1. Transparency ensured by the publication of our scoring explanations and our methodology hereunder
  2. Comparability: the rating is filtered by peer-group / industry and sectors, comparisons with competitors are possible
  3. Fairness and objectivity: the research and rating consider always two viewpoints, the rated company mainly through its audited public reports and third-party sources (e.g. NGO, non-profit organizations)
  4. Reliability: the rating is based on facts, figures and metrics
  5. Watchfulness of greenwashing, tailor-made narratives, boilerplate language
  6. Veganly relevancy: is vegan, what does not harm directly or indirectly animals. Indirectly, implies the nature, because destroying the environment means destroying their shelters, the place where they find food and live and condemn them to extinction. That is why in addition to the animal exploitation aspect, the vegan rating takes into account harm or good done on the environment.

The VF rating methodology is based on the definition of veganism which excludes all forms of animal exploitation: Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment” (The Vegan Society).

From this definition, we follow these stages in our analysis to score and rate companies:

  1. First, deeply understand the company’s business and business lines, and avoid the bias of any preconceived ideas.
  2. Consider if there is any direct exploitation of animals in each business line and subsidiary of the company
  3. If no direct exploitation, consider if there is any form of indirect harmful action against animals for which the company is partially, mainly or fully responsible. It can be indirectly in the supply chain, or by any sponsorship harmful to animals as sponsoring hunting clubs or circus.
  4. If no direct exploitation, consider the company’s environmental performance. Typically, we consider the following metrics: Greenhouse gas emission, water consumption, hazardous and non-hazardous waste rejected and recycled
  5. Consider if there is any controversy on animals and environment. Here third-party sources are particularly useful.
  6. The final rating takes into account the harmful and beneficial dimensions. The beneficial dimension is nonetheless capped by any kind of animal exploitation. The final rating is finally based on the scoring methodology , which aim is to clearly differentiate each stage of evolution through test-conditions, and to make every company progress towards a totally animal-friendly / vegan business.

In spite of our effort to make the mostly accurate and fair rating, some omission, mistake or improvements are always possible. We invite our dear readers to contact us in order to communicate your comments at the contact us page.