Standard
How we rate
Most edits ask you to trust the eye behind them. This one asks you to check the working. Here is the whole method: what earns a brand the animal-materials tag, how every point is earned, and what the badge does not claim.
Version 2.2 · Updated 22 October 2026
1. Two gates, and the animal-materials tag
Checked before anything else. Fail either and the brand carries our tag, Sells animal materials, beside its name and beside every piece of it we list. Its score is still published, so you can see how open it is, but it is listed after every brand that clears both gates, whatever it scores, and it can never earn the Good badge. Transparency, certification and good intentions do not buy a way past this.
Animal-derived materials
One animal-derived material anywhere in the current range earns the brand our animal-materials tag: leather, suede, exotic skins, fur, shearling, wool, merino, cashmere, mohair, alpaca, angora, silk, down, feathers, bone, horn, shell, pearl, mother-of-pearl. A brand that never touches leather but keeps wool in its knitwear carries the tag too.
Animal testing
Testing by the brand, by any supplier, or required by a market it sells into. There is no partial credit here and no exception for a single component: a brand that fails this gate carries the tag.
| What is scored | How it is shown | Score |
|---|---|---|
| A brand that clears both gates, and every piece it sells | Listed first, strongest evidence leading; can earn the Good badge | 0 to 100 |
| A brand that sells animal materials, and its animal-free pieces | Carries the tag; listed after every brand that clears both gates | 0 to 100 |
| A piece made from animal material | Never listed in FWC Edit or the Shop | Not listed |
The tag is brown, with a bunny in a red no-entry circle and the words “Sells animal materials”. The words always travel with the icon, because a crossed-out bunny on its own is often read as “not tested on animals”, which is the opposite of what it means here.
2. The rubric
Applied to every brand, tagged or clear. One hundred points across four areas, weighted by how much each one proves a claim is real rather than well written.
| Area | Criterion | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Materials evidence30 pts | Material composition published for every item in the range | 15 |
| Alternative materials named, with converter or mill identified | 10 | |
| Written whole-range declaration: no animal material in any itemRequires the brand | 5 | |
| Animal-testing assurance30 pts | Signed no-animal-testing declarationRequires the brand | 10 |
| Declaration extends to suppliers, components, dyes and adhesivesRequires the brand | 10 | |
| Third-party vegan or test-free mark, confirmed in the issuer’s register | 10 | |
| Traceability & transparency25 pts | Supplier or factory list disclosed, publicly or under NDARequires the brand | 10 |
| Material origin traceable to a named converter or mill | 8 | |
| Claims substantiated, current and dated | 7 | |
| Independent verification15 pts | Corroborating certifications held and current | 5 |
| Full audit cooperation, evidence supplied on requestRequires the brand | 10 | |
| Total available | 100 | |
45 of those points require the brand to open its records. Published evidence alone will take a brand to roughly fifty. That is deliberate. A badge you can earn without speaking to us would not be worth wearing.
3. The threshold
Both gates clear, 85 points or more, and a completed evidence review. The brand may license the badge and appears in our directory.
The score is published with its full breakdown on every piece, so the brand and its customers can see exactly which criteria it missed. A shortfall list is a route forward, not a verdict.
The brand sells animal-derived materials, or fails the testing gate. It is listed so you know what you are looking at, after every brand that clears both gates, and it cannot earn the badge at any score.
4. Brands, pieces, and the difference
The badge belongs to a brand, not to one fortunate item. A brand that keeps leather or wool anywhere in its range carries the tag, however impeccable a single piece may be.
We will still rate that piece, and say so plainly. A genuinely animal-free shoe is worth knowing about even when the brand behind it falls short, so we list it with the brand’s tag beside it. Pieces made from animal materials are never listed in FWC Edit or the Shop.
5. Sustainability, assessed separately
Environmental performance has its own badge, its own rubric, and its own threshold of 70. The two never touch. A brand with an exemplary carbon record earns nothing on the cruelty-free score, and a brand with none loses nothing.
Keeping them apart is the only way either can mean anything. Blend them and you get the vague composite "ethical" rating we built this standard to replace.
| Area | Criterion | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Materials & circularity40 pts | Majority bio-based, recycled or regenerative by weight | 15 |
| Recycled content published as a percentage, per product | 10 | |
| Take-back, repair, resale or lease scheme in operation | 10 | |
| Designed for disassembly or recyclability | 5 | |
| Emissions & manufacturing25 pts | Emissions footprint published, scoped and dated | 10 |
| Reduction target verified by SBTi or equivalent | 10 | |
| Renewable energy across own operations | 5 | |
| Chemistry & water15 pts | OEKO-TEX, bluesign or GOTS on principal materials | 8 |
| Restricted substances list published | 7 | |
| Longevity & end of life20 pts | Repair service or spare parts offered | 7 |
| Durability or warranty commitment published | 6 | |
| End-of-life guidance or recycling route published | 7 | |
| Total available | 100 | |
6. How verification works
- 1Assessment
We assess from published evidence first, whether or not a brand has asked us to. The rubric is the same either way. Paying for verification buys an audit, never an outcome.
- 2Evidence
We ask for material breakdowns, supplier lists, testing declarations and certification documents. Desk research alone will not earn the badge, and it is not meant to.
- 3Scoring
Both gates are checked before anything else. Fail either and the brand carries our animal-materials tag, is listed after every brand that passes, and cannot earn the Good badge. Every brand is then scored out of 100 on the rubric.
- 4Award
Gates clear, 85 points or more, and a completed evidence review on file. All three together, or no badge. A brand that meets the criteria without a finished audit is shown as awaiting one.
- 5Review
Every badge is reviewed annually, and at once if a range changes or credible evidence reaches us. Badges can be, and will be, withdrawn.
7. What the badge does not mean
A trust mark is only as good as the limits it admits to. Ours is deliberately narrow.
- It is not a sustainability rating. That badge exists, separately, above.
- It is not a labour certification. We assess animal welfare. Where a brand holds Fair Trade or B Corp status we count it as corroborating evidence, but we do not audit working conditions ourselves.
- It is a point in time. Ranges change. A badge reflects what we verified on the date shown, reviewed at least once a year.
- It is not for sale. Verification fees pay for the audit. A brand that fails, fails, and the fee does not return as a better number. Brands with the animal-materials tag cannot be verified while they sell animal materials, and no fee changes that.
8. Changes to the standard
- Version 2.2, 22 October 2026. Scores no longer go below zero. A brand that fails a gate keeps the points its evidence earns, carries a brown “Sells animal materials” tag in place of the old red tag, and is listed after every brand that clears both gates. It still cannot earn the Good badge. Pearl, shell pearl and abalone are now named in the materials gate.
- Version 2.1, 24 September 2026. A gate failure carried a penalty instead of removing the score, so brands that sell animal materials could be listed with their failing in plain sight. The per-criterion breakdown on every piece became stated policy, as it already was in practice. Recycled animal fibres count as animal-derived: recycled wool, cashmere or leather fails the materials gate exactly as the virgin material does.
- Version 2.0, 11 September 2026. The rubric was recalibrated after desk research on five brands. Points for plant-based or recycled materials moved to the Sustainable rubric, where they belong, and a signed no-testing declaration given on audit now counts alongside a published policy.
9. Challenging a rating
If you are a brand and we have this wrong, or a shopper with evidence we have missed, we would like to know. A standard nobody can challenge is not a standard.
Write to hello@fashionwithoutcruelty.co.uk with the brand or piece and the evidence. We reply within ten working days and publish a correction where we were wrong. Every correction is dated in the corrections log.