A paradigm shift for the future of leather

For many years, I have been saying that our leather industry “cannot get there from here”, meaning that the road of tradition, art and science that brought us to where we are today will not work for the future. We need to change our route with different skills and tools.

Current leather production methods will not sustain today’s output levels by 2035. We must drastically cut chemicals, water and energy use (including human energy) in the way we make leather. A ten-year period is enough for a complete industry transformation. Without redesigning by 2035, the leather sector will probably shrink significantly. I do not wish to appear pessimistic; I sincerely hope that my assumptions about the challenges facing our industry prove to be incorrect. My intention is not to discourage, but rather to prompt thoughtful consideration and proactive engagement. The future of leathermaking depends on our willingness to question established paths and embrace change, even if the way forward seems uncertain.

Defining innovation

Innovation is a cultural process that needs to be embraced throughout an organisation – from top to bottom. It is not a product, a process or a machine. It is a culture that will allow the organisation to continue sustainable innovation.

Innovation is a disruption, a revolution. It is non-linear, breaks boundaries and is high risk. Innovation is not a destination, but a journey marked by failure, fuelled by vision, and led by those brave enough to leap. Meanwhile, improvement represents incremental changes, linear progression, optimisation, a “make it better” attitude, but low risk. The innovator’s dilemma is that companies often focus on profitable models and overlook disruptive technologies.

While “first movers” carry risks in new markets, some have turned their early entry into major success. Apple shifted from computers to mobile phone devices; Amazon expanded from books to e-commerce, cloud and devices. Companies that failed to address the “Innovator’s Dilemma” and clung to profitable legacy models lost out to disruptive technologies: Kodak with digital photography; Blackberry with touchscreen smartphones.

Respecting failure

In many corporate environments, innovation is celebrated in theory but punished in practice. Companies often reward mediocre successes—safe bets that yield incremental gains—while penalising bold failures that could have sparked transformative change. This paradox stifles creativity, discourages risk-taking, and ultimately undermines the very innovation these organisations claim to value.

With innovation, failure is not the opposite of success but often the precondition for it. Punishing failure may protect short-term metrics, but it sabotages long-term vision. The companies that thrive are those that dare, stumble, learn and try again.

Collagen from hides and skins

Collagen is a cost-effective structural protein that becomes less biodegradable when tanners stabilise it chemically and thermally (tanning). Large amounts of collagen from hides and skins remain underutilised outside the leather industry, even though 20–30% are used globally for gelatine and collagen products. If hides and skins contained all the necessary amino acids, they would be used far more often as a complete protein source in food.

It would not surprise me if someone from outside the leather industry is already working to create innovative uses for collagen that could directly compete with today’s collagen markets. There is a real possibility that external innovators will discover novel ways to harness collagen, introducing products and solutions that challenge traditional markets.

Leather competing materials

“Next-gen materials” is a suitable term for alternatives to leather. While billions of dollars have been invested in recent years, we have had successes and many failed attempts, but each failure contributed to progress, informed new products, and helped drive industry change. These setbacks were valuable experiments that sped up learning and helped shape future advancements.

Examples of these experiments were Mirum, Mylo, Zoe and recently Pinatex. Notable successes include Generation Phoenix, known for producing Eleather, as well as HyphaLite from ISA TanTec and Innovera by Modern Meadow. These companies exemplify innovation and leadership in advancing beyond the traditional leather industry.

Establishing a realistic use cycle

The idea that leather should endure for decades, even centuries, stems from a legacy of scarcity and artisanal pride. But in a world where consumer cycles are faster, tastes more fluid, and sustainability more nuanced, insisting on extreme longevity may no longer serve the market—or the planet. We need to challenge the notion that leather must last forever as a material of choice.

Consumers have many choices of next-gen materials. Although these options claim ethical and environmental benefits, most lack durability but are quickly improving—and remain used.

By redesigning leathers to match realistic use cycles, manufacturers can reduce overengineering, lower environmental impact, and align with modern design sensibilities. Not every shoe needs to last a lifetime. Not every bag should be indestructible. What matters is that leather outlasts the alternatives, and that it does so with grace.

Why do we need to change the way we make leather?

Looking to 2035, there is some indifference among industry professionals regarding future changes needed for the leather industry. Risk aversion is present within this field. It is a natural tendency to avoid stepping outside comfort zones or experimenting with innovative ideas. Rather than leading the way, most choose to observe and wait for others to take the first steps. They may become fast followers instead of first movers—adopting new methods only after others have tested them and proven their value.

As the saying goes, “People do not change unless the pain of not changing is bigger than changing”. For the leather industry, the next breakthrough cannot be limited to incremental improvements in beamhouse, tanning, or retanning processes. Instead, it will require a complete shift in perspective and approach—a new paradigm that redefines the industry’s future.

Looking ahead

Most tanneries are always being modernised and optimised. They reduce water consumption and chemicals, recycle, install better equipment, optimise finishes, treat waste products, comply with regulations and obtain gold-rated audits. This is valuable as it keeps them compliant, competitive and comfortable. The innovation need remains; settling for “good” can hinder achieving greatness.

To truly innovate, we must rethink the raw to finishing process itself, redesign it for circularity from the molecule up and lead with regenerative vision.

The redesign requires a team effort as we need to mature a culture of innovation. This can be done in two stages: first, from retanning to finishing, which is simpler and can fund the second, more complex module—soaking to tanning. This approach enables quicker market delivery of new materials by using revenue from the initial phase to invest in the latter.

Since we cannot get there from here, which future will we decide to create?