The future of leather is uncertain, and that has major consequences for fashion supply chains. On June 1, regulators will decide whether to remove leather from the European Commission’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). This law, set to take effect at the end of this year, aims to ensure that products sold in the European Union don’t contribute to deforestation or forest degradation. It focuses on key commodities like cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, and palm oil, among others.
“The EUDR is a landmark step in protecting forests worldwide,” says Nicole Rycroft, founder and executive director of the environmental non-profit Canopy. “It’s a truly pioneering law, created in recognition of how important forests are for the climate, biodiversity, and the foundation of economic stability.”
Since leather comes from cattle, it was initially included in the regulation. That means raw and processed hides entering the EU must be traceable all the way back to the farm. This is far from standard practice in the industry. In Brazil—the world’s top cattle producer, with 238 million animals raised in 2023—cattle are often moved between farms an average of three times before slaughter. This happens within a vast network that includes both official monitored suppliers and indirect, unlisted ones. And this is before the hides even go through processing and tanning, which shows just how hard full traceability really is.
According to an EU working document released with the draft act, the leather industry would need to invest an estimated €16.7 million each year to comply with the EUDR. This would likely cover the cost of traceability technology, which is needed to produce the required due diligence documents and provide full visibility into leather’s complex and opaque supply chains. But these costs would come with a huge payoff: the potential environmental benefits of including leather in the EUDR are estimated at €979 million to €1.957 billion per year.
The public consultation to remove leather from the regulation came after intense lobbying from global leather groups, and amid a broader push for EU deregulation. This led regulators to submit an updated draft proposal earlier this month that removed hides, skins, and leather from the EUDR’s scope. But activists, cattle ranchers, and policy experts say excluding leather would be a devastating setback in the fight to protect the world’s forests from destruction linked to cattle production. It could also set a dangerous precedent for other fashion-focused laws. Now, they’re calling on fashion brands to publicly support the EUDR and ensure that leather entering Europe is responsibly sourced.
Leather lobbies push back
The debate over whether to include leather comes back to one of the industry’s most contentious issues: the idea that leather is a byproduct of the meat and dairy industries, and therefore not directly responsible for deforestation. But in recent years, multiple reports have shown direct links between deforested land and products sold in the EU, including handbags and luxury cars. These reports also highlight widespread human rights abuses, corruption, and the clearing of protected and Indigenous lands for cattle production.
A coordinated effort from global leather industry groups, like the Confederation of National Associations of Tanners and Dressers of the European Community (COTANCE), argued that the required level of traceability is impossible because of this. But experts believe that framing leather as waste or a byproduct downplays its significant financial value to the EU. In 2024, cowhides made up a third of cattle products imported from Brazil into the EU, worth around €240 million. COTANCE did not respond to requests for comment.
“A lot of those arguments tap into hot conservative political talking points about jobs and the competitiveness of the European leather tanning industry,” says Michael Rice, value chains, trade and investment lead at e.Environmental law organization Client Earth notes, “They argue that the cost of meeting a new legal requirement is too high compared to the benefit the law is meant to provide, and that European leather tanneries have very little influence over their suppliers. The leather industry associations have been effective—not because their arguments are right or because science supports them, but simply because they’ve been organized and determined.” On the EU’s public consultation site, the “campaigns” tab shows dozens of duplicate submissions that repeat the leather sector’s claims.
A 2025 report on leather misinformation by animal rights group Collective Fashion Justice (CFJ) found that leather groups directly employed 27 lobbyists and spent over €1 million each year to influence EU lawmaking. There are signs this might be working. In October 2024, the EU Commission delayed the law by a year, and in May 2025, it released a draft act that excluded leather. “This change is only happening because of really intense lobbying,” says CFJ founder Emma Håkansson. “It would reflect very poorly on the European Commission to show that industry power can sway and weaken legislation that the EU has called extremely important.”
The impact on the ground
Deforestation is becoming a more urgent problem, especially in Brazil, where cattle pastures account for an estimated 80% of deforested land in the Amazon. The state of Pará in the Amazon has been hit hardest, losing 13 million hectares of rainforest between 2002 and 2025, according to data platform Global Forest Watch.
Maria Gorete Rios is a small-holder farmer with 78 hectares of land in Pará. In 2025, she became the first rancher in the state to put electronic ear tags on her 78 cattle, creating a digital record to prove they were raised on land that wasn’t deforested. Rios is part of the Pará Sustainable Cattle Program, a local government policy aimed at achieving full traceability for the state’s 26 million cattle by 2030. This represents the second largest cattle population in Brazil, from which 2,589 tons of leather were exported to the EU in 2024 and 2025, according to research by Earthsight.
Maria Gorete Rios, a small-holder farmer in Pará. Photo: Courtesy of Solidaridad
“Deforestation creates this greenhouse effect, which warms the planet, and then there’s no rain,” says Rios. “Soon, we may face a major drought with the arrival of El Niño [a weather phenomenon where higher-than-normal surface temperatures in parts of the Pacific Ocean cause extreme climate events like droughts and floods]. It gets hotter—we can feel it ourselves. So I do my part: I protect the environment through permanent preservation areas, I take care of my animals, and I don’t have water problems.”
Rios is worried about the potential consequences if leather is excluded from the EUDR, especially since deforestation is already financially rewarded. “I believe there would be less pressure to reduce deforestation. There’s still this idea that it’s easier to clear forest land to raise cattle,” she says. “People only do things the right way when it’s required by law and when it affects their wallets. It’s a shame, because there’s no other path besides producing while protecting the environment.”
Read More
Can brands like Veja help preserve the Amazon?
By paying a premium for wild rubber, Veja hopes to encourage producers to keep the forest standing. But money alone doesn’t solve the problem.
By Sophie Benson
While Brazil’s forests are far from EU decision-makers in Brussels, Rice says they have the power to make a global difference with the EUDR. “The European Union actually has significant economic leverage over the sustainability of Brazilian cattle production,” he says. “Including leather in this law is an extremely cost-effective way for the EU to help protect the Amazon from further deforestation caused by cattle ranching.”This could have a positive knock-on effect for the EU’s broader climate goals, he adds. “The latest scientific research says the Amazon is on a knife’s edge of tipping into collapse.”
A call to action for fashion brands
At the heart of Client Earth’s campaign to include leather in the EUDR is an open letter to the fashion industry — especially brands that use leather — urging them to publicly support the legislation before the June 1 deadline. “Unfortunately, their silence in this conversation is being seen as agreement with the demands of the leather lobbyists,” says Rice. “The question sustainability teams in fashion brands should be asking themselves is: do we want deforestation-free leather or not? If that matters to the brand and its customers, then this is their best chance to have a say. If they don’t speak up, the decision will be made without them.”
Public comments on the EUDR changes are visible, but can be submitted anonymously. It’s unclear how many brands have taken a public stance on including leather in the law, even though many brands already have policies on deforestation-free leather sourcing.
“For some companies, it would mean moving from their own internal policy into a political space, which I understand can feel like a big step,” says CFJ’s Håkansson. “But it’s really important, because fashion is inherently political, so the industry has a responsibility to engage in that space.”
The industry has made its own commitments through multi-stakeholder agreements and funds. In June 2023, Textile Exchange and Leather Working Group launched the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather, with brand signatories including Adidas, H&M Group, and Inditex. That same year, Kering reinforced its commitment to ending deforestation in its supply chains by 2025. Then, in 2025, WWF and Tapestry (which owns Coach, Kate Spade, and Stuart Weitzman) launched the Deforestation-Free Leather Fund, aiming to raise $10 million from brands to support farm-level investment in traceability systems and improvements. Leather Working Group, Kering, and Tapestry declined to publicly comment on the EUDR.
In many ways, the silence from brands highlights the need for regulation, says Rycroft. “The EUDR was introduced to stop deforestation by breaking the market dynamics that keep the cycle going. It raises the bar for companies and brands that are slower to act on sustainability, so everyone is brought up to a minimum standard.”
Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, manager of Forests at the WWF European Policy Office, added via email: “Excluding leather — one of the commodities with the highest deforestation footprint among those originally covered by the law — shows a disregard for clear evidence of environmental harm. The exemption leaves consumers unsure whether the products they buy are truly deforestation-free and forces responsible brands to operate in an unbalanced market.”
With several new laws targeting fashion on the horizon, Rice says that excluding leather from the EUDR could set a precedent that encourages lobbyists. “If leather is excluded based on industry arguments that are being disproven, it sets a very bad example for other industries,” he says. “They might think: ‘We don’t need science on our side, we don’t need to prove we’re already sustainable and deforestation-free — we just need a powerful lobbying machine in Brussels to avoid scrutiny and legal obligations.’”
Rice from Client Earth says including leather in the EUDR should be a “no-brainer” for brands. “Fashion brands will continue to take the risk of sourcing leather linked to deforestation in the Amazon, the theft of Indigenous lands, or human rights violations. That kind of reputational damage comes with a real cost,” he says. “So not only do they lose the benefit of an EU-wide system that ensures leather is deforestation-free, but they also face serious financial and reputational risks.”Leather sourced in Europe is deforestation-free, traceable, and legal, but it still carries the risk of being “dirty” if it comes from outside the law.
Leather industry groups may have a lot of influence, but Rycroft is encouraged by the progress brands have already made in cleaning up their leather supply chains. “I’m always an optimist,” she says. “There are some who are clearly pushing back against it, but many companies have set up strong internal systems. They’ve already invested in their supply chains and are making the shift. So they’re also working with decision-makers to keep the standards high.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs about The leather lobby could reshape the future of the fashion industry designed to be clear natural and informative
BeginnerLevel Questions
Q What is the leather lobby
A Its a term for the powerful group of companies trade associations and farmers that produce and sell leather They work together to promote leather and influence fashion industry rules and trends
Q Why would the leather lobby want to reshape fashion
A Because leathers market share is being challenged by cheaper synthetic materials and new plantbased alternatives The lobby wants to protect leathers reputation and keep it a top choice for designers and consumers
Q Is leather bad for the environment
A Its complicated Traditional leather production uses a lot of water chemicals for tanning and contributes to deforestation for cattle ranching However leather is a natural durable material that can last for decades unlike many synthetics that are made from plastic and dont biodegrade
Q Whats the difference between real leather and vegan leather
A Real leather comes from animal hides Vegan leather is a general term for any leatherlike material not made from animals It can be synthetic or made from plants
Q Is the leather lobby against vegan leather
A Not always but they are very critical of plasticbased vegan leather They argue that synthetics are just plastic pollute the ocean with microplastics and dont last as long creating more waste They are more open to new plantbased alternatives but still argue real leather is superior in quality and circularity
Advanced Nuanced Questions
Q How is the leather lobby actually changing fashion industry rules
A They lobby governments and fashion organizations to
Define leather strictly to exclude bonded or recycled materials
Push for stricter labeling laws so vegan leather must be clearly labeled as plastic
Influence sustainability certifications to set high standards that make it harder for synthetics to be seen as ecofriendly