iTrash: Apple's Vegan Alternative Crumbles to Pieces as Durability Goes for a 6-Month Toss

On 12 September 2023, Apple Inc made an emphatic announcement: "To further reduce impact on the planet, Apple is ending the use of leather across all of its product lines, including iPhone accessories and Apple Watch bands. The company will replace leather with a new textile called FineWoven, an elegant and durable twill made from 68 percent post-consumer recycled content. FineWoven offers a subtle lustre and a soft, suede-like feel, and is available on iPhone MagSafe cases and wallets as well as the Magnetic Link and Modern Buckle Apple Watch bands."

Apple talked recycling, carbon and all that: "As recycled and renewable materials often have a lower carbon footprint than primary materials, Apple’s industry-leading progress in the use of recycled content also advances the company’s Apple 2030 goal. The new FineWoven material has significantly lower emissions compared to the more carbon-intensive leather, and both the new iPhone 15 and the Apple Watch lineups advance progress toward the company’s 2025 targets for the use of 100 percent recycled metals in key components."

Those were just perfunctory claims without evidence, and some would even call them greenwashing. UNIC, the Italian Tanners Association, wanted to do just that, and commissioned the independent ARS Tinctoria laboratory (which specialises in organic analytical testing on materials) to do the needful.

In December, the UNIC reported on the findings of ARS Tinctoria: "In terms of environmental sustainability, the microscopic and "bio-based" composition of the two materials was analysed (EN 16640 method), i.e., the amount of biological (i.e., non-fossil) carbon present. The results outline how the leather analysed has a compact structure, with no interfibrillar polymers, and a 99% "bio-based" composition, while FineWoven has a dense weave of polymeric fibres (making it difficult for any recycling attempt) and is 1% 'bio-based.'"

The Italian association commented on the import of the study: "It basically means that leather is a natural, recyclable, bio-based material that, at the end of the product's life, will "return" to nature in a reasonable time, while FineWoven is totally fossil-based. It is a petroleum derivative: a plastic material that is difficult to recover and that will remain as waste in nature for thousands of years, with the associated risk of releasing micro/nanoplastics, whose danger to any living creature on the planet has been confirmed repeatedly."

That was not all. In terms of performance, abrasion resistance (EN 13520, ISO 7906 methods) was measured, which simulated daily use of the object (Martindale method). Leather withstood as many as 51,200 cycles without showing any sort of alteration (neither on colour nor on material surface), while FineWoven withstood only 1,600 cycles, with obvious colour alteration and surface abrasion.

UNIC described the Apple move as an attempt "to erect a marketing narrative that is not transparent to the consumer and unfairly penalises the tanning industry and leather, which remains, once again, the only genuine, realistic, and viable alternative to leather itself."

It's been two months since the UNIC debunk, and almost a week since Stern's damning newsletter. Apple doesn't have an answer, and neither do the ardent vegan leather advocates.

Mike Redwood, who has seen it all and has now retired from a 50-year-long career in the leather industry, puts this in perspective: “We all used to love Apple because it was the underdog, and then because it made such beautiful products. Now that it has become so much larger than the entire of economies of many countries and avoids paying taxes by hiding its intellectual property in low tax domains, we are all the more sceptical.

“Its phones, tablets and computers are good. They are expensive and good-looking. A nice brand to carry and have on your desk. But longevity and ease of repair are not part of the equation. They like to push the technology forward in ways that force consumers to keep on discarding and buying far more frequently than we should be comfortable with. E-waste is now as bad a category as fast fashion for the rush to landfill. Most of us have discarded laptops, iPads and endless plugs and cables filling cabinets and drawers in our homes.”

Redwood has a point, since Apple never talks about the carbon footprint it forces consumers to leave behind by buying its products every year, or maybe every couple of years.

“For such a huge company that bombards us with adverts for all manner of devices and supports them with huge energy guzzling server farms, but has negligible repair offer making environmental claims is difficult. Humility is needed, and I believe that customers would accept that.

Instead, they produced quite a powerful video in which some good actions on renewable energy are recorded but a big claim is made on replacing leather with a synthetic material that consumers are already indicating they dislike. Areas like e-waste, longevity of the products and repair are not discussed, although other than cables etc Apple will take products back and often pay for them.”

Redwood explains: “Originally the Apple Store used to offer a leather cover that was quite expensive. My own two old iPad Minis—one running on iOS 9 and other on 12—are no longer updated or supported by Apple, but I kept them for emergencies or trips to countries where I need to communicate but do not want my whole life available for the authorities to inspect still have their original leather cases. Well worn, heavily used, perfectly serviceable. The alternative that you used to buy was a silicon type sleeve that was very light weight, incredibly cheap but did have to be replaced. In the intervening years the leather cover has improved in quality but was often out of stock, and suddenly has been replaced in the name of ‘sustainability’ with a 64% post-consumer micro twill piece of plastic at an even higher price. Where is the logic?”

There is, as we find out, none. And, companies get away with their footprint chicanery all the time. They do not respond to being called out, leave alone be exposed as greenwashers.

A company like Apple can afford a top-notch head of sustainability with full training and experience, and this they do have, says Redwood. “Yet she (Lisa Jackson) is still comfortable with putting forward arguments that are not supported by science, albeit unlike so many others in the same position who have good environmental knowledge but no ability to interrogate the science.” 

The task for the leather industry is cut out. It needs to work even harder to educate all the brands and key employees and designers about the reality of leather. “The people who run the sustainability, ESG, transition to net zero, carbon neutral policies or whatever the role gets called must be able to find out more about materials and take proper decisions.”

And Apple can’t keep hiding behind a veil. “In the light of the criticism, Apple does not appear willing to listen and learn, but instead do not want to admit an error and are doubling down.at the moment. I am sure that can be changed with persistent calls and claims from consumers. The idea of charging consumers $60 or more for a piece of plastic that is not good to touch and will damage the planet, all in the name of the environment is too ridiculous for word.”

Apple should go back to doing what it does best—making phones and laptops, and leave material science to the experts. The first thing about sustainability is durability, and its vegan alternative simply does not pass muster.