Unsubstantiated claims about leather alternatives must stop
Unity and leadership in the global leather industry are growing. This much is clear from a joint statement on alternatives to leather that industry bodies the International Council of Tanners (ICT), the International Union of Leather Technologists’ and Chemists’ Societies (IULTCS), the International Council of Hides, Skins, and Leather Traders Association (ICHSLTA), leather’s representative body in the European Union, COTANCE, and advocacy group Leather Naturally issued on July 16.
New materials continue to appear on the market, the statement said, with the stated ambition of replacing leather. This is usually on the basis of claims of improvements in sustainability that are “rarely, if ever, substantiated”.
It went on to say that any presentation of leather, which the groups described as a long-lasting biodegradable material made from a renewable, residual product from another industry, as unsustainable, “is unwarranted and unsupported, particularly when juxtaposed with emerging materials that are largely comprised of fossil fuel-based plastics”.
Every year, the statement continued, tanneries recover at least 8 million tonnes of hides and skins from the food sector. It said: “Without the leather industry and its upcycling activity, this residual material would simply become waste. Destroying this waste instead of using it, would release around 5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas. The recycling of this waste by the leather industry reduces greenhouse gas emissions while creating a valuable and versatile product.”
It questioned the capability of any of the new materials to emulate this, saying that little or nothing is known about the performance and composition of these materials, not to mention the sustainability of the processes required to produce them.
Next, it mentioned the analysis that testing and research centre FILK carried out on alternative materials earlier this year, publishing the results in a paper called ‘Comparison of the Technical Performance of Leather and Trendy Alternatives’.
“Leather was far superior to the alternatives in most performance parameters,” the July statement said, “and none of the alternatives could equal leather for all of them. In addition, the claimed sustainability of the majority of these new materials appeared to be deeply compromised by the need for large quantities of synthetic materials such as polyurethane, to try to equal the functional performance of real leather.”
It described as counterintuitive any move by sustainability-conscious fashion brands to replace a durable, biodegradable, circular material such as leather with materials that are largely synthetic.
“There is enough space in the market for a diversity of material choices and the leather industry has no issue with competition, provided it is fair,” the statement concluded. “However, it will not stand for the appropriation of the image of leather or the denigration of the genuine article for the promotion of alternatives with questionable performance and sustainability claims.”
Image: INCAS S.P.A.
