Can Luxury Brands Afford to Stay Silent About Leather’s Exclusion From Deforestation Law?

Why It Matters

If leather stays out of the EUDR, luxury firms avoid costly traceability but risk being linked to illegal deforestation, harming brand equity. Inclusion would force supply‑chain transparency, driving real climate benefits and protecting consumer trust.

Key Takeaways

• Kering targets 30% leather reduction by 2028, 40% alternatives by 2035
• EU may remove leather from anti‑deforestation law, deadline June 1 feedback
• Leather linked to up to 31,000 ha forest loss annually in EU supply
• EU imports $1.5 bn leather annually; regulation could shift market dynamics
• NGOs warn silent brands face reputational risk and legal exposure

Pulse Analysis

Kering's pledge to slash leather consumption reflects a broader industry reckoning with material sustainability. Leather still accounts for roughly half of the conglomerate's raw material use and drives nearly $1.5 billion of EU imports each year. By targeting a 30% reduction by 2028 and envisioning 40% next‑generation alternatives by 2035, Kering hopes to stay ahead of consumer expectations while mitigating supply‑chain exposure. Yet the European Commission’s draft to carve leather out of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) threatens to undercut those ambitions, as the proposal could remove a powerful compliance lever that forces brands to prove their hides are deforestation‑free.

Environmental watchdogs stress that leather production is tightly linked to forest loss, especially in Brazil’s Amazon where cattle ranching for hides fuels illegal clearing. Recent studies estimate up to 31,000 hectares of forest disappear annually through EU‑linked leather supply chains, translating into emissions comparable to 18 million cars. NGOs such as Earthsight and Greenpeace argue that without EUDR coverage, traceability remains weak, allowing brands to claim sustainability while continuing harmful practices. The exclusion also risks a fragmented approach, where producers shift operations outside the EU to dodge regulation, potentially worsening global deforestation.

For luxury houses, the regulatory gamble carries tangible business consequences. Brands that stay silent risk reputational damage, as consumers and investors increasingly demand verifiable environmental credentials. Inclusion of leather in the EUDR would compel firms to invest in traceability technologies, potentially raising costs but also creating a competitive advantage for those who can certify deforestation‑free hides. Conversely, exclusion may preserve short‑term margins but could erode brand trust and invite activist scrutiny. The outcome of the public feedback period, closing June 1, will likely shape the next wave of sustainability commitments across the fashion sector.