A growing body of research is intensifying scrutiny of leather’s environmental credentials, with new findings suggesting its carbon footprint may be significantly higher than long assumed, challenging its long-standing position as a “natural” and sustainable material in the global fashion industry.
A recent study published in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering by Mikaila Roncevich of Cornell University and Matthew Hayek of New York University has brought fresh attention to the issue. The researchers used UN Food and Agriculture Organization livestock data to recalculate emissions from the farming phase of bovine leather, concluding that the material’s climate impact may be substantially underestimated under current accounting methods. Read Here
Their findings indicate that when emissions from livestock production are fully accounted for, the climate impact of cow-derived leather rises sharply. A meta-analysis also suggests that leather’s carbon footprint could be about 70% higher than previous estimates, largely due to methane emissions and land use associated with cattle farming.
The debate centres on how leather is classified in lifecycle assessments (LCA). Traditionally, the industry has treated hides as a by-product of meat and dairy production, assigning them only a small share of environmental burden. However, the new study supports a growing argument that leather should be considered a co-product, meaning it deserves a more proportional allocation of emissions from livestock systems.
This methodological shift has major implications. If leather is treated as a co-product, its climate impact increases substantially, potentially doubling earlier estimates. Some analyses suggest that when farm-level emissions are fully included, leather can generate significantly higher emissions per unit compared to synthetic alternatives.
Also Read: HAMS Garments Sets a New Global Benchmark for Sustainable Manufacturing
Additional comparisons indicate that leather may produce far more emissions than commonly used “vegan leather” alternatives, particularly when measured on a per-weight or per-area basis. In some cases, bovine leather has been estimated to generate several times the emissions of certain synthetic substitutes, although results vary depending on assumptions and system boundaries.
Beyond carbon metrics, leather production raises broader environmental concerns. The tanning process, a key stage in converting raw hides into usable material, often involves hazardous chemicals such as chromium, which can lead to water contamination and health risks for workers if not properly managed. Pollution linked to tanning remains a persistent issue in regions with limited regulatory enforcement.
At the same time, defenders of leather argue that its durability and long lifespan should be factored into sustainability calculations. Leather goods can last for years or even decades, potentially reducing replacement frequency and lowering lifetime emissions. Industry-backed assessments also maintain that using hides adds value to materials that would otherwise be discarded, supporting circular economy principles.
The debate is particularly relevant for countries like Bangladesh, where the leather sector is seen as a key avenue for export diversification beyond ready-made garments. While the country has taken steps to relocate tanneries to designated industrial zones, challenges remain around effluent treatment, waste management and compliance with international environmental standards.
Meanwhile, the rise of alternative materials is reshaping market dynamics. Synthetic options such as polyurethane and PVC offer cost and scalability advantages but rely on fossil fuels and contribute to microplastic pollution. Emerging bio-based materials, including those derived from mycelium and plant sources, are being explored as lower-impact solutions, though they face challenges in scaling production.
For global fashion brands, the implications are significant. As pressure increases around carbon disclosure and supply chain transparency, companies may need to reassess how they calculate and report material impacts. This could influence sourcing strategies, accelerate investment in alternatives and reshape sustainability claims.
Ultimately, the evolving discourse highlights a broader challenge for the fashion industry: balancing scientific accuracy, industrial practicality and consumer expectations in an era of heightened climate accountability.