How ethical.net Defines "Ethical" When Recommending Alternatives

ethical.net does not treat "ethical" as an objective label. The site states plainly that the word means different things to different people, and then gives its own working definition: moving toward less harm to other people, animals and the planet. That definition is the lens behind every recommendation on the site, and it is deliberately framed as a direction of travel rather than a pass/fail certificate. If your own priorities line up with reducing harm across those three areas, the site's alternatives are likely to be relevant to you; if your definition centers on something else, such as privacy alone or local sourcing alone, you should read each entry as one perspective rather than a verdict.

What the definition covers — and what it doesn't

The three-part framing (people, animals, planet) is broad on purpose. It means an entry can be judged on labor and ownership questions, on animal welfare, and on environmental footprint — not on a single issue. The site also says six principles from its manifesto shape every page, so the definition is not just a slogan: it is meant to be applied consistently across the directory.

What the site does not claim is that "ethical" is measurable or comparable in a strict ranking. It presents the term as subjective and value-dependent. That has a practical consequence for readers: an alternative can be a strong fit on one axis and a trade-off on another, and the site's guides are written to surface those trade-offs rather than hide them.

How the definition shows up in the guides

The clearest evidence of how the definition is operationalized is in the structure of the popular guides. Each guide is described as covering:

• Who owns each provider — an ownership question tied to the "people" part of the definition.
• How it makes money — a business-model question, since revenue sources affect incentives and harm.
• Which have free plans — a practical access question.
• The trade-offs — an explicit acknowledgment that no alternative is harm-free on every dimension.

This is the same checklist applied across the directory, which the site describes as 454 alternatives in 43 categories, with 97% re-checked in the last 90 days. The re-check dates matter for your decision: the site tells you when a guide was last verified and what changed, so you can judge whether the information is current enough for your purposes.

The directory is organized by the thing you use today — email services (28 alternatives), search engines (9), browsers (8), messaging (11), social media (19), file sharing (17), streaming (11), smartphones (9), office (12), team collaboration (17), books (45), films and talks (33), and more across all 43 categories. Starting from the service you already use is the site's intended entry point, and it is also the fastest way to test whether its definition of ethical matches yours.

Using the definition to judge fit for your own values

Because the site is explicit that "ethical" is not objective, the useful move for a reader is to translate its three-part definition into your own priorities and then check each guide against them. A practical sequence:

1. Name your top concern. Is it corporate ownership and data practices, environmental footprint, animal welfare, or labor conditions? The site's definition spans all three, but individual entries will weigh them differently.
2. Read the ownership and revenue sections first. These are the parts the guides consistently include, and they are where the "people" dimension of the definition is most visible.
3. Read the trade-offs section before committing. The site frames alternatives as reductions in harm, not eliminations of it — so expect each option to carry a cost somewhere.
4. Check the last-checked date. With 97% of entries re-checked in the last 90 days, a recent date is a reasonable signal that ownership or pricing details have not silently changed.
5. Cross-check against your own red lines. If an alternative fails your personal threshold on one dimension, the site's broader definition does not override that — it is a guide, not a ruling.

The site also invites readers to suggest an alternative it has missed, which is consistent with its self-description as a small, independent guide rather than an authority handing down fixed judgments.

The bottom line

ethical.net defines "ethical" as less harm to people, animals and the planet, applied through six manifesto principles and a consistent checklist covering ownership, revenue model, free-plan availability and trade-offs. It explicitly rejects the idea that the term is objective. Use that as your test: if your values align with harm reduction across those three areas, the directory's 454 alternatives across 43 categories — organized by the service you want to replace — are a usable starting point, provided you read the trade-offs and check the last-verified date before deciding.