A symbol of luxury and durability, leather still plays an important role in our daily lives: shoes, jackets, bags, gloves, and even car seats. Although its share of the textile market has declined, it still accounts for nearly a quarter of the global footwear market. Production is largely shaped by China, which dominates exports, followed by Brazil, India, Russia, and Italy. Some countries, such as Pakistan or Argentina, are major producers of hides, while others, like France, mainly process leather without producing the raw material themselves.
But beyond its image and presumed longevity, what is the environmental impact of a leather product when considering its entire life cycle, from raw material production to end of life?
Also, is synthetic leather, also known as “vegan leather,” a more ecological alternative?
What exactly is synthetic leather?
Synthetic leather includes all materials that imitate the appearance and texture of animal leather without being made from animal skin. The most common types today are made from plastic, mainly PVC or polyurethane (PU). Plant-based versions, derived from corn, cactus, grapes, apples, pineapple, or even mushrooms, are also emerging, sometimes blended with plastic components to ensure strength and durability. There are even innovative materials produced using bacteria.
Which has the greater impact? Animal or synthetic leather?
According to an analysis presented by Laure Patouillard in a Moteur de recherche column in 2022, plant-based synthetic leather has a carbon footprint ten times lower than that of animal leather for an equivalent surface area.
In the case of a pair of shoes, for example, material production accounts for about half of the total environmental impact, with the other half mainly coming from assembly. As a result:
- Shoes made from plant-based leather have roughly half the overall environmental impact of shoes made from animal leather.
- For ecosystems, the impact can be up to fifteen times lower, mainly due to the absence of tanning, a highly polluting process.
- Plastic-based synthetic leathers (PU or PVC) show 30-50% lower impacts than animal leather.
However, these figures vary widely depending on factors such as the origin of materials (virgin or recycled plastic), the proportion of plant fibers, and the product’s lifespan.
Why is animal leather more impactful?
Two main stages explain most of its environmental burden:
- Livestock farming: Leather production almost always depends on cattle farming (excluding exotic leathers). Livestock farming is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution. It is sometimes argued that hides are merely a “waste” product of meat production. However, in life cycle assessment (LCA), as soon as the hide has an economic value, it is assigned a share of the impacts from farming. This is a methodological convention rather than an absolute truth, and different assumptions can lead to significantly different results.
- Tanning: this is a chemical process essential to make hides durable and resistant to decay. It is energy-intensive and generates toxic emissions. Alternative processes do exist, but they are more expensive and therefore still relatively rare.
How are the impacts of livestock farming allocated?
Livestock farming is a typical example of a multifunctional process, meaning it produces several products: meat, sometimes milk, and hides. In LCA, impacts must therefore be distributed among these products—this is known as impact allocation.
There is no single or universally accepted method. Impacts can be allocated:
- by mass (the larger the quantity produced, the greater the share of impacts),
- by volume,
- by economic value (more profitable products receive a larger share),
- or using more complex approaches based on biological flows, as applied in Europe to allocate impacts between milk, meat, and hides.
Using these rules, it is estimated that one kilogram of hide carries roughly the same environmental impact as three kilograms of milk or 300 grams of meat. This logic does not apply to exotic or very high-quality leathers (crocodile, ostrich, camel, etc.), where animals are raised specifically for their skins; in those cases, nearly all impacts are attributed to the leather.
Product lifespan: a key factor
Comparing materials alone is not enough. What truly matters is actual usage time. If a synthetic leather shoe has half the production impact but wears out three times faster, its total footprint becomes higher. Today, clothing is often replaced not because it is worn out, but because consumers grow tired of it. In the UK, a garment is worn on average for only three years, a duration further reduced by fast fashion. Yet each additional year of use significantly reduces environmental impacts. This is why buying second-hand, maintaining, and repairing products are often more effective strategies than simply switching materials.
Recommendations
- Choose durable, timeless and repairable products.
- Favor second-hand leather to extend the life of existing items.
- If choosing synthetics, prefer recycled or bio-based versions, such as those made from fruit or plant waste.
- If buying animal leather, avoid exotic types or those from herds raised solely for hide production.
- Care for your items: clean, nourish, and repair them rather than replacing them — and donate when you no longer use them.
Plant-based or recycled leather is often more eco-friendly during production, but the true environmental difference lies in how long we use our products. The material matters, but it’s the years of use that ultimately determine an object’s footprint.
This blog post is based on a Moteur de recherche column broadcast by Radio Canada on July 10, 2024 (french) and a press article published on July 5, 2024 (french version) in La Presse with the intervention of Elliot Muller, analyst at CIRAIG.
Bibliography
Conde, M., Combalia, F., Baquero, G., Ollé, L., & Bacardit, A. (2022). Exploring the feasibility of substituting mimosa tannin for pine bark powder: A LCA perspective. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 7, 100425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100425
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future.
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-new-textiles-economy
European Commission, Joint Research Centre. (2018). PEFCR guidance document (Version 6.3).
https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3-2.pdf
Farfetch. (2020). Understanding the environmental savings of pre-owned fashion.
https://cdn-static.farfetch-contents.com/content/UP/PRODUCTION/LANDING-PAGES/SUSTAINABILITY-CALC/Understanding%20the%20Environmental%20Savings%20of%20Pre-owned_Farfetch%20Report%202020.pdf
Ferreira de Silva, P. P. (2023). Environmental performance of leather and leather-like materials applied to footwear (Master’s thesis). Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Energy and Process Engineering. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3087821
Grand View Research. (2024). Leather goods market (2025-2033).
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/leather-goods-market
Groupe HCP. (2020). Le tannage du cuir.
https://www.groupehcp.com/tannage/
MoEa. (n.d.). Analyse du cycle de vie des MoEo.
https://moea.io/fr/pages/lca-carbon-footprint
Nordic Council of Ministers. (2018). Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR): Leather.
http://nordic-peforg2.serv14.powerhosting.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/pefcr_leather.pdf
Quantis. (2018). Measuring fashion: Environmental impact of the global apparel and footwear industries study.
https://media-pro.refashion.fr/2025/10/measuring-fashion-environmental-impact-of-the-global-apparel-and-footwear-industries-study.pdf
Shou, M. Domenech, T. (2022). Integrating LCA and blockchain technology to promote circular fashion – A case study of leather handbags. Journal of Cleaner Production, 373, 133557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133557
Statista. (2022). Distribution of leather goods exports in value worldwide in 20221, by country.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/768345/leather-goods-distribution-exports-value-by-country-world/
Tewari, S., Reshamwala, S.M.S., Bhatt, L. et al. Vegan leather: a sustainable reality or a marketing gimmick?. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31, 3361–3375 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31491-8
