The RWS standard (Responsible Wool Standard)

Who owns the standard and how it works

• Standard owner: Textile Exchange, which also manages other textile standards (RDS, RAS, etc.).
• Type of standard: voluntary, business-to-business oriented (designed for brands and their suppliers).
• Where it applies:
  • at the farm (module Animal Welfare + Land Management),
  • then to all supply-chain stages (spinning, weaving, manufacturing…) through a chain of custody system.
• Legal basis: the standard does not replace national laws; it comes on top, with sometimes stricter requirements.

Textile Exchange is currently reorganizing its standards into a unified system called the Materials Matter Standard, announced for December 2025. It is likely that RWS will be integrated into this new framework, which may slightly reshuffle things in the medium term.

Key requirements of RWS

Animal welfare

RWS is inspired by the “Five Freedoms / Five Provisions”¹ (freedom from hunger, pain, fear, etc.), adapted to sheep.

Some very concrete points:

• Mulesing prohibited: RWS strictly bans mulesing, a highly controversial practice in Australia (removing skin around the tail to prevent flystrike).
• Animal handling:
  • no physical abuse,
  • minimizing stress (shearing, gathering, transport within the farm).
• Painful practices (castration, tail docking, etc.):
  • regulated,
  • often conditioned on the use of techniques and analgesics to reduce pain.
• Animal health:
  • health plan,
  • parasite management,
  • recording of diseases, injuries and treatments.

The idea is to move farming toward a higher welfare level than the legal minimums in major producing countries.

Land Management

RWS requires a “progressive” approach to pasture management:

• avoiding overgrazing and erosion,
• protecting local biodiversity and native species,
• managing inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) responsibly,
• monitoring soil quality with a long-term preservation mindset.

It is still far from full “regenerative agriculture” approaches, but the standard clearly pushes towards more careful practices.

Social component

RWS also includes social requirements, even if it’s not its main marketing message:

• Ban on forced labor and child labor,
• Freedom of association,
• Health and safety for workers,
• Basic wage requirements (compliance with local laws).

It is not a pure social standard like SA8000, but it includes a foundation.

Traceability and chain of custody

From a brand perspective, this is a very important part of RWS:

• Farms obtain an RWS certificate.
• All supply-chain actors (collection, scouring, spinning, knitting, manufacturing…) must be certified according to the chain of custody standard (Content Claim Standard – CCS).
• Each transaction is accompanied by Transaction Certificates (TC) proving the amount of RWS wool that circulates.

Result: you can trace the wool from a sweater or coat back to certified farms (at least on paper and in systems).

Strengths of the RWS label

A real focus on animal welfare

Compared to uncertified wool, RWS requires:

• a clear ban on mulesing,
• requirements on pain, handling, housing,
• monitoring of injuries, diseases, mortality.

It makes it a reference standard for brands seeking credible minimums regarding sheep welfare.

Structured traceability

The chain of custody system + transaction certificates is robust and based on an already well-established standard (CCS). For a brand, this allows:

• proving it actually buys RWS wool,
• limiting undeclared mixing with uncertified wool,
• being able to communicate with documentation.

Adoption by major brands

RWS is used by a growing number of players:

• Nike, Adidas, Puma have officially adopted RWS wool for part of their products,
• H&M, Marks & Spencer, Eileen Fisher, etc. also highlight this label on some ranges.

In practice, this means the label is recognized and available in global supply chains.

Harmonized international standard

RWS provides a common language for supply chains spanning multiple countries (Australia, New Zealand, South America, Europe…).

Instead of juggling multiple local specifications, a brand can simply say: “We want RWS wool,” and the supplier knows what it means.

Reputational risk reduction

For brands, the benefit is clear:

• lower risk of media scandals linked to sheep mistreatment,
• showing investors and customers that there is a formal audit process.

It is not full insurance, but it is a safety net.

Limits (and grey areas)

Limited coverage of the wool industry

Even though RWS is growing, most of the world’s wool is not RWS certified. Concretely:

• many farms do not enter the system (cost, complexity, low perceived value),
• the overall impact on the sector therefore remains significant but minority-scale.

Voluntary standard = no absolute guarantee

RWS remains a voluntary standard, mostly implemented where brands are willing to pay for it. And even with audits:

• they are snapshot checks (periodic visits, often announced or semi-announced),
• there may be non-compliances between audits,
• conditions at transport sites or during final slaughter may fall outside the strict scope of RWS (depending on the supply chain setup).

Animal welfare: RWS vs NGO expectations

Comparative analyses of several livestock standards (including RWS) show that very few reach a level considered “acceptable” across all animal-welfare risks.

At the same time, some NGOs and specialized articles point out:

• that structural issues in sheep farming (density, mutilations, lamb mortality, etc.) do not disappear simply with certification,
• that labels may create an illusion of “cruelty-free” or “ethical wool” that does not always reflect reality.

In short: RWS improves the framework but does not magically turn wool into a neutral or perfectly ethical product.

Environment: still partial scope

RWS addresses land management at the farm level, but:

• does not cover the entire life cycle (GHG emissions across the chain, global transport, product end-of-life, etc.),
• does not guarantee a fully regenerative approach (even if some RWS farms also engage in regenerative agriculture).

For actors seeking a more complete environmental vision, RWS must be combined with:

• LCA analyses (Life Cycle Assessment),
• climate policies,
• other tools / labels.

Complexity for consumers

For an average consumer, it is sometimes unclear:

• what exactly does the RWS logo mean on a label?
• what is the difference with other mentions (“merino”, “cruelty-free”, “regenerative wool”, etc.)?
• how much of the garment is actually RWS wool? (the standard addresses these questions, but communication is not always clear).

This leads to a classic risk of greenwashing by simplification: very positive messaging upfront, more nuanced reality behind the scenes.

Cost and access for small farmers

Certification requires:

• audits,
• documentation,
• sometimes adapting practices.

For small farms or farmers in regions less connected to major export flows, it can be:

• too expensive or too bureaucratic,
• not profitable enough if RWS demand remains low locally.

As a result, the label may concentrate in already structured supply chains, leaving out a significant portion of global production.

Fragmented landscape of wool labels

RWS is not the only standard: there is also ZQ Merino, Authentico, brand-owned standards, etc.

This variety can:

• confuse buyers and consumers,
• dilute pressure toward a truly ambitious and common standard.

How to use RWS in practice?

If you are a consumer

RWS is clearly better than nothing:

If you hesitate between two wool products, all else being equal,

• the RWS-certified product is generally a better choice in terms of animal welfare and traceability.

But this does not mean:

• that wool is “zero-suffering”,
• nor that the environmental impact of the garment is magically low.

Good reflex: also look at:

• the durability of the garment (quality, repairability),
• the share of wool in the product,
• other brand commitments (working conditions, climate policy, etc.).

If you are a brand / professional buyer

RWS is useful to:

• structure a responsible wool sourcing policy,
• reduce reputational risk,
• provide a common framework to your suppliers.

But if your ambition is “climate neutrality” or “ecosystem regeneration”, you will need to go beyond:

• define additional criteria (emissions, regeneration, enhanced welfare),
• follow the upcoming Materials Matter Standard by Textile Exchange,
• potentially combine RWS with other schemes or initiatives (regenerative, local programs, etc.).

Conclusion

In summary:

• RWS is currently one of the most structured and recognized wool standards regarding animal welfare and traceability.
• It provides real additional guarantees compared to conventional wool: mulesing ban, audits, supply-chain traceability.
• But:
  • it does not cover all global wool production,
  • it does not eliminate all risks of suffering or environmental impact,
  • it may be used in marketing narratives that are sometimes more enthusiastic than field reality.

So:

RWS = a good tool, useful and serious, but not a magic passport to “perfect wool”.