Some are clearly leaders and are taking big risks, while others are much slower to engage. What has worsened is that some brands who are not genuinely invested in making change, are marketing to the consumer as if they are. This increased level of greenwashing only confuses consumers and creates a sense of mistrust, which ultimately affects the brands who are legitimately doing it right.

Scientific and technological developments bring in new materials, new manufacturing techniques, and new capabilities. Each of these, in turn, would have to be translated into newer products. That’s where design and innovation steps in, combining new materials and technologies with new societal demands, to create new products.

The Texcircle project group formed a cluster, in order to jointly meet the challenges we face for a circular textile economy. The project focused on shared materials/quantities and created prototypes to demonstrate the impact of secondary raw materials in products to show which processes need to be adapted for a circular economy.

The Texcircle project clarified that the existing value chains need to be rethought. Stakeholders will have to work together, and, to some extent, there will be a need to work outside the box. Both downstream and upstream, there will have to be some extension of in-house competencies at each step within the value chain to ensure a smooth transfer between stakeholders.

These are separate issues and should to be treated as such. Deforestation is wrong, and the leather industry wants to be part of the solution to end it. Full stop. However, leather’s status as a byproduct of food production is irrefutable and should be acknowledged in these conversations as well. There is not a farmer or rancher in the world that is raising cattle (or sheep, pigs, or any other livestock) for leather purposes.

The hide is undeniably a by-product, as acknowledged by the WWF, who state – "Leather is entirely a by-product of the beef and dairy industries.” On average, the hide represents only 1% of the animal, assuming it has any value at all; it is estimated that up to 40% of hides are simply thrown away.

Cows are raised for the meat and hides are a by-product. This is what I understand as a scientist; if somebody can prove me wrong with scientific data I will accept. I had the opportunity to visit the Amazon Forest several times. The cycle starts with the removal of the trees that by themselves have a high value, being enough reason for deforestation.

What is very clear is that the leather is secondary to the meat and diary so when we talk about deforestation in Brazil, targeting the leather industry is largely ineffective. A worst case scenario would be everyone abandons Brazil as a sourcing country for raw material, which has huge consequences for supply and demand in the rest of the world and therefore on the economics involved.

Livestock is not raised for leather and if not used for leather, the hides and skins are thrown away, which is waste on a huge scale of a natural material that could be turned into something useful for society. If we are serious about climate change it is the responsibility of everyone to understand the origins of ALL materials, not just leather, which cycles us back to the importance of clear product labelling.

It is important for the leather industry to assert and reassert the value of upcycling an inevitable by-product of the food sector, into a renewable, versatile material that, if not produced, would result in the waste of huge volumes of raw material and inevitably be replaced by plastic. COP provides a very visible, relevant and well understood opportunity to do that.

We are just starting to learn what sustainability is (and is not) and as we create more tools, measures and interpret data, we can accurately compare materials, usage, end of life and make better choices. We are still on trial and error in many aspects but for sure we will evolve and learn; this will be the time we will properly position the leather products against the competition.

The Leather Manifesto was a call to action not just for the COP27 delegates themselves, but for all interested parties in the space of sustainable materials production. We will continue to advocate for the core message of the industry not only in the context of the COP conferences, but in any forum that may be discussing sustainable material utilisation.

As a natural material that is long-lasting, can be repaired or repurposed and at end of life will biodegrade, it needs to be part of wider discussions towards a circular economy. The COP agenda is a busy one and becoming a headline challenger is always going to be difficult, but if you don’t show up you can’t ever be part of the discussion.

The luxury market has a customer base that means it can afford to invest, but the high street has created such a large expectation for low-cost fashion and consumable products, that it is a herculean task to reverse that and remain profitable. What is going to change things is incoming legislation and regulation—that will speed up innovation.

Our vision is to support the facilities in those high producing, low-income countries to make the changes that will bring about the most benefit for our environment. Of equal weight in that, is the need to protect the livelihoods of the communities in those same countries.

The leather industry has evolved enormously, and most tanneries are a very compliant, safe and responsible industry. New technological developments are being made as we start to measure parameters that were never measured before and there are very good opportunities to reduce the amount of chemicals (including water), waste and energy.

Much like every other industry at the moment, the leather industry is grappling with the question of how it can be more sustainable and play its part to meet ambitious climate and other targets set at a global scale. For individual companies in the supply chain, this means focusing on efforts that are highly localised to their specific circumstances.

In its capacity as a not-for-profit voluntary organisation established to provide factual information about the industry, Leather Naturally is not in a position to answer this question – we do not hold any regulatory authority. We would comment that brands looking to source responsibly made leather should work with tanneries that are independently audited.

It is known from surveys that labelling of alternatives, that incorporate the term leather, is misleading for consumers. For this reason, and others, several countries have introduced strict and clear legislation on the labelling of leather, that uses the same definition adopted by Textile Exchange.

Textile Exchange (TE) has accepted the official ISO 15115 definition of leather. This shows clearly that TE wants to promote transparency for the consumers by properly labelling the leather products and separating leather from the other materials that for now are called ‘Manmade non-fiber materials’. Hopefully this great example will be extended to other organisations, brands and institutions.