The Future Proof Scan provides a systematic review of the finance function. The process comprises an intake, a questionnaire for each finance domain, a review session and a discussion of the report with a workshop.

The screening covers both operational and strategic finance activities. The organisation gains insight into its strengths, improvement opportunities and development priorities. The assessment determines the level of recognition awarded.

The existing scan distinguishes Bronze, Silver, Golden and Diamond. Each level has its own meaning: from successful completion of the assessment to domain-specific achievements, meeting overall standards and broad excellence. The level awarded is therefore always stated in communications. The precise relationship between these levels and the name “Future Proof Finance Team” is defined in the certification conditions. More information about the Future Proof Scan ↗

The report forms the substantive core of the process; the certificate makes the assessed level visible. Recognition is linked to the organisation or entity assessed, the assessment date and the applicable terms of use.