Understanding animal-derived

material supply chains

There are inherent risks and inescapable consequences associated with sourcing animal-derived materials. It is important that brands currently sourcing animal-derived materials have transparent supply chains in which all animal cruelty and exploitation risks are clearly understood. Without this information, brands are unable to make informed decisions about material sourcing, and potential material transition opportunities.

Below are a list of non-exhaustive but critical questions we encourages all brands to explore with their suppliers.


These questions were compiled on behalf of Copenhagen Fashion Week, as part of our fashion event engagement partnership with World Animal Protection. These questions are globally relevant, and brands seeking further advice on material sourcing and policies regarding ethics and sustainability can contact Collective Fashion Justice.

Brands currently sourcing animal-derived leather should consider the following questions:

  • Remember, a leather that is, for example, ‘Made in Italy’ could be ‘finished’ in Italy, but partially tanned in another country. This same leather could also be from an animal slaughtered in yet another country, who sometimes, is even reared and born in a different country again.

    Transparency is the first step to making responsible supply chain decisions.

    It is also important to remember here, that leather is a profitable co-product contributing to the funding of each tier of the cattle (or other animal) value chain. As a result, fashion brands must take responsibility to understand and address each tier.

  • Note: in this section we refer to cattle as they are the most commonly skinned animals for fashion. However, these considerations should be made for all species of animal-derived leather.

    Many leather supply chains include a larger number of farms and feedlots than brands may initially be aware of. In numerous countries it is a standard practice for cattle to be moved across different locations, and for cattle kept specifically for breeding to be kept in a different location than cattle reared for slaughter. Many cattle are moved from farms and into feedlots prior to slaughter. This movement can obscure cruel and environmentally destructive practices.

    It is important to know about all locations associated with your supply chain, so that the treatment of animals in these locations can be understood and evaluated.

  • On some farms, when specific genetics are sought after for profit and production purposes, animals are artificially inseminated, with a ‘straw’ of semen inserted by hand inside of the cow. This semen is typically collected from bulls through a process called ‘electro-ejaculation’. These practices are inherently exploitative and invasive.

    Additionally, cow-calf separation, particularly at a very young age, is deeply distressing for both animals, though standard practice in many value chains.

  • Practices including dehorning and disbudding with hot irons, hot or cold nitrogen branding of the skin, tail docking and nose piercing occur in many leather supply chains, legally and without any pain relief.

    Inflicting this level of suffering is unacceptable, thus making brand awareness of such practices in their value chain critical.

  • Almost all cattle are not killed where they are raised, requiring transport to slaughter.

    Legislation often permits animals to be denied food and water for long periods during transport. Additionally, extensive live transport, both on land and across seas, are associated with a range of serious welfare issues that must be avoided.

  • The reality of leather as a co-product which supplies profit to slaughterhouses cannot be avoided. It is essential that brands understand the slaughter process utilised in their leather supply chains.

    For example, what are the legal requirements in the slaughter location?

    What form of stunning is used, and is this an effective form of stunning?

    How long does the slaughter process typically take?

    Are animals slaughtered in front of one another, or able to hear others in front of them being slaughtered?

  • Global animal protection laws routinely and intentionally exempt farmed animals, including cattle, from overarching animal welfare and protection laws.

    As a result, cruel and painful practices are permitted for farmed animals, even if they are banned for other animals. In top cow skin production countries, cattle are exempt at least to some extent from animal protection laws, or no nationwide animal protection laws exist.

    Legislation dictating animal welfare is critical to understand, particularly when suppliers state that they comply with local laws as a means to assure brands of ‘best practice’.

  • Many brands that have received consultation from CFJ have cited their sourcing of Leather Working Group standard leather as evidence of high animal welfare. Unfortunately, the LWG does not include any criteria relevant to animal welfare.

    This is a valuable reminder of the importance of understanding what accreditations and standards mean in practice, and what their limitations may be. It is important for brands to independently assess their material sourcing, rather than solely relying on a certification.

  • Given the variety of serious animal welfare risks associated with leather, as well as its significant environmental impact, a transition plan towards next-gen leather alternative materials is an effective way to mitigate these risks and future-proof production.

    When addressing animal welfare concerns within their value chains, brands should consider the benefits of investing into material transition.

  • Note: while most wool is sourced from sheep and these questions focus on the sheep’s wool industry, the majority of these questions are also relevant to the alpaca wool industry. The primary distinction between these industries is that mutilation practices facing sheep, like mulesing and tail docking, do not occur in the alpaca industry.

    A brand way source wool from China, Italy, or another country which processes and scours wool, but this wool may likely be sourced from sheep shorn and reared in a different country.

    Transparency is the first step to making responsible supply chain decisions.

  • Some wool is sourced from lambs who are shorn just before slaughter, and some of these lambs may be born on a farm and then moved into a feedlot prior to slaughter.

    Additionally, many wool farms seeking to produce high quality fibre breed ewes (female breeding sheep) with rams (male, non-castrated or ‘whole’ sheep) from studs. A stud is a farm used specifically for breeding.

    It is important to know about all locations associated with your supply chain, so that the treatment of animals in these locations can be understood and evaluated.

  • On some farms, when specific genetics are sought after for profit and production purposes, animals are artificially inseminated, with semen inserted into ewes. This semen is typically collected from rams through a process called ‘electro-ejaculation’. These practices are inherently exploitative and invasive.

    Additionally, some wool production countries, such as Australia, practice winter lambing to reduce feed costs. This decision causes significant suffering and mortality for newborn lambs.

    Selective breeding of sheep to produce more lambs, at the expense of ewe and lamb health, is also a problem which is important to understand and address.

  • Mulesing (where the skin on a lambs’ backside is cut off with shears) is a mutilative practice that elicits strong public opposition. Mulesing attempts to address fly-strike, a painful myiasis condition, however, it is often ineffective, while proven effective and non-invasive alternatives exist.

    While mulesing is, fortunately, increasingly banned by brands, other mutilation practices also persist. Lambs are routinely tail docked without pain relief, using sharp knives, hot irons and tight rubber bands which cut circulation.

    Surgical castration without pain relief is also a common and legal practice, as well as medication-free ear notching, where chunks of skin are cut out as a form of identification. Inflicting this level of suffering is unacceptable.

  • Numerous and continued investigations into wool supply chains across the globe have found that shearing is a frequent source of serious suffering and harm to sheep and alpacas alike. With little to no oversight, many animals have been documented beaten, kicked, hit, tied down and cut with sharp shears.

    It is critical that brands understand what the shearing process looks like in their supply chain, and what processes are in place to minimise (elimination is not practically possible) risks associated with shearing.

  • Wool and meat production are a part of the same supply chain in most instances. As a result, live export, including by sea, is a permitted part of many wool supply chains, for sheep who are no longer profitable as wool-growers.

    Live export is gruelling, dangerous and distressing, and can lead animals to slaughter sites which cause significant and drawn out suffering using out-dated practices. Many nations are now banning live export and the fashion industry should similarly move beyond sourcing through supply chains which involve live export.

  • Most sheep used for wool-growing are considered ‘dual-purpose’, also bred for meat. As such, the wool industry is a slaughter industry in most instances. Some young lambs are shorn before slaughter, and others kept for wool-growing for some years before they are no longer profitable, as their wool quality degrades, and slaughter becomes the most profitable choice. 

    It is essential that brands understand the entirety of their wool supply chain, including what may occur following shearing, and the slaughter process utilised.

    For example, what are the legal requirements in the slaughter location?

    What form of stunning is used, and is this an effective form of stunning?

    How long does the slaughter process typically take?

    Are animals slaughtered in front of one another, or able to hear others in front of them being slaughtered?

  • Global animal protection laws routinely and intentionally exempt farmed animals, including sheep, from overarching animal welfare and protection laws.

    As a result, cruel and painful practices are permitted for farmed animals, even if they are banned for other animals.

    In top wool production countries, sheep are exempt at least to some extent from animal protection laws, or no nationwide animal protection laws exist. Legislation which dictates animal welfare is critical to understand, particularly when suppliers state that they comply with local laws as a means to assure brands of ‘best practice’.

  • The most commonly implemented Standards and certifications for wool include the Responsible Wool Standard and the ZQ Standard. While these standards address numerous animal welfare concerns, it is important to understand that both permit tail docking and castration without pain relief in some instances, as well as slaughter. Many brands receiving consultation from CFJ have not been aware of this.

    This is a valuable reminder of the importance of understanding what accreditations and standards mean in practice, and what their limitations may be. It is important for brands to independently assess their material sourcing, rather than solely relying on a certification.

  • Given the variety of serious animal welfare risks associated with wool, as well as its significant environmental impact, a transition plan towards next-gen wool alternative materials is an effective way to mitigate these risks and future-proof production.

    When addressing animal welfare concerns within their value chains, brands should consider the benefits of investing into material transition.

Brands currently sourcing wool should consider the following questions:

For more information about wool production, consider reading Collective Fashion Justice’s report on wool sustainability, and our material guide for sheep and alpaca wool.

  • It is important to understand what daily life in cashmere operations is like for goats.

    Is regular access to water available? Are goats offered shade and shelter? Are they provided with enrichment?

    It is important to understand how an animals’ nutrition, environment and living conditions impact their physical and mental welfare.

  • Goats are subject to painful practices including castration without medical relief, as well as the removal of (budding) horns with sharp tools or hot irons.

    It is unacceptable for this level of suffering to be inflicted on animals, and it is critical brands understand whether or not mutilation practices occur in their supply chains.

  • The most common method of cashmere extraction is with a sharp-toothed metal comb. These combs can painfully pull cashmere from the skin of goats, who are often tied down during this process. As prey animals, being tied down is highly stressful.

    Some farms instead shear goats, though shearing comes with its own associated risks.

    It is critical that brands understand how cashmere is taken from goats and the supplier processes in place to, at the very least, reduce the amount of suffering that can occur at this stage of the supply chain.

  • Goats are commonly transported by long distances on foot in the cashmere industry. It is important to understand the distances and speeds at which animals are expected to travel, and if these are unreasonable, exhausting or distressing.

    It is also important to understand if electric prods or other cruel instruments are used to maintain an expected pace during transport.

  • Most goats used for cashmere-growing are ultimately slaughtered when no longer deemed profitable for combing. As such, the cashmere industry is a slaughter industry in most instances.

    Additionally, if goats are born with coats that are deemed unsuitable for production, they are frequently killed soon after birth. 

    It is essential that brands understand the entirety of their cashmere supply chain, including what may occur following combing, and the slaughter process utilised.

    For example, what are the legal requirements in the slaughter location?

    What form of stunning is used, and is this an effective form of stunning?

    How long does the slaughter process typically take?

    Are animals slaughtered in front of one another, or able to hear others in front of them being slaughtered?

  • Global animal protection laws routinely and intentionally exempt farmed animals, including goats, from overarching animal welfare and protection laws. As a result, cruel and painful practices are permitted for farmed animals, even if they are banned for other animals.

    In top cashmere production countries, goats are exempt at least to some extent from animal protection laws, or no nationwide animal protection laws exist.

    Legislation which dictates animal welfare is critical to understand, particularly when suppliers state that they comply with local laws as a means to assure brands of ‘best practice’.

  • The Good Cashmere Standard is considered a leading Standard for cashmere sourcing. It is important to understand that while this certification reduces some animal welfare concerns, it still permits slaughter, including of kids deemed unprofitable, as well as castration without pain relief, high animal-keeping densities where limited space is provided to each animal, and other practices which harm animal welfare.

    Certifications cannot be exclusively relied on to solve animal welfare issues for brands.

  • Given the variety of serious animal welfare risks associated with cashmere, as well as its significant environmental impact, a transition plan towards next-gen alternative materials is an effective way to mitigate these risks and future-proof production.

    When addressing animal welfare concerns within their value chains, brands should consider the benefits of investing into material transition.

Brands currently sourcing cashmere should consider the following questions:

Brands currently sourcing feather down should consider the following questions:

  • Down can only be sourced through two methods: live plucking, or plucking from slaughtered animal carcasses.

    Some suppliers may claim that they collect moulted feathers or release loose feathers, but these claims are not compatible with a realistic business operation, and in practice, continue to result in painful live plucking, which is unacceptable.

    Down from non-live plucked sources should not be considered a ‘cruelty-free’ alternative, but these sources eliminate at least one major animal welfare risk.

  • In almost all instances, ‘breeder birds’ are kept in different facilities and conditions than the birds reared for meat and feather production are. In the food industry, some companies have come under fire for using ‘free-range’ labels when it has been found that breeder birds in their value chain are not raised ‘free-range’, even if slaughtered birds were.

    It is important to know about all locations associated with your supply chain, so that the treatment of animals in these locations can be understood and evaluated.

  • The vast majority of ducks and geese farmed across the world are confined to factory-farms. In factory-farms these aquatic birds are denied access to surface water, posing serious welfare and health problems.

    Additionally, these birds are denied access to the outdoors, often kept on concrete and other unnatural surfaces, packed tightly in with many other animals, and unable to perform natural behaviours.

    It is critical that brands understand whether or not down is sourced from factory-farms, which are incapable of offering animals conditions aligned with good welfare.

    Additionally, some feather down is sourced from factory-farms producing foie gras. These farms force feed birds who are often kept in individual cages. Foie gras production is banned under a number of governments due to its extreme cruelty, and must be excluded from all down supply chains.

  • It is critical that brands acknowledge slaughter as an inherent part of down production, and understand what this means for the birds subjected to slaughter.

    For example, what are the legal requirements in the slaughter location?

    What form of stunning is used, and is this an effective form of stunning?

    How long does the slaughter process typically take?

    Are animals slaughtered in front of one another, or able to hear others in front of them being slaughtered?

    Supply chain decisions cannot be effectively made without this understanding.

  • Global animal protection laws routinely and intentionally exempt farmed animals, including ducks and geese, from overarching animal welfare and protection laws.

    As a result, cruel and painful practices are permitted for farmed animals, even if they are banned for other animals.

    In top down production countries, sheep are exempt at least to some extent from animal protection laws, or no nationwide animal protection laws exist.

    Legislation which dictates animal welfare is critical to understand, particularly when suppliers state that they comply with local laws as a means to assure brands of ‘best practice’.

  • The Responsible Down Standard is the most widely utilised certification for down. Unfortunately a number of investigations have found RDS and ‘live-plucking free’ facilities to in fact practise live plucking.

    Additionally, the RDS permits factory-farm conditions which deny animals their natural instincts and numerous basic welfare requirements. Many brands receiving consultation from CFJ have not been aware of this.

    This is a valuable reminder of the importance of understanding what accreditations and standards mean in practice, and what their limitations may be. It is important for brands to independently assess their material sourcing, rather than solely relying on a certification.

  • Given the variety of serious animal welfare risks associated with down, as well as its significant environmental impact, a transition plan towards next-gen down alternative materials is an effective way to mitigate these risks and future-proof production.

    When addressing animal welfare concerns within their value chains, brands should consider the benefits of investing into material transition.

For more information about wool production, consider reading Collective Fashion Justice’s material guide for feather down.

Collective Fashion Justice is working towards a total ethics fashion system which prioritises people, our fellow animals and the planet before profit. This transition takes time and requires incremental yet bold steps forward.

This resource does not include supplier questions for any wild animals exploited for fur, skins or feathers, as the fashion industry has the capacity to immediately move beyond these.

While Collective Fashion Justice endorses the use of next-gen materials moving beyond leather, wool and other animal-derived materials, this transition will take time, requires planning, and a strategy to at least reduce suffering in the interim, while transition opportunities are developed.