| Score | Rating | Condition | Example 1 | Example 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| +2 | Vegan friendly | #Zero harm on animals, veganism is integrated in the business model, vegan activities are material #Or zero harm with significant beneficial actions for animals | A car company that does not use animal leather and has developed innovative vegan products as animal detection to avoid collision with animals. Its environmental performance is on the upwards. | A clothing company that does not use animal products and sells innovative vegan products made with synthetic down or premium synthetic leather |
| +1 | Vegan compliant | #Zero harm on animals either by direct activity, value-chain, sponsoring or financing | An IT consulting company that does not directly exploit animals and has no indirect impact on animals through sponsoring | A clothing company that has definitely stopped selling products made from animal sources (no leather, no down, no feather, no skins, no fur, etc.) |
| 0 | Transition / Neutral | #Some harm with high animal-welfare standards #Or neutral-for-animal industry but some harm is due to sponsoring or ESG issues #If there is any animal harm, no total offset is possible, the company can never be rated vegan compliant | A non-renewable energy company that has started its transition to renewable energy | A clothing company that still sells down jacket, with animal-welfare standards that guarantee no live pluck and no forced-feed, and has committed to stop the use of animal products at a close date in the future |
| -1 | Vegan non compliant | #Massive harm on animals with some animal-welfare standards and commitments measurable by metrics #Or the activity causes occasional harm and is not a core business | An oil company that makes hydraulic fracking and has not significantly start its transition to renewables energies | A clothing company that sells down jacket but with animal-welfare standards that guarantee no live-plucked nor forced-feed |
| -2 | Non vegan | #Animal exploitation / suffering is a core business or an indirect consequence of the activity #Or Massive or repeated harm #Or no / weak commitments, no measurable outcomes, weak results | A pharmaceutical company that still does tests on animals after years of commitment to reduce and replace | A clothing company that sells down jacket from ducks that have been live plucked or forced feed |
Presentation of the VF methodology
- Download the VF Methodology – 2020 06 18 (2023 updated version pdf document)
The hereunder harmful activities will have the following score by default:
| Score | Rating | Harmful activities that should be excluded from Vegan investing |
|---|---|---|
| -2 | Non vegan | animal killing (e.g hunting) |
| -2 | Non vegan | animal for food (meat and fish industries) |
| -2 | Non vegan | animal for skins (leather, fur industries) |
| -2 | Non vegan | animal testing (pharmaceutical industries) |
| -2 | Non vegan | animal for entertainment (circus, delphinarium) |
| -2 | Non vegan | weapon industry |
A bonus / penalty system is applied to the scoring:
| Add or substract | Description | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| +1 | BONUS | if recently (from the latest registration document known to date) a significant action was achieved for the benefit of animals |
| -1 | PENALTY | if recently (from the latest registration document known to date) any harmful action was done against animals |
Harmfulness evaluation takes into account Absolute Values [AV] (ex: how many USD millions of revenue comes from animal exploitation) and Relative Values [RV] that impact animals (ex: which percentage of revenue is the result of animal exploitation)
Hereunder indicators and thresholds are indicative and non-binding to the vegan rating analyst that considers other factors, among which qualitative (ex: improvements, policy evolution) to decide on the final rating:
| Absolute Values [AV] thresholds | Score | Rating |
| Harmful-for-animals Revenue < $100K | 0 | Neutral / Transitional |
| Harmful-for-animals Revenue >= $100K and < $ 1 million | –1 | Non Compliant |
| Harmful-for-animals Revenue >= $ 1 million | -2 | Non vegan |
| Relative values [RV] thresholds | Score | Rating |
| Harmful-for-animals Percentage of Revenue < 1% | 0 | Neutral / Transitional |
| Harmful-for-animals Percentage of Revenue >= 1% and < 10% | -1 | Non Compliant |
| Harmful-for-animals Percentage of Revenue >= 10% | -2 | Non vegan |
English 
Français