Eco-design edges closer
The European Parliament has taken another step towards its framework for sustainable products, but the ramifications for leather products may take years to unfold.
Policymakers and politicians in the European Union have reached a provisional agreement on the Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). The proposal is the cornerstone of the European Commission (EC)’s approach to more environmentally sustainable and circular products and will fall under the umbrella of the European Green Deal, and works alongside the circular economy action plan.
The proposal establishes a framework to set “eco-design” requirements for specific product groups to improve their circularity, energy performance and other environmental sustainability aspects. Negotiators agreed certain groups would need to comply no later than nine months after the new legislation comes into into force. These priority products include textiles, garments, footwear and furniture.
As part of the rules, negotiators agreed to ban the destruction of unsold footwear, apparel and accessories. This ban will apply two years after the entry into force of the law (although smaller companies will have more time to adapt). Economic operators that destroy unsold goods would have to report annually the quantities of products they have discarded and give reasons why.
Another part of the legislation concerns digital product passports (DPP), which aim to enable consumers to make informed purchasing choices by accessing a web portal, through which they can search and compare information.
Alessandra Moretti, an Italian member of the European Parliament, said: “It is time to end the model of ‘take, make, dispose’ that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy. Sustainable products will become the norm, allowing consumers to save energy, repair and make smart environmental choices when they are shopping. Banning the destruction of unsold textiles and footwear will also contribute to a shift in the way fast fashion manufacturers produce their goods.”
Sticking points
However, there have been several bodies that have raised concerns with the wording. FESI, the European sporting goods association which counts 1,800 companies as its members, questioned whether a ban on the destruction of unsold goods would affect recycling – as inevitably some returned stock, samples, overstock and defects end up being destroyed, or better, recycled. Novel shoe recyclers, such as Dutch company FastFeetGrinded, which shreds sports shoes and uses the materials for insulation and padding, are making use of discarded stock. “If we want to scale up the amount of recycled and recyclable materials in the EU, then recycling should not be considered as destruction,” said FESI in a statement. “This may lead to misalignment with other EU legislation, such as the waste hierarchy enshrined in the Waste Framework Directive or the objectives of the EU Textile Strategy on textile-to-textile recycling.”
Similarly, the European association of textiles and apparel (Euratex) has called for a simplification of the regulations, including those covered by EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, stating that 16 regulatory proposals are on the table, each with a different timetable, managed by different departments of the EC. “Euratex is committed to sustainability, but asks for economic realism. This set of new regulations needs to be coherent, enforceable, feasible and applicable for SMEs, and not push textile companies out of the market. Moreover, some member states are moving faster and some legislations will be decided at national level, creating fragmentation of the market. Such scenarios will hamper Europe and its possibilities to grow.”
Leather’s beef
The inclusion of footwear and furniture in the priority categories has caused brands’, and tanners’, ears to prick up. Leather industry commentators have raised concerns about a lack of due consideration in earlier stages of this discussion for the durability, repairability and circularity of leather. For example, there were suggestions that staying intact for 100 wears would be enough for a pair of shoes, made from any material, to be presented as long-lasting.
As a concession, manufacturers of leather shoes were to be allowed to claim that their products would last for 145 wears. This caused consternation because leather shoes can often last for years and their longevity is an important factor in convincing consumers that it is worth paying extra for leather. Paying more would seem less worthwhile if the message to consumers was that more expensive shoes may only endure for an extra 45 wears.
In comments to World Leather, a spokesperson for the EC said these details “are definitely not contained in the framework legislation that has been agreed on”. The spokesperson went on to say the Commission will first have to include the individual product groups in a working plan that it will draw up as part of a new, wider programme. This will only happen after European parliamentary elections this June. The new programme will cover a number of years from 2025 onwards. Questions about durability and other properties of specific products will be part of “a separate delegated act” that the Commission will draw up to detail the eco-design requirements for each product group. “This process may take years,” the spokesperson said.
The long timeframe does perhaps offer a buffer zone, giving companies time to work out how they will be affected, and perhaps contribute to the discussion. With leather companies battling potential rules banning sourcing from areas at risk of deforestation, and longstanding political discussions about the labelling of leather products, it seems the debates will rumble on. In theory, new rules should bolster leather products by way of promoting durability. “People are tired of products that die just after the guarantee expires, or are very difficult and ridiculously expensive to repair. They're tired of fabrics that tear after a small number of washes,” said Virginijus Sinkevicius, commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries. “Digital Product Passports will become the norm and the possibility to introduce labelling for products, for instance on their reparability score, will also be there.”
Whether this will benefit or hinder leather remains to be seen. As is often the case, the thinking is commendable but the small print might not stack up. For the EC, the message seems clear: “People tired of being part of the problem,” added Mr Sinkevicius. “They want to be part of the solution. And that's what this package is helping them to be.”
How will leather shoes’ durability be assessed and communicated?
Credit: Micam Milan
