Let's Talk: Leather
Some may say it's a moo point
Let’s Talk Materials is a series on AND I’VE BEEN SAYING THAT! with a laser-focus on how clothes are made & how they affect our bodies and/or ecosystems… and when it feels right to, drop some links or brand recs. Previous issues have focused on swim, knitwear and activewear.
An eighties revival of all the sh*t that’s bad for you, yet branded as incredibly sexy, is reaching an inflection point.
Everyone’s smoking, for one, but there seems to be a bounce back of leather on the runway and in retail. While we’re bumping that in efforts to revive the nightlife scene, we want to evoke every instance of party girl/punk/city slicker/club rat possible. Provocative, debaucherous, aloof and sexy, we’re hard-pressed to go any other direction than leather. How is it that just a few measly years ago, many brands were convincing us simpletons that they were absolutely phasing it out of their collections, when recent runways would beg to differ?
I love leather! But I have been conditioned to choose this adoration, much like the religion I grew up practicing or Vernors ginger ale. We all deserve to put into question our seemingly intrinsic opinions on the clothing we think we should own. For me, a leather jacket in fall has always been an absolute truth: and on the sixth day, God made leather etc etc, or so I heard.
It’s luxurious to big spenders and small shoppers alike. Scruffy motorcyclists and rockstars, fashion’s elite and your nonna all kneel at the communion of Animal Byproduct. Whatever you wish your leather to communicate, it will do so with great confidence. But contrary to the consumer’s view, the fashion chain has never been so commensalistic. Clothing, especially leather products, are not an apparition before us that we pay for and skip along on our merry way. As Stella McCartney has stated in her Paris show this season, it’s about f*cking time we properly engage with (and transition away from) the existing leather production chain.
IMPACT ON US
Leather production is toxic. Skins are transformed into leather through the (chrome or vegetable) tanning process, and 90% of leather is tanned with carcinogenic chromium and often with formaldehyde and arsenic. These chemicals are detrimental to our health, with the potential to cause asthma, bronchitis, chronic dermatitis, DNA damage, even cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the incidence of leukemia among residents in an area near one tannery in Kentucky was five times the U.S. average.
Some evidence suggests that tanning processes—including vegetable tanning—can hinder the ability of animal skins to biodegrade. Considering biodegradability is hailed as one of animal leather’s main benefits over most non-animal alternatives, this is significant. Vegetable-tanning is also far less innocent than it may first sound, requiring tannins found in the bark of trees, and with some reports finding “no significant differences” in the environmental footprint of leather tanned with tannins as compared to chromium. Tannery waste contains large amounts of pollutants, such as salt, lime sludge, sulfides, and acids. The EPA has confirmed that factory farms account for 70 percent of the water pollution in the U.S. (PETA).
The majority of tanneries today have been moved to lower- and middle-income countries in an effort to export pollution problems in an out of sight, out of mind tactic that colonialism provided the blueprint for. 95% of US tanneries now operate overseas to avoid environmental oversight penalties. The land under ex-tannery sites cannot be used for farming, development, or even be sold. It’s yet another version of waste colonialism.
In these regions, wastewater is often released into waterways untreated, impacting surrounding land and human and non-human animal communities. Accessible, clean water is a universal basic need that has now been polluted down to a privilege. As we are witnessing with each new climate disaster, the communities most at risk of being ravaged with little to no protections are communities like these.
Exploitation is rife among humans and animals alike. If you think watching uncovered videos of slaughterhouses is traumatic, imagine the PTSD of the laborers, often refugees, immigrants or disenfranchised working class taking the job they could find. Tannery workers face serious health risks, illness, and even death due to high exposure to carcinogenic and harmful chemicals. Communal areas in top tanning country China are referred to as ‘cancer villages’. Trafficking, debt bondage, and other forms of forced labor have all been recorded in Brazil, Paraguay, and Vietnam. Given the lack of transparency in leather supply chains, the small portion that we do know should make the unknown extremely concerning.
ON THE EARTH
It may go without saying that cattle are some of the most carbon intensive agricultural phenomenons on the planet. They release ungodly amounts of methane—a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term. The United Nations says livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Argentina is one of the most polluted countries on this front, citing deforestation and pollution as their primary sources of climate issues. Makes you think twice about their steaks and leather when you think about how their output couples with their climate ambivalence.
As much as 80% of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest is tied to cattle ranching. This deforestation results in massive biodiversity destruction and, in turn, the endangerment of native animal and plant species. And it’s not just deforestation—all land and vegetation clearing is harmful to the planet, which is why land efficient agriculture is so important. You can see the visible impacts of deforestation in Brazil, one of the most significant bovine skin exporters worldwide (close behind India, the US and China). To put this back into a fashion context, 10,000 square metres of land in Brazil must be cleared or kept cleared to produce around nine leather jackets. NINE! It’s assumed to be cleared illegally, further wiping out the Amazon’s biosphere, and is extremely land and labor intensive.
Another primary driver of deforestation is soy production, which is closely linked to leather as well. Around 80% goes towards feed for cattle and other farm animals. 77% of all agricultural land around the world is used to raise animals for slaughter and grow feed for them, and many are slaughtered within the first two years of their lives — jaw-dropping, considering their lifespan is typically 20 years. As a Midwesterner, cattle and soy seem a dime a dozen on a country road, and despite neither being native to Michigan they are looming figures in the domestic agricultural industry. I just know that topsoil must look tired after decades of monoculture crops.
When demand for hides doesn’t keep pace with demand for beef, many unused hides go to waste, burned or sent to landfills. In 2019, up to 5.5 million hides were wasted in the US alone. We aren’t even the world’s largest source of animal hides! The leather, beef and dairy industries are inextricably linked, though consumers are naturally trained to consider each in relative isolation.
According to Business of Fashion, companies like Hermès, Kering and LVMH say they have spent millions to ensure they are sourcing crocodile and snakeskin leathers responsibly but I’m not so sure… literally anything would look responsible compared to the usual practice of sealing live python’s orifices and compressing air to inflate them to death. I just learned this fact and am horrified. Killing animals in the production chain will be a sickening act of desecration any which way.
We are forgetting how symbiotic our relationships to nature and these animals can be! I think some of the most powerful change has come from the campaigns that focus on cows and other farmed animals as sentient beings. It mirrors the human rights movement that centers the people-to-people relationship, and cuts through the cognitive dissonance we subconsciously make to avoid the plight of these animals. Cows are empathetic, social and complex, but extremely distressed in this cycle of overproduction and mistreatment.
Highlighting this value chain and climate injustice isn’t meant to name and shame South and Central American nation states. Climate transitions have pulled back the curtains on the covert agenda of capitalism — colonization continues to function with a new name, extracting goods and pillaging land that doesn’t belong to it.
Deforestation, animal cruelty, and extreme carbon output should be pointing their fingers further up the river to its source, the benefactors of this exploitation. Just like on the Gold Coast of Ghana, we force underpaid laborers to provide material that brings us great profit, and spit it back on their shores when we’re through with it. And then we expect them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, change the economies we once told them was their only option to engage in the global market, and join us in the fight against climate change. We offer the equivalent of pennies, because “we don’t offer handouts” and “everyone needs to do their part”, and furrow our brow when the countries we source from can’t manage to make it happen. You will never be able to convince me the economy isn’t a racist, white colonialist at its core.
REGULATIONS
It’s crucially important to be able to trace back to WHERE it came from. Are you complicit in biodiversity destruction? Are there brands we can immediately hold accountable, or call for regulations in sourcing from this region? Who’s driving the car right now??
Companies are working to comply with potential supply-chain regulations that could require larger firms operating in the EU to identify, prevent and remedy risks to human rights and the environment in their supply chains, such as minimum age requirements, worker safety, pollution and biodiversity loss. “Luxury brands generally have strong and transparent supply chains and an opportunity to better communicate sourcing quality,” they said. On the other hand, luxury goods analysts have noted high-end brands also come under more scrutiny as aspirational symbols in the market.
Luckily, banning exotic furs and skins is making better headway than their bovine counterparts. Ever the ethical trendsetter, Copenhagen Fashion Week announced earlier this year that exotic skins and feathers will be banned from the catwalk in future shows, with a litany of brands following suit for future collections.
The Leather Working Group is a notable player, having audited sites in 55 countries and counting. These tanneries are rated on its energy and water use, emissions and chemical input, as well as having a clear supply chain that traces back to the slaughterhouse. LWG addresses environmental issues, though it’s not perfect: the Leather Working Group certification only covers tanneries, meaning many brands—such as Adidas, H&M, Zara, Prada, and Off White which use LWG certified leather—have been linked to Amazonian deforestation. Further, these tannery audits do not require social auditing to protect workers, and no consideration of cattle wellbeing is made, either. It’s something, but it’s not really enough at this point to instill hope for change.
The Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather is a cross-sector initiative (founded by the likes of Textile Exchange and WWF) aimed at galvanizing action from brands to end the deforestation and conversion of natural ecosystems linked to leather sourcing. It looks to protect wildlife habitat and biodiversity, preserve carbon stocks to mitigate climate change, and protect human rights.
Participating brands are expected to set sourcing requirements for all levels of farming, meet targets for mapping their chains down to the slaughterhouse level and comply with risk assessments, invest in traceability systems, have annual progress reporting, and protect the rights of indigenous and local communities. Bottom line? Brands need to shoulder more responsibility for their sourcing partners.
Participants include adidas, AllSaints, American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (AEO), Birger Christensen Collective, BMW Group, Capri Holdings, Everlane, H&M Group, Inditex, Kering, Mango, Marks and Spencer, NIKE Inc., PUMA, Reformation, and Tapestry. It’s a wide range between greenwashers and rule-followers, but I think it’s early days and that is a positive thing for it to be accessible. Time will tell if the annual reporting is successful, because it seems to be a heavyweight in how it lends credibility. Not everyone joins with good intentions, but this call to action points to a future where brands are keenly aware of the practices within their chain and accept their portion of accountability.
The specific requirements beyond 2025 are being defined and developed and will be shared at a later date. The ultimate deadline is 2030, in line with Textile Exchange’s Climate+ strategy, and the Paris Climate Agreement, but as we near the back half of this decade, how likely are we to see a deforestation-free Inditex or adidas? Coming from my seat in the United States, where it has been a battle enough for our government to so much as retain commitment to our share of the Paris Agreement within the last three administrations, it’s difficult to see through the storm clouds to this blue sky vision. With how much moping and griping we’ve done about the health of the earth, witnessing COP members and ostentatious goal setters drag their feet in the last 5-10 years, I find my hope for these transformations grow increasingly audacious rather than realistic.
“It’s important to look at the definitions we use with these cut-off dates too,” says Nicole Rycroft, founder and executive director of environmental non-profit Canopy. “Deforestation is a technical definition, which has allowed many farmers to get away with these practices because — for example — deforestation tends to be applied more to the tropics. What’s agenda-setting about the EU regulation is that it recognises deforestation and forest degradation side-by-side. We put the emphasis on keeping high-carbon forests standing, and in some instances, restoring them.”
Big Dairy/Big Burger, I have a lot of questions for you. At the same time, fashion can’t deny its ties to environmental waste or shirk all responsibility to the farm level processes of the leather value chain. “The brands we are working with are engaging with us voluntarily, so they already see this as their responsibility. They know that the cow doesn’t care whether it turns into a burger or a bag” states Textile Exchange. Investing in supply chain partners is new to many brands, but a step in the right direction, says Canopy’s Rycroft. “We need to work with the communities that live in these areas, and adjacent to them, to create conservation-based economies, which offer a valid alternative to them having to industrialise their landscapes.”
It’s still valid to make the right business case — under capitalism, we are still bound to the pressures of profit. According to Rycroft, “Brands need to recognise the need to decouple financial performance from raw material use, and from these linear, extractive supply chains.” The task at hand is essentially swapping the choking hazard with a rattle before the baby begins to cry for what you’ve taken away. Degrowth is a scary word in its own right for large scale corporations, but with the right policies and resources the opportunity for alternative leather processes and materials to develop strengthens.
ARE BRANDS DOING ENOUGH?
Now we get to Stella McCartney. McCartney has never used leather in her collections, and with her AW24 campaign “No Leather Ever” (in collaboration with PETA), she’s asking that you don’t either. Been that girl!!
Last fall PETA supporters caused a stir at the Coach fashion show, when activists took to the runway holding a sign that read “Coach: Leather Kills.” They also crashed Michael Kors show in a similar fashion. It’s not the first or last time for either brand, though with the former’s sustainable-focused Coachtopia branch I’m interested to see how the brand adjusts the target on their back.
Last year, the European Union set out a plan to reduce the environmental damage of the apparel industry, which contributes as much as 8% of total greenhouse-gas emissions, according to United Nations estimates. Kering and their environmental darling Gucci expect their R&D hub to act as a forerunner for new models that it anticipates will be made obligatory by European regulations in the coming years. This includes guaranteeing that it makes 95% of its raw materials traceable, refraining from the use of animal furs, and reducing its carbon footprint. They have also implemented a series of policies approved by CanopyStyle, a non-profit that partners with fashion brands to prevent the deforestation of forests in their supply chains.
But how much is Kering at large leading on the brand front? There’s R&D, and climate accords and COP appearances and select pieces in collections dedicated to these new leathers, but on the whole? YSL/Bottega/Balenciaga still use everything under the leather sun so I’d love to hear frowhat gives. The urgency of their messaging perhaps doesn’t align with the small corner of their market that has been flipped green. Same goes for many eco-dabblers in fashion. Why should we believe them when they can’t hold to the system overhaul required of them?
Not everyone makes leather their top concern. In March 2024, TIME announced Gabriela Hearst as one of the honorees of the 2024 TIME Earth Awards, which recognizes individuals influencing the future of the planet through their work on climate justice, awareness, and activism. Hearst has channeled much of her business into social and environmental justice, experimenting with non virgin materials, plastics-free operations and carbon neutral brick and mortar storefronts, but nowhere to be seen on the leather front.
“In a ranch there is circularity, you don’t throw anything away. You always have to find ways to repurpose things. And I really decided that Gabriela Hearst had to be better made. It had to be conscious about everything, from who is making the garments and the materials that we’re using, to the packaging. And that’s how my sustainability journey started.”
- Gabriela Hearst
Word. Maybe she’ll come around on leather soon enough?
BETTER LEATHER
As the earth is heating up, so too is climate entrepreneurship. First up, we have recycled leather (animal-based or synthetic), ideally certified by the Global Recycling Standard. Next, improving on purely synthetic leather are partly bio-based leather alternatives, like VEGEA, made from repurposed wine grape waste; Desserto, made from cacti; AppleSkin, made from—you guessed it—apple skins, cores, and seeds, and the earlier mentioned Piñatex, made from pineapple leaf fibre. The new age of leather looks pretty fruity.
There are also mycelium-based leather alternatives, like Mylo Unleather and Reishi. While these aren’t yet biodegradable, they’re far more climate, water, and land efficient and have some of the best tactile qualities. Mylo leather is an engineered process used by the likes of Stella McCartney, adidas & Kering Group to grow mycelium cells (aka mushrooms) in a vertical farming facility powered by 100% renewable energy. I’ve seen some really high-end finishes from Stella and Ganni with Mylo Unleather in the last few years since it jumped on the scene!
All of these materials are only partly bio-based and, like animal leather, won’t completely biodegrade because they are coated in plastic. Imperfect, yes, but your wallet will be making a net positive impact when buying new in comparison to animal derived leather.
When Stella McCartney partnered with LVMH in 2019, it opened a new door in her vegan leather experimentation with Veuve Clicquot. An advocate for sustainable and cruelty-free fashion, She already works with VEGEA, an Italian biomaterials company that produces its namesake vegan leather with the agricultural waste of Italian wineries, but Champagne is her latest frontier. In this process, removed stems from the Pinot Noir waste at Veuve Clicquot's vineyard in Bouzy are transformed into powder, which is integrated into fabric to create vegan leather.
There’s a lot to be excited about on this scene, that doesn’t rely on PVC/plastic leather!!!
SECONDHAND SHTUFF
Now that you’ve read my tirade (thank you!), I will offer you a small treat. I found some cute secondhand things on eBay if you want to circulate existing leather garments:
Stella brown “alligator” flats
I usually go into this series having a clear idea of what points I want to drive home, before digging into research and realizing how much is at stake in the discourse. I couldn’t help but keep writing, so apologies for the heftier-than-normal word count! It came as a result of some of the things I was surprised to have learned for the first time.
Will reading this make you care? I don’t know. There are plenty of elements in this post that will not resonate with people who wish to live in delusion and only engage with the shopping side of things. They are always the targeted group for this sort of thing, even if I don’t have all the right language to reach them. But I hope you care.
—
Sources
https://goodonyou.eco/the-hidden-costs-of-leather/
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/tannery-workers
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/leather-alternatives
https://www.peta.org/features/these-brands-banned-exotic-skins/
What are your thoughts on what Ganni is doing with Lenzig and Recyc Leather in terms of pelinova, using leather waste to create a new fabric?