Basic HTML Version
criticism for their treatment of
indigenous peoples, another detail that
Puma has picked up on. But for some
time now, the Brazilian government has
been monitoring the situation in its
Amazon regions very carefully and has
started publishing a list of farms that
breach its protocol. The major tanning
groups all have access to this list and
know which ones to avoid. For this
reason, practically the entire Brazilian
leather industry has no connection
whatsoever to illegally deforested land.
UNFAIR TO TANNERS
Of course it’s true that leather
production uses water and chemicals,
but pioneering tanners and new
technology are making it less resource-
intensive all the time. The best in the
business are consistently cutting
consumption of water, chemicals and
energy while reducing waste or
eliminating it altogether. Their
achievements are winning the attention
of their peers and of governments and
users of leather around the world.
Too many people unfortunately hold
on to a 20th century view of tanning as
a dirty industry responsible for too much
pollution. Today’s tanneries are as clean
and pollution free as in any other
modern industry, a fact amply borne out
by the high standards shown by entrants
in
World Leather’s
prestigious global
Tannery of the Year competition. The
leather industry has totally transformed
itself over the past 20 years and deserves
credit rather than being continually hit
over the head with a big stick.
If, for whatever reason, Brazilian
tanners are still failing to convince Puma
that their leather is environmentally
sound, it has the option to safely source
most of its leather from other parts of
the world. European raw material would
probably cost it more money, but
something
else
might
prove
exceptionally interesting and that would
be to state a preference for sourcing
leather from Africa as it already does
with regard to cotton.
PARENT PRESSURE
It now appears that Puma is saying
that it wants more sustainable
production of conventional materials
and has warned that it will terminate the
contracts of suppliers and countries that
do not guarantee to refrain from
clearing rainforests for the cultivation of
raw materials. As far as one can tell, the
threat of terminating contracts is a new
development and a tightening of the
pressure on the Puma supply chain. It
seems well within the bounds of
possibility that the new set of core
sustainability targets published by
Puma’s majority shareholder, the PPR
Group, at its annual general meeting in
April may have helped set the new tone.
PPR says the targets apply across its
luxury and sport and lifestyle brands.
There is plenty in the document that taps
into Puma’s previous pronouncements,
including reducing carbon, waste and
water by 25%. It also mentions
monitoring of suppliers and that PPR will
be monitoring performance with a
priority focus on the sourcing and
suppliers of raw materials, and
evaluating all key suppliers a minimum
of every two years. None of this is
surprising if one takes into account the
name of the PPR group’s chief
sustainability officer: Jochen Zeitz.
As mentioned earlier, the targets for
leather state that if the source is
domestic livestock, it must come from
responsible and verified sources that do
not result in converting sensitive
ecosystems into grazing lands or
agricultural lands for food production for
livestock. If it’s more exotic skins such
as snake or crocodile, suppliers must
use skins from verified captive breeding
operations or from sustainably managed
wild populations. But, surely, this is what
tanners have been going to great
lengths to achieve for some years now?
Mr Zeitz’s remarks in June also
included the fact that he actually longs for
an economic way of producing a leather-
like product in the laboratory.
Petrochemical companies are certainly
trying hard, but it’s far from easy, even
with their big budgets and lobbying
power. As well as presenting an excellent
and ancient example of recycling, leather
is renewable, flexible, breathable, strong,
water-resistant, sensual, natural and
unbelievably beautiful. Furthermore,
consumers like it.
PPR targets fortunately say nothing of
trying to find a substitute for leather,
which must come as a relief for the rest
of its big-name leathergoods and
footwear brands, including Gucci,
Bottega Veneta, Sergio Rossi, Brioni and
all their customers. In fact, the material
that is to be eliminated by 2016 (at the
latest) is one that many brands have
used in an attempt to find a substitute
for leather—mostly for price reasons—
PVC and few have a problem with that
as it contains known carcinogenics.
When Jochen Zeitz spoke in June of
20
WORLD FOOTWEAR | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012
Africa has a plentiful supply of hides and skins and is rapidly gaining the skills and
technology needed to produce top grade leather.
CREDIT: WTP