• 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?

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

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

• 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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. 

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 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.