Is ‘Regenerative Wool’ Really Sustainable? A Closer Look at RWS Claims

Lately, you may have seen a few fashion brands talking about wool like it’s suddenly the most sustainable material on the planet. Maybe you’ve seen brands boasting “regenerative,” “responsible,” or “ethical” wool.

Reformation, a brand many consider conscious and cool, now promotes its use of Responsible Wool Standard (RWS)–certified wool as a sustainable choice. Another Tomorrow, Eileen Fisher, and even Stella McCartney all boast regenerative wool in their collections. But when we look beneath the marketing, the picture becomes far less comforting than those cozy-looking sweaters.

Wool comes from animals. And no certification can undo the systemic issues at the core of how it’s produced.

What does ‘regenerative’ really mean?

In its truest form, regenerative agriculture refers to a system of farming that goes beyond sustainability. It doesn’t just minimize harm, it actively works to restore ecosystems. Regenerative farming practices can include rotating crops to build soil fertility, using cover crops to reduce erosion, planting trees to increase biodiversity, and eliminating synthetic inputs like pesticides and fertilizers. When done right, regenerative agriculture can increase carbon sequestration, improve water cycles, and support the long-term health of the land.

This approach is deeply rooted in Indigenous land stewardship principles, where farming and grazing were done in harmony with the rhythms of nature, not for extraction, but for regeneration. More recently, regenerative practices have been popularized in environmental circles as a climate solution, especially for soil restoration and carbon drawdown.

But the term has no legal definition, and that’s where things get messy.

In the context of wool, “regenerative” is increasingly being used as a marketing term to suggest that animal-based systems can contribute to climate healing. Wool producers might claim their grazing methods improve soil carbon or reduce erosion, but these benefits are often based on small, cherry-picked studies or theoretical projections, not real-world data at scale. Some regenerative grazing advocates say rotational grazing can mimic natural herd migration patterns, but the science on whether this truly builds soil carbon is still hotly debated and often overstated.

Even more concerning, regenerative wool claims tend to completely ignore the animals themselves. The narrative centers on land health, but says little about whether the sheep involved are treated with care, or if they endure the same violence and commodification seen across the broader wool industry. So when a brand markets “regenerative wool,” it’s important to ask: regenerative for whom?

True regeneration requires care for all parts of the ecosystem, not just soil health, but also biodiversity, climate impact, and animal welfare. A label that focuses only on land, while overlooking what happens to the animals, isn’t fully honest about the cost of production.

What Is the Responsible Wool Standard?

The Responsible Wool Standard is managed by Textile Exchange and claims to certify wool from farms that prioritize animal welfare and land stewardship. It cites the “Five Freedoms” of animal welfare and claims to ensure responsible shearing and land management practices. But here’s the problem: the standard makes promises it can’t reliably keep.

Undercover investigations have found cruelty at more than 150 wool operations across seven countries and four continents—many of them certified by RWS or similar programs. Workers have been documented punching, kicking, and stomping on sheep during shearing, while others were caught cutting into animals and stitching gaping wounds without any pain relief. These aren’t isolated incidents. They are patterns that happen across continents, brands, and certifications, according to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

Even so-called “ethical” programs, like New Zealand’s ZQ Merino, often used alongside RWS, have come under fire. Recent footage revealed sheep beaten and bloodied at ZQ farms. Last year, New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries launched formal investigations into more than 30 farms implicated in these reports, and at least two have been suspended from the ZQ program.

Are the audits enough?

Audits under the RWS are mostly pre-scheduled. Even unannounced visits come with up to an hour’s warning, giving farms time to clean up or hide cruelty before auditors arrive. Each certified farm receives just one audit per year, which critics say is hardly enough to capture the day-to-day reality of animal treatment.

The standard also lacks concrete protections around how shearing is done. Shearers are usually paid per fleece, not by the hour, which encourages speed over care. Injuries are so routine that the RWS Farmer Guidebook includes a template for recording them, noting wounds over ten centimeters, accidental removal of teats or parts of the vulva, and other disturbing outcomes.

There are also no requirements for video monitoring, improved restraint methods, or training that prioritizes animal comfort over profit.

What about slaughter?

This is another area where the RWS falls short. The standard does not address what happens to sheep once they’re no longer useful for producing wool. Often, they’re transported to the same slaughterhouses as animals from conventional farms, enduring long trips and painful deaths. Investigators have documented animals having their throats slit while still conscious and being handled roughly by untrained workers.

There’s no requirement within the RWS to ensure humane end-of-life protocols, meaning that for all the talk of sustainability and responsibility, the final chapter of a sheep’s life may still be full of fear and suffering.

Why this matters

Words like “regenerative” and “responsible” sound hopeful. And regenerative agriculture can be a powerful tool in the climate conversation when applied to plant-based systems that build soil health and restore ecosystems without harm to animals.

But when we attach these terms to wool, it becomes a form of greenwashing. Wool is still an animal product. It still involves sentient beings who don’t volunteer to be part of the system. And the idea that we can make that system “kind” by branding it differently doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

In fact, many brands know that shoppers are looking for sustainability, and they’re using that desire to sell business as usual. The goal should be true transparency, not clever marketing.

Better alternatives exist

The good news is that innovation is on our side. Today, you can find beautiful, cozy, breathable materials made from plants and recycled content, like tencel, hemp, bamboo, organic cotton, and others that don’t require suffering or slaughter. These materials support biodiversity, protect animals, and often have a much lower environmental footprint.

Fashion can be a space of joy, creativity, and care. But in order to get there, we have to question the stories we’re being sold.