Does the leather industry need to move away from fossil fuel based chemicals?
For the September/October 2022 issue, ILM asked leather professionals from around the sector: “If leather continues to focus on its benefits as a natural material, does the industry need to move away from using fossil fuel based chemical sources in the leather manufacturing process?”
The simple answer to the question is “yes”, but I feel we are already on a good course. Leather is a co-product of the food industry, and we need many different types of chemicals in this modern world to produce the vastly different leather articles desired by end users. The leather has to perform to customer expectations. At this time, we cannot “cancel” the use of oil-based products completely; it is technically impossible to use non-oil-based products for many of the products needed to process leather to the exacting standards demanded. These chemicals cannot be made without raw materials, energy input and water. However, our industry is working hard on reducing the impact we have on the environment.
The chemical suppliers can reduce the impact, the carbon footprint, in the choice of raw materials they use but also in the manufacturing processes. They can improve the efficiency of the products they make and can work with their customers to help improve the efficiency of the complete leather manufacturing process, with new formulation techniques and products. They can also replace oilbased products with more “green tech” products where they are available. This has already been a firm goal in many companies over many years.
Bio-sourced products are a target for chemical manufacturers, but some of these goals currently demanded by legislation, especially in the EU, need to be reasonable and achievable; many are not. If these demands prove to be unachievable then the danger is that the chemical manufacturing industry could be forced out of the EU to parts of the world where these issues are not controlled so tightly. In a similar way that contributed to the demise of the leather manufacturing industry in the EU and North America over the past 50 years. Could it be history repeating itself with the leather chemical industry?
General first impressions of the trend to use more bio-sourced chemicals are very good, but there are often overlooked negative issues with this technology, such as, by their very nature, they are plantbased products – obviously needing to be grown. They take resources such as water, land and nutrients from the soil, resources that can probably be better used to produce food to feed the world. The population is still growing, demands on food production are still growing and we need much 1 22 2 more land to satisfy food demands alone before we even start to think about crops for bio-based chemicals. Where can that land come from? Land reclamation from the oceans, deforestation or alternative sources of land? It’s a very difficult problem to resolve.
The EU has also placed limits on deforestation, which appears to be a good thing in principle, but where will the extra land come from in Europe that is needed to produce bio-products for chemicals? Europe needs to look elsewhere for this land to grow bio-chemicals. So, this is becoming an ethical problem. We want less pollution, less waste, less use of petrochemicals and more use of land to grow bio crops. Is the EU becoming selfish in these demands, with legislation that pushes the problems outside of Europe? Are they thinking of the planet as a whole, or only of themselves? These demands are in danger of having a negative impact on our world as a whole. There are countries that do not have enough land to grow crops to feed their citizens, but the opportunity to grow bio-chemical crops that potentially will bring more profit could lead to valuable food land being used for bio-chemicals. What is the cost to the parts of the globe where these problems can occur, while the EU dictates these unachievable demands? There is a very philosophical question that needs to be answered – “what is the price of our values?”
Another negative issue in these demands is that all these changes will mean more expense to the leather industry, which will inevitably be passed on to the final consumers, who may not accept the increased prices and choose a potentially cheaper “substitute leather” product; artificial leather products, as well as the incorrectly named “cactus leather”, “pineapple leathers”, “vegan leathers” etc. These products are environmentally so much worse than leather itself.
Look at the manufacturing statistics (independently sourced scientific data). Artificial and substitute textiles are 70-80% fossil fuel based and 20-30% bio-sourced. The leather industry is exactly the opposite: automotive leather can be 65% bio-sourced and 35% fossil fuel sourced, some traditional tanned vegetable leathers are 95% bio-sourced and only 5% fossil fuel based and the average for all leather types is assumed to be around 80% bio-sourced and 20% fossil fuel based.
So, yes, we do need to move away from fossil fuels, but we must pay close attention to the damage that these alternatives may cause. It is not a simple switch over without consequence. We are already making a better product than the artificial leather industry, without even the consideration of longevity of use of products made with leather. So, we are already on the right path. We are all still striving to do better, to become better, cleaner, but we must be careful that we are not legislated out of business. We have to be on guard that we do not drive the consumer down the “leather alternative” path through the impact of higher prices.
The answer is a resounding YES. Replacing traditional fossil fuel-based chemicals benefits the acceptance of leather as a natural raw material and improves the carbon footprint of leather manufacturing. All the carbon taken from the earth’s crust ends up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in the long run. An important advantage of leather is that the carbon remains sequestered in a leather item for longer due to its relatively long service life, for example, compared to a cheap t-shirt that is likely to be burned or buried after only a short period of wear. But, even with leather, a transition to carbon dioxide is inevitable in the long run. The skin itself is based only on biobased, so-called modern carbon. If the chemicals used are biobased, the carbon footprint is net-zero, as it is only carbon that was already present on earth. The use of biobased raw materials is a global trend in the production of goods, including chemicals, clothing and furniture. While many sectors such as energy production and transportation can drastically reduce their need for carbon in the medium term, the production of materials will require more carbon simply because demand and production volumes are increasing, and recycling methods can only partially compensate for this increase. Leather already has the great advantage of being a biobased raw material derived from animals that feed naturally. The chemical industry can offer high-quality leather chemicals with exceptionally high levels of biobased carbon. These include fatliquors, tanning agents and finishing products. It seems only logical to combine the two – natural leather and the power of biobased chemicals to create a durable material with an optimal carbon footprint.
Jean-Pierre Gualino, President, IULTCS
The answer is a resounding YES. Replacing traditional fossil fuel-based chemicals benefits the acceptance of leather as a natural raw material and improves the carbon footprint of leather manufacturing. All the carbon taken from the earth’s crust ends up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in the long run. An important advantage of leather is that the carbon remains sequestered in a leather item for longer due to its relatively long service life, for example, compared to a cheap t-shirt that is likely to be burned or buried after only a short period of wear. But, even with leather, a transition to carbon dioxide is inevitable in the long run. The skin itself is based only on biobased, so-called modern carbon. If the chemicals used are biobased, the carbon footprint is net-zero, as it is only carbon that was already present on earth. The use of biobased raw materials is a global trend in the production of goods, including chemicals, clothing and furniture. While many sectors such as energy production and transportation can drastically reduce their need for carbon in the medium term, the production of materials will require more carbon simply because demand and production volumes are increasing, and recycling methods can only partially compensate for this increase. Leather already has the great advantage of being a biobased raw material derived from animals that feed naturally. The chemical industry can offer high-quality leather chemicals with exceptionally high levels of biobased carbon. These include fatliquors, tanning agents and finishing products. It seems only logical to combine the two – natural leather and the power of biobased chemicals to create a durable material with an optimal carbon footprint.
Ivo Reetz, Head of Global R&D, Pulcra Chemicals
With the modern understanding that humanity has to move away from generating energy from fossil fuels and from adopting linear approaches to the way it uses the planet’s resources, natural fibres will only grow in popularity. Currently, analytical methods allow us to effectively calculate the biogenic carbon content in fibres, making it possible to assess materials that claim to be biobased but are actually mostly constituted of plastic. Although not yet common knowledge, information on the real origin of vegan materials and their intrinsic quality is frequently being shared and people are becoming more informed. This being said, it is still the era of plastics. Synthetic polymers are so ubiquitous that even natural fibres use them more often than not in their production processes. With several technological innovations being developed by the chemical companies in our sector, biobased chemicals are a big part of this change in technological paradigm, and we can only benefit from it. This is one more reason for leather to proudly wear its “100% natural fibre” hat, strengthening its position as a classic material that addresses the modern challenges of sustainably. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that the use of biobased chemicals cannot come at all costs. It does not make sense to replace a fossil fuel based chemical if its replacement generates a bigger impact in its overall production process or if it needs a higher quantity to fulfil its technical purpose because this would mean a net negative impact on both the environment and on the economics of the tannery.
Kim Sena, Sustainability Manager, JBS Couros
