Animal Welfare In Fashion Supply Chains

Fashion’s sustainability conversation has largely centered on labor rights and environmental impact, but one issue keeps getting left out: the welfare of animals. Leather, wool, fur, down, and silk remain staples of global fashion production, yet the conditions of the animals who provide these materials are rarely disclosed — and sometimes deliberately concealed. A 2024 survey by the animal welfare organization FOUR PAWS of nearly 11,000 consumers across 12 countries found that a majority are concerned about how animals are treated in fashion production, with 81% expressing concern about fur specifically. Despite this public concern, animal welfare continues to receive far less attention from fashion companies than other sustainability priorities.

This study set out to examine how fashion companies disclose, or avoid disclosing, animal welfare conditions in their supply chains. Rather than asking how companies can become more transparent, the researchers investigated how they may actively work to obscure or hide this information. The study draws on interviews with representatives from three animal welfare organizations, including FOUR PAWS, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as well as two industry associations, Textile Exchange and Good On You. The researchers also conducted an in-depth analysis of sustainability and other publicly available reports from 50 fashion companies. These 50 companies were selected from the top and bottom of a 2021 FOUR PAWS/Good On You transparency ranking. Finally, the researchers performed a “glitch” analysis, a systematic search for undisclosed animal welfare incidents reported by groups like PETA and FOUR PAWS between 2015 and 2023, to compare what companies say publicly against what these organizations’ investigations have found.

From this data, the researchers developed a framework of animal welfare transparency in fashion supply chains, using window glass as a metaphor.

• Clear glass represents transparency. Light passes through, giving a complete and undistorted view of what’s on the other side. Companies in this category openly disclose how animals are treated across their supply chains.
• Frosted glass represents translucency. Light passes through, but it’s scattered, blurring what’s visible. Companies in this category make some information available but distort or obscure the full picture.
• Privacy glass represents opacity. Little to no light passes through, leaving nothing visible from the outside. Companies in this category disclose nothing meaningful about animal welfare, and conditions in their supply chains remain entirely hidden.

Importantly, these categories aren’t mutually exclusive. A company may be transparent about environmental initiatives while remaining opaque on animal welfare, or disclose some animal-derived material sourcing while concealing others.

Companies in the top 25 of the transparency ranking tended to treat animals as stakeholders rather than raw materials, often guided by founders or executives with a strong personal commitment to animal welfare. These companies provided detailed disclosures of their animal-derived material sourcing, tracked suppliers through multiple tiers of the supply chain, were open to engagement with animal welfare organizations, and in many cases were actively phasing out animal-derived materials altogether in favor of plant-based or synthetic alternatives. The researchers describe this as a “transcendence” strategy, the most advanced form of transparency, where companies move beyond disclosure toward eliminating the use of animals in their supply chains entirely.

Notably, the researchers found that honest disclosure of problems, including corrective actions issued to suppliers, was itself a marker of genuine transparency. One company’s report explicitly stated a preference for supplier honesty over the appearance of perfection.

Companies in the bottom 25 of the transparency ranking tended to use three strategies to avoid accountability.

• The “distraction” strategy involved flooding reports and communications with information about environmental or labor initiatives, making it difficult for stakeholders to notice the absence of meaningful animal welfare content.
• The “distortion” strategy went further, actively misrepresenting conditions through greenwashing, dismissing investigation findings as isolated incidents, or using high-profile spokespersons to normalize the continued use of animals.
• The “hiding” strategy, typical of the most opaque companies, meant avoiding any communication about animal welfare and sometimes not even acknowledging the types of animal-derived materials used in fashion products.

These companies frequently stayed silent following exposés and set no concrete targets on animal-derived material reduction to avoid being held accountable for non-achievement. In some cases, they appeared to deliberately structure supply chain ownership through subsidiary companies to obscure their involvement with animal farming operations.

Some of the bottom 25 companies did disclose the use of supplier audits, but the researchers found these efforts were typically vague. It was often unclear whether animal welfare was actually part of what was being assessed, and there was little evidence of follow-up or verification.

The study’s limitations are worth noting. The sample was drawn from a single transparency ranking and focused on the extremes — the most and least transparent companies — rather than the middle ground. The analysis relied on publicly available company reports and animal welfare organization communications rather than direct engagement with companies or their suppliers, meaning that actual conditions in supply chains may be even harder to assess than the transparency gap already suggests. The conceptual framework, while well developed, hasn’t yet been tested quantitatively or applied outside the fashion industry.

For animal advocates, this research offers both a diagnostic tool and a strategic provocation. The transparent/translucent/opaque framework is a practical lens for evaluating fashion companies’ claims, and for identifying the specific strategies used to mislead consumers and other stakeholders. The finding that animal welfare is consistently treated as a lower priority than labor or environmental issues, even by companies with otherwise strong sustainability profiles, points to a clear advocacy target: pushing for animal welfare to be included as a standard component of corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting and supply chain due diligence frameworks. The researchers call on policymakers to consider regulation that would tax animal-derived materials and financially reward companies moving toward animal-free alternatives, and for animal welfare organizations to continue applying sustained pressure on companies, consumers, and regulators alike.

Most critically, the research underscores that the only truly transparent path is one that moves away from the use of animals in fashion altogether. For companies committed to genuine animal welfare, eradicating animal-derived materials — not just tracking them — is the goal.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (~50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries, and research on niche topics. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.