This is what I read on a PETA site—“Huge amounts of fossil fuels are consumed in livestock production as well, and cow-derived leather has almost three times the negative environmental impact as its synthetic counterparts, including polyurethane (PU) leather. The production of leather hurts animals, the environment, and the workers who manufacture it. The only ones who benefit are people who profit from the misery and suffering of others.”—What is the Sustainable Leather Foundation’s (SLF) reaction to this? What steps is it taking to counter this argument?
Livestock farming takes many forms—from family farms of just a few animals, to mid-sized farms and ranches, right up to industrial farming and intensive systems. Within a balanced society, farming and raising of livestock plays an important part in protecting the biodiversity of our planet as well as the provision of protein and other by-products such as gelatine, bonemeal, ointments alongside the hide that is converted into durable leather which can be used in a vast number of applications. The argument PETA strives to make can only be considered if the cow was born and raised for its hide alone, which it isn’t. The assertion made by PETA also fails to consider the positive impact of farming from a soil health perspective and a social perspective. Making vague claims based on inaccurate startling information leads to the misinformation that people are regularly being fed. The statement does not consider the long term consequences of plastics (synthetics), nor the in-life consumption of water, energy, detergents, etc. used to wash synthetic fabrics (which leather doesn’t require). Nor does it balance the statement by referring to the social economies of many high-producing, low-income countries where both farming and leather manufacture form the basis of sustenance and income for large populations. Finally, it does not consider the fast fashion consumption model that is fuelled by cheap synthetics and our throw away culture.
The kind of generalised bias that PETA shows is based on an ideology or ethical choice that a small minority subscribe to. However, that is not representative of the meat and dairy industry, the leather industry or the majority of the population that respect the sustainable attributes of a balanced approach. It is completely reasonable to have an ethical viewpoint, it is not reasonable to be wilfully negligent in the dissemination of defamatory language that says that the production of leather hurts animals, the environment, and the workers.
The SLF is committed to supporting a whole value chain approach to sustainability, working with organisations across multi-disciplines to accelerate improvements and to ensure accurate information is transparently available for consumers. We work to support improvement through our Transparency Dashboard and our A.I.M. approach – Accessible, Inclusive, Modular. SLF recognises that there are large global variables in capabilities, knowledge and performance when it comes to sustainable agriculture and production of leather and leather products. Education for consumers is also a key priority—there is a societal disconnect between consumerism and the product lifecycle of raw material to post-consumption concerns. Our vision is to communicate more effectively about these issues as well as providing the mechanism for improvement for the industry.
Be it cotton or leather, there is an audit fatigue for smaller enterprises and because of the complexities involved the medium scale stakeholder often tries to bypass regulations. What does the SLF do to ease the burden of audits, specially for the smaller players in Asia, etc?
SLF’s guiding vision has always been to support the whole leather value chain and right from inception, one of the key objectives was to alleviate duplication of effort and resource for stakeholders. Our A.I.M. approach ensures we live up to this objective. Using our Transparency Dashboard we first map any existing certification across the three areas of environmental, social and governance (ESG) responsibility and give equivalency for work already conducted. There are a couple of provisions within that:
- Any equivalency will only be recognised if it is backed by credible third-party certification.
- Equivalency will only be recognised as long as the audits remain valid. If a certification is allowed to lapse, then the Transparency Dashboard is automatically updated to reflect the change.
In addition, by working in a modular way, it is also possible for smaller actors to work at a pace that meets their ability and / or their customers’ priorities—they don’t have to “do everything or nothing” but can work in a modular way in timescales that work for them.
