Integrative frameworks such as ‘One Welfare’ and ‘One Biology’ address the interconnectedness of animal welfare, human wellbeing, and environmental conditions by emphasising systemic interactions and shared biological mechanisms across species. Although grounded in scientific evidence, these approaches risk conceptual anthropomorphisation, whereby human-centred assumptions, emotional narratives, or cultural norms influence interpretations of welfare, sentience, or sustainability. Such projections can undermine scientific objectivity, misrepresent species-specific needs, and weaken the frameworks’ applicability in research, policy, and practice. This paper critically examines how anthropomorphising concepts may arise within this context, distinguishing empirically supported biological continuity from unwarranted human-like attributions. It highlights the importance of precise language, operational definitions, and comparative evidence to safeguard conceptual integrity. While both frameworks are fundamentally non-anthropomorphic, careless language and human-centred assumptions can compromise their scientific rigour and ethical coherence. Avoiding conceptual anthropomorphisation is therefore essential to maximise their value for robust welfare assessment, policy development, and sustainable practice.