Leather is not a natural or sustainable by-product, it’s a profitable material produced at the expense of the planet
Our new report on leather’s impact on the planet explores the interconnected environmental issues caused by leather derived from animals, rather than more sustainable and just alternatives. Here’s a rundown of what the best available scientific data tells us:
There’s no getting around it, plastic is one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. While the leather industry has used this concern around plastic and microplastics to promote itself as a sustainable solution, leather production contributes massively to our climate and biodiversity crises – and it’s even coated in plastic sometimes, too.
Leather and the climate crisis
According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 16.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions are linked to animal agriculture. Of that, 62% of direct emissions are tied to cattle rearing. Even when leather is vegetable tanned, often claimed by the industry to be a more responsible process, there is no significant difference in carbon, water, or energy footprint and it does not biodegrade. But there’s good news, too. Many innovative non-animal leather options, like MIRUM, are now utilised for clothing and accessories.
The difference in the climate impact of animal-based leather clothing and accessories versus those made from more sustainable, animal-free alternatives is significant. According to CIRUMFAUNA calculations verified by Faunalytics, a cow skin leather tote bag produces 100.5 kg of CO2e while a synthetic alternative emits just 14.4 kg of CO2e. Similarly, cow skin leather boots are calculated to emit 66 kg of CO2e, and their synthetic counterpart just 9.5 kg of CO2e. While synthetics are not a total ethics alternative, this is a valuable point of reference.
These calculations also only consider the skins of cattle, without the entire ‘production’ of the animals. If the entire production process were calculated, CO2e emissions would be even higher for animal-based products as much of this impact occurs at the farm level, where the valuable co-product that is animal-based leather is sourced.
Credit: ‘Under their skin: leather’s impact on the planet’ report, illustrated by Inma Hortas
Leather’s impact on land and biodiversity
Not only has leather contributed to the climate crisis through greenhouse gas emissions, but it is also inherently inefficient to produce, requiring enormous amounts of cleared land. As a result, leather production exacerbates global biodiversity destruction. Often overlooked by sustainability assessments, biodiversity and wildlife are at risk on land utilised for leather production and there is an increased chance of desertification and land degradation tied to cattle ranching, too. For example, CIRCUMFAUNA calculations suggest that to produce just 10 typical Brazilian leather bags, one hectare of land must be cleared or kept cleared. And for just 17 pairs of leather boots, a land amount equal to nearly one and a half football fields needs to be cleared for cattle rearing.
To protect biodiversity, the UN states that protecting forests is essential. Currently, 80% of Amazonian deforestation across Brazil, Peru, and Bolivia is caused by cattle ranching, and 73% of deforestation and land clearing in Queensland, Australia is tied to cattle production in leather supply chains. Inefficient land use and deforestation in leather supply chains are directly tied to the endangerment of species including great gliders, swift parrots, spot-tailed quolls, jaguars, giant otters, toucans, tapirs, and many more.
More land-efficient materials such as mycelium leather alternatives, plant-based and other bio-based leather alternatives are critical to creating a sustainable fashion system. With a move away from animal-based agriculture, up to 75% of agricultural land has the potential to be freed as a result of decreased need for grazing land and land used to grow crops for animal feed.
Credit: ‘Under their skin: leather’s impact on the planet’ report, illustrated by Inma Hortas
Leather’s water footprint
To produce a standard cow skin leather tote bag, 17,127.8 litres of water is required, which equals to the amount of water a human is recommended to drink each day for over 23 years, based on CIRCUMFAUNA calculations. This amount is further increased at the slaughterhouse level.
With half of the world’s population at risk of facing water scarcity as early as 2025, it is essential to choose materials with a lower water footprint. Even synthetic polyurethane – which is not the solution to our environmental problems – can have a water footprint as much as 24 times smaller compared to animal-based leather, while partly plant-based alternatives present even better options. Desserto’s water footprint is 1,647% smaller than some bovine leather, while Modern Meadow’s bio-leather claims to reduce water consumption impacts (compared to conventional leather) by over 95%, and MIRUM is produced with no water inputs besides what’s included within natural ingredients.
Leather and pollution
Leather production not only requires a significant amount of water, but it also pollutes natural waterways. Polluted water dumped out of tanneries and slaughterhouses and which runs off farms and feedlots, can lead to environmental pollution and eutrophication. At the farm level, manure runoff can create ‘dead zones’ within waterways where aquatic life is unable to survive.
Slaughterhouses – often forgotten parts of the leather supply chain – regularly dump biohazardous waste into waterways. Meanwhile, as many as 300-400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge, and other wastes are also dumped into bodies of water every year from tanneries. To avoid environmental penalties for these actions, wealthier countries often outsource their production to the global South, where tanneries are also responsible for land and air pollution that harms plant and animal life. Up to 170 chemicals are used in the tanning process, including chromium, formaldehyde, and arsenic, which are known carcinogens.
Credit: ‘Under their skin: leather’s impact on the planet’ report, illustrated by Inma Hortas
Leather industry greenwashing and misinformation
With an increasing demand for sustainability within the fashion industry, leather is often promoted as a ‘natural’ choice. But animal skins are tanned into leather for the specific purpose of rendering them inorganic and no longer natural, able to be long lasting due to heavy chemical use. Meanwhile, the selective breeding and domestication of 1.4 billion animals on largely cleared native land certainly is not of benefit to the natural environment.
Millions of dollars worth of misinformation is regularly spread by groups such as Leather Naturally, Leather UK, and Leather and Hide Council of America. They continue to claim leather is renewable, biodegradable, a worthless by-product, and capable of reducing plastic fibres, despite opposing evidence, with the goal of increasing leather product sales. Meanwhile, the leather industry also avoids addressing the reality that their valuable co-product is often coated with plastic, even legally without labelling, and that after tanning, it is no longer effectively biodegradable.
One of the most notable tactics used by these groups is selective disclosure, which distracts consumers from the significant environmental impacts of leather. Collective Fashion Justice analysed several brands certified by the Leather Working Group and found that while the certification claims to protect the environment, it fails to address any of the climate impacts of deforestation, methane emissions, biodiversity loss, and farm water use connected to the production of leather.
Credit: ‘Under their skin: leather’s impact on the planet’ report, illustrated by Inma Hortas
What about ‘regenerative leather’, is that sustainable?
The leather industry is working hard to promote ‘regenerative leather,’ claiming its production can help to solve the climate crisis, securely storing more greenhouse gas emissions than are emitted. This claim has been disproven in numerous peer-reviewed reports, which have also noted the biased funding sources behind regenerative claims.
For genuine environmental regeneration, we must see a just transition beyond leather and other animal production systems. In doing so, the amount of land which could be saved and rewilded by switching to more efficient and plant-based systems would result in up to 163% of our carbon emissions budget to 1.5C being sequestered – drawn down and safely stored – if this transition was made by 2050.
There’s no sustainable fashion without degrowth
Moving beyond the use of animal-derived leather is essential to improving fashion’s relationship with the planet. However, aiming to replace the entirety of produced leather with bio-based leather alternatives will not totally solve fashion’s environmental woes: the fashion industry must produce and consume less as a whole.
Bio-alternatives are an exciting development and offer a much better option than current synthetics and animal-based leather, considering both ethics and the environment, but systemic degrowth is also needed to steer the industry towards true sustainability.
To stay within planetary boundaries, experts suggest the fashion industry must reduce its size fourfold. A reduction in the size of the fashion industry could mean that bio-based leather alternatives become more accessible sooner, as the materials wouldn’t need to be scaled to the full level of leather production.
To help with fashion’s degrowth, the best thing we can do is to buy less altogether. Taking care of and mending clothes is the best way to reduce demand for new clothing, and secondhand is a great option to encourage the use of materials already in the fashion system.
Want to keep learning or see our references? Read the full report.