Overview
The animal welfare and commitments area is a critical component of the animals pillar. While other areas focus on the specific types of materials used (eg leather, wool, or fur), the animal welfare and commitments area evaluates the systemic policies, time-bound targets, and ethical frameworks a brand adopts to protect animal life across its supply chain and operations.
Good On You recognises that animal welfare is not merely about the absence of certain materials, but the active implementation of standards that ensure animals are treated with dignity and protected from unnecessary suffering. This assessment covers three primary aspects:
Animal testing (Beauty, Retailers, Services): Measures to eliminate testing on animals for finished products and ingredients
Commitment to elimination: Public, time-bound goals to phase out animal-derived materials (ADMs) or products
Animal welfare standards: The adoption of formal policies, such as the Five Domains, and third-party certifications that verify humane treatment.
Industry verticals: Fashion, Beauty, Services, Retailer
Applicable for: small and large brands
What is assessed?
Animal welfare is a material issue across various sectors because the extraction of animal products and the testing of chemical formulations often involve significant suffering. Good On You holds brands responsible for these impacts at every stage of the value chain, regardless of whether the animals are bred specifically for the industry.
1. Animal testing (Beauty, Retailer, Services)
For Beauty and relevant Retailer and Services brands, the highest scores are awarded to those with third-party certifications, including Cruelty Free International’s Leaping Bunny Programme, recognised as the "gold standard". It requires a fixed cut-off date and independent audits of the entire supply chain. We also consider PETA’s Animal Test-Free, which is often based on self-declarations and therefore considered less robust than audited programs, but is still a positive action.
A brand must establish a point in time (ie a fixed cut-off date) after which no animal testing is conducted or commissioned for any product or ingredient. This ensures the brand is not benefiting from new animal suffering. Our assessment also considers whether the brand or its parent company sells products in regions where animal testing is mandatory, such as mainland China.
2. The Five Domains and welfare standards
In Fashion, brands are evaluated on whether their policies align with the Five Domains of animal welfare: nutrition, environment, physical health, behaviour, and mental state. A general statement about "minimising suffering" receives minimal credit. To score highly, a brand must commit to achieving standards consistent with the Five Domains and utilise the best available certifications for each material, such as the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) or ZQ Merino.
3. Commitment and reductions
Brands are rewarded for transitioning away from animal products entirely.
Points are granted for public commitments to eliminate the sale or use of all animal-derived ingredients within a specified timeframe (eg three years). Additionally, brands are assessed on the proportion of their product portfolio that uses animal-derived materials. Brands are rewarded if the proportion is less than 1%.
Assessments in industry verticals
Beauty
Assessment centres on animal testing and cruelty-free certification.
Cruelty-free certification: High-performing brands are expected to have credible cruelty-free certifications such as Leaping Bunny or PETA, or provide robust evidence that neither the brand nor its suppliers conduct animal testing.
Fashion
Assessment focuses on material sourcing and specific cruel practices.
Mulesing: Fashion brands must demonstrate that their wool is sourced from non-mulesed sheep through certifications like RWS or Nativa
Policy: Fashion brands are assessed on whether they have an animal welfare policy aligned with the Five Domains
Commitments: High-performing brands make public commitments to never use fur, angora, or exotic skins (eg alligator, kangaroo)
Volume: Brands are assessed on the percentage of their total material volume that is animal-derived. A brand using less than 1% ADMs is scored significantly higher than one where ADMs are dominant.
Services
For services, the animal pillar is often a non-core question triggered only if the service typically uses animal products (eg a hair salon using haircare products) or impacts wildlife (eg travel agents).
Tourism: Travel agencies are assessed on whether they prohibit tours involving wild animals in captivity or ensure human interactions do not alter natural behaviours
Cleaning products: Services like gyms are evaluated on whether the cleaning products they use are certified as cruelty-free
Retailer
Retailers are assessed on animal welfare impacts across the different sectors and product categories they sell.
Animal testing: Retailers that sell beauty or cosmetic products are assessed on whether the products are certified as cruelty-free, and whether brands sold by the retailer are linked to animal testing practices.
Animal product reduction commitments: Retailers are assessed on whether they have commitments or targets to reduce or eliminate animal-derived products across relevant sectors, including fashion, beauty, and food and beverage.
Conditional assessments
Brands will not receive questions in this section if the following occurs:
Fashion brands specialise in product categories that do not typically use animal-derived materials, such as some swimwear or synthetic activewear brands. They are not assessed further on animals, and their overall score is instead derived from the combined people and planet pillar scores
Brands that confirm all products are vegan are not assessed beyond the initial vegan assessment questions
Brands that only use non-sentient animal-derived materials, such as silk, are also excluded from the broader domesticated animal material assessment and move directly to the citizenship section of the questionnaire
Disclosure and data sources
Good On You primarily relies on a brand’s public website and formal sustainability, CSR, or ESG reports. In addition, for animal products, we reference:
Industry reports: Analysts will review a brand’s performance against credible animal welfare reports, such as those produced by FourPaws
Data verification: Analysts cross-reference brand claims that state they are PETA certified against the PETA database.
Relevance for different brands
The methodology acknowledges the different resources, influence, and supply chain complexity of small versus large businesses.
Large brands
Expected to have formal animal welfare commitments and implementation mechanisms covering their supply chains. They are assessed on whether they have commitments to eliminate materials, and to ensure they do not use wild animals in their products.
Small brands
Not expected to have formal commitments to eliminate wild or high-risk animal materials where they are not currently used. They are also not expected to have extensive animal welfare commitments, but are still expected to have an animal welfare policy in place.
Best practice and common pitfalls
Best practice
All products are certified under credible cruelty-free standards such as Leaping Bunny or PETA Cruelty-Free
Having a formal animal welfare policy aligned with the Five Domains model
Using only very small proportions of animal-derived materials or ingredients (eg less than 1% of the total range)
Common pitfalls
Less robust frameworks: Using animal welfare policies aligned only with the Five Freedoms rather than the more comprehensive Five Domains model
Failing to explicitly prohibit the use of wild animal-derived materials or ingredients such as fur, exotic skins, or shark-derived ingredients
Brands not disclosing the proportion of their range that contains animal-derived materials or ingredients
Fashion brands claiming to use non-mulesed wool without providing evidence, traceability, or certification demonstrating how this is verified
Parent company conflict: A subsidiary brand may be certified cruelty-free, but if its parent company continues to test on animals or lacks a global welfare policy, the subsidiary's score is capped to reflect the lack of systemic commitment at the corporate level
Misunderstanding "by-products": Some brands argue that leather is more ethical because it is a "by-product" of the meat industry. Good On You views leather as a "co-product" that supports the economic viability of animal slaughter; therefore, "by-product" status does not negate the need for welfare standards.