FAQs

SLAY makes use of data from:

• Intergovernmental and government bodies

• Primary data from the fur, leather and wool industries

• Peer-reviewed and published academic studies

• Research and data from trusted NGOs, built upon the above sources

You can find each claim in the film and relevant references for it here.

SLAY endorses Collective Fashion Justice’s concept of a ‘total ethics fashion system’: one which values the life and wellbeing of all animals; humans and non-humans, as well as the planet, before profit.

Protecting non-human animals like raccoon dogs, foxes, mink, cows and sheep in the fashion industry is critical, as non-human rights are an unshakeable part of social justice. We also reject the notion that animals, including humans, are separate from nature. Protecting one is a part of protecting all.

Too, moving away from these materials reduces greenhouse gas emissions, frees up more land to be returned to nature and Traditional Owners, and helps to builds a system which does not commodify individuals – the same way fashion still commodifies people working in tanneries, slaughterhouses, shearing sheds, garment factories and so on.

A move away from inefficient, unsustainable and unethical animal-derived material production can and should benefit all of us, if we work to ensure a just transition – one which delivers more secure, equitable work, which respects cultural customs as well as the fate of our planet and all those living on it.

In many cases, Indigenous people are used as scapegoats by these industries, while they are simultaneously harmed by them. Almost all fur on the market is from factory-farms and white-led trapping (in many cases, of Indigenous species), the leather industry is responsible for the degradation and destruction of vast amounts of Indigenous land, and the wool industry is one largely built on colonialism, with sheep grazing land once abundant with indigenous plant and animal life which was not valued as the profits from wool sales were and are.

The fashion industry needs to slow down, produce less and use more efficient materials, allowing for more Indigenous land to be returned and protected. Total ethics alternatives to less sustainable and more cruel animal-derived materials are an important part of this shift, as is investment in and support for farmers who can transition to land care and alternative material production roles. A just transition doesn’t leave anyone behind, and is built with consultation and leadership from often silenced voices.

Learn more here.

We believe the future of fashion must be free from both animal-derived materials and virgin synthetics. Arguing that we must choose between either animal-derived or synthetic materials is to argue a false dichotomy – alternatives like cork leather, Mirum, GACHA, hemp, Tencel, and so on are just a few of the many alternatives to leather, wool and fur which are either plant-based, plastic-free, biodegradable or all three.

While it’s true that common alternatives to animal-derived materials are synthetic, we advocate the fashion industry’s adoption and investment into total ethics alternatives which value animals, people and the planet alike. While some partly bio-based leather alternatives still require some fossil fuels for example, this innovation is a stepping stone to entirely fossil fuel and animal free fashion.

What’s more, it’s important to remember that the reasons for avoiding fossil-fuel derived synthetics can be applied to animal-derived materials, too: leather production can require more fossil fuels than synthetics, and while fossil fuels and synthetics perpetuate the climate crisis and destroy ecosystems, so too do fur, leather and wool. We must move beyond all of these.

In response to the high greenhouse gas emissions associated with wool and leather, claims of ‘carbon neutral’, ‘carbon positive’ and ‘regenerative’ wool and leather have increased.

However, as noted in Collective Fashion Justice and the Center for Biological Diversity’s Shear Destruction report, relying on cattle or sheep to sequester carbon in the soil fails to live up to its promise as a climate solution.

An Oxford report called Grazed and Confused found that ‘there is no evidence that carbon sequestration can be successful across diverse geographic ranges at current industry scale, or that it can fully offset the emissions created by the animals and the production of animal-based products’, and that simply choosing plant-based agricultural systems is more climate beneficial.

Even if sheep and cattle could contribute to the storing of carbon in soil, after a few decades the land will reach soil-carbon equilibrium. At this point, no more carbon will be sequestered using these methods, and only the methane emissions from ruminant animals will remain.

A more effective and long-term strategy for carbon sequestration would be rewilding, something that could take place during a just transition away from land inefficient wool and leather.

Furthermore, the presence of sheep and cattle pose various serious threats to native wildlife and ecosystems, an issue rarely addressed or measured by those claiming to produce environmentally beneficial animal-derived materials. Too, these systems continue to exploit and ultimately kill sheep and cattle.

The Responsible Wool Standard, the ZQ Standard and other similar standards do not ensure sheep are protected from having their tails cut off without pain relief, and still allow sheep to be slaughtered if they are not profitable alive. Too, these standards do not effectively address the emissions and biodiversity loss caused by sheep’s enteric fermentation and the land inefficiency of these systems.

As for leather, the Leather Working Group certification is considered the leading standard in the industry – despite its major failings. This certification only covers tanneries – completely ignoring issues of deforestation, forced labour and animal cruelty on farms, as well as pollution and exploitation in slaughterhouses. In tanneries, the standard does not currently conduct any adequate social auditing to protect tannery workers. Of course, cattle are also still slaughtered for profit under the certification.

No standards exist which ensure fur-bearing animals have their welfare needs met during their lives, and all of these animals are unjustly and needlessly killed for the sake of fashion.

In summary, there are no certifications which ensure genuine ethics and sustainability for animal-derived materials.

SLAY includes the Higg MSI as one of approximately 150 references supporting and exploring claims made in the film. The film could exclude this one particular reference, and still have numerous sources of support for the data and facts put forward.

However, we have chosen to include the Higg MSI, because while there are controversies surrounding it, it is currently the largest source of industry-provided and peer-reviewed data available. This is significant, and cannot be ignored.

Much of the concern put forward regarding this Index has been pushed by the wool and leather industry themselves. One of the arguments against the Higg Index is that it uses ‘cradle-to-gate’ rather than ‘cradle-to-grave’ data – meaning that analysis looks at the impact of producing materials, but not at a material’s life and end of life impact when it is potentially shedding microfibres, biodegrading, degrading, being recycled, incinerated or landfilled. This is true, and while more investment into full life-cycle assessments need to be made, and we should always consider material longevity, it is critically important to also understand the environmental impacts associated with making materials. Higg MSI makes this possible.

Another argument against the Index, is that the data ‘supporting’ synthetics is provided by plastic companies. This is true, but this is not unique to synthetic materials. Data about leather is provided by the leather industry, data about wool by the wool industry, and so on. Further, the Index does not ‘support’ one material over another, it simply collates and provides data. While further transparency around what data is used is always important, and all data sets can always be improved and diversified, this is important to understand.

Finally, some people argue the scope of the Index is not broad enough, as it only considers chemistry, abiotic resource depletion, climate impact, water scarcity and eutrophication. These factors are very important to consider, but biodiversity loss, land destruction and other impacts are too, which is why we include further references exploring these issues.

More broadly, some people question the comparison of materials at all. Materials produced in unique supply chains, regardless of material type, will have varying environmental impacts. However, average and broadly representative life-cycle assessments are valuable tools for decision making, to be used alongside other references and tools.

SLAY supports degrowth in fashion, as well as calls for all garment workers to be paid a living wage in workplaces that are safe and respectful. There are many excellent organisations addressing these issues, such as Fashion Act Now, Fashion Revolution, Good On You, Asia Floor Wage Alliance, Clean Clothes Campaign, Remake, and more. We are proud to be working alongside a number of these groups.

While we support these organisations – and Collective Fashion Justice, which has contributed to this film, speaks to these issues too – SLAY exists to put a spotlight on fashion’s use of animals.

SLAY exists to ask a clear question to viewers: ‘is it acceptable to kill animals for fashion?’. This includes consideration of the environmental and human impacts of these slaughtering supply chains, but too often, animals themselves are left out of discussions of ethical and sustainable fashion – despite their bodies being turned into fashion objects. We hope to change that.