Four Paws: Only 8% of animal-material brands took steps

Only 26 of 321 brands using animal-derived materials—8 percent—had reduction commitments or steps, according to Four Paws’ Animal Welfare in Fashion 2026 report. Jessica Medcalf, who oversees animal welfare in textiles at Four Paws, said: “Most brands still don’t disclose purchasing or volume data on virgin down use or animal-derived material use overall for that matter.”

The assessment covered 332 brands in Four Paws’ Wear It Kind Directory, examining fur, wool sourcing, live plucking and efforts to displace animal materials. It found a narrow focus on insulation, with few brands setting measurable reduction targets across their businesses; the cutoff was July 31, 2026.

What does the down shift actually cover?

Commitments to replace virgin down with recycled or animal-free alternatives represented 85 percent of the reduction commitments identified. Four Paws found that 14 percent of assessed brands had eliminated virgin down or taken action beyond certification to address live-plucking risks.

• The report places H&M Group brands, Chloé and TFG London’s Hobbs, Phase Eight and Whistles among brands introducing virgin-down bans.
• Superdry, Ted Baker and Boden were identified as having ended down use altogether.

PrimaLoft, G-Loft, Sorona and Thermore Ecodown accounted for 45 percent of innovation-related rating improvements in the report’s reduction category. Brands also promoted animal-free fills for their ability to dry quickly and retain warmth when wet.

She attributed the shift to more available alternatives and growing awareness of gaps in down certification. Medcalf said brands were no longer relying only on down’s natural attributes for high-performance products, instead seeking a competitive edge through advanced insulation technologies and performance features.

Recycled down remains an animal-derived material; the distinction is whether brands buy newly produced down or material already in circulation. The shift signals a sourcing preference, not confirmed lower consumption.

How comparable are the 2024 and 2026 findings?

Four Paws expanded the directory from 256 brands in 2024 to 332 in 2026, complicating direct comparisons. Among brands assessed in 2024, the share making reduction commitments rose from 3 percent to 10 percent, largely through commitments to end virgin-down use or down altogether.

The directory assesses publicly disclosed policies and sourcing information rather than independently verifying conditions on farms. Four Paws said every brand had an opportunity to review its rating before publication.

Does certification close the parent-farm gap?

Among brands known to use down, 118 brands—61 percent—reported using exclusively certified down, while another 23 had committed to making that transition. Certification therefore remains the more common sourcing approach.

Four Paws centres its concern on parent farms, which breed the birds supplying down production. Medcalf said current standards prohibit live plucking, but traceability and oversight do not consistently extend to all parent farms, leaving some outside routine certification audits.

Textile Exchange’s Responsible Down Standard prohibits live plucking and force-feeding. Certifiers must visit at least 10 percent of goose parent farms annually, rising to at least 50 percent where they suspect live plucking or know it occurs in the region.

She called confirmation visits to a sample of parent farms disproportionate to a known high-risk area of the supply chain. Four Paws wants mandatory audits throughout production, including parent farms, fattening farms and slaughterhouses.

How far has wool moved beyond mulesing?

Among wool-using brands, 91 percent preferred material free of mulesing, which Four Paws calls live lamb cutting. The procedure removes skin around a sheep’s hindquarters to reduce flystrike risk, and only 64 of 318 wool-using brands—20 percent—sourced exclusively certified mulesing-free wool.

Among the brands assessed in 2024, commitments to source fully certified mulesing-free wool by 2030 rose from 68 percent to 70 percent. The commitment rate across the expanded 2026 sample was 64 percent, reflecting the inclusion of a broader range of brands; the 2024 cohort drew heavily from companies already committed to ending mulesing.

Where do fur and US reduction efforts stand?

Fur policy rejection was the broadest: 82 percent of assessed brands communicated strict prohibitions. Four Paws placed Dior, Fendi and Louis Vuitton among the lowest-rated luxury brands for continued fur use without end commitments, while Stella McCartney, Another Tomorrow and Chloé led the segment.

Twenty-one of 47 brands assessed in the United States—45 percent—earned a yellow reduction rating, driven by investment in or use of next-generation materials. None earned the highest green rating.

“Testing an alternative does not necessarily mean a brand is buying less wool, leather or down,” Medcalf said. “In some cases, brands may increase their use of animal-derived materials while simultaneously piloting alternative options.”

For sourcing teams, the decision is whether to accept brand policies at face value or require parent-farm audit evidence, purchased-volume disclosure and full-chain coverage before crediting lower animal-material use. Pilot fills do not prove reductions; the 23 pending down transitions and 2030 wool commitments remain execution milestones, not completed sourcing changes.