IILF 2026 Exposes Gap Between Boardroom Sustainability and Tannery Floor Reality

The market signals from this year's fair painted a complex picture. Raw material prices have declined by 10% overall—a figure that sounds significant until you consider what didn't happen. The prices should have dropped by 40%.

The Trump tariffs devastated American business, which accounts for roughly 45% of India's leather exports. Factories that serviced this market have shrunk operations considerably. Under normal market logic, raw material prices would have collapsed in response to reduced demand. They didn't, because suppliers have learned to hold. Converting raw hides to wetblue and storing them allows suppliers to wait out market downturns. A market decline of 25-30% would be cause for genuine concern; the 10% decline represents not market forces finding equilibrium, but supplier power resisting gravity.

This creates a temporary standoff. The domestic market can absorb economical pricing, but export markets remain constrained. The government's new policy allowing wetblue exports from April may provide relief, clearing stocks and stabilising the market. Indian raw materials—particularly goat and red hair sheep—could find strong demand if sold as wetblue. But the underlying tension between supply holding power and demand constraints remains unresolved.

Fashion, meanwhile, follows its own logic. Suede demand in goat and splits is strengthening again after a dip five months ago, but not the English flat suedes of previous seasons. The market has shifted to velvet German suedes, oily suedes, waxy suedes, partially resinated variants. This trend might hold for another four seasons as designers explore suede possibilities. Wherever suede goes, nubuck follows—expensive, niche, catering to premium markets. Waterproof treatments have become essential as even small water drops can ruin a beautiful nubuck bag with permanent staining.

The push towards full-grain leathers with minimal finishing represents both aesthetic preference and strategic positioning. Natural-looking leathers with water-based finishes, no pigmentation, minimal solvents—this approach follows the sustainability path where decomposition happens quickly. It also differentiates genuine leather from alternatives. Natural blemishes become authentication marks, proof of organic origin. This trend appears sustainable for several seasons as fashion settles into it. Subtle pull-up effects achieved through water-based techniques rather than solvent-based methods are also gaining traction, aligning with the broader shift towards eco-friendly finishing processes.

On the chemical and technology front, the innovations were genuinely striking. Single-chemical tanning systems that replace four types of fatliquor and equivalent syntans. One finishing compound delivering what previously required resins, protein binders, polyurethane, wax. A softener capable of making 3.4mm belt leather instantly and permanently soft. These aren't incremental improvements—they're fundamental simplifications that reduce inventory, improve cash flow, and streamline processes across all sectors.

Sodium sulphide-free unhairing using enzyme-based treatments eliminates a major pollution component. Water reduction during processing, single-product tanning systems, water-based finishing—the technical pieces for genuinely eco-friendly tanning exist. The machinery on display, increasingly AI-supported, promises higher volumes with greater accuracy. Block chain management, 3D design development, enhanced data collection—artificial intelligence will reshape production parameters. Labour won't become redundant, but upskilling becomes mandatory. We need technology and technology needs us, but only if we race together rather than technology racing alone.

The Leather Working Group conducted seminars emphasising environment-friendly tanning processes and results. ZDHC has pushed chemical companies to test and certify every product, increasing both costs and performance standards. Solidaridad works on waste recycling. These organisations mean well. Their intentions are sound. Their impact remains frustratingly surface-level.

The problem is altitude. LWG representatives stay in five-star hotels, conduct boardroom discussions in polished English, and never reach the bottom of the pyramid where actual tanning happens. They need to shed the image of policemen conducting annual inspections and instead become partners in daily improvement. Window dressing for inspection periods must stop. The workers who handle chemicals, operate machinery, and execute processes daily—these people need to understand and embrace sustainability, not fear auditors.

LWG has substantial funds. They should deploy these resources at worker level, building confidence and knowledge around sustainability practices. The same applies to ZDHC and Solidaridad. Their efforts remain confined to upper management and technical experts who already understand the issues. The tannery floor workers who could suggest practical improvements based on daily experience never get included in the conversation.

Self-realisation drives change more effectively than compulsion. Any amount of external pressure simply makes people find workarounds. Unless tannery owners genuinely commit to green, clean technology, the required impact won't materialise. More policemen don't reduce theft—better self-realisation does.

The absence of a strong counter-campaign against anti-leather propaganda reflects this same disconnect. The present campaign is weak, driven more by financial interests than genuine passion. But perhaps that's not entirely wrong. Countering anti-leather voices explicitly recognises them as legitimate competitors, which they aren't. Better to focus on performance—more transparency, more eco-friendly processes, more sustainable practices. Let results speak rather than rhetoric. Leather that demonstrably performs better environmentally than its alternatives needs no defence.

This year's fair also highlighted ITPO's organisational failures. Despite the fair's expansion into newly constructed exhibition halls at Chennai Trade Centre, stalls selling similar products were scattered across different locations, forcing buyers to crisscross the venue repeatedly. WiFi and internet connections were abysmal. Mobile signals disappeared entirely. In an era where coordination happens digitally, this rendered basic business communication nearly impossible. These aren't minor inconveniences—they're fundamental failures that undermine the fair's utility.

The industry split currently sits at roughly 50% footwear (leather and non-leather combined), 25% leather goods, 15% garments, and 10% other accessories. This distribution reflects leather's diminished but still substantial presence. The fair serves as a meeting point, and improvements do occur year on year. But the gap between what IILF could be and what it has become remains visible.

The 39th edition demonstrated that India's leather industry is professionalising, adopting international norms, following LWG principles, meeting ZDHC standards, pursuing sustainability. Waste management and recycling initiatives are slowly taking root with support from CLRI, CFTI, and FDDI, alongside international agencies. The technical capability exists. The chemical innovations are real. The machinery delivers.

What's missing is the human infrastructure to implement these advances—not the experts and consultants, but the workers and supervisors who execute daily operations. Until sustainability education reaches that level, progress will remain patchy and performance-dependent on individual initiative rather than systemic transformation. The soul may still be all leather, but the body needs serious attention to the foundations supporting it.