Overview
The animal pillar scores brands based on the degree to which they have implemented practices to minimise negative impacts on animals. This includes, in the products and animal-derived materials section, assessing the use of common materials like wool and leather, as well as extreme-risk materials such as fur and exotic skins. Beyond material usage, the methodology scrutinises animal testing policies and the protection of wild animals in specific industries.
Ethical treatment is a priority because animal-derived materials are often co-products of other industries, such as food. Good On You maintains that for sentient beings, it makes little difference whether their body parts are destined for food, fashion, or cosmetics: the ethical responsibility of the brand remains the same. Consequently, sourcing leather as a "by-product" of the beef industry is not considered inherently more ethical in this framework.
Industry verticals: Fashion, Beauty, Services, Retailer
Applicable for: small and large brands
What is assessed?
The products and animal-derived materials section assesses practices related to specific conventional and high-risk animal materials in a brand’s sourcing or supply chain. We take into account the proportion of the brand’s product range containing those materials. We establish how a brand takes responsibility for the animal welfare impacts of the products it uses by assessing the transparency, policies, and certifications in place that relate to relevant materials.
Vegan products
Brands are evaluated on whether all their products are vegan or not. The assessment of vegan products is determined at three levels:
Certified vegan: All the brand's products are certified by a leading body such as PETA. This is the highest score a brand can get for animals.
Uncertified vegan: A brand claims it is vegan, but not all its products are certified
No vegan statement: There are no obvious animal-derived materials in a brand's products, but without a confirming statement from the brand, it’s not possible to conclusively determine whether the brand is vegan, as there may be animal-derived materials used in production, such as in glues
Domesticated animal products
Brands are assessed on whether they use normative animal-derived materials such as wool, alpaca, leather, etc. If they do, brands are expected to:
Clearly disclose which animal-derived materials or ingredients they use
Disclose the proportion of its product range or ingredients that contain animal-derived materials. Greater use of animal-derived materials increases the relevance of animal welfare impacts within the assessment.
Demonstrate that animal-derived materials are covered by credible animal welfare standards, certifications, or sourcing requirements. This includes standards that address issues such as live plucking, mulesing, force-feeding, confinement, transport, and slaughter practices
High-risk animal products
Brands are assessed on whether they use animal-derived materials or ingredients associated with particularly severe animal welfare concerns. This includes materials linked to wild animal exploitation, practices where credible welfare standards are limited or absent, or materials that are inherently high risk regardless of sourcing claims, such as undomesticated animals in captivity. Brands are expected to:
Clearly disclose which animal-derived materials or ingredients they use. Examples of high-risk animal-derived materials include fur, angora, exotic skins, wild-caught animal ingredients, and shark-derived squalene/squalane
In these cases, the assessment focuses primarily on whether a brand is actively removing or avoiding these materials altogether, rather than relying on animal welfare certifications or sourcing claims
Demonstrate that animal-derived materials are covered by credible animal welfare standards, certifications, or sourcing requirements. This includes standards that address issues such as live plucking, mulesing, force-feeding, confinement, transport, and slaughter practices.
Good On You takes a zero-tolerance approach to brands that use high or extreme-risk animal-derived materials. In these cases, the brand’s maximum score is capped at 54/100 until the animal-derived materials are phased out.
Assessments in industry verticals
Fashion
In the fashion vertical, the methodology identifies the use of specific materials including wool, fur, angora, down, shearling, karakul, and exotic animal skins (eg alligator, snake, kangaroo).
Brands must disclose approximately what percentage of their total materials are animal-derived
Brands are penalised for using "extreme risk" materials like uncertified virgin mohair or fur
Brands are assessed on what proportion of the animal-derived materials they use are covered by robust animal welfare certifications, such as the Responsible Wool Standard
Beauty
In the beauty vertical, the methodology identifies whether the brand uses any ingredients that could be derived from animals.
Many beauty ingredients like glycerin, stearic acid, and squalene can be derived from either plants or animals. Brands that use these ingredients without specifying a plant-based origin or vegan status are assessed as using animal-derived materials
A specific concern in the beauty industry is the use of forced monkey labour for harvesting coconuts, particularly in Thailand. Brands must demonstrate their coconut sources are free from this practice
Services
The services methodology will only assess animals for industries that could be using animal-derived ingredients or materials.
Assessments are triggered if a brand sells food or beverages, uses animal-derived ingredients (eg in hair salons), or offers services like tourism that impact wild animals
Service providers like accountants or law firms that do not typically use animal products are not assessed on this pillar; their overall score is based only on planet and people
Food and beverage: Brands like cinemas or stadiums are assessed on their animal-derived food offerings. If a business is unlikely to sell a significant proportion of meat or fish, it may receive a slightly higher score than one likely to use these ingredients
Travel agencies are expected to ban or strictly regulate tours and activities that involve the exploitation of wild animals
Retailer
The retailer methodology assesses animal welfare impacts across each relevant part of a brand’s business. This recognises that multi-category businesses may sell or use products from multiple sectors with different animal welfare risks and expectations.
For example, a retailer, shopping centre operator, or hospitality business may be assessed across separate modules for areas such as fashion, beauty, and food and beverage.
Within each relevant module, the assessment considers:
The proportion of products, ingredients, or offerings that contain animal-derived materials
The proportion of relevant animal-derived materials or ingredients that are covered by credible animal welfare certifications, recycled sources, or lower-risk alternatives
Whether the business uses any high- or extreme-risk animal-derived materials or ingredients, such as fur, angora, exotic skins, or shark-derived ingredients
Conditional assessments
Brands may receive different animal question sets depending on their previous responses and the relevance of animal welfare risks to their business.
Fashion brands specialising in product categories that do not typically use animal-derived materials, such as some swimwear or synthetic activewear brands, are not assessed further on animals. Their overall score is instead derived from the combined people and planet 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
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
Large brands are expected to have formal animal welfare commitments and implementation mechanisms covering their supply chains. They are assessed on the proportion of animal-derived materials covered by credible certifications, the use of high-risk materials, and whether they have commitments to eliminate materials such as fur or exotic skins.
Small brands
Small brands are 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. Small brands may be rewarded more highly for targeted high-impact actions, such as using certified or recycled animal-derived materials, or avoiding high-risk animal products altogether.
Best practice and common pitfalls
Best practice:
Brands being fully vegan, or using only very small proportions of animal-derived materials or ingredients (eg less than 1% of the total range).
Using certified or recycled animal-derived materials across the majority or entirety of relevant product categories.
Full transparency regarding the sourcing and origin of ingredients used in beauty products.
Common pitfalls:
Beauty brands failing to disclose whether cross-source ingredients such as glycerin, stearic acid, or squalene are animal- or plant-derived
Brands not disclosing the proportion of their range that contains animal-derived materials or ingredients
Brands highlighting certification coverage for a small product category (eg all down certified) while the majority of their animal-derived materials (eg wool or leather) remain uncertified
Continuing to use high- or extreme-risk materials such as fur or angora without a phase-out commitment