Does Denmark’s tax on livestock carbon emissions, to run effective from 2030, make scientific sense? Will it help the environmental, human health or farming livelihoods? Will the move impact the leather industry outside of Denmark? texfash probes.
The death-knell of Somerset-based leather manufacturer, Pittards had been sounded much earlier but when it finally closed shop last September, the story of a worldwide brand known for producing gloves for the Royal Family, is one that has lessons for entrepreneurs of all hues.
Blackwashed much, leather is standing up as a material which is irrefutably a by-product of food production and could well be a waste on a huge scale of a natural material which instead is turned into something useful for society.
The Leather Manifesto was a call to action not just for the COP27 delegates themselves, but for all in the space of sustainable materials production. As a natural material that is long-lasting, can be repaired or repurposed and at end of life will biodegrade, leather needs to be part of wider discussions towards a circular economy. This industry will continue to push the point that it can be part of the climate solution.
As the leather industry grapples with the question of how it can sustainably play its part to meet ambitious climate and other targets set at a global scale, it is imperative that individual companies in the supply chain focus their efforts in a way that is highly localised to their specific circumstances.
Textile Exchange (TE) has accepted the official ISO 15115 definition of leather, and manufacturers, brands and retailers must make it incumbent on themselves to educate consumers the difference between genuine leather and faux leather, PU leather, mushroom leather, pineapple leather, or any other plant-based leather which cannot be categorised as 'leather'. So, what does industry think?