Find information using our faqs

Apparel Impact Institute (Aii) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit collective founded in 2017. Aii identifies, funds, and scales proven quality solutions to accelerate positive impact in the apparel and footwear industry. 

Aii is funded in part by grants from brands and philanthropic organizations and in part by service fees for our technical work. We are not a membership organization.

Our headquarters are in California, USA; however, we are a global organization with staff distributed throughout North America, Europe, and Asia.

Aii is an independent entity that partners with various membership associations and NGOs. We are dedicated to avoiding duplications and redundancies in our work.

The Fashion Climate Fund is a $250M donor-pooled fund with contributions from apparel brands and philanthropy. The Climate Solutions Portfolio (CSP) is Aii’s collection of proven carbon-reducing programs and solutions from pre-seed to pilot to model to scale phase. The CSP Platform is an online registry of those programs; it’s a database of all the solutions across stages of development. Grants will be distributed from the Fashion Climate Fund to select programs in the Climate Solutions Portfolio, and programs in the portfolio will also benefit from connections to other forms of funding and capital (e.g. debt and equity).

Aii takes an initial baseline of a facility's energy consumption and GHG emissions before implementing a project. After the project is complete, another measurement is taken and the difference between the before and after measurements is calculated with adjustments for changes in production volume and other factors. Finally, each project has an estimated useful life, which is used to forecast the total GHG reduction over the life of the project.

If you have questions about CSP grants - timelines, amounts, requirements, etc. - please visit our comprehensive FAQ at https://csp.apparelimpact.org/faqs. 

We’d love to hear from you! If you have any questions or are interested in working with us, please reach out by clicking “Contact Us” at the bottom of this page. An Aii team member will get in touch as soon as possible.

The best way to stay informed is to sign up for our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn or Instagram. 

We currently have seven lead funders (HSBC, Target Corporation, PVH Corporation, Lululemon, H&M Group, H&M Foundation, and The Schmidt Family Foundation) that are each expected to fund $10M by 2030.

This is a conservative estimate coming from our experience with programs like Clean by Design, as well as the findings in our joint report with Fashion for Good, "Unlocking the Trillion-Dollar Fashion Decarbonisation Opportunity". Based on the ratios of form of asset class applied to the solutions in the report, we expect $100 million in philanthropy combined with $150 million in industry contributions (together, the $250 million Fashion Climate Fund) will drive $150 million in supplier contributions; $400 million in venture capital and private equity; and $1.2 billion in bank debt, bonds, and loan funds for supplier capital investments, resulting in a total of $2 billion.

Our funding framework is built on the "Roadmap to Net Zero" report Aii co-authored with WRI. Programs and Projects include all tiers of the supply chain from raw materials to yarn preparation to fabric preparation to cut & sew assembly. The report identifies the six intervention areas (or levers) to reduce carbon emissions, such as:

• Material efficiency
• Better, Preferred Materials
• Next Generation Materials
• Energy Efficiency
• Thermal Heat Innovations (dry processing and renewable thermal)
• Clean Energy (renewable electricity)

To identify, fund, and scale proven solutions that lower carbon emissions across the supply chain of the textile, apparel, and footwear sector, with a focus on the primary goal of enabling the reduction of 100M tonnes of GHG emissions by 2030.

Apparel Impact Institute (Aii) is managing the fund. Aii has aggregated philanthropic and industry contributions to fund programmatic work in the apparel and footwear supply chain since 2018. With a $250 million fund, we will accelerate climate interventions by deploying up to $30 million a year into this work. The goal is to apply the full budget each year in alignment with our partners, although we recognize that supply chain volatility still exists which may require us to carry forward funds into the following year.

The Fund is applied to the entire program portfolio from incubation to commercialization. Once an intervention has proven successful, Aii recruits financial institutions to supply attractive sources of financing for suppliers to make climate-improvement investments. Aii is also advancing new and creative financial solutions for the market and tracking the amount of external capital leveraged as a result of our Fund, as well as the financial ROI and payback period for the supplier that is making the investment.

Yes, Aii tracks the climate impact of every intervention that we are funding in the supply chain.  We have a target cost of carbon per intervention (from solar electricity to use of recycled poly).  We report the return on impact (as measured in CO2 emissions saving per dollar invested) for every program. 

Aii’s climate-reduction programs are aligned with the existing carbon reporting methodologies and frameworks established by the industry. Aii also participates in industry groups that are actively working to advance these frameworks.

Today, we are seeking Lead Partners to the Fund, which means $10 million by 2030. We will accept a pledge for the first three years with the terms and conditions for renewal after the third year.

Lead Partners join the Apparel Impact Roundtable, an industry committee that serves to provide critical and strategic input on the fund and use of funds. Lead Partners help to create, build, and drive the programs to scale, as opposed to only joining the ones that already exist. Lead Partners are at the table from day one to build this system and suite of funding tools to the greatest advantage and need of the fashion sector. This group works closely with our Board of Directors and our Expert Advisory Council, technical experts who provide insights for our work. Lead Partners will also be listed prominently in all communications as founders of the Fashion Climate Fund.

We want you involved. Aii already supports programmatic work for more than 45 brands/ retailers and their suppliers. You can continue to bring your sustainability needs (and budget) for impact programs to Aii, and we can match programs for supplier recruitment.   We may even be able to apply some of the Fund’s grantmaking to support your work, if aligned with our current programs, strategies, and growth.

No, we can apply these funds to work in any region where a meaningful consensus of industry work is happening. Members of the Apparel Impact Roundtable will help to drive the unlock into new geographic regions. 

The Fund addresses all areas of apparel and footwear. We are already working with several brands/retailers in other product categories (e.g. home products, soft goods, outdoor products). We also apply solutions at an industrial park level, which benefits other manufacturing sectors. 

Yes, the Fund is intended to support companies in reaching their Science Based Targets or other commitments toward climate action. Therefore, companies are able to apply a significant portion of their annual contributions to the Fund directly into CO2 emissions reduction in their own suppliers. As we move more solutions through the pilot phase to scale-ready, that percentage allocation should increase. Aii accepts funding from treasury, philanthropic, and foundation sources from brands. Internal conversations may be required to allow for the appropriate use of funds within the brand’s own supply chain.

A minimum of 60% of the funds will be allocated to programming and innovation towards scope 3 (supply chain) CO2 emissions reductions. Another 25% will be applied to “ecosystem leadership,” which we define as continued tool development; contributing to the establishment of industry reporting framework; building relationships with venture capital funds, private equity funds, banks, and loan funds; publishing impact reports; and other activities needed to support the supply chain work. The balance is applied to the Aii management fee. 

In order to support the growth and development of the Fund and all of Aii’s operations, we apply a management fee of 20% to all philanthropic contributions into the fund and 10% to all treasury contributions into the fund, resulting in a 15% blended management fee.

No. The Fund will not be used for funding events or industry marketing needs beyond that of promoting the Fund as part of the management fee.

• Effectiveness - reduction relative to a typical industrial baseline
• Reach -  breadth of the supply chain the solution can affect at scale
• Scale – is the solution already at a mature state of commercialization and what is the potential for accelerated deployment by 2030?

• Pre-seed:  Solutions that are at a concept level and in the process of evaluating and establishing their impact potential.
• Pilot: Solutions that are in the process of testing their solution in order to demonstrate a proof of concept.
• Model: Solutions that are working towards de-risking and reducing known barriers to scale.
• Scale: Solutions that are commercially viable with a proven go-to-market strategy.

Applications are reviewed by the Climate Solutions Portfolio Advisory Council (CSPAC), a diverse multi-stakeholder body composed of industry experts. Occasionally, the CSPAC may engage external experts and the Apparel Impact Roundtable in the review process.

Please follow the link the Submittable website for guidance if you are having difficulty with your application.

Yes, the application automatically saves and you can come back to it as needed until you are ready to submit.

The Climate Solutions Portfolio Advisory Council evaluates applications according to the requirements set out in the Grant Funding Thesis with a focus on effectiveness, reach, and scale. Please review the Thesis for additional information.

All Registered Solutions have completed a robust application process. They have submitted data demonstrating their effectiveness, reach, and scale against our baselines. This data has been reviewed by the Climate Solutions Portfolio Advisory Council, and the assumptions have been validated through Aii’s quality assurance process. The data presented on the solutions pages are averages, and actual impact will vary according to site-specific conditions.

Aii does not guarantee the performance of the solutions. 

The data presented by a CSP Grant or Registry applicant will differ according to the solution’s maturity level. For Grant applications, where we accept less mature solutions, we are looking for a strong case to be made for the effectiveness of a solution. For a Registry application, we seek evidence that the solution delivers the expected effectiveness. Below we have outlined the maturity definitions and how this relates to the data.

• Pre-seed: Solutions at a concept level and in the process of evaluating and establishing their impact potential. The impact figures on these solution pages are indications of the solution's impact at this concept phase based on sources such as lab tests or a literature review. 
• Pilot: Solutions testing to demonstrate a proof of concept. The impact figures on these solution pages are projections of the pilot's impact and do not yet reflect consistent performance.
• Model: Solutions working towards de-risking and reducing known barriers to scale. The impact figures on these solution pages are averages based on data from several pilots but do not yet represent a wide data set. Therefore, the actual impact may vary.
• Scale: Solutions that are commercially viable with a proven go-to-market strategy. The impact figures on these solution pages are averages based on data from numerous site-level implementations. Please note that the actual impact will be based on site-specific conditions and performance.

We have made the solution evaluation and communication methodology for solutions the same. All applicants calculate their effectiveness according to the CO2e/kg production baselines outlined in the Ready Reckoner. Working from the same baselines makes the effectiveness more comparable between solutions.

The $/tCO2e remains the industry's standard approach to calculating the efficiency of dollars spent on carbon reduction, as investments are made at a site level. Therefore we have chosen to maintain this approach. These calculations are also done according to the lifetime savings approach, meaning they account for the tCO2e saved over the lifetime of the investment. We calculate this by multiplying the annual savings by 8.6 for energy efficiency projects and 12.6 for energy source projects. This accounts for the average 10- and 15-year lifespan of these projects respectively

We will ask Registered solutions to annually report on the CSP-enabled deployment of their solution. They will be required to calculate the emissions savings that have resulted from that implementation and show the cumulative savings the solution has achieved as a CSP Registrant and as part of the Aii network. This helps Aii and the Registrants track their deployment over time. 

We have created a database of energy use and tCO2e emissions for the most widely used materials and processes. Our figures are based on typical production processes and should be used as the baseline against which any solutions are compared. This allows us to standardize the evaluation of solutions’ impact reduction potential and enables the CSP Advisory Council to compare different solutions against each other in a fair and consistent manner. 

We ask that applicants use the model processes and associated energy and emission figures as the baseline against which their solution is compared when calculating the ‘effectiveness’ of their solution (the % decrease in energy use or GHG emissions). This is to avoid the deliberate selection of more favorable baselines that enhance the perceived impact of a solution. 

The Ready Reckoner is a simple tool into which applicants enter information about the solution’s supply chain application, effectiveness, and anticipated industry-wide scaling. It then calculates the projected tCO2e savings using the provided data. Applicants must use the Ready Reckoner to determine the solution’s tCO2e reduction potential.

The energy use and emission baselines are calculated for supply chain tiers, processes, and even sub-processes using data from the WRI “Roadmap to Net Zero” report, other publicly available data sources, and subject matter experts’ professional judgment. We have used typical model processes to create baselines against which all solutions must be compared (These are contained in an appendix to the Ready Reckoner). 

The Ready Reckoner is a functioning prototype that enables the CSP Advisory Council to objectively compare the projected savings of a wide variety of solutions for different tiers, processes, and sub-processes. The database it uses contains verified quantitative data, qualitative information, and even some estimates. 

Waiting for verified, universally accepted data would delay our ability to compare solutions and keep us from achieving our 2050 goals. We intend to improve the data on an ongoing basis and welcome constructive feedback from any interested stakeholders. We also welcome feedback from applicants if they believe the baseline processes or energy use figures for those processes differ substantially from their experience.

The current tool works well where a solution is applied in a single process or tier and where the effectiveness (i.e. the % reductions in heat and electrical energy) is clear and consistent.

• If a solution has different levels of effectiveness in different processes or tiers, it may be necessary to carry out multiple calculations and sum up the overall potential savings.
• If a solution is related to circularity / re-use of materials, we credit the solution provider with the notional benefits associated with a reduced need to create new fibers, yarns, and fabrics, and the need to carry out dyeing as appropriate. This may require multiple calculations and summing up of potential savings.
• Solutions that focus on reduced waste or improvements in quality may have ‘ripple’ benefits beyond the place they are applied and may require multiple calculations and summing up of potential savings.

The tool requires the applicant to provide a credible estimation of the % of the maximum potential savings their solution can affect. This requires detailed knowledge of the global industry sector they are working with (and the CSP Advisory Council requires this to sense check applications). For example, if a proposed solution is to be rolled out to 10 cotton spinning mills, what % of the global cotton spinning market does that represent?

The database itself will be updated annually, and we anticipate several improvements.

• The current data is based on a zero-loss model, which we know is crude and incorrect. We will attempt to include information on material losses at each stage of production, but we also have to consider if those losses are genuine waste, ordinarily recycled, 2nd quality materials with value, a co-product with value, and so on.
• The exact scope of textiles in the database and associated fiber volumes needs expert review in light of the apparent disconnect between high volumes of synthetics assumed to be used in apparel and the low % of synthetics in major brands’ products.
• The default emission factor (g CO2  / kWh) needs review, and heat energy, on-site electricity, and grid electricity may need different values.
• We need better granularity in terms of fine and coarse yarns and heavy and lightweight fabrics. Everything currently uses an average.
• Common blends may be included (currently it is a single fiber only model).
• The range of fibers may need to be included. For example, recycled polyester is now produced in higher volumes than other traditional mainstream fibers.

The tool will be updated annually. The key issues being addressed for the 2025 version are material losses, an update of the volume of polyester, etc. 

While it is important to be transparent about the cost of a solution, this is commercially sensitive information for many of our registrants. For that reason, we have presented the solution cost according to a dollar scale, with the least expensive represented by $ and the most expensive represented by $$$$$. Being the most expensive does not necessarily mean a solution has a low return on investment. You can see the payback period as well as the $/tCO2e on the solution pages. 

We categorized solutions as Utilities (energy-related investments), Process Machinery (any piece of equipment purchased to deliver the process), Ancillary/Systems (support or monitoring for the production process). and Programs (programs that have a service cost as well as investments in improvements as a result of the program recommendations). This is the first iteration of our scale which will become more detailed and nuanced over time. You can find the ranges here.