There's no black and white answer when it comes to the ethics of leather; that's really a question for each individual to decide, based on their personally held beliefs. While the question of sustainability is complex, there are facts and statistics that shed light on the pros and cons of each, as well as the overall ecological toll of each option.
I've created this summary of facts to provide what most online comparisons do not: a big picture comparison of emissions that takes into account not only the environmental costs of production, but includes the average lifespan of the materials (the latter being missing from most side by side comparisons). The lifespan of the material has a huge impact on the overall environmental toll, a material that needs to be replaced every 3-5 years is going to have a bigger impact over time than one that can be used for decades; looking at the one time production cost of both will not allow you to make an accurate comparison of two materials with such vastly different longevities.
To begin, there is a lot of argument between pro-leather and anti-leather advocates regarding whether leather is a by-product or a co-product of the meat industry. Determining that depends on the definitions you're looking to, as well as the type of leather (exotic leathers such as ostrich leather, alligator, etc., are actually neither - they're the main product; I don't support animals being killed for their hide alone and do not use these leathers in my work).
In terms of the profit breakdown, leather accounts for only 4-6% of the value, while meat makes up 94-96% of the value; when looking at the farming of cows for the meat industry. It's not an insignificant amount, but it's also not what you'd expect if you're thinking about leather as a co-product. So I don't think these terms are terribly helpful in painting an accurate picture.
In terms of those numbers, I don't see how leather could be considered a major driving force behind the meat industry. The meat industry is certainly invested in extracting that value, as any business or industry looks to maximize profits, but the demand for meat is high, and increasing year over year. Wasting the hide by incineration or landfilling alone would have environmental costs; and the loss of real leather for certain products would not remove the demand for those products - it would simply require that real leather be replaced with synthetic leather to manufacture them, and as you'll see further into this post, the environmental impacts of that would be catastrophic over time.
So let's get to the facts and figures. When you compare the emissions for just the production of leather and the production faux leather, leather produces 17kg of CO2e per square meter, while faux leather produces 15.8kg of CO2e per square meter. Faux leather is slightly more economical to produce...but that is hardly the full picture.
As I stated in the beginning, you can't compare a material with an average use duration of 3-5 years with a material with an average use duration of decades by considering only the one time production costs.
I'm going to compare the two materials for a set period - 30 years - and account for the ecological impacts of each material over that period of time.
In a 30 year period, you would need to produce about 6 times the amount of faux leather to match the equivalent in real leather, based on the average lifespan of each material. That means 94.8kg CO2e for faux leather vs 17kg CO2e (both figures are per square meter).
But that's also not a complete picture, because rightfully, some of the emissions from the farming of the cattle should be factored into leather's emissions. Anti-leather advocates like to attribute ALL of the farming emissions to leather, which is illogical and manipulative. With meat making up 94-96% of the value, and the hide making up 4-6% of the value, it doesn't make sense to say that all environmental costs related to farming cattle, including deforestation, resources required to nourish the animals, the animal's emissions, etc., should be attributed to a product that makes up just 4-6% of the output of those costs.
The emissions for farming, pre-leather production, are 93kg CO2e per square meter. So if you add the 17kg CO2e that accounts for the tanning process, that would be 110kg CO2e per square meter - which is the figure that is often, illogically, attributed to leather by anti-leather advocates. It's intentionally manipulative - and people deserve to make their own judgement about what to buy, based on accurate information.Â
The logical approach:
If we took 6% of that 93kg of CO2e and added it to the emissions for leather production, it would come to 22.58kg of CO2e per square meter; that is MASSIVELY less than the 94.8kg CO2e required to produce faux leather for a given 30 year period.
Even if we heavily skew the numbers in favor of the anti-leather advocates argument, and attribute half of the 93kg of CO2e from farming to leather, that brings the total emissions to 63.5kg of C02e, which is STILL significantly less than faux leather's 94.8kg of C02e.
So if we look only at the production costs of real leather and PU leather, and apply it to a 30 year time period to account for the massive difference in the lifespan of each material, AND we attribute a reasonable amount of the farming costs to the production of leather, real leather is still definitively the more sustainable option.
What about environmental impacts after disposal?
This is more complicated, because the long term costs to the environment aren't fully understood yet. But it's worth covering what is known.
Faux leather:
The vast majority of faux leather today is made of either PU (Polyurethane) or PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride), both are synthetic plastics derived from fossil fuels. These plastics do not biodegrade: they stay in the environment indefinitely. What they do is break down into smaller and smaller particles over time, eventually becoming microplastics. As of 2021, the estimate of microplastics floating on the surface of the world's oceans was a minimum of 5.25 trillion particles, weighing 270,000 tons, with untold trillions more in deeper reaches.
This is extremely worrisome for several reasons. Often mistaken as food by marine life - the smaller the micro and nano-plastic particles, the more species can ingest them, from huge filter feeders like whales to tiny organisms at the bottom of the food chain, called plankton. The omnipresence of microplastics in these environments is affecting marine life at every trophic scale.
While larger plastic litter can entangle and suffocate marine animals, microplastics are unlikely to be lethal over short time scales. But their long-term impacts on plankton and microbial communities could have profound implications for marine biodiversity. The presence of these high amounts of microplastics may actually hinder carbon storage and nitrogen cycling in the world’s oceans, affecting the stability of earth's climate.
Real leather:
Contrary to what many believe, most leather doesn't readily biodegrade. The tanning process is specifically geared to prevent leather from degrading - and depending on the method of tanning used, it can take decades for leather to degrade - and leather that's been tanned with chemicals will release those chemicals into the environment when it does.
So real leather is not the 'natural' material being returned to the earth as many people think.
This is where it's especially important to talk about the types of leather available.
Most of the world's leather today (80-90%) is tanned through a process called 'chrome tanning'. Chrome tanning relies on chromium salts to preserve the hide. This is the more 'modern' method of tanning, developed to speed up the tanning process to increase output. Modern chrome tanning can take just a day or two.
From ancient times, and continuing today although it's no longer the de-facto method, hides were preserved through a process called vegetable tanning. This method relies on naturally derived tannins - from plants (especially tree bark), oils, etc. - to preserve the hide. Vegetable tanning is a drawn out, meticulous process that involves soaking the hides in increasingly concentrated tanning solutions. On average, it takes 30-60 days for vegetable tanning.
There are additional methods of tanning, but these are the two main methods used today. The end product of each method has some significant differences:
Chrome tanned leather is generally softer from day one; it doesn't develop patina with time, and often doesn't age well, although it tends to stay looking the same over time, until it begins to crack.
Vegetable tanned leather starts out a bit stiffer, and breaks in with time and use, becoming softer (and generally 'forms' to the user, for example a pair of veg tanned shoes breaks in such that they fit better and more comfortably to your foot). It usually has a more natural look than chrome tanned leather, and grows more beautiful with time and use - deepening in tone and color and developing a rich patina. Vegetable tanned leather will not maintain a static appearance over time, many people place high value on the changes displayed in vegetable tanned leather with time and feel it grows more beautiful with age. If you're someone who wants your leather item to look the same over many years, then chrome tanned leather is probably a better option for you. If the veg tanned leather is dyed, then the changes in the leather over time will be more subtle. The darker the color it is dyed, the more subtle the aging of the leather will be.
In terms of lifespan, chrome tanned leather can last for decades with proper care, especially if it's full grain, vegetable tanned leather generally has an even longer lifespan, often lasting a lifetime and beyond if properly cared for.
Because of the longer lifespan of vegetable tanned leather as well as the natural solutions that are used to tan it, it's the more eco-conscious option. It can still take decades to biodegrade in landfill, but doesn't release harmful chemicals into the environment, and due to it's longer lifespan, it can be used for much longer before it comes to that.
Some leather is coated with synthetic materials to give it a different look: think metallic leather finishes and patent leather; these will be more harmful to the environment because of these added synthetic coatings.
There are new leather alternatives that are quickly gaining popularity - they're made with some natural fibers (apple peels, pineapple, mushrooms, to name just a few!), but still rely on synthetics as a bonding agent. These vary a LOT in terms of quality and eco-friendliness: the most popular brand of apple leather is 50% polyurethane, while Desserto(TM) Cactus leather is 90% natural materials.
The lifespan of these materials aren't yet well established, since they are so new, so while these are exciting innovations, the data required to compare their overall impact on the environment over time doesn't exist.
Since PU leather makes up 99%+ of the faux leather on the market, even when it's labeled 'vegan leather' (it's still plain old PU leather - rebranded and greenwashed), and the data exists to make a fair and thorough comparison, that is what this post focused on.
For more information on 'natural' leather alternatives, check out this post on the topic.
Ultimately, the decision between real leather or faux leather is a simple one if you don't believe in wearing hide as a matter of personal principle. But if you're looking at the two purely based upon the ecological impacts, I think the anti-leather advocates are selling you a story. It's a story that suits their beliefs, but it isn't one based in the facts. Manipulating the figures to suit that narrative is a way to push their objective, but it robs people of the ability to make their own decisions based on real, logical, figures. The leather industry is just as guilty - often using the emissions only from the tanning process - omitting everything upstream, which is also manipulative and meant to push their own agenda.
I fully respect every individuals choice on what to buy, support, and wear. I hope I've been able to provide a much needed, objective look at the options in terms of their environmental impact, with the nuance and context required to make a fair comparison.
For me, it's real leather. A major goal for me, and so for my business, is to reduce the use of plastics in fashion. By sourcing my leather thoughtfully - from Europe where there is the highest regulation both in terms of animal care and the tanning process, using exclusively full grain leather for maximum durability and longevity, and primarily using vegetable tanned leather for it's quality, look, and superior lifespan, I'm able to offer some of the most eco-conscious leather pieces available.
XX Emily
Comments