Essay thirteen: Alternative materials to leather: environmental impacts and cost
The impact of alternatives to leather
There are many options available to designers and brands who, for whatever reason, prefer not to work with leather; plastics, including polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and canvas are among the most widely used. As Steven Jesseph, former chief executive of Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP) and chair of the judging panel for the Tannery of the Year programme discusses here, however, any arguments based on perceived environmental or health advantages require serious examination and are unlikely to stand up.
In this essay the singular focus is to examine the benefits and negatives of alternatives to leather, with the focus mostly on products made from oil-based materials or cotton. Part of the focus is the difference in cost between leather and these other options. It is no secret that creative designers, chemists and manufacturing professionals have been able to replicate the look of leather so well that it can be difficult to tell real leather from a fake through visual examination or touching the product. Sometimes, only by carefully examining the backing can one tell: a synthetic product will often be built up of several layers of textile backing, polyurethane, lacquers, varnishes and more.
In many cases, synthetic materials imitating leather can offer one advantage over leather because they are usually less expensive. Faux, or fake, can be more waterproof, resistant to scratching and wear by rubbing, fading from the sun and more. It can be cut and sewn into virtually any shape and used for all manner of clothing, furniture, automotive, aviation and marine interiors, equestrian, military, footwear, wall and floor coverings, bags and luggage, purses, belts, watch bands and more. The uses seem to be only limited by the creativity of the designer and manufacturer. PU may cost less, but is it really less expensive in the long run?
Full cost
Financial cost is only one measure of total cost. It likely does not account for the environmental cost of obtaining the raw materials or component parts of a product. How much damage is done to the environment in extracting natural resources, either renewable or non-renewable? How much pollution is added to the atmosphere (air, water, soil) in the process of extracting, transporting and converting the resources into usable components? If that pollution is harmful to humans, as we are seeing in many developing economies (as they continue to add heavy pollution from burning coal to create energy), what is the medical cost and human cost of the pollution? How many people have become ill or died as a result of being poisoned by airborne pollutants, or have respiratory problems that require medical intervention?
If the pollution damages marine environments and kills marine organisms, how do we calculate the cost of lost fish and other organisms which are part of the marine food chain? What happens if that pollution kills whole marine ecosystems, as we have seen in Jamaica, areas in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Magadi in Kenya and many, many more around the world?
There have been frequent articles in prominent publications, including The New York Times and The Financial Times, about the growing problems of water scarcity, pollution caused by ever-increasing use of fossil fuels, global warming, rising sea levels, and more. We have had these warnings for decades but there is a much greater urgency in more recent reports.
We are polluting the atmosphere at a rate faster than anticipated, glaciers and the polar ice caps are melting at an increasing rate, which is leading to sea levels rising faster than anticipated. The growing use of fossil fuels has pushed CO2 levels ever upwards. The influence this has on our weather seems undeniable. We see longer droughts and excessive rainfall in many parts of the world as patterns shift. The current projection, unless we take dramatic and immediate action, is that this will only become worse.
The addition of 5,000,000,000 people to the planet since 1950 is the prime driver to all of these issues: we simply have more people on the planet every day who want quality of life, and as a result, we’re adding millions of tonnes of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) to our atmosphere. The increase in gases drives increased global temperatures, which wreak havoc in weather patterns, cause the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps, in turn increasing global sea levels. The oceans are absorbing about half of the GHGs, which are increasing the acidification of the top layers and are beginning to affect the viability of the oceans to support marine life upon which we depend for food.
For me, the issue isn’t whether synthetic products are better than leather products. The issue is: which product (real or faux) uses the fewest non-renewable resources in terms of oil and petroleum-based inputs, and which product is the least costly to the environment? Does it really make sense to use oil, when industry experts tell us reserves are depleting at an ever-faster pace, to make a fake product that can be made from “the real thing”? For this author, this is a no-brainer and the answer is ‘no’.
Does leather also use non-renewable materials such as fossil fuels and certain minerals? Yes, but we’ve seen remarkable progress in the use of renewable energy at the tannery level with some tanners moving toward full renewable energy. Significant progress has been made in the recovery of chromium (III) for reuse in the process, and an increasing number of tanners are moving toward renewable vegetable dyes and renewable tanning chemicals.
Cotton wool
Is cotton a good alternative to leather or PU? Through various weaving and treatment methods, it can be made to look similar to leather and have good functionality. However, it is not a good alternative in this author’s view. The amount of “organic” cotton available on the world market is negligible leaving us with traditionally grown cotton which requires massive amounts of water for irrigation, pesticides and heavy doses of fertiliser. Decade after decade of fertiliser use has polluted ground water supplies all over the world, and the use of pesticides has had a drastic impact on butterflies and honey bees that fertilise our food crops. It is estimated that in the US alone, 65% of feral bee colonies have been wiped out due to overuse of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides sprayed on virtually every agricultural crop. Unless farmers make a drastic switch away from the use of these chemicals, we may very well face the extinction of wild honey bees in the next decade or two.
The Center for Environmental Health carried out a comparison between leather and PVC focusing on women’s handbags purchased from 100 retail stores. The study found that many of the PVC bags harboured high levels of lead, a known toxin linked to cancer, infertility, Alzheimer’s, and a host of other health problems. The levels of lead in some PVC bags were 100 times higher than the safe level of lead set for children’s toys (though many scientists suspect there is no safe level of lead). In addition to lead, some of PVC’s disturbing ingredients include: chlorine, petroleum, phthalates, and the carcinogen DEHP.
The production process uses harmful chemicals like these, along with dioxin (linked with immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine system damage), and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOCs are associated with headaches, fatigue, nose-and-throat discomfort among other ailments; some are suspected to cause cancer.
Responding to this Center for Environmental Health study, social network Care2 commented: “Since PVC is a number-three plastic, it’s usually not recyclable. Either it sits in landfills, or people try to recycle it, which ends up ruining the recycling of other plastics. Either way, PVC is a waste nightmare.”
Laboratory tests
In 2021, in the face of the ongoing presentation in many parts of the fashion industry of non-leather alternatives as being more desirable than the real thing, the leather industry’s representative body in the European Union, COTANCE, decided to put some of the claims to the test. COTANCE procured samples of eight widely talked about alternative materials and asked renowned testing and research centre FILK to test their material properties in comparison to leather’s. FILK published the results in a paper called ‘Comparison of the Technical Performance of Leather and Trendy Alternatives’.
None of the substitute materials exhibited all of the performance characteristics of leather, FILK has reported, and some of them, in 2021, still contained chemicals of concern. At the time of the announcement, COTANCE said: “The fascination with one of the oldest natural materials in the world remains unchanged, and no wonder, because the material is a true all-rounder. It lends a noble touch to fashion, footwear, accessories and furniture, and it brings many functional properties such as durability, tear-resistance and breathability.”
FILK concluded that technical progress among the manufacturers of synthetic materials was clear and has led to some of these having “individual properties that are similar here and there to leather’s”. However, it found that none of the tested substitutes could “truly be called an alternative to leather”. In the tests, leather proved superior in terms of water vapour absorption and water vapour permeability, with the other materials scoring “significantly lower than leather” in these tests. Leather also showed a superior performance in flex and tear-resistance tests, indicating greater durability.
Another point that COTANCE made was that, although the producers of synthetic alternatives often present their products as being good alternatives to leather, there is frequently a lack of transparency about exactly what these alternatives are made from. The FILK tests have uncovered more detail. One of the materials it subjected to the tests was Desserto. The tests showed that the material does contain cactus fibres, as its manufacturers say, but in the sample that FILK tested, the plant fibres were contained in a polyester carrier fabric that had two layers of polyurethane on top. The sample was 65% polyurethane.
Root system
More recently, a number of leather manufacturers have begun to work closely with companies making alternative materials from mycelium, the material that the root structure of mushrooms forms. The material is being produced originally in laboratories and tanners are then processing it into a cuttable fabric that can go into bags and shoes. These partnerships have attracted attention from outside the leather industry and some criticism from inside. Tanners involved have consistently made one thing clear: they regard these new materials as alternatives, not to leather, but to the fossil-based products that synthetics manufacturers present as being good substitutes for leather.
Incorrect and obsolete information about the leather industry continues to be published or broadcast on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines, even in reports from respected organisations including the World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Campaign groups, often with anti-leather agendas, have used this material to further damage perceptions of the leather industry. This Nothing to Hide collection of essays is designed to combat this head-on by sharing accurate, up-to-date information and explanations of how and why tanners and their upstream suppliers work the way they do. The best in the industry have nothing to hide; they have much to be proud of, as this exciting series proves.
Social capital
In a similar way, the Global Tannery of the Year programme and World Leather magazine have also highlighted the excellent work tanners around the world are carrying out in terms of corporate social responsibility and sound environmental practices. Tanneries from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa are identified. As a member of this programme’s panel of judges, this author can attest that all entrants to the contest have demonstrated a massive commitment to the reduction in the use of chemicals, reduction in the use of water, and reduction in the use of energy.
In my 40 years in business, and in my travels to 65 countries visiting hundreds of factories across industry categories from military hardware to paper products, food and footwear, coffee and clothing, I have never seen any group of companies, nor any industry as a whole, devote so much time, money and energy to reducing its carbon footprint and becoming responsible environmental citizens. Does the industry deserve a “gold star” for its present behaviour? Certain companies certainly do as they are stellar examples of “how to do it right”. However, there is still much progress to be made. The industry does deserve massive credit for the work it has already done, and for being a leading example for all industries. For this author, there really is no debate. For the sake of the planet, and for all living on it, leather purchased from responsible manufacturers is the clear choice.
The interior of the 2023 Cadillac Escalade, with semi-aniline leather upholstery.
Photo credit: Cadillac
