Show of unity: European leather industry – an interview

Can you explain the current state of leather’s push-back on companies who are misusing the term ‘leather’ and jeopardising the integrity of supply chains?

Gustavo Gonzalez-Quijano: Cotance is very pleased to see that the protection of leather, as a unique material, and its terminology, constituting an extraordinary cultural heritage, is taken care of by an increasing number of colleagues in the leather industry. We started a couple of decades ago, developing standards, fighting back on misuses of the term leather and lobbying for uniform rules in the EU. Other trade associations have followed, sometimes with even more success than ourselves; I am thinking notably of the Leather Law in Brazil and the excellent work done by our friends from CICB; or the Genuine Leather Certification Scheme developed by our Chinese friends from CLIA. It is maybe not known so much, but ICT members have done a lot in this area, as the protection of leather and its promotion is a core competence of leather trade associations. We should perhaps talk more about our activities in defence of leather. People may not be aware that the leather mark is a registered trademark owned by UKLF, for the UK, and by UNIC in Italy and several other important markets. Other ICT members were, and are, encouraged to protect the term ‘leather’ and its symbol by the most appropriate instruments at their disposal, be they laws, regulations, standards or intellectual property rights.

ICT has been key in publicising news and repositories, such as a databank of leather legislation and standards, coordinating activities among member associations, and fostering a better understanding of the issue by our colleagues from ICHSLTA and IULTCS. Now we are all working on this topic within GLCC.

However, denouncing or avoiding [the fact that] the term ‘leather’ is usurped by rogue traders, is not only the prerogative of leather trade associations. Anyone in this industry is invited to act, from tanners to brands, from producers to traders, from consumers to journalists. I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by Mike Redwood in this area and the initiative Leather Naturally that he has launched

How are the objectives of the Future for European Leather (Objective 2025) being adhered to, especially through intense and energetic work across Europe?

Objective 2025 has been a great project for the formidable mobilisation it has generated in the sector. Europe’s leather value chain has pooled interests, expressed its hopes and fears for coming years, and set common objectives to be reached. Four policy areas identified – industry, trade, environment and social or societal affairs. They have been articulated in specific actions, which have been inserted into a roadmap that is in consultation by both sides of the industry. This roadmap will guide the common actions of the social partners of the leather industry until 2025.

But we can already report some positive developments on the objectives that we identified for 2025. On trade, we are one step closer to an international sector agreement that should discipline the trade in hides, skins and wet-blue, as we have started talking to our colleagues in the ICT Executive Committee, and there hasn’t been any opposition. On the environment, we can look back to the publication of the CEN Standard for the Carbon Footprint of Leather and the PEFCR that have been developed within the EU Environmental Footprint initiative. Here, we are consecrating the principle that hides and skins from slaughter animals are a by-product and that they ought to be treated as such from an environmental allocation point of view. On industry matters, we [are having] increasing success in convincing brands such as Doc Martens and Nike to avoid misusing the term ‘leather’. On social or societal affairs, we are fully committed to due diligence for the healthy tannery workplaces project, and there are many other interesting outputs that our affiliated tanners are going to appreciate.

Can you explain the Skills4Smart TCLF initiative, and how it aims to bolster recruitment and retention through skills development?

The four-year ERASMUS+ project that we are developing in partnership with our colleagues from the textile, clothing, leather and footwear (TCLF) industries has just started. It is an ambitious project, as it aims to develop a blueprint for the education and training in the TCLF sectors in Europe. Only a few sectors have been selected for the opportunity to receive funding for projects that rethink education and training structures. The TCLF sector was one of the happy few. Our industries, and current and future workers, will see the benefits of this initiative in terms of sector appeal and attractiveness, qualifications, public support mechanisms and more, as it unfolds. I would like to highlight in particular the central idea of setting up a TCLF fashion campus that Federico Brugnoli, of Spin360, will be leading in cooperation with, and supported by, our three EU TCLF associations.

Is there measurable progress in traceability, in light of due diligence for healthy workplaces in tanneries, as featured at the OECD Forum in Paris in January?

It is undeniable that traceability will become increasingly important. This is not because of the requests and pressures from brands, or the efforts of certain leather or textiles certification schemes, but because of politics and regulatory reasons. For example, last year, the European Parliament amended the European Commission’s draft legislative proposals for traceability of conflict minerals from voluntary to mandatory. More of the same is likely to be seen in the future in other sectors, notably the garment and footwear sector, where leather is also involved. The Rana Plaza accident in Bangladesh a few years ago was especially an important game-changer.

Transparency and traceability was the topic of a project that Cotance developed in 2011, where we sorted out the main issues regarding traceability of raw materials and we identified the obstacles to transparency in the leather supply chain. The concerns and the issues at stake at that time have remained effectively the same, but there may be some technical developments now that could support easier traceability. One can expect that business mechanisms such as blockchain, or technical developments such as DNA analysis, can solve the implementation of traceability. However, the question remains – who wants transparency and who is going to pay for it? Or, in other words, are those with most potential for reputational gain through traceability going to disclose their sources and pay the price it costs to get it done throughout the supply chain?

There is another aspect of traceability to be considered: the issue of possible dangerous chemicals in worn-out leather articles. As the EU is advancing towards more circularity in the economy, waste management comes increasingly into focus and notably the ‘recyclability’ of products and materials. This is an issue that the leather sector must address.

Above all, our due diligence project wanted to address a fundamentally ethical question of tannery workplace safety, not only from the occupational side, but also from the business angle. I am pleased that these two important aspects could be highlighted earlier this year in the OECD Forum and communicated to hundreds of attending stakeholders and regulators.

Have you noticed greater industry cooperation within the EU, and what challenges remain among companies, industry bodies and the EC to achieve the set objectives?

The leather industry in Europe has achieved significant lobbying results in Brussels, in spite of its small size or relative weight in EU GDP. These are, above all, successes in technical fields – such as chemicals, environment or technical regulations – or in the area of social affairs, such as social dialogue; good results in the field of workplace safety; low accident rates and absenteeism; education; training initiatives and support; and a competitive workforce.

Cotance is a highly efficient, specialised body. For a small industrial sector such as leather, it is, however, much more difficult to get results in politically sensitive areas like leather authenticity, origin marking and challenging export restrictions. We continue to struggle to get sufficient political will for regulatory measures where, for example, other more important industries or more visible activist organisations just need to express a desire; just think of the regulatory protection that the automotive industry achieves, or the ease with which animal activists set up the EU cat and dog fur ban.

However, when we eventually achieve getting regulatory measures, such as trade clauses in FTAs banning export restrictions and taxes, we struggle to get our authorities to enforce our rights. This is not because the leather industry bets on the wrong issues or doesn’t know how to deal with a topic. It is simply because the leather value chain in Europe is fragmented and struggles to act together. So much could be achieved if the leather value chain in Europe would pool together its assets and capacity to use the levers that it undoubtedly has.