Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. Kenneth Cole: Humor, Risk and the Birth of Fashion Philanthropy
4. Rare Beauty and the Business of Mental Health
5. How the Social Impact Fund Is Structuring Philanthropy for Fashion and Beauty
6. Corporate Campaigns That Shifted the Industry
7. The Importance of Creative Diversity: Career Paths, Coalitions and New Talent Pipelines
8. Brand Authenticity and the Consumer Expectation
9. Measurement, Vetting and the Risk of Performative Philanthropy
10. Supply Chains as Platforms for Economic Development
11. Retailers as Intermediaries for Impact
12. Student and Early-Career Takeaways: How to Build a Career with Impact
13. Where Philanthropy Meets Policy: The Larger Social Context
14. Risks and Critiques: When Corporate Philanthropy Falls Short
15. Practical Steps for Brands Starting Philanthropic Programs
16. The Road Ahead: Scalable Models and Collective Action
17. FAQ

Key Highlights

• Kenneth Cole’s pioneering 1985 HIV/AIDS ad campaign helped normalize corporate philanthropy in fashion; today brands pair product launches with substantial charitable commitments and strategic partnerships.
• Rare Beauty has raised $30 million for mental health through a 1% sales pledge and community programs; the industry is increasingly prioritizing authenticity, sustainability and diverse career pathways beyond traditional college routes.

Introduction

The Social Impact Summit held at the Fashion Institute of Technology in late March gathered executives, designers, students and activists around a single question: how should fashion and beauty brands use their reach and resources for measurable social good? The gathering—hosted by the Social Impact Fund and the FIT Foundation—placed that question against two distinct but complementary case studies. Kenneth Cole was honored for launching one of the first philanthropic ad campaigns in fashion, and Selena Gomez’s Rare Beauty received recognition for a contemporary model of cause-driven business that ties product to programmatic funding for mental health.

The summit’s panels moved from historical precedent to practical models and policy issues: how campaigns are structured, how impact is vetted, how brands avoid performative gestures, and how the business can expand opportunities for talent beyond an increasingly costly college system. The conversation revealed more than ceremonial accolades. It sketched a roadmap for an industry shifting from punctuation—one-off celebrity fundraisers and seasonal collections—to integrated, long-term philanthropic strategies that attempt to measure outcomes, center affected communities and adapt business models to amplify social investment.

Kenneth Cole: Humor, Risk and the Birth of Fashion Philanthropy

Kenneth Cole’s work in the mid-1980s reads as a case study in audacity and timing. The designer’s advertising campaign in support of HIV/AIDS research and charities began in 1985, a moment when public conversation about the epidemic was thin and stigma was thick. Cole’s approach combined a sharply observed brand voice with direct activism: billboards carrying lines such as “It’s not just what you stand in, it’s what you stand for” reframed footwear as a statement of values.

Cole’s strategy relied on two levers that remain influential. First, he used humor and candid language to draw attention to a grave topic without flattening its urgency. He described his approach as injecting levity into serious subject matter—a stylistic choice that made the messages more accessible and shareable in traditional media. Second, he converted advertising real estate into a platform for social causes, turning marketing spend into moral capital.

The result was demonstrative rather than solely philanthropic. Cole’s billboards and print ads helped normalize the notion that fashion companies could—and perhaps should—take public positions on social issues. They created an early template for what the industry now calls “cause marketing” or embedded philanthropy: brand-led initiatives that allocate a portion of revenue, visibility or product proceeds toward an identified social mission.

Cole’s reflection at the FIT summit underscored how media dynamics have changed. He argued that the crowded social landscape and automated amplification mechanisms of today would make standing out in the same way far more difficult. That observation highlights a new challenge: the tactics that once broke through headlines now risk being lost in an oversaturated attention economy. The implication is clear for contemporary leaders: impact must be built into a brand’s structure, not simply layered on top as an episodic campaign.

Rare Beauty and the Business of Mental Health

Rare Beauty’s trajectory from brand launch to recognized philanthropic engine demonstrates how a modern beauty company can integrate social mission with business growth. When Selena Gomez launched Rare Beauty in 2020 she committed 1% of all sales to the Rare Beauty Impact Fund. As Elyse Cohen, the brand’s chief impact officer, reported at the summit, that fund has raised $30 million in six years and is structured around a $100 million long-term commitment from Gomez.

Two aspects of Rare Beauty’s model deserve attention. First, the commitment to mental health is both programmatic and community-facing. Rare Beauty has invested in grants and partnerships that support young people’s access to mental health services, and its marketing and community platforms have tried to reduce stigma by fostering conversation. During a time when young people increasingly cite mental health as a primary concern, a beauty brand’s sustained investment signals a shift: cosmetic products can be entry points to substantive public health work rather than merely tools of self-presentation.

Second, the brand’s stated approach to vetting partner organizations shows a discipline that distinguishes sustained philanthropy from PR-driven activity. Cohen described a rigorous process for selecting organizations to support—an operational detail that matters when donors and consumers demand transparency and measurable outcomes. Consumers will increasingly expect brands to demonstrate that funds are allocated strategically and that programs produce verifiable results.

Rare Beauty’s product strategy has also been leveraged for impact. The brand’s forthcoming foundation in 48 shades underscores another contemporary truth: social impact and product inclusivity are often parallel commitments. Expanding shade ranges is a material choice that signals sensitivity to diverse identities and bodies. Product inclusivity, combined with a dedicated fund and community-building platforms, forms a multilayered architecture of brand responsibility.

The Rare Beauty example matters for other reasons too. Launching in the midst of a global pandemic, the brand leaned on digital community-building to create connections at a time of social isolation. That strategy offered a template for new brands: online communities can be channels for both commerce and civic engagement if they prioritize trust and sustained dialogue.

How the Social Impact Fund Is Structuring Philanthropy for Fashion and Beauty

The Social Impact Fund served as the host and catalyst for the FIT summit and occupies a technical but crucial role in the sector: it provides fiscal sponsorship and administrative infrastructure that enables creative ventures and nascent nonprofit efforts to receive tax-advantaged contributions and operate efficiently.

Craig Cichy, executive director of the Fund, explained its purpose plainly: the organization offers a home base to nonprofits that need tax structure. That function removes a significant barrier for designers, brands or small foundations that want to direct resources to charitable work without building separate nonprofit entities. Fiscal sponsorship enables practitioners to move quickly while maintaining legal and financial transparency.

Fiscal sponsorship has become an important innovation in philanthropic practice. It allows projects to test approaches, scale programs and build operational capacity before committing to the legal and administrative burdens of establishing an independent 501(c)(3). For fashion and beauty industry actors—who often think in cycles of collection seasons and marketing launches—this flexibility aligns charitable commitments with business rhythms while retaining accountability.

Beyond its technical role, the Social Impact Fund convenes dialogue on best practices. The summit brought together legacy designers, beauty executives and retailers to discuss operational details: how to vet nonprofits, how to ensure donations translate to service access, and how to design partnerships that center community needs. Those conversations help shift philanthropy from gestures and headlines to program design and outcome measurement.

Corporate Campaigns That Shifted the Industry

The summit’s panels highlighted a range of corporate initiatives that illustrate how different models of giving operate in practice.

• M·A·C Cosmetics’ Viva Glam program was invoked as a longstanding example of product-driven fundraising. Viva Glam ties lipstick and other product sales to grants for organizations serving HIV/AIDS communities and other causes. Its model—pairing signature products with celebrity spokespeople and a consistent funding stream—demonstrates how a cosmetic SKU can become a durable philanthropic vehicle.
• Kate Spade New York’s partnership beginning in 2013 with a women’s group in Rwanda shows how fashion supply chains can become platforms for economic empowerment. According to the company’s social impact director, that partnership has resulted in roughly 300,000 handbags produced by the Rwandan collective. The program blends market access with job creation and highlights the potential for sourcing practices to support community economic development rather than extract value.
• Macy’s Mission Every One, launched in 2022, represents a retail-level effort to coordinate philanthropic initiatives at scale. The program channels corporate resources across national programs and speaks to the role that large retailers can play in amplifying philanthropy—both by funding projects and by leveraging distribution networks and customer bases to support causes.

These programs differ in structure: some dedicate product proceeds, others build supply-chain partnerships, and still others align corporate grantmaking with employee engagement and customer-facing campaigns. Their common denominator is the attempt to bridge commerce and social investment in repeatable, measurable ways.

The Importance of Creative Diversity: Career Paths, Coalitions and New Talent Pipelines

One of the summit’s central themes was about opportunity architecture within the industry. Panelists urged students and early-career creatives to widen their horizons: fashion and beauty companies offer roles that don’t always require a four-year college degree. These include tailoring and technical craft roles, digital and tech positions, product design specializations and apprenticeship-based learning.

Corey Smith of LVMH stressed that many of the company’s roles require specialty skills rather than a college diploma. Companies increasingly look for practical competencies—patternmaking, coding, sourcing knowledge or customer insights—over credentials alone. That shift reflects the rising costs of higher education and the reality that vocational training, certifications and apprenticeships can accelerate entry into the industry without the debt burden associated with traditional academic pathways.

Panelists emphasized coalition-building. Students were urged to form groups and collaborate with peers across disciplines—designers working with technologists, stylists working with sustainability experts—to create initiatives that alter company culture from within. Randy Cousin of Tommy Hilfiger and Jillian Mercado, who advocates for disability representation, underscored the leverage that cohort-driven projects can have on hiring practices and brand narratives. When creative teams show a track record of production and audience engagement, they become compelling evidence for companies to expand hiring beyond established networks.

Practical pathways exist and are expanding. Fashion institutes and community colleges continue to provide specialized training. Brands have also developed paid apprenticeships and industry bootcamps. Retailers and manufacturers are offering in-house training for technical roles. Even in legacy houses, demand for technicians, material scientists, sustainability analysts and digital product managers is growing—jobs that are technically demanding but do not uniformly require traditional college degrees.

Brand Authenticity and the Consumer Expectation

Panelists and moderators repeatedly returned to the term “brand authenticity.” Once a marketing buzzword, authenticity has become a measurable factor in consumer behavior. Customers are scrutinizing not only the stated commitments of brands but the way those commitments align with product, hiring decisions, supply chains and communications.

Authenticity has three operational markers:

1. Consistency across channels. A brand’s philanthropic intent should be visible in product design, employee policies and external messaging.
2. Transparency in results. Brands must report where money goes, how partners are selected and what outcomes are being pursued.
3. Community-centered design. Programs must be shaped by the needs and voices of the people they intend to serve.

The responsibility to demonstrate authenticity grows when a brand’s core audience is younger and digitally connected. Social platforms accelerate scrutiny and create archival records of brand behavior. For a cosmetics brand, launching an inclusive shade range, funding community mental health programs and publicly sharing grant-making criteria are all signals that support a credible narrative.

Sustainability, too, has moved from niche to mainstream expectation. The panel that included Nancy Mahon of Estée Lauder Companies and Rohit Burman of PVH underscored how product development and materials sourcing must align with environmental goals. Consumers now expect a brand’s environmental stewardship to mirror its social commitments.

The risk of inauthenticity manifests as “greenwashing” or superficial gestures that do not translate to systemic change. The antidote is operational: embed impact into procurement, invest in long-term programs, and adopt third-party verification where appropriate. Clear metrics and public reporting create guardrails against skepticism.

Measurement, Vetting and the Risk of Performative Philanthropy

A recurring concern among panelists was the need to move beyond performative gestures. Building a trustworthy philanthropic program requires systems for vetting partners, measuring outcomes and ensuring operational independence.

Rare Beauty’s vetting process was highlighted as a model of due diligence. Rather than distribute funds opportunistically, the brand undergoes a rigorous selection process to identify organizations that align with both program goals and community needs. This alignment reduces the chance that funds end up in well-meaning but ineffective programs.

Measurement is challenging but necessary. Brands can adopt intermediate indicators—service utilization rates, increased access to care, program retention—and longer-term outcomes—improvements in mental health metrics, employment rates among supplier communities, or reductions in environmental impact. Third-party evaluations and partnerships with research institutions can strengthen credibility.

The Social Impact Fund’s role in providing tax structure also helps ensure that funds are managed transparently. Fiscal sponsors typically require grantees to adhere to reporting standards, and they can hold funds until programmatic plans are vetted. This administrative oversight reduces the likelihood of money flowing to poorly designed initiatives.

Brands must also resist the temptation to equate visibility with effectiveness. Product tie-ins or celebrity campaigns can be powerful fundraising tools, but they should be accompanied by plans for how raised funds will translate into measurable service delivery or capacity building in communities. Long-term commitments—multi-year funding, capacity grants, technical assistance—create greater chance of systemic change than one-off donations.

Supply Chains as Platforms for Economic Development

The Kate Spade partnership in Rwanda illustrates a strategic use of supply chains for social impact. When a brand sources products from community-based groups and commits to long-term purchasing, it can create reliable income streams and skill development opportunities. The Rwandan collective that produces bags for Kate Spade has reportedly manufactured hundreds of thousands of units—an achievement that demonstrates scale and durability.

This model requires consistent demand forecasting, fair pricing, and investments in capacity building. Brands that integrate supplier training, equipment upgrades and access to markets can turn procurement into development practice. Importantly, these programs require contracts that protect producer interests and transfer knowledge, rather than transient orders that leave communities vulnerable.

Integration with sustainability goals makes supply-chain philanthropy more resilient. Programs that use local materials, reduce transport emissions, and adopt circular principles both benefit communities and reduce environmental impact. The combined social and environmental approach aligns with consumer expectations and builds long-term supplier relationships.

Retailers as Intermediaries for Impact

Large retailers can be powerful intermediaries. Macy’s Mission Every One exemplifies a retailer-level strategy that leverages distribution networks, employees and customer reach to support philanthropic priorities. Retailers can integrate fundraising into checkout flows, share shelf space for cause-driven brands, and mobilize loyalty programs to support nonprofits.

Retailers also bear responsibility to vet cause partners and ensure that causes align with company values. Because retailers connect with wide audiences, they have an outsized role in channeling funds and attention. They can also create multiplier effects: featuring socially responsible brands in stores and online can boost those brands’ capacity to scale philanthropic investment.

However, the scale also brings scrutiny. Retailers that mix commercial objectives with philanthropy must demonstrate that causes are not merely marketing devices. Clear reporting, designated program budgets, and employee engagement that transcends promotional cycles reduce the risk of skepticism.

Student and Early-Career Takeaways: How to Build a Career with Impact

Students in the FIT audience heard practical advice about building careers that blend creativity and impact. The conversation offered three tactical takeaways.

1. Broaden your skill set. Technical skills—patternmaking, digital product design, sourcing analytics—are in high demand. Complement creative training with practical competencies that make you indispensable across teams.
2. Seek apprenticeships and specialty schools. Many roles require vocational mastery rather than a generalist degree. Apprenticeships, certificate programs and technical institutes provide direct pathways into manufacturing, tailoring and technical fabrics.
3. Create collaborative projects. Employers look for evidence of initiative. Cross-disciplinary student projects that demonstrate market understanding, production capability and community engagement can be more persuasive than transcripts.

Students were also encouraged to view brand partnerships and nonprofits as potential entry points. Organizations like the Social Impact Fund create short-term project roles that can lead to longer-term careers in philanthropy, CSR, or brand impact teams.

Where Philanthropy Meets Policy: The Larger Social Context

Fashion and beauty philanthropy does not exist in a vacuum. Public policy shapes the ecosystems in which brands and nonprofits operate. Mental health funding, for example, depends not only on private dollars but on public health infrastructure, insurance coverage, and workforce availability. When brands fund services, they must coordinate with public systems to avoid duplication and to support scalable solutions.

Similarly, supply-chain investments interact with labor laws, trade policies and local regulations. Ethical sourcing must account for regional legal frameworks and ensure that producer rights are protected. Brands that commit to international development work need legal counsel, robust contracts and cultural competence.

Tax policy also frames incentives for corporate giving. Fiscal sponsors fill a gap, but durable change often requires harmonizing private philanthropy with public investments. Brands can play an advocacy role—using influence to support policy changes that expand mental health access, strengthen labor protections, or fund vocational training.

Risks and Critiques: When Corporate Philanthropy Falls Short

Corporate philanthropy invites critique. Common pitfalls include:

• Short-termism: One-off campaigns generate attention but little systemic change.
• Misalignment: Causes chosen for marketing fit rather than need can undermine credibility.
• Power imbalances: Brands may impose program designs that reflect corporate priorities rather than community-defined needs.
• Lack of transparency: Without clear reporting, consumers and stakeholders cannot assess impact.

Addressing these pitfalls requires structural responses. Multi-year funding strategies, participatory grantmaking that includes community voices, transparent reporting on allocation and impact, and independent evaluation create accountability. Brands should also guard against deriving undue brand equity from communities’ struggles; ethical philanthropy requires shared credit and capacity transfer.

Practical Steps for Brands Starting Philanthropic Programs

For brands that want to move from statement to strategy, the summit’s conversations suggest a pragmatic sequence:

1. Define the problem. Select a social issue aligned to your mission and expertise—mental health, workforce development, supplier empowerment, sustainability.
2. Map the landscape. Identify existing organizations, gaps in service, and potential partners.
3. Choose a funding model. Options include dedicated percentage-of-sales commitments, product-linked fundraising, operational grants, supplier investments, or fiscal sponsorships.
4. Vet partners. Use criteria for organizational capacity, alignment with goals, and evidence of impact.
5. Build measurement systems. Define short-term and long-term indicators, budget for evaluation, and publish regular reports.
6. Embed impact into business operations. Link procurement, hiring, product development, and marketing decisions to the philanthropic strategy.
7. Communicate transparently. Share failures and learnings alongside successes.

This process reduces the likelihood of performative gestures and increases the chance that corporate funds enable tangible change.

The Road Ahead: Scalable Models and Collective Action

The summit highlighted several scalable models that can be replicated or adapted:

• Product-linked funds (e.g., a designated product where proceeds flow to initiatives).
• Supplier development programs that pair long-term contracts with training and capital upgrades.
• Community funds that pool resources from multiple brands for regional impact.
• Retailer-enabled platforms that aggregate customer donations and amplify smaller nonprofits.

Collective action will be essential. Single-brand efforts matter, but multi-stakeholder collaborations—brands, nonprofits, fiscal sponsors, public agencies and community leaders—can pool resources and expertise for systemic solutions. The Social Impact Fund itself exemplifies a convening role that enables scale by reducing administrative friction for cause-driven projects.

Brands that hope to be credible partners must commit to ongoing investment, rigorous vetting and honest reporting. Consumers increasingly reward companies that demonstrate measurable impact, and talent—especially younger workers—wants employers whose values match their own. Philanthropy, when done well, strengthens brand resilience and social license to operate.

FAQ

Q: What is the Social Impact Fund and what role did it play at the summit? A: The Social Impact Fund is a not-for-profit organization that provides fiscal sponsorship and administrative support to philanthropic projects. At the FIT summit it convened conversations between industry leaders and students and provided a platform for honoring Kenneth Cole and Rare Beauty for their philanthropic work.

Q: How did Kenneth Cole’s campaigns change fashion philanthropy? A: Cole’s advertising in the mid-1980s used brand marketing space to spotlight HIV/AIDS research and charity support. His approach normalized the idea that fashion brands could take public positions and dedicate marketing resources to social causes, establishing a template for integrating philanthropy into brand identity.

Q: How much has Rare Beauty raised and how is the money used? A: Rare Beauty’s Impact Fund has raised $30 million over six years. The funds are directed toward programs that increase youth access to mental health services, with the brand following a vetting process to identify partner organizations and fund projects that match their mission.

Q: What is the difference between product-linked fundraising and other philanthropic models? A: Product-linked fundraising ties the sale of a specific product or line to donations—either a fixed dollar amount or a percentage of sales—whereas other models include direct corporate giving, multi-year grants, supplier investments or employee-matching programs. Product-linked models can generate consumer engagement but need to be paired with long-term commitments for sustained impact.

Q: Can someone work in fashion or beauty without a college degree? A: Yes. Many roles in the industry require specialized skills rather than a four-year degree: garment construction, tailoring, technical design, production management, digital product roles and certain sustainability functions. Apprenticeships, specialty training programs and vocational schools provide viable career pathways.

Q: How can brands avoid being accused of performative philanthropy? A: Brands should adopt long-term funding commitments, involve communities in program design, use rigorous vetting for partners, measure outcomes, and publish transparent reports. Embedding social goals into procurement, hiring and product design reduces the risk of superficial gestures.

Q: What practical steps can a small brand take to start philanthropic work? A: Begin by selecting a focused issue aligned with your capabilities, map existing organizations, consider fiscal sponsorship to handle legal and reporting responsibilities, choose a funding mechanism (percentage of sales, product-linked donations, grants), vet partners carefully, and develop basic metrics to track outcomes.

Q: How do supply-chain partnerships support community development? A: By committing to long-term procurement contracts, offering fair pricing, and investing in technical assistance and equipment, brands can create sustainable income, skill development and market access for community producers. These programs need transparency, contractual safeguards and collaboration to be effective.

Q: Are there risks when brands partner with nonprofits or communities? A: Yes. Risks include creating dependency, misaligned goals, power imbalances, and inadequate monitoring. Mitigation requires participatory program design, multi-year commitment, independent evaluation and mechanisms for communities to hold partners accountable.

Q: What should students focus on to prepare for careers in impact-driven fashion and beauty? A: Develop both creative and technical skills; seek internships and apprenticeships; build collaborative projects that show initiative and production capacity; learn measurement basics and community engagement practices; and cultivate networks across design, sustainability, technology and nonprofit sectors.

Q: How will consumer expectations affect future brand behavior? A: Consumers expect authenticity, evidence of impact and consistency. Brands that fail to align product, policy and philanthropy risk reputational harm. Those that invest in transparent, measurable programs are more likely to retain consumer trust and attract employees who prioritize social purpose.

Q: How does mental health philanthropy differ from other forms of giving in fashion and beauty? A: Mental health philanthropy often requires partnerships with health providers, investments in service delivery infrastructure, and attention to professional standards and privacy protections. It also benefits from community outreach and programs that reduce stigma and increase help-seeking behavior, which aligns well with brands focused on self-image and youth audiences.

Q: What role can retailers play in amplifying impact? A: Retailers can integrate cause-driven brands into stores and online platforms, offer checkout donation mechanisms, mobilize customer loyalty programs for fundraising, and use purchasing power to support supplier development. Their broad reach can scale partner visibility and revenue but requires careful vetting and reporting to ensure effectiveness.

Q: Where should brands look for expert guidance on building effective philanthropic initiatives? A: Fiscal sponsors like the Social Impact Fund, independent evaluators, nonprofit partners experienced in the relevant issue area, and consultants specializing in corporate social responsibility and measurement frameworks can provide support. Cross-sector partners—public health agencies, universities and community organizations—also offer crucial expertise.

Q: How can a brand measure whether its philanthropic work is successful? A: Define clear goals, set short-term and long-term indicators, collect baseline data, monitor service delivery metrics (e.g., number served, retention, utilization), and commission independent evaluations to assess outcomes. Publicly report progress and adjust strategies based on evidence.

Q: How do brands balance commercial goals with philanthropic commitments? A: Successful brands integrate social goals into core strategy: aligning product development, supply chain choices, hiring policies and marketing with philanthropic aims. Transparent governance, dedicated budgets for impact, and executive accountability help balance profit motives with mission-driven activity.

Q: Are collaborations between competing brands possible in philanthropic work? A: Yes. Collective funds or pooled initiatives allow competitors to address systemic issues—like workforce training or regional development—where shared benefits outweigh competitive concerns. Collaborative philanthropy can amplify impact and reduce duplication.

Q: What next steps should the industry take to scale impact meaningfully? A: Scale requires moving from episodic campaigns to structural investments: multi-year funding, workforce development partnerships, supplier transformation, and cross-sector alliances that align corporate resources with public services and community priorities. Transparency, independent evaluation and community governance structures will determine whether scale translates to sustained social change.