As tanners we often accept that in the past we were a polluting industry. We are users of offal so as cities began to worry about sanitation we were classified amongst the “nuisance trades”. This meant we were classed amongst a group that worked closely with butchers that included soap makers, tallow candlers, bone boilers, and fat renderers.
In many parts of the world it is true that hides and skins were hung in rivers to be washed of blood as the hair roots loosened and that the subsequent tanning in open air pits created an olfactory miasma not appropriate for a built-up residential area. Yet while historic practices and limited scientific knowledge did mean that tanning was a problem complaints were often directed generically at tanners over issues being created elsewhere.
In New York for example many ordinances in the 17th and 18th century decided where butchers and tanners were allowed to locate. Tanners were specifically moved to the lower east side (roughly between Wall St and Brooklyn Bridge) in 1676 and 1745 to an area known as The Swamp. Yet by the early 1800s led by Jacob Lorillard, Gideon Lee, and Henry and John Jacob Astor, many successful tanners had moved their tanneries to Pennsylvania and up-sate New York. The development of the canals hastened this move by dropping the cost of transport. It was thought better to move the hides to the tan bark than the bark to the hides. Hides were well-suited for this transition because salted hides lasted better than salted meat, and the salting did little to alter their ultimate value. New York tanners gradually shifted their roles from traditional tanners to emergent commodities brokers and real estate speculators.
This meant that when inspectors reported on the nuisance trades in New York in the 19th century they were more often than not talking about tanners “generically” and specifically complaining about the butchers and the non tanning offal users.
Tanners were using biotechnology long before the science was understood.
As science and technology advanced so did the tanning industry. Tanners had been using biotechnology long before the science was understood. The moves into factories, to using machinery, paddles and then drums and better work wear all evolved along with the chemicals used, as fast as our scientific understanding did. During my working career all through the last part of the twentieth century and on into the current one I have watched this development continue.
It is argued that after The Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published, and it is widely accepted as the springboard for much determined action and legislation, tanners reluctantly managed a process of doing little more than trying to avoid prosecution, or at the most adopting waste management techniques which minimised loss of profits. I think any objective analyst looking back at the whole industry, rather than shining a light only on the high profile failures, will report that this quickly became untrue, if it was ever generally true at all. Tanners soon made the switch to trying to achieve the best possible practise and from the first international trips I started doing I saw leading edge initiatives to recycle water, build central treatment plants, reduce energy, increase chemical fixation and reduce all types of waste.
While I was studying leather at University I was required to find work in a tannery during my vacations. Being at Leeds in Yorkshire I spent my time in the heavy leather plant in the ancient town of Beverley called Hodgsons. There I was taught that all the fleshings, unwanted pieces from lime splitting and even quite a lot of the trimmings (after treatment) went for gelatine. They were pleased to explain that the purest gelatine went for photography, and only the next grade for foodstuffs. We had a hair on liming system and the hair when removed by machine went for under carpet felt. Indeed there was very little that was not used; little was wasted.
Sadly only a few years later these secondary markets had changed becoming uneconomic for tanners pushing for higher margins. Soon it was being highlighted that over 50% by weight of a bought hide never made leather and was “waste”. Water, fleshings, trimmings, shavings and so much else was being discarded and soon began to damage the image of the industry. Today our consumers are being relentlessly told that “leather waste and used leather products have long been sent to landfill or incineration and are not really compatible with both open loop and closed loop recycling processes”.
a tannery breaking the rules endangers the whole brand.
It is clearly naive to imply that all tanneries behave in an optimum way, and as an industry the battle to get everyone to comply must be a top priority which I hope our national and international organisations will lead. The organisations gave the impression in the 1980s and 1990s that we were an industry in denial, determined to avoid controversy of any type – hence so many of our current problems. In the last five years matters have changed and almost every one is trying to establish a promotional campaign. Yet everyone with a modicum of branding knowledge knows that image must be upheld in every detail; so a tannery breaking the rules on acceptable behaviour regarding waste treatment, or labour regulations endangers the whole brand.
I have never understood why countries like India and Bangladesh continue to promote their countries as producers of leather while choosing to allow such obvious abuses as we see in Dhaka, Kanpur and elsewhere, Excellent tanneries in both countries have their image tarnished by this and tens of thousands of lives and jobs put at risk by a failure to take decisive action to stop it. A strong brand can take the occasional hit if it handles matters properly and promptly. It cannot survive endless high profile reports of illegality, waste and environmental damage. Bangladesh Leather, Indian Leather and Leather itself suffer untold ongoing damage from this.
Our national tanners associations are the bodies who liaise with government on enforcement of the law and who can pressure members into action; and more than ever now is the time for us to be seeing action on this point, allied to a proper plan and a timetable.
This is vital as it is clear that the ongoing “relaunch” of the leather brand by so many organisations in their national and sectoral silos does have one common theme which is sustainability.
It is a significant moment. One in which both globalisation and the purpose of business in being challenged. Until recently there was a belief that globalisation was relentless and could not be stopped and at the same time the western idea of democracy was expected to become universal. Both were wrong, and new thinking has come with some deep questions about the purpose of business, with young consumers leading the charge. Consequently is was not altogether surprising that the US Business Roundtable of 181 top businesses, including 22 of the 30 companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial (which the US Leather Company helped found) announced that companies must “profitably achieve a solution for society”. this the said should involve producing a “statement of purpose” to define their timelines for the spending of capital and evaluating strategy, along with a listing of important stakeholders. No longer should the focus be solely on making money for shareholders.
Around the world tanneries have always been embedded in their local communities. Most current locations have some form of historic significance. Because of issues with smell and wastes the relationship has not always been perfect but generally the employment and other benefits have kept it positive. In places like S.Croce in Italy the community and the industry have shown how they can continue to work together for the benefit of all and the local authorities talk about ensuring that the industry has the opportunity to thrive. Their waste treatment, done at a central level, recovers chromium for tannery re-use, allowing organic waste to be used as fertiliser. Fat and protein is extracted from fleshings. Tannery waste is being diverted from landfill at a fast rate these and being converted into useful products, helped by the fact that it is collagen based.
tannery waste is a process design error
Nowadays we have to say that tannery waste is a process design error that needs to be corrected, and one that cannot be sacrificed in the name of maximising shareholder profit.
Designing in uses for fleshings, trimmings and shavings works alongside the recognition that of hides and skins themselves are by-products drives us towards the concept of circularity. Like so much in leather there are many definitions and it is not clear which the leather industry will adopt. While the idea of a Circular Economy goes back to the 1960s with the “cyclical ecological system” it did not really gain momentum until the 1990s when Braungart, and McDonough developed Stahel’s Product Life thinking into their Cradle to Cradle approach.
Cradle to Cradle thinking is very much about end of life, an important area but not the first thought for leather which outlasts all competitive materials by some distance. The definition which we get from Stahel is:
Circular Economy is an economic strategy that suggests innovative ways to transform the current predominantly linear system of consumption into a circular one, while achieving economic sustainability with much needed material savings. Stahel (2016)
Usefully the EU definition is almost identical.
leather avoids end of life quickly followed by landfill
The value of the Stahel approach, identified in his 2016 Nature article, is that the first three circles are not end of life matters but longevity, repair and reconditioning: all suited to most leather products, even footwear. Hermès have a workshop where they will recondition old items and the outcomes are said to be amazing, just as they have a separate arrangement to have all offcuts from their leather designed into truly innovative leather products.
Hermès may be a curious example, but the luxury side has been noted as one not interested in the sustainability argument. In this instance emulating them makes sense, as does supporting a community cobbler, pushing designers to consider repair and making leathers that will look good over time.
With a considered role in the community and a proper take on sustainability, tanners can further help drive consumers to buy items that offer long-term satisfaction rather than instant gratification quickly followed by landfill. That would be a proper social purpose.
Michael Redwood
21st November 2019
Stahel, W. R. (2016), “The circular economy”, Nature News, Vol. 531, No. 7595, pp. 435