#e4mImpact:  Transparency row: AAAI appoints independent auditor for Lifetime Achievement Award

The Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) has appointed an independent professional institution—described by the body as one of India's top consulting firms—to audit the selection process for its 2026 Lifetime Achievement Award, marking its first concrete response after governance concerns surrounding the award sparked widespread debate across the advertising industry.

The association, however, did not disclose the identity of the consulting firm.

The move comes just days after exchange4media reported that the award process had come under intense scrutiny following advertising executive Tanya Goyal's decision to recuse herself from the selection committee, citing the absence of a structured evaluation framework, objective scoring methodology and formal conflict-of-interest safeguards. The controversy unfolded against the backdrop of the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) ongoing investigation into alleged cartelisation involving several advertising agencies, prompting broader discussions around governance standards within industry bodies.

In a media statement issued on Wednesday, AAAI rejected allegations that its selection process lacked transparency, asserting that the Lifetime Achievement Award has been process-driven since its inception and that nominations are evaluated through an established framework.

The association said that nominations are invited from all members through a detailed nomination form that lays down eligibility parameters, including industry leadership, contribution to advertising, ethical conduct, innovation, social impact and professional standing. The nominations are reviewed by the president and secretariat before being presented in a comparative format to jury members ahead of deliberations.

According to AAAI, 10 nominees were initially under consideration this year—five fresh nominations received during the 2026 nomination process and five names carried forward from the previous year's shortlist. Two nominees, Prasanth Kumar and Anupriya Acharya, opted out of consideration, leaving eight candidates before the jury.

Responding directly to the criticism surrounding transparency, AAAI said the jury follows a qualitative assessment process rather than a numerical scoring mechanism. Each jury member is asked to independently identify two preferred candidates, following which the top three names are discussed before arriving at a collective decision.

The association maintained that qualitative deliberation has historically been preferred over assigning marks because "no two nominations are like-to-like" and lifetime contributions cannot be meaningfully reduced to a points-based system. It added that similar approaches are followed by several established awards globally.

In the most significant announcement contained in the statement, AAAI said it had decided to subject the selection process to an independent review.

"To prove this further, AAAI has engaged a professional institution to audit the process on how the awardee has been determined," the association said. It added that the audit would establish whether any jury member had any vested interest in favour of a nominee and ensure that the eventual winner and the remaining nominees are not unfairly subjected to allegations regarding the integrity of the process.

While confirming the audit, AAAI did not identify the consulting firm, stating only that it is one of India's leading consulting institutions.

The statement also mounted a strong defence of its handling of the controversy.

AAAI alleged that Tanya Goyal had lobbied for her spouse, Sandeep Goyal, to receive the honour and claimed she had approached the association's president on multiple occasions pressing his candidature.

According to AAAI, she was subsequently invited to join the jury to address her concerns but later withdrew before deliberations commenced.

These allegations form a sharp rebuttal to Goyal's earlier claims. In her letter to the association, first reported by exchange4media, Goyal had argued that while nominees were required to satisfy detailed eligibility criteria, there was no documented evaluation matrix or scoring framework to assess them. She had also questioned the absence of conflict-of-interest declarations and argued that institutions representing the advertising industry should adhere to contemporary corporate governance standards.

AAAI said the jury completed the selection of the 2026 recipient on July 28 and that the winner's name will be announced after obtaining the individual's concurrence.

The decision to appoint an external auditor is likely to be viewed as an attempt by the association to reinforce confidence in one of Indian advertising's most prestigious honours. However, with the consulting firm's identity, audit scope and timeline remaining undisclosed, questions over how much of the review will eventually be made public are likely to persist.

The development marks a notable shift from AAAI's earlier position, where it had defended the existing process while dismissing criticism as a motivated campaign. By opting for an independent audit, the association has acknowledged the need for external validation of a process that has become the subject of an industry-wide governance debate.