At a time when parts of the global manufacturing sector are being written off as “zombie companies,” leather industry analyst Mike Redwood is pushing back against what he sees as a simplistic and misleading narrative.
Redwood, a UK-based consultant, chemist and long-time commentator on the leather trade, has emerged as a prominent voice arguing that many struggling firms are not dead relics of a declining industry, but businesses undergoing necessary transformation.
“Labeling companies as zombies ignores the reality of industrial cycles and adaptation,” Redwood has argued in recent commentary, particularly in relation to the leather sector, which is grappling with sustainability demands, shifting consumer perceptions and tighter financial conditions.
The term “zombie company” is typically used to describe firms that generate just enough income to service debt but lack the capacity for growth. While such companies have proliferated globally during years of low interest rates, Redwood suggests that applying the label too broadly risks overlooking deeper structural change.
In the leather industry, that change is already underway.
From Europe to Asia, tanneries and manufacturers are facing pressure to reduce environmental impact, improve traceability and compete with synthetic alternatives often marketed as more sustainable. These challenges have squeezed margins and forced consolidation, leading some observers to question the sector’s long-term viability.
Redwood, however, sees a different picture.
Rather than decline, he points to a period of “strategic reset,” where companies are investing in cleaner technologies, rethinking supply chains and repositioning leather as a byproduct of the food industry with inherent circularity advantages.
Also Read: Bangladesh’s Leather Sector Struggles to Unlock Its Full Export Potential
“Leather is not a fossil-fuel-based material. It is part of a natural cycle,” Redwood has emphasized in his writings, countering narratives that place synthetic materials ahead in sustainability rankings.
His argument hinges on a broader critique of how value is assessed in modern manufacturing. According to Redwood, the industry has struggled not only with operational challenges but also with how it communicates its role in a circular economy.
That communication gap, he suggests, has allowed misconceptions to flourish—particularly among consumers increasingly driven by environmental concerns.
At the same time, macroeconomic shifts are accelerating change. Rising interest rates and tighter credit conditions are forcing weaker firms to restructure or exit the market, a process Redwood views as both inevitable and necessary.
“This is not about keeping failing companies alive,” he has noted. “It is about recognizing which businesses are adapting and which are not.”
The distinction is critical. While some firms may indeed fit the traditional definition of “zombie companies,” others are investing in innovation, from water-efficient tanning processes to waste reduction technologies and improved lifecycle analysis.
Industry data suggests that sustainability-linked investments are becoming a key differentiator, particularly as global brands demand higher environmental standards from suppliers.
Redwood’s perspective also reflects his broader role as a historian and advocate for the leather sector. Through his consulting work and published analysis, he has consistently argued that leather’s future depends on both technical improvement and narrative change.
He warns that without a clearer articulation of its environmental credentials, the industry risks losing ground to alternatives that may not always deliver on their sustainability claims.
“Storytelling matters,” Redwood has written, highlighting the need for the sector to better explain its origins, processes and benefits.
His views have resonated with parts of the industry seeking to balance tradition with innovation. As global supply chains continue to evolve, many manufacturers are reassessing their strategies—focusing on efficiency, transparency and alignment with environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards.
For Redwood, this moment represents less a crisis than a turning point.
The companies that survive, he suggests, will be those that embrace change rather than resist it—challenging the notion that they are merely lingering on borrowed time.
In that sense, the “zombie” label may say more about outdated perceptions than about the companies themselves.
As the leather industry navigates an uncertain economic landscape, Redwood’s analysis offers a reminder that resilience often takes quieter forms—rooted not in rapid growth, but in steady adaptation.
