COP26 – Leather Manifesto

/in /by

The Swedish Tanners Association, along with 30 other international leather industry organizations, call on the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow 31st Oct – 12th Nov to prioritise natural materials as a means of directly mitigating climate impact. The “Leather Manifesto,” written by the organisations, challenges the COP26 to recognise the cyclical, climate-efficient characteristics of natural fibres and their potential to reduce the climate impacts of consumer products.

Our Materials Impact our Climate

The world needs materials that are sustainable, renewable, recyclable, biodegradable, and most importantly, do not add to the burden of atmospheric carbon.

Natural fibers, such as leather, cotton, wool, mohair, alpaca, silk, hemp and mycelium, are part of the biogenic carbon cycle and as such are comprised of carbon that has been in the atmosphere for a millennia.

These readily available raw materials, when ethically and properly produced, are an important replacement for fossil fuels, reducing the need for its extraction and retaining more carbon in the earth.

Furthermore, at the end of life, properly produced natural materials will biodegrade, limiting their impact and mitigating harmful emissions, such as microplastic pollution, often associated with the synthetic materials that they replace.

With particular reference to leather, the leather manufacturing sector upcycles an unavoidable waste from the food industry, to produce a versatile, durable, unique material, ideal for the circular economy that the world must move towards.

However, these same materials are often dismissed through a lack of understanding of the manufacturing process and its supply chain, or through the application of questionable science generally in the form of incomplete and incomparable or out-dated Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), and the marketing of new, often fossil fuel-based materials claiming unsubstantiated levels of sustainability.

As shown by some emerging climate science studies, such as the GWP* model, production and use of biogenic materials typically does not add to the warming burden of the atmosphere, and where it does, the effects are short-lived. This is in contrast to materials produced from fossil-fuels, which release carbon that has been locked in the earth’s core for a millennia, and will persist in the environment, contributing to climate change.

Therefore, we, the undersigned organizations, call on the COP26 forum to…

…Recognize the cyclical, climate efficient nature of natural fibres and their potential for a positive contribution to reducing the climate impacts of consumer products.

…Encourage the use of natural fibers wherever feasible and reduce unnecessary reliance on fossil-fuel-based materials.


…Support LCA methodologies that accurately account for the environmental impact of fossil-fuel based materials, including end of life properties.

…Promote ‘slow fashion’, durable products, and items that can be used many times, repaired and refurbished, and last for years.

Signatories to the Leather Manifesto

Associação Portuguesa dos Industriais de Curtumes (APIC – Portugal Tanners’s Association)

Asociación Española del Curtido (ACEXPIEL – Spanish Tanners’ Association)

Assocation of Dutch Hide Traders (V.N.H.)

Australian Hide Skin and Leather Exporters’ Association Inc (AHSLEA)

Cámara de la Industria de Curtiduría – México (CANALCUR)

Center for the Brazilian Tanning Industry (CICB)

Centro Tecnológico das Indústrias do Couro (CTIC – Leather Center in Portugal)

China Leather Industry Association

Confederation of National Associations of Tanners and Dressers of the European Community (COTANCE)

Dutch Association of Leather Chemists & Technicians (NVLST)

International Council of Hides, Skins and Leather Traders Association (ICHSLTA)

International Council of Tanners (ICT)

International Union of Leather Technologists and Chemists Societies (IULTCS)

Austrian Association of Textile, Clothing, Shoe and Leather Industry – Leather Producing Industry Group

French Hides & Skins Federation

Fédération Française Tannerie Megisserie (French Tanners Association)

Leather and Hide Council of America

Leather Cluster Barcelona

Leather and Hide Council of America

Leather Cluster Barcelona

Leather Naturally

Leather UK

Leather Working Group

One 4 Leather

Society of Leather Technologists and Chemists

Sustainable Leather Foundation

Swedish Tanners Association

Turkish Leather Industrialists Association (TLIA)

UNIC Concerie Italiane (Italian Tanneries Association)

Association of the German Leather Industry (TUV – German Leather Federation)

Wirtschaftsverband Häute/Leder (WHL – German Hide and Leather Association)

Zimbabwe Leather Development Council

COP26 – Leather Manifesto

/in /by

The Swedish Tanners’ Association, together with some 30 international leather organizations, has submitted the attached manifesto to the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 in Glasgow 31 October – 12 November, calling for the use of natural materials and challenging COP26 to recognize the cyclical and climate-efficient properties of natural fibres and their potential to reduce the climate impact of consumer products.

Our Materials Impact our Climate

The world needs materials that are sustainable, renewable, recyclable, biodegradable, and most importantly, do not add to the burden of atmospheric carbon.

Natural fibers, such as leather, cotton, wool, mohair, alpaca, silk, hemp and mycelium, are part of the biogenic carbon cycle and as such are comprised of carbon that has been in the atmosphere for a millennia.

These readily available raw materials, when ethically and properly produced, are an important replacement for fossil fuels, reducing the need for its extraction and retaining more carbon in the earth.

Furthermore, at the end of life, properly produced natural materials will biodegrade, limiting their impact and mitigating harmful emissions, such as microplastic pollution, often associated with the synthetic materials that they replace.

With particular reference to leather, the leather manufacturing sector upcycles an unavoidable waste from the food industry, to produce a versatile, durable, unique material, ideal for the circular economy that the world must move towards.

However, these same materials are often dismissed through a lack of understanding of the manufacturing process and its supply chain, or through the application of questionable science generally in the form of incomplete and incomparable or out-dated Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), and the marketing of new, often fossil fuel-based materials claiming unsubstantiated levels of sustainability.

As shown by some emerging climate science studies, such as the GWP* model, production and use of biogenic materials typically does not add to the warming burden of the atmosphere, and where it does, the effects are short-lived. This is in contrast to materials produced from fossil-fuels, which release carbon that has been locked in the earth’s core for a millennia, and will persist in the environment, contributing to climate change.

Therefore, we, the undersigned organizations, call on the COP26 forum to…

…Recognize the cyclical, climate efficient nature of natural fibres and their potential for a positive contribution to reducing the climate impacts of consumer products.

…Encourage the use of natural fibers wherever feasible and reduce unnecessary reliance on fossil-fuel-based materials.


…Support LCA methodologies that accurately account for the environmental impact of fossil-fuel based materials, including end of life properties.

…Promote ‘slow fashion’, durable products, and items that can be used many times, repaired and refurbished, and last for years.

Signatories to the Leather Manifesto

Associação Portuguesa dos Industriais de Curtumes (APIC – Portugal Tanners’s Association)

Asociación Española del Curtido (ACEXPIEL – Spanish Tanners’ Association)

Assocation of Dutch Hide Traders (V.N.H.)

Australian Hide Skin and Leather Exporters’ Association Inc (AHSLEA)

Cámara de la Industria de Curtiduría – México (CANALCUR)

Center for the Brazilian Tanning Industry (CICB)

Centro Tecnológico das Indústrias do Couro (CTIC – Leather Center in Portugal)

China Leather Industry Association

Confederation of National Associations of Tanners and Dressers of the European Community (COTANCE)

Dutch Association of Leather Chemists & Technicians (NVLST)

International Council of Hides, Skins and Leather Traders Association (ICHSLTA)

International Council of Tanners (ICT)

International Union of Leather Technologists and Chemists Societies (IULTCS)

Austrian Association of Textile, Clothing, Shoe and Leather Industry – Leather Producing Industry Group

French Hides & Skins Federation

Fédération Française Tannerie Megisserie (French Tanners Association)

Leather and Hide Council of America

Leather Cluster Barcelona

Leather and Hide Council of America

Leather Cluster Barcelona

Leather Naturally

Leather UK

Leather Working Group

One 4 Leather

Society of Leather Technologists and Chemists

Sustainable Leather Foundation

Swedish Tanners Association

Turkish Leather Industrialists Association (TLIA)

UNIC Concerie Italiane (Italian Tanneries Association)

Association of the German Leather Industry (TUV – German Leather Federation)

Wirtschaftsverband Häute/Leder (WHL – German Hide and Leather Association)

Zimbabwe Leather Development Council

Leather goes for Zero Allocation

/in /by

The leather industry has long argued that as a by-product, our raw materials, hides and skins, should not carry any environmental burden from the rearing of livestock. This is the concept of zero allocation.
What is at stake with zero allocation? There is a debate when determining the carbon footprint of animal by-products. Two sides oppose each other.

One side, which includes slaughterhouses, is convinced that the carbon emissions caused by a cow during its lifetime must be distributed among meat and milk and also all by-products.
For hides, this results in a carbon dioxide (CO2) burden derived from agriculture, which is added to leather. This gives a disadvantage to animal by-products compared to, for example, synthetic products.

The other side, including the tanners, stands for zero allocation. This means that only the products that the animal was reared for, i.e. meat and milk, should carry the CO2 burden from animal husbandry. Unlike the primary products of livestock rearing, meat and milk, by-products like hides and skins may not always be further processed (e.g. because the carbon footprint is too large), and become waste. In the 2008 and 2020 crises, this happened with a large number of hides and skins.

If the skins available worldwide were disposed of to landfill, their decomposition would create significant additional CO2, amounting to approximately 5 million tons of harmful climate gases.

According to the US EPA emissions equivalencies calculator, that corresponds to the annual emissions of 1,087,400 average cars.
That’s quite a saving! Don’t waste this resource, use it!

Edited in October 2021 by

in collaboration with

Leather goes for Zero Allocation

/in /by

The leather industry has long argued that as a by-product, our raw materials, hides and skins, should not carry any environmental burden from the rearing of livestock. This is the concept of zero allocation.
What is at stake with zero allocation? There is a debate when determining the carbon footprint of animal by-products. Two sides oppose each other.

One side, which includes slaughterhouses, is convinced that the carbon emissions caused by a cow during its lifetime must be distributed among meat and milk and also all by-products.
For hides, this results in a carbon dioxide (CO2) burden derived from agriculture, which is added to leather. This gives a disadvantage to animal by-products compared to, for example, synthetic products.

The other side, including the tanners, stands for zero allocation. This means that only the products that the animal was reared for, i.e. meat and milk, should carry the CO2 burden from animal husbandry. Unlike the primary products of livestock rearing, meat and milk, by-products like hides and skins may not always be further processed (e.g. because the carbon footprint is too large), and become waste. In the 2008 and 2020 crises, this happened with a large number of hides and skins.

If the skins available worldwide were disposed of to landfill, their decomposition would create significant additional CO2, amounting to approximately 5 million tons of harmful climate gases.According to the US EPA emissions equivalencies calculator, that corresponds to the annual emissions of 1,087,400 average cars.
That’s quite a saving! Don’t waste this resource, use it!

edited in October 2021 by

in collaboration with

Leather goes for Zero Allocation

/in /by

The leather industry has long argued that as a by-product, our raw materials, hides and skins, should not carry any environmental burden from the rearing of livestock. This is the concept of zero allocation.
What is at stake with zero allocation? There is a debate when determining the carbon footprint of animal by-products. Two sides oppose each other.

One side, which includes slaughterhouses, is convinced that the carbon emissions caused by a cow during its lifetime must be distributed among meat and milk and also all by-products.
For hides, this results in a carbon dioxide (CO2) burden derived from agriculture, which is added to leather. This gives a disadvantage to animal by-products compared to, for example, synthetic products.

The other side, including the tanners, stands for zero allocation. This means that only the products that the animal was reared for, i.e. meat and milk, should carry the CO2 burden from animal husbandry. Unlike the primary products of livestock rearing, meat and milk, by-products like hides and skins may not always be further processed (e.g. because the carbon footprint is too large), and become waste. In the 2008 and 2020 crises, this happened with a large number of hides and skins.

If the skins available worldwide were disposed of to landfill, their decomposition would create significant additional CO2, amounting to approximately 5 million tons of harmful climate gases.According to the US EPA emissions equivalencies calculator, that corresponds to the annual emissions of 1,087,400 average cars.
That’s quite a saving! Don’t waste this resource, use it!

edited in October 2021 by

in collaboration with