It’s time to judge leather’s value differently

Mike Redwood

Columnist

International Leather Maker

We have just returned from a holiday period and started a potentially momentous 2026. Expect events to be fast paced and unpredictable. An ability to be nimble will be essential. So today I offer you a quiet moment; an opportunity to spend ten minutes reading and contemplating the world of leather in a completely new way – through a variety of lenses I will be exploring over the year.

The dominant industrial mindset of the 20^th century emphasised the principle that “more production at lower cost is better” and this ethos shaped the mass production–mass consumption paradigm that defined modern industrial economies. This model has failed the leather industry.

It is a model based on extraction, quite often regardless of the implications. It has failed to help manage any of the major ongoing geopolitical or economic issues. It has accelerated climate change and led to overconsumption and overproduction, as well as the damage created by its waste. It has worsened the outcomes from ageing demographics while hastening the world towards the controlling spheres of influence suggested in 1984 by George Orwell.

Shift the momentum from extraction to stewardship

If we could calm matters and shift the momentum from extraction to stewardship then everyone, including the leather industry, would gain. Part of the problem lies in a commitment to growth and GDP as its measure.

GDP growth is not intrinsically wrong if it is tempered by environmental and social elements. It was first calculated in 1934 by Simon Kuznets who made it clear that while it measured market outputs, it ignored the welfare of society. At Bretton Woods in 1944, it became the international standard, but it is still a less than perfect measure. Generally ageing mature economies need to keep their GDP above 2% while emerging markets need to be above 5%. There is considerable evidence that this is becoming harder to achieve and that global economic growth is levelling out.

Simultaneously we have pushed global society into uncomfortable divisions through the misconception that for young people to survive amid this growth and the service industries replacing much of our traditional manufacturing, new skills must be learned at university. This created the misconceptions that non-graduates were “failures”, representing some form of inadequacy. It has also added ill thought-out metrics into the world, whether they relate to individuals, outputs or products. They are often measuring the wrong things.

This is certainly true throughout the leather industry where such demands have pushed tanners to accelerate processing and overuse correction and pigments. While some good mechanisation can aid the industry, taken too far it can deskill the workforce and commoditise the product. In such a scenario, the reduced price of leather no longer truthfully represents the material. Nor indeed do markets properly respect the dignity of a natural material processed by artisans.

Is it time to stop giving so much away?

The past ten years has seen the leather industry lose production. The figures are sketchy but the downward direction is clear. The raw material link to the livestock industry means that at best, growth would be under 2% and declining as white meat is increasingly preferred. But currently many farmers, abattoirs and meat packers prefer to incinerate hides and skins or convert them to gelatine.

Even at its best, leather already fighting to survive in a slowing world. If we accept Danny Dorling’s analysis of the data (not all do, but it is quite compelling), we are now seeing slower population growth, slower GDP growth and reducing geographic mobility along with rising economic constraints because of the climate, resources and ageing.

If this is even partially true, stability becomes more important and with it, maintenance and durability, so items last longer. Some hope AI will offer spectacular growth, but it looks as though its benefits will be both uncertain and uneven, perhaps similar to globalisation and automation in leaving large numbers unemployed and disillusioned.

Leather becomes a proving ground for a more serious economy

So, in many ways leather is an example of the right article needed for a new, slower world of stewardship. With reduced extraction, value will increasingly belong to things that can live over time rather than try to defeat it. If we can persuade our consumers to pay attention leather shows us more and more as the years pass.

Stewardship offers leather the opportunity to better demonstrate the fundamentals we easily overlook, many of which tanners have worked to support as they followed a proud CSR and sustainability programme in recent years. Only when we embrace the concept of stewardship do statements that leather is natural, long lasting and biodegradable become meaningful.

This comes from leather being so complex. It is difficult to make and difficult to categorise. It carries the imprints of husbandry, land use, animal health and climate long before the tanners start their work. It is biological and historical at the same time, it refuses to behave like a modern abstraction. Its variation is its proof of past life. It does not respond well to being rushed or forced into uniformity.

For that reason, leather is a useful place to think clearly about value since in the modern world so much is purchased on impulse or for instant gratification. Leather articles should look good at purchase but express their full use over time, not merely in cost per use – although that is important, but in the delight and respect it creates over time. And this is in part co-created by the consumer through respect in use, maintenance and repair.

I have pushed the differentiator for leather against biomaterials (which I think tanners should be sharing capacity with) as one of nature and craft against mass production and manufacturing. This is because in slower moving times, longevity and skill should be rewarded as should anything sustainably linked to nature whose limits will now be acknowledged rather than ignored.

Consequently, as growth slows, the failure of markets to value craft, care, repair and nature becomes more visible — and more damaging. Some leather customers recognise this but others – often but not always the pretenders to the luxury segment – do not and they undervalue leather and push it towards the dark, unfruitful side of the commodity.

Tanners and all the industries who are based on leather must re-learn how to integrate this material knowledge and skill across all their time horizons and materials. They must judge leather differently.

I am not the first to reach these conclusions and am uncovering beautifully written descriptions in the worlds of the arts, heritage and of craft. Some I have previously touched upon. I use an active knowledge integration approach to help pull some of it together and will be expanding each area as we move through the year. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts at any time.

Finally, let me show, as I see it, how the thinking of three authors fits to demonstrate the uniqueness of leather. Leather does not need growth to justify itself (Dorling), it carries moral meaning beyond price (Sandel), and it should be governed by organoleptic standards requiring and trained human (Carney).

This combination is rare.

mike@internationalleathermaker.com

You can find Dr Mike Redwood across social media at @michaelredwood.

Publication and Copyright of “Redwood Column” remains with the publishers of International Leather Maker. The articles cannot be reproduced in any way without the express permission of the publisher. The views are those of the author and not necessarily those of ILM.